---

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

           Wednesday, February 8, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 28

                            Headlines

AOL TIME: Institutional Shareholders Consider $3.3B Lawsuit
ARIZONA: Medicare Recipients Demand AJL Trial from Health Dept.
ARIZONA: Incurs Some $4.5M Total Penalties for Flores Complaint
AUSTRALIA: Westpoint Management's Apartment Buyers Mull Lawsuit
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Defective Volumetric Infusion Pumps

BEAZER HOMES: Nev. Court Ruling Strengthens Right-to-Repair Law
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: FDA Shuts Down Tissue Harvesting Operation
CHEVRON CORPORATION: Experts Rebut Claims in $6B Rainforest Suit
DUPONT CO.: Scientists Find Teflon-related Substance in Infants
E.I. DUPONT: Axiom Plastics Files Price Fixing Suit in Canada

ILLINOIS: Republicans, Local Chamber Pushing for Legal Reforms
LOWRANCE ELECTRONICS: Faces Investor Suit in Okla. State Court
NEW YORK: NYPD Officers File Suit to Release Personnel Records
NORTH CAROLINA: Lawyers Seek Class Status in Tenants' RHA Suit
OMNICARE INC.: Ind. Pension Fund Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit

PHILIPPINES: Martial Law Victims Eye $80M Marcos' Wealth in U.S.
REFCO INC.: Court Appoints Class Counsel in N.Y. Securities Suit
SLICKEDIT INC.: Judge Dumps Fraud, Punitive Claims v. Chairman
SPEEDY CASH: Customer Launches Overcharging Complaint in Ariz.  
TIME WARNER: N.C. Subscribers Could Get Windfall from Settlement

TOYOBO CO.: Settles Suit with Police Injured by Xylon-Made Vest
UNITED STATES: Indian Trust Fund Claims Deadline Moved by a Year
UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Decline Unrelated to Restated Earnings
UNITED STATES: Navy Chaplains Join Religious Discrimination Suit
UNITED STATES: Nev. Lawyer Sues President Bush & VP over PNAC

WESTPOINT CORPORATION: Bankrupt Firms' Financial Planners Named
WYLE LABORATORIES: Former Facility in Calif. Under Investigation


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases  

APPLICA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
APPLICA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
DOT HILL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in Calif.
JARDEN CORP: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
OMNICARE INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ky.

REPSOL YPF: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

                           *********


AOL TIME: Institutional Shareholders Consider $3.3B Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
AOL and AOL Time Warner institutional shareholders plan to file
a new lawsuit seeking $3.3 billion from the world's largest
media company, a statement from the attorney representing the
shareholders revealed, Reuters reports.

William Lerach, the lead attorney representing about 100
shareholders who opted out of a $2.6 billion settlement last
year, said in the statement that his firm plans to release more
information soon.  The law firm's spokesman though declined to
name the shareholders in the new suit and said that they plan to
reveal it at a future news conference.

A Time Warner spokeswoman though told Reuters, "The overwhelming
majority of our shareholders have opted to participate in the
settlement.  Those that did not don't represent a significant
percentage and we will defend against these actions vigorously."

The news comes amid an attack from dissident shareholder Carl
Icahn, who plans a proxy war to replace the board of directors
and its chief executive and who is expected to reveal plans
calling for a breakup of Time Warner.  Recently, Mr. Icahn said
in a statement that Dubai government-backed Istithmar Media
Investments Ltd. has retained him as an advisor in its Time
Warner investment.

The New York-based owners of the Warner Brothers film studio and
the AOL online division, struck a $2.4 billion settlement with
some shareholders last year to settle a securities fraud lawsuit
related to the accounting at AOL.  At the time, Time Warner
established a $3 billion reserve to cover the settlements.

Plaintiffs though filed so-called "opt-out" lawsuits when they
are unsatisfied over the settlement in a class action case and
decide to strike out on their own.

Mr. Lerach is a high-powered attorney known for representing
shareholders in class actions and other securities litigations.  
Previously, he represented Worldcom Inc. shareholders, who were
paid $651 million last October 2005 in a settlement with a group
of investment banks.


ARIZONA: Medicare Recipients Demand AJL Trial from Health Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Medicare beneficiaries and a national organization seeking
certification as a class action have filed a lawsuit against the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), according to
HomeCare Magazine.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Arizona by
Eleanor Webber, Judith Schneider and The Gray Panthers Project
Fund, a national organization of Medicare beneficiaries.  It
alleged that plaintiffs were deprived of fair and impartial
hearing on the coverage of their Medicare.  Under the Medicare
Modernization Act, administrative law judges (AJL) were
transferred from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  The change was
initiated in July.  

HHS has four physical hearing location sites, compared to 141
when SSA was still handling the cases.  HHS said it has video-
conferencing in more than 1,000 cities that could speed up the
process, but the plaintiffs argue it denies beneficiaries a
right to a fair hearing.  The plaintiffs' appeals are now at the
ALJ stage.

The complaint also asks for a permanent injunction requiring CMS
to give class action members an opportunity to receive in-person
ALJ hearings.

The suit is styled "Webber et. al v. McClellan, et al. (05-cv-
04219-NVW )," filed in the U.S. District Court in Arizona under
Judge Neil V. Wake.  Representing the plaintiffs are Alfred
Chiplin, Jr. Center for Medicare Advocacy Inc., 1101 Vermont Ave
NW, Ste 101, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202)216-0028; and
Gill Deford, Center for Medicare Advocacy Inc., P.O. Box 350
Willimantic, CT 06226, Phone: 860-456-7790;  Fax: 860-456-2614;
E-mail: gdeford@medicareadvocacy.org.


ARIZONA: Incurs Some $4.5M Total Penalties for Flores Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately $4.5 million has accumulated in a special state
fund created to hold daily $500,000 fines against the state of
Arizona over a missed court deadline that sought to revamp
programs for students learning the English language, The
Associated Press reports.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins ordered the
Legislature to improve and adequately fund Arizona's educational
programs for students learning the English language and set
fines that would rise to $2 million a day if deadlines aren't
met.  The order was part of a 13-year-old education class action
lawsuit entitled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al.,"
which was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified
School District students and parents, (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 20, 2005).

Judge Collins ordered fines to start at $500,000 a day beginning
15 days after the January 9 start of the Republican-led
Legislature's 2006 regular session if lawmakers haven't fixed
the programs and increased their funding.  The fines would
eventually rise to $1 million a day and $1.5 million at
designated points beyond that until reaching $2 million a day at
the end of the session, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).

Meanwhile, state officials and the lawyer for plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, are now waiting for the judge to rule on what should be
done with the accumulating fine money.  Governor Janet
Napolitano, Democratic legislators and the lawsuit plaintiffs
recently asked that the judge order the state to start
distributing the money to public schools so it can be used for
the it's 150,000 English Language Learning (ELL) students.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, a
Republican, and GOP legislative leaders urged Judge Collins to
let the state keep the money until a statement between Gov.
Napolitano and the Legislature is broken and the state enacts
changes.

Just recently, the Legislature passed two versions of a bill
that would comply with the court's order, but Gov. Napolitano
vetoed both of them.  Asked whether the fines had begun, a the
former state attorney general told The Associated Press,  "Ask
the attorney general."  A spokeswoman for the Attorney General's
Office told The Associated Press that the fines might have
started to take effect by Jan. 25, but that it wasn't clear what
would happen in that regard, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30,
2006).

There was some thought that the fines might not have started
right away because the judge previously said they wouldn't apply
during the five days that Gov. Napolitano had to act on a bill
passed by the Legislature, according to office spokeswoman
Andrea Esquer.  She told The Associated Press, "Because they're
still trying to work some sort of resolution, maybe we're still
in the five-day window," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2006).

However, the lawyer for plaintiffs in the protracted class-
action lawsuit, which produced the court orders, told The
Associated Press that he didn't think the five-day period
applied, since Gov. Napolitano had vetoed the latest bill the
same day she got it.  Attorney Tim Hogan adds that he thought
the latest veto meant the fines did start on Jan. 25.  However,
"I don't believe anybody's going to write any checks today," he
pointed out, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2006).

Meanwhile, State Treasurer David Pedersen told The Associated
Press that he doesn't have authority under state law to use
state money to pay the fines.  He explains, "It would take a
piece of legislation, a statute, which means it's going to be
signed by the governor as well," (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
30, 2006).

Mr. Hogan told The Associated Press that he supported a court
motion filed at Gov. Napolitano's request on behalf of the state
to have any fines go to the Department of Education for
distribution to school districts and charter schools for
instruction of ELL students.  The motion stated that use of the
money is appropriate since students are the ones harmed by the
state's noncompliance.  As of the moment there was no immediate
indication when Judge Collins would rule on the motion, (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2006).

Republican legislative leaders said they had no plans to
authorize Mr. Pedersen to pay fines and said they may hire
lawyers to go to court on behalf of the Legislature to oppose
the motion since it would trample on the Legislature's
constitutional power to appropriate.  Senate President Ken
Bennett pointed out, "That's an appropriation of monies and the
governor does not have the authority to appropriate money
unilaterally," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2006).

The suit is styled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Raner C. Collins.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.  Representing the Defendant/s are,
Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca,
LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone:
602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-734-4015 and
602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and JCARDENAS@LRLAW.COM.


AUSTRALIA: Westpoint Management's Apartment Buyers Mull Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of purchasers of failed property group Westpoint
Management Pty. Ltd.'s serviced hotel apartments in the small
Georgian town of Melbourne, Australia, is considering a class
action to avoid settling on its trouble-plagued investments, The
Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The proposed action is emerging despite assurances from the
development's receivers, Deloitte, that the project will be
completed.  Property investors bought 280 hotel apartments at
54-60 Market Street before the development was placed in the
hands of receivers Deloitte on December 22 by the first
mortgagee, Perpetual, which is owed $54 million.

Melbourne lawyer Charles Slidders of the firm Jerrard & Stuk,
told The Sydney Morning Herald that five purchasers were
considering a class action against Company, because of concerns
that the contracts did not guarantee rental returns as agreed.  
Mr. Slidders explains that his clients wanted their deposits,
which are being held in a trust account, returned to them.

Deloitte partner Sal Algeri told The Sydney Morning Herald that
the firm had not received legal advice about the contracts but
had been told by the law firm representing the Company,
Schetzer, Brott & Appel, that the contracts were legally
enforceable.

Law firm Deacons confirmed it drafted the contracts until
ceasing to act for the Company in May 2005, but told The Sydney
Morning Herald that it was not appropriate for it to comment
further.  A spokeswoman also confirmed Supreme Court proceedings
against the Company about non-payment of legal fees.

Mr. Algeri also told The Sydney Morning Herald that several
hotel apartment purchasers had also contacted him, saying they
wanted to settle on the apartments.  According to him, "There
are 280 rooms in the hotel.  I don't know whether he [Mr.
Slidders] is reflective of the group or the people we've spoken
to [are]."  In addition, Mr. Algeri attempted to reassure
investors that the project would be completed, saying it had
secured sufficient funds.

However, Deloitte is yet to secure agreement from hotel
apartment operator Pacific International Hotel Group to extend a
sunset clause on its lease agreement, which expires on February
13.  The Company had an agreement with Pacific International to
lease all the apartments from individual owners.

Mr. Algeri told The Sydney Morning Herald that Pacific
International is "very eager to get into the hotel."  Pacific
International did not return calls seeking comment.


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Defective Volumetric Infusion Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an updated Class I
recall notice of the COLLEAGUE(R) Volumetric Infusion Pumps of
Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Round Lake, Illinois.

The recall was initiated Dec. 13, 2005, and subsequent recall
notices were issued on Sept. 19, 2005, and July 19, 2005.  

The models affected are:

     (1) 2M8151,

     (2) 2M8151R,

     (3) 2M8161,

     (4) 2M8161R,

     (5) 2M8153,

     (6) 2M8153R,

     (7) 2M8163,

     (8) 2M8163R

The electronic infusion pumps are used to administer controlled
amounts of medications or other fluids to patients through an
intravenous (IV), intra-arterial (IA), epidural or other direct
line into the bloodstream.

The company is recalling the product on danger of

     (1) Battery Undercharging: The pump's battery charge level
         indicator may overstate the battery power level and
         shut down when operating on battery power if not
         charged for a full 12 hours following a "low battery"
         alarm;

     (2) False Air Detection Alarms: If the pump's tubing is
         stretched or pulled, the pump's sensors may
         misinterpret this tension as air in the line, resulting
         in a false alarm and shutting down the pump;

     (3) Gearbox Wear: Worn parts in the pump's motor can cause
         the pump to shut down and interrupt therapy;

     (4) Under-infusion: If there is an obstruction during tube-
         loading, the upper jaw of the pump head can be moved
         out of alignment, resulting in insufficient fluid
         delivery;

     (5) Non-detection of upstream occlusion: Improperly spiked
         bags, use of a source container which has had all air
         removed, improper venting of the container, and an
         unopened air vent above the burette chamber may result
         in the pump not detecting an upstream occlusion.

Any of these failures may delay or interrupt therapy, which
could result in a life-threatening situation for patients,
depending on the type of therapy being administered.

The FDA said it has issued previous recall notices for the
COLLEAGUE(R) Volumetric Infusion Pumps.  Information explaining
the reason for these recalls can be found on the Agency's Web
site.

Baxter sent a Dec.r 13, 2005 Urgent Device Correction Notice to
all COLLEAGUE(R) customers alerting them to the additional
problems with the pump identified in this notice.  The letter
included instructions for reducing the occurrence of these
potential problems, and included a copy of the Battery Usage
Guide, Infusion Management Guide, and the March 17, 2005
Buretrol Set Urgent Device Correction letter to be distributed
to all users of the Colleague pump.

Baxter also informed customers that they would be notified when
the new release of the COLLEAGUE(R) Volumetric Infusion Pump
Operator's Manual is available.

Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve
situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use
of the product will cause serious injury or death.

Baxter's Medication Delivery Services Phone: 1-800-843-7867;
consumers contact, Phone: 800-422-9837.


BEAZER HOMES: Nev. Court Ruling Strengthens Right-to-Repair Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal experts say that a recent ruling involving by the Nevada
Supreme Court that involves Beazer Homes Holding Corporation
will reinforce the state's 2003 right-to-repair law, thus
spelling trouble for future construction-defect cases, The Las
Vegas Business Press reports.

A multimillion-dollar construction defects award was recently
overturned by a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court decision, which
held that the case was improperly given class action status by a
lower court judge.  The ruling, which favors Beazer, went
against homeowners who sued the Company after finding cracks in
foundations, walls and driveways at their North Las Vegas
properties allegedly caused by expansive soil conditions.  In
the ruling, Justice Jim Hardesty wrote, "Because single-family
residence constructional defect litigation often raises diverse,
individualized claims and defenses, we conclude that, generally,
the requirements for class action certification cannot be met,"
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).

In arguments before the Supreme Court, a Beazer attorney
contends that a defect lawsuit involving The Villages at Craig
Ranch homes should never have been made a class action case, and
that a $7.3 million jury verdict should be overturned.  With
interest, costs and attorneys fees, the total value of the case
is about $15.6 million, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).

However, attorneys for 200 Craig Ranch Village homeowners
countered that class action status was appropriate since the
damages suffered were predominantly related to concrete pads
that did not conform to the subdivision's soil conditions.  The
homeowners had sought nearly $25 million, (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).

Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking nearly $25 million in damages
caused by the soil, including completely replacing the slabs in
more than 50 homes and the consequent displacement of those
residents.  The homeowners claim they were not told about
expansive soil conditions at the site of the development, (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 19, 2002).

Robert Carlson, defense attorney, countered that while Beazer
Homes recognizes that there are problems with some of the homes
at Craig Ranch, the damage is not as extensive as the lawsuit
implies.  Mr. Carlson noted that Beazer estimates the total cost
of repairs to be about $2.9 million, (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 19, 2002).

The case involving Atlanta-based Beazer, which built the homes
between 1994 and 1999, resulted in one of the longest and
largest construction defect trials in Nevada history.  The trial
that began in 2002 lasted three months, (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 19, 2005).

With the Supreme Court ruling though new trials on all issues in
the case will now be necessary.  Beazer attorneys have said a
retrial of each case would be best for both the court system and
the individuals with claims (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19,
2005).

In the trial that ended in February 2003, a 12-person jury,
awarded $7.8 million in home construction defect damages to some
200 homeowners at Craig Ranch Village, a North Las Vegas
residential development constructed by Beazer.  Attorneys for
the homeowners were requesting $23.7 million to repair cracks in
foundations, walls and driveways allegedly caused by expansive
soil conditions.  However, Beazer Homes contended that it would
cost only $3.4 million to fix the homes.  Less than 10 homes had
serious damage.  About 50 homes were classified into three
categories of damages, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2003).

In addition to awarding damages, the jury cleared Beazer of any
violations of implied or expressed warranties and found
contributing negligence by both the class action members and
Beazer.  Seven percent contributory negligence was allocated to
the homeowners and 93 percent to the builder.  After that Judge
Allan Earl, the presiding judge in the case said that the jurors
performed their duties well, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13,
2003).

In the unanimous opinion, Justice Jim Hardesty writing on behalf
of the high court said, "Because single-family residence
constructional defect litigation often raises diverse,
individualized claims and defenses, we conclude that, generally,
the requirements for class-action certification cannot be met."  

According to Leon Mead, a construction attorney at Mead Pezzillo
LLP, "It's a watershed case."  He told The Las Vegas Business
Press, "The ruling sets a precedent no longer allowing attorneys
to take construction defects from a few homes and apply them to
an entire development without first investigating each one."

The decision, as a result, is expected to give the state's
right-to-repair law more significance.  Senate Bill 241, enacted
in August 2003, requires that homeowners give builders a chance
to repair defects before filing a lawsuit.  The law was intended
to reduce the number of defect cases and shotgun claims
overloading courtroom dockets.  In addition, it was intended to
relieve soaring builder insurance premiums, which had doubled or
tripled in recent years because of lawsuits.  

Steve Hill, chairman of the Coalition for Fairness in
Construction, which lobbied to pass SB 241 told The Las Vegas
Business Press, "The ruling was correct, and it's the basic
point that we've been trying to make for years.  Lumping a bunch
of homeowners together in a lawsuit, because they live close
together, is not a good way to resolve these issues."

Essentially, the state high court ruling makes it far more
difficult and costly for homeowners to pursue class-action suits
since the owners of each residence must now prove the specific
defects of their house.  And while it could result in more
claims being filed, the claim amounts will be much smaller.

Legal experts, however, feel that construction-defect attorneys
will now be unwilling to take on cases that require more work
for smaller payouts. George Ogilvie, a construction lawyer with
McDonald Carano Wilson, LLP, told The Las Vegas Business Press,
"There are some very good construction-defect attorneys who have
been successful because they have been able to utilize the class
action.  The Beazer decision makes it almost impossible for
plaintiffs to now certify a class, which is going to buttress
the impacts of SB 241."


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: FDA Shuts Down Tissue Harvesting Operation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered Biomedical
Tissue Services to stop manufacturing operations after an
investigation by the agency revealed "serious and widespread"
deficiencies in the firm's activities, Business New Jersey
reports.

Authorities investigated the Fort Lee, New Jersey firm that
provides human tissue from cadavers for transplants, after
allegations emerged they use harvested tissue taken from funeral
homes without proper permission.  Further, the human tissue was
allegedly inadequately screened for disease.  A statement from
the FDA said allowing it to continue operations would "present a
danger to public health."  Some of this tissue may have been
implanted into patients from early 2004 to Sept. 2005 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2005).  

Biomedical Tissue is already facing a class action filed by
Galloway Township-based law firm D'Arcy in Atlantic County
Court.  A similar class-action complaint has been filed in
federal court in Tulsa, Okla., according to the report.  


CHEVRON CORPORATION: Experts Rebut Claims in $6B Rainforest Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The group representing 30,000 residents suing Chevron Corp. said
the oil company misrepresented the results of a court report in
a class-action trial in the Amazon rainforest to cover up a
potential multi-billion dollar liability from shareholders.

A statement from the Amazon Defense Coalition asserts,
"Chevron's misleading press release, posted on the company's Web
site on Feb. 2, ignores the report's findings that life-
threatening levels of toxi[ns] exist at a Chevron well site in
Ecuador.  It was posted hours after the environmental group
Amazon Watch filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange
Commission accusing Chevron of concealing the Ecuador liability
from its public filings.

"The release claims court-appointed experts 'validated'
Chevron's claim that there is no harm to public health at the
site.  But none of the court-appointed experts -- Johnny
Zambrano, Jorge Jurado, Galo Alban, Luis Albuja and Gerardo
Barros -- confirmed Chevron's claims in the report.  They all
came to conclusions that contradict Chevron's position."

"Chevron is defending itself against charges it dumped into the
rainforest 30 times more crude than the Exxon Valdez spill.  The
impact includes the near-extinction of two indigenous tribes,
elevated rates of cancer, and groundwater contamination from
hundreds of toxic waste pits.  Cleanup will cost at least $6
billion, according to the affected communities."

                       Experts' Findings

"Contrary to Chevron's claims, the court report concluded:

     (1) Sacha-53, a well site, has three unlined toxic waste
         pits that contain sulfate, cadmium, lead, and phenols
         at levels that violate Ecuadorian law;

     (2) The site has cadmium, a known carcinogen, at levels up
         to 20 times Ecuadorian norms;

     (3) The site has concentrations of barium, benzopyrene (a
         carcinogen) and copper that exceeded maximum allowable
         limits permitted by Ecuadorian law; and

     (5) TPH samples exceeding Ecuadorian norms by more than
         1,000 times.

Bill Powers, a petroleum engineer who reviewed the report, said,  
"There are multiple examples in the court report of large
quantities of toxins at this site, but Chevron ignores this in
its press release."

Luis Yanza, a leader of the plaintiffs, said, "We believe that
Chevron's press release is part of a deliberate campaign by
senior management to mislead shareholders and the public about
its liability in our territory."

For details of the lawsuit, see: http://www.chevrontoxico.com.  
Chevron Corp. on the Net: http://www.chevron.com.


DUPONT CO.: Scientists Find Teflon-related Substance in Infants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital discovered trace levels of
industrial chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon products
in the umbilical cords of 99% of 300 newborns under study,
according to Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel.

Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a chemical that DuPont Co. used
in manufacturing Teflon, has been the subject of many class
actions against the company.  In December, the company agreed to
pay a $10.25 million civil penalty for withholding information
about the potential health and environmental impacts of the
compound.

Residents living near the plant, located on the Ohio River about
7 miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia sued Dupont in
August 2001 claiming their drinking supply was contaminated with
perfluorooctonoate (a.k.a. C8, C-8, PFOA, APFO, FC143, FC-143)
(Class Action Reporter, August 23, 2004).  Wood County Circuit
Judge George W. Hill subsequently approved an at least $107.6
million settlement, noting that the settlement was finalized
without any evidence that the chemical caused any disease (Class
Action Reporter, March 2, 2005).

Though the long-term effects of C8 on people are unknown, the
screenings and analysis will try to determine if the chemical
has any link to cancer, heart disease and birth defects, (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).

DuPont, which manufactures Teflon and has used the chemical for
more than 50 years, says there is no evidence that PFOA is
harmful to humans.

The Hopkins study is the largest independent research project to
examine the compound's effects on newborns.  Researchers will
try to determine whether the toxic chemical has harmed the
infants, possibly by interfering with their thyroid glands and
hormone levels.  The study began in late 2004.

Dr. Lynn Goldman of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health acknowledged that PFOA is being released into the
environment, but said it is not yet established whether they are
toxic to people at the current levels.

DuPont, which has used the chemical for more than 50 years, says
there is no evidence that PFOA is harmful to humans, according
to Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel.

PFOA is a highly durable, man-made chemical used since the 1950s
in the manufacture of Teflon nonstick pans, rain-repellent
clothing, aerospace equipment, computer chips, cables,
automobile fuel hoses and numerous other products.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said last month DuPont
voluntarily agreed to reduce its use of the chemical, if not
totally eliminating it.  The firm also agreed to step up efforts
to halt emissions from its plants.


E.I. DUPONT: Axiom Plastics Files Price Fixing Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont Canada Company is facing a possible class action on
alleged price fixing of resin products, according to Canadian
Plastics.  

A lawsuit filed by Axiom Plastics Inc. on Dec. 15, 2005 is
currently at the certification stage, the report said.  The
case, filed on behalf of all Canadian Tier Two plastics
processors, is lodged with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.

The lawsuit alleges that E.I. Dupont engaged in actions that
artificially inflated the price of its certified engineering
resins.  "These resins are used by Tier Two plastics processors
in Canada in the manufacture of plastic parts, many of which are
used by Tier One automotive suppliers," the report said.  The
resins have been sold since January 2000, and includes Delrin
and Zytel brand engineering resins.

It also alleged that E.I Dupont entered into arrangements with
other manufactures to prevent or lessen the ability of the Tier
Two plastics processors to find alternative and less costly
sources for DuPont's certified engineering resins in violation
of Canada's Competition Act.  Roger Goodman, public affairs
manager for E.I. Dupont Canada in Mississauga, Ontario said the
company rejected the claims.  None of the allegations in the
claim have yet been proven in court.

David Sterns, a lawyer with Sotos LLP in Toronto, is
representing Axiom Plastics.

I.E. Dupont Canada on the Net: http://www.dupont.ca/; Axiom  
Group on the Net: http://www.theaxiomgroupinc.com/.


ILLINOIS: Republicans, Local Chamber Pushing for Legal Reforms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Republicans are calling for more legal reforms,
including a measure to stop lawyers from shopping for
sympathetic judges, The Bloomington Pantagraph reports.

Joined by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Republican
lawmakers argued that the state's legal system makes the state
inhospitable for businesses that may choose to locate in
bordering states.  According to Doug Whitley, the state Chamber
president, "Our state has over many years established the
reputation that we believe in shakedown justice and that
businesses are not likely to get a fair hearing or fair trial in
our state."  He adds, "Our reputation is directly tied to job
creation and economic growth.  This state needs job creation and
economic growth."

The Illinois AFL-CIO though argued that the justice system is
not to blame for the state's job losses.  In a prepared
statement Michael T. Carrigan, the union's secretary-treasurer
said, "The large corporate interests pushing this legislation
are the same companies that are outsourcing jobs, cutting
pension plans and laying off workers."

Most of the proposals don't have much chance in a Democrat-
controlled General Assembly, but a proposal restricting where
lawyers could file lawsuits could be debated in the coming
weeks.  Another proposal would require class action lawsuits to
be heard in counties were most plaintiffs reside.

State Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale said, "Illinois has a
national reputation where we waste a lot of time and a lot of
taxpayer money on letting people that have no reason to be in
Illinois be part of a national class action lawsuit.  That keeps
your and my cases, as Illinois residents, from coming to trial."

Illinois also has been a preferred venue for lawsuits filed by
people claiming they were made ill by asbestos, a flame
retardant material linked to lung ailments.  To cut down on
these types of lawsuits, lawmakers are also proposing
legislation that would allow defense attorneys to present
evidence suggesting that a victim's asbestos-related illness
could have been caused by other sources.

Lynda DeLaforgue, co-director for Citizen Action/Illinois,
argued that many of the reforms give big business an advantage
over working families in the court system.  In a prepared
statement, Ms. DeLaforgue said, "Our nation's courts are the one
place where ordinary people - those without access to wealth and
power - can get justice and hold big corporations accountable."


LOWRANCE ELECTRONICS: Faces Investor Suit in Okla. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lowrance Electronics, Inc. (LEIX) and the members of the
Company's board of directors were named as defendants in a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit filed in Oklahoma
state court.

The suit seeks to enjoin the recently announced proposed
acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of the Company by a
wholly owned subsidiary of Simrad Yachting AS for $37 per share
in cash.  Neither Simrad Yachting nor its subsidiary has been
named as defendants in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duties
by entering into the acquisition agreement with Simrad and its
subsidiary and by not making adequate disclosure in its SEC
filings concerning the proposed acquisition.  The Company and
the individual director defendants believe the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.

For more details, contact Darrell Lowrance of Lowrance
Electronics, Inc., Phone: 918-437-6881 or Berkman Associates,
310-277-5162 (Investors), E-mail: info@BerkmanAssociates.com.


NEW YORK: NYPD Officers File Suit to Release Personnel Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-five police officers with the New York Police Department
who are applying for jobs with the Port Authority are taking
legal action to make their personnel records available for
background check, according to The Associated Press.

Richard L. Steer, lawyer for the officers, filed the lawsuit
seeking class action status on behalf of other law enforcers
whose credentials are being withheld by the department.  He said
his clients' candidacies have been "deferred," Steer said,
because background checks cannot be completed because the
department refuses to make the files available to investigators.

His clients have passed the 2002 written test for the police
force of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and were
chosen to undergo the rest of the agency's selection process.  
He is asking for a speedy decision because some of the officers
are turning 35, making them ineligible for appointment to the
police force of the Port Authority

The suit is filed before State Supreme Court Justice Sheila
Abdus-Salaam.  The judge told Mr. Switzer to return on the
afternoon of Feb. 8 with the NYPD's reply to the officers'
petition.

Cindy Switzer, an attorney from the city's law department, said
the NYPD had offered to release minimal file information to the
PA, but Steer told the judge the PA had found that insufficient.

Ms. Switzer said personnel files belong to the NYPD, not to
individual officers.  She acknowledged, though, that until 2003
personnel information was made available by the NYPD to officers
applying for jobs with other law enforcement agencies.


NORTH CAROLINA: Lawyers Seek Class Status in Tenants' RHA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Chris Graebe and Jack Holtzman are seeking class-
action status for about 800 tenants who lost their housing
vouchers because of "unintentional fraud," a term allegedly
coined by the North Carolina's Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA),
The News & Observer reports.

The case started with Valerie Harris, a single mother of five.  
Wake District Court Judge James R. Fullwood issued a preliminary
injunction in her case in 2004, calling the housing authority's
process "woefully inadequate under the HUD regulations and the
U.S. Constitution."

Mr. Graebe told The News & Observer that he finished a review of
tenants' files and expects a hearing on class-action status in
May.


OMNICARE INC.: Ind. Pension Fund Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the aftermath of two raids and a federal subpoena that cost
Omnicare Inc. shareholders $975 million in lost market value
over three weeks, an Indiana pension fund launched a class-
action securities fraud lawsuit against the Company in an
attempt to recoup some of its losses, The Cincinnati Enquirer
reports.

The Indiana State District Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers
Pension and Welfare Fund filed the lawsuit, which seeks
unspecified damages, in U.S. District Court in Covington,
Kentucky.  The suit also names as defendants Omnicare CEO Joel
Gemunder and chief financial officer David Froesel Jr.

According to the suit, during the proposed class period of Aug.
3 to Jan. 27, the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's business and prospects.  As a
result of their "fraudulent scheme," the suit alleges that the
Covington, Kentucky-based Company was able to sell $2.5 billion
worth of shares in a secondary offering of stock.

Responding to the allegations through a press statement, the
Company, which is the nation's leading seller of medicine to
nursing homes, said it "believes that the lawsuit is completely
without merit and will defend against it vigorously."  Investors
even shrugged off the development.  On a day of slumping prices
on Wall Street, Company shares were unchanged in trading Friday
at $52.25.

In its lawsuit, the Indiana laborers fund accused the Company of
issuing rosy financial outlooks to conceal its "lack of
preparedness" for the rollout of the revised Medicare Part D
program that went into effect on Jan. 1.  It also claims that
the implementation of Part D "dramatically" increased the
Company's costs and increased the number of rejected Medicare
claims to nearly 40 percent.

In addition, the lawsuit also cited the company's three
encounters with state and federal agencies in 2006:  On Jan. 11,
the Ohio Attorney General's office raided the company's Dublin
office and seized information to support suspected acts of
Medicaid fraud.  Two days later, the Company said it was
cooperating with a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office in
Massachusetts for information about its relationship with three
drug manufacturers and the alleged substitution of three generic
drugs.  And on Jan. 26, the Michigan Attorney General's office
led a raid of the Company's biggest office, a billing center in
Livonia, Mich.  Though no charges were filed, Company shares
have fallen about 13 percent from a closing price of $60.36 on
Jan. 12.

The suit is styled, "Indiana State District Council of Laborers
and Hod Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et
al, Case No. 2:06-cv-00026-WOB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge William
O. Bertelsman.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Lynda M. Hils
and Kevin L. Murphy of Murphy, Nalley & Associates, PSC, 207
Grandview Drive, Suite 350, P.O. Box 17330, Covington, KY 41017-
0330, Phone: 859-344-0330, Fax: 859-344-0886, E-mail:
lhils@murphyattorneys.com and kthomas@murphyattorneys.com; and
William S. Lerach and Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stola
Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423.


PHILIPPINES: Martial Law Victims Eye $80M Marcos' Wealth in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the human rights victims of the regime of former
Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos are pursuing the recovery
of alleged ill-gotten wealth by the deposed leader in the U.S.,
according to the Manila Standard.

The lawyers are acting on behalf of human rights victims
belonging to Claimants 1081 and Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainees
Laban sa Detensyon at para sa Amnestiya (Selda).  They and the
claimants want some $80 million in assets that have been traced
to the U.S. foreclosed and sequestered in their favor pursuant
to a final judgment rendered in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii.  In 1995, Judge Manuel Real awarded US$2
billion to 10,000 human rights victims who filed a class action
against the Marcos Estate (Class Action Reporter, July 22,
2003).

American lawyer Robert Swift, the Philadelphia-based lead
counsel and Filipino co-lawyers Rod Domingo Jr. and Romeo
Capulong have agreed to sue the shell corporations that
allegedly hold the contested properties for the Marcoses,
according to the report.

Last year Mariano Pimentel, a U.S. citizen, filed two separate
class actions against the Marcos' estate on behalf of his fellow
9,539 plaintiffs.  The suits were filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.  

Mr. Pimentel and the plaintiffs filed civil action cases
against:

     (1) the Denman Investment Corp. Inc. (Denman) in Colorado;
         and

     (2) seven other shell corporations in Texas:

     (i) B.N. Development Co. Inc.,

    (ii) Ellesmere Investment Corp. Inc.,

   (iii) Jason Development Co. Inc.,

    (iv) Pender Investment Corp. Inc.,

     (v) Revelstroke Investment Corp. Inc., and

    (vi) Vernon Investment Corp. Inc.

The properties in Colorado and Texas are worth a total of more
than $80 million at current prices, according to Mr. Domingo.

The estate is represented by former First Lady Imelda Marcos and
her children, Ilocos Norte Gov. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Ilocos
Norte Rep. Imee Marcos and socialite Irene Marcos Araneta.

Selda and Claimants 1081 also vowed to pursue the PHP10 billion
compensation bill pending before the House of Representatives.  
They are also trying to launch the same recovery efforts against
the island-state of Singapore, and the Supreme Court.


REFCO INC.: Court Appoints Class Counsel in N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann and Grant & Eisenhofer as lead plaintiffs' lawyers in
a class-action securities litigation against Refco Inc.'s
underwriters and directors, Bloomberg reports.

The firms represent RH Capital Associates and PIMCO, which say
they lost a combined $33 million on their investment in Refco,
the brokerage firm that collapsed last October amid allegations
of fraud.

Previously, Bernstein Litowitz was lead plaintiffs' counsel in
the WorldCom class action, in which underwriters settled for
$6.15 billion.  It was the second-largest securities class-
action settlement ever, behind the settlement involving the
University of California Regents and underwriters for Enron
which, to date, has totaled some $7.1 billion.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Joseph Mazur, et al. v. Refco, Inc., et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

     (2) 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

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

     (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (5) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com

     (6) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423,

     (8) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
         Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
         4335, Phone: 202.544.9840, Fax: 202.544.9850,

     (9) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

    (10) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com

    (11) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com

    (12) Sarraf Gentile LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005,
         New York, NY, 10018, Phone: 212.868.3610, Fax:
         212.918.7967,

    (13) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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

    (15) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

    (16) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212)
         239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         lawyer@lawssb.com

    (17) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com

    (18) 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

    (19) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com

    (20) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com  

    (21) Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com

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

    (23) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

    (24) Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 16 West 46th Street 7th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10036, Phone: 212.490.9550, Fax:
         212.986.0158, E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


SLICKEDIT INC.: Judge Dumps Fraud, Punitive Claims v. Chairman
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Ben F. Tennille, Special Superior Court Judge for
Complex Business Cases, issued on Feb. 3 an order dismissing
fraud and punitive claims brought against SlickEdit Inc.'s
Chairman, Andre M. Boisvert.  The claims grew out of a lawsuit
brought by Jill Maurer, the ex-wife of SlickEdit's founder,
against the company and its board of directors.

Judge Tennille's opinion found that Ms. Maurer's fraud claims
were legally deficient.  Specifically, the court found that
there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Boisvert made any
definitive false representations to Ms. Maurer, that Ms. Maurer
reasonably relied on any such representation, or that Ms. Maurer
was damaged.  The court also ruled that the evidence at trial
did not support a finding of punitive damages against Mr.
Boisvert.

Mr. Clark Maurer, SlickEdit Inc.'s founder and Chief Technical
Officer, said: "I am pleased with the outcome of the case
because it will allow all of us at SlickEdit to concentrate on
our primary mission of providing high-performance tools with
innovative features that increase software-developer
productivity.  The company has benefited from its association
with Andre and we look forward to his continued involvement and
leadership."


SPEEDY CASH: Customer Launches Overcharging Complaint in Ariz.  
--------------------------------------------------------------
After being sued for failing to pay the money she owes, Angela
Randolph counter sued payday lender Speedy Cash, The Arizona
Daily Star reports.

Ms. Randolph suit, filed back in October 2005, is a class-action
case on behalf of customers of the Company.  It claims that the
lender's customers were overcharged for their loans by an
estimated $5 million during the past two years.

According to Ms. Randolph, she was 21 when she took out her
first payday loan in 2003.  She repaid that $200 loan, and was
subsequently approved for larger loans.  In 2004, she took out a
$500 loan, but found that she couldn't pay it back while working
30 hours a week at $7 an hour.  "It was irresponsible of me,"
she said in an interview. "Initially, if you don't have the
money and you don't have the credit to get a normal loan, then
maybe you shouldn't do it."

She went back to Company every two weeks, and the Company
extended the term of the loan, but she could afford to pay only
interest and fees.  She took a second job and moved back home
with her mother, but she still couldn't pay off the loan.

After paying $1,109.50 in fees and interest on the $500 loan,
Ms. Randolph stopped paying.  That's when the Company sued her.
"If I had known I was going to get sued, I would have asked to
work out a payment plan," Ms. Randolph, who works full-time and
attends Pima Community College told The Arizona Daily Star.

Consumer advocates like the Southwest Center for Economic
Integrity say habitual users of payday loans often see their
debts spiral out of control.  Kelly Griffith, deputy director of
the center told The Arizona Daily Star that escaping payday debt
resembles exercise on a treadmill: constant effort, but no
progress.  The center estimates that 60 percent of payday
customers are women who are the heads of their households, who
are often single mothers.  "The cost is really to children and
families," according to Ms. Griffith.

Ms. Randolph's lawyer, Gary Urman, argues that state laws allow
payday lenders to charge a fee of 15 percent of the loan every
two weeks - $75 on a $500 loan.  But, Mr. Urman said, lenders
calculate fees that impose an effective rate closer to 17.6
percent, based on their reading of state law.

Mr. Urman told The Arizona Daily Star, "I think the statutes
were not particularly well-crafted."  He adds, "It has led to
the potential for abuse by these lenders, in terms of these fees
that are charged."

The first challenge though for Ms. Randolph is to prove she has
the right to sue, since she and other customers signed a form
agreeing to waive their right to participate in a class-action
suit.

Calls to Speedy Cash's main Arizona office were referred to its
corporate parent, Tiger Financial Management of Wichita, Kansas.  
Representatives of Tiger Financial Management did not return
calls seeking comment.

For more details, contact Gary F. Urman of DeConcini McDonald
Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., 2525 East Broadway Boulevard, Suite 200,
Tucson, Arizona 85716-5300 (Pima Co.), Phone: 520-322-5000, Fax:
520-322-5585, Web Site: http://www.deconcinimcdonald.com.


TIME WARNER: N.C. Subscribers Could Get Windfall from Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolinian subscribers of Time Warner Cable may possibly
be eligible for free services from a proposed settlement of a
class action lawsuit entitled, "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner
Entertainment Co., et al.," but they'll have to wait for them,
The Wilson Daily Times reports.

The suit claims that the Company sold subscribers' personal
information, to be used by telemarketers for example, without
first disclosing the practice.  It covers between 5 million to
10 million people, who bought cable services from the media
giant anytime from Jan. 1994 to Dec. 1998, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

Under the settlement, which is yet to be approved by a New York
federal court, people whose information may have been sold can
receive one free month of any Company service they don't already
have or two free Movies on Demand.  If they are no longer
subscribers, they can receive free installation and one-month
free subscription to any Company service except Movies on
Demand. Or they can also give their benefit to someone else.

Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York will hold a hearing on the proposed
settlement on May 19, 2006 in Brooklyn, N.Y.  If the judge
approves the settlement, the Company, which does not admit
wrongdoing, may appeal.  That would further delay distribution
of the benefits to the claimants.

Deadline to Submit a Claim Form is on July 24, 2006, the
deadline to Request Exclusion from the Settlement Class is on
March 24, 2006 and the deadline to Object to the Settlement is
on May 4, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Parker, et al v. Time Warner Entertai, et
al, Case No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge I. Leo
Glasser with referral to Joan M. Azrack.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Michael G. Lenett of Cuneo Waldman & LaDuca, LLP, 507
         C. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-789-
         3960

     (2) Peter Steven Linden and Ira Michael Press of Kirby
         McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., New York, NY
         10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600 and (212) 317-2300, Fax:
         (212) 751-2540, E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com

     (3) George W. Sampson of Hagens Berman, LLP, 1301 Fifth
         Ave., Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Fax: (206) 623-
         0594

Representing the Defendant/s are, Jonathan D. Thier and Landis
Cox Best of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP, 80 Pine St., New York,
NY 10005, Phone: 212-701-3992 and (212) 701-3694, Fax:
212-269-5420 and (212) 269-5420, E-mail: jthier@cahill.com and
lbest@cahill.com.

For more details, contact Time Warner Cable Settlement c/o The
Garden City Group, Inc., Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 9000
#6328, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-291-3831, Web site:
http://www.twcsettlement.com/.


TOYOBO CO.: Settles Suit with Police Injured by Xylon-Made Vest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyobo Co. of Osaka Japan said it has settled a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. by an American police officer, who claimed he suffered
injuries because a bulletproof vest made with the firm's
material failed to protect him.

According to Kyodo News International, the agreement was reached
between the plaintiff and all defendants, including the vest
maker Second Chance Armor Inc.  Financial terms of the deal were
not disclosed, but Toyobo said it will only have a modest effect
on its earnings performance.

Toyobo has outstanding lawsuits filed by the U.S. government and
the Michigan-based vest producer in connection with Xylon fiber
used to make the vests.  In July, it settled a class action
filed by a coalition of U.S. police unions.

Toyobo used the synthetic fiber Xylon in about 2,900 bullet-
resistant vests sold to the LAPD by Second Chance Body Armor
Inc., which replaced the vests in fall 2003 with those made with
Kevlar (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 13, 2005).  Second Chance
though related reported that tests were showing that the
material was degrading from sweat and heat before reaching its
supposed five-year life expectancy.


UNITED STATES: Indian Trust Fund Claims Deadline Moved by a Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
The time limit for a tribal government to file a settlement
claim to receive trust money owed it by the federal government
was extended for one year, The Indian Country Today reports.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif.,
attempted to have the deadline for filing a claim extended for
six years.  However Congress sent a one-year extension to the
president, who signed it on Dec. 30, 2005.

Essentially, tribes have until Dec. 31, 2006 to place their
claims for payment of trust funds owed them before the statute
of limitations runs out again.  The funds, which are not
government funds, are monies owed the tribes for lease, royalty,
land sale and taken-land payments, which were not properly paid
because of, alleged mismanagement by the Department of Interior
over the past 100 years.

It is estimated that billions of dollars are involved, and most
all federally recognized tribes and some that are not federally
recognized may not have been paid the large sums of money owed
them.  Legal precedence in "Osage Nation v. United States,"
opened the doors for all tribes to file settlement claims
against the federal government to receive money rightfully due
the tribes and reservations.

A 1996 reconciliation of trust accounts by the Arthur Andersen
accounting firm found gross mismanagement on the part of the
federal government.  In simple terms, the federal government
acted as property manager for the tribes and in many cases
failed to collect fair market value for land sales, leases or
sales of timber, coal, gas or other minerals.  The government
also failed to properly invest the monies, and interest is owed
to many of the tribes as well.

That accounting actually resulted in lawsuits by several Indian
tribes.  Prominent among them is the 10-year-old case entitled,  
"Cobell v. Norton."  That class action involved 500,000 Native
Americans asked the Interior Department to account for the
billions of dollars in their ancestors' land and natural
resource assets the federal government has held in trust since
1887.  

Filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, it became the
longest and largest class action suit brought against the
government, involving royalties for farming, grazing, mining,
logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  In
essence, the suit dates back to the 1880s, when the government,
trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands,
giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans.  
Back then the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors, (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
21, 2005).

Most, if not all, reservations have a claim that can be filed,
but it must be filed within the next year.  According to legal
consultant Gary Frischer, "Some tribes may have been owed money
in the 1930s but never collected the money or it took 30 years
to receive, but they are now owed the interest."

Mr. Frischer told Indian Country Today, "There are all types of
equations; it depends on the tribes. There are a lot of non-
federally recognized tribes that have some very good claims.
They may have been removed and not paid for their original
lands."

Many of the tribes that have claims are large, land-based
tribes, but the claims aren't exclusive for them.  Some tribes
though are reluctant to file claims because of potential upfront
expenses.  Mr. Frischer explains to Indian Country Today that
the publicity of this issue has brought many law firms who
handle class-action suits forward who are willing to take the
cases on contingency.  Tribes should check with their attorneys,
he said.

Just before the statute of limitations ended on Dec. 31, 2005,
five more tribes filed claims.  That brought the total to 15,
with three claims previously settled.  After the deadline, more
tribes filed claims.

According to Mr. Frischer, about 90 percent of the tribes have
not yet filed claims and they need to do something quickly.  He
also told The Indian Country Today that many tribes are under
the illusion that they have received everything due them.  If a
tribe was allocated $1 million in 1930 and it should have been
$2 million based on fair market value, they were underpaid.  And
if they received the money late, interest may be owed.

Congress required the Interior Department in 1993 to pay
interest on trust funds held for tribes.  In 1994 the trust
reform act was amended and the office of special trustee was
created.  Later, Arthur Andersen found the federal government
did not comply with federal law that required reconciliation of
the accounts.

As the dollar figure soars into the billions, it is possible
that if the government were to pay 100 percent of the claims the
figure could reach into the trillions, Mr. Frischer told The
Indian Country Today.  He adds though, "It's unrealistic to
think they will look at that figure."

For more details, e-mail: info@gfomedia.com.


UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Decline Unrelated to Restated Earnings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Though there were a record number of earnings restatements in
the last year - around 1,200 - the number of investor class-
action lawsuits against accounting firms that were filed was
actually very few, according to a report by the Stanford Law
School, The New York Times reports.

A tally produced each year by Prof. Joseph A. Grundfest, a
former commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission,
who now works for the law school revealed that there were only
five cases filed the previous year.  That report also found a
sharp decline in the overall number of securities fraud class
actions, as well as a marked reduction in the investor losses
claimed by the suits.  In addition, it found that the Ninth
Circuit, which includes California, a traditional haven for
lawsuits because of the large number of technology start-ups,
was "losing its prominence."

Prof. Grundfest, who is often critical of what he sees as
baseless shareholder litigation, offered two explanations for
the recent trend.  First, the lawsuits related to the bursting
of the market bubble beginning in 2000 are now largely over.  
Second, according to him, corporations recently improved the way
they govern and monitor themselves after a string of large
scandals and the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002.

The professor said that there was a simple explanation for the
decline in litigation coming simultaneously with the rapid
growth in earnings restatements: many of the accounting
corrections do not rise to the level of misconduct.  He
expounds, "Restatements are becoming more common because of
greater sensitivity among audit firms," and added, "Even
plaintiff law firms are recognizing that not every restatement
comes about because of a fraud.  Honest companies are just doing
their best to keep their books accurate."

However, other specialists see something disturbing in the
trends.  Specifically, they pointed that a crusade by business
groups and many lawmakers over the last decade to weed out
meritless lawsuits also had the effect of making it harder to
bring sound cases.  They also said that the latest figures
reflect tougher burdens imposed on shareholders by both Congress
and the courts.

Among the changes was the adoption of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a law that shields executives
from liability for making dubious financial projections.  It
also generally eliminated the "joint and several" liability of
accountants, which made their deeper pockets available to
compensate investors, particularly when companies had little or
no money to satisfy damage claims.

Prof. Donald C. Langevoort, a securities law expert at
Georgetown University Law Center told The New York Times, "The
evidence I've seen shows that the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act is working in the sense that the rate of dismissals
has gone up substantially and it has caused plaintiff's law
firms to choose cases based on their ability to pigeonhole them
into some exceptions that courts have recognized to the higher
pleading standards."  He added, "What I worry about are the
cases we don't see - which to some extent the Grundfest report
demonstrates - and that we're not seeing cases that may be real
fraud cases.  When you lose those, you lose some real
deterrence."

Recently, the courts made it harder for investors.  Last April,
the Supreme Court ruled that investors could not merely allege
that a stock price was inflated by fraud when they bought the
stock, but must also prove that their losses were caused by the
fraud and not some other factor, like a general decline in the
market.  And last month a majority of the Supreme Court justices
indicated in a case involving Merrill Lynch that they would
interpret a 1998 law as precluding investors from using state
courts in a variety of securities fraud cases.

According to Prof. James D. Cox, a securities and accounting
expert at Duke Law School, "What we are seeing, in part, is the
increasing conservative drift in the judicial process that is
coming to fruition in all kinds of contexts."

Despite the latest numbers on declining lawsuits and lower
damage claims, some business groups think that there is more to
be done to make it harder for investors to bring lawsuits.  In
hopes of provoking a wider debate on the subject, the Institute
for Legal Reform at the United States Chamber of Commerce
recently commissioned a study that concluded that large
institutional investors unfairly benefit from shareholder
lawsuits.  Cheryl L. Evans, special counsel at the institute
said that there was a growing movement to reconsider the
appropriateness of large damage claims against companies, just
as the S.E.C. had begun to rethink whether it was appropriate to
issue fines against companies.

Specifically, Ms. Evans questioned whether investor suits really
served as a deterrent to corporate misconduct and suggested that
most of the work of policing the markets should be left to the
exchanges and the S.E.C.  She acknowledged that, with the
experiences of Enron and WorldCom beginning to fade into
history, it had become easier politically to begin exploring
ways to further restrict shareholder lawsuits.

Ms. Evans though told The New York Times, "We don't want to be
out there saying people who commit crimes shouldn't be sued.  We
do want to make sure these lawsuits are not a drag on the
economy."


UNITED STATES: Navy Chaplains Join Religious Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 65 ministers signed on to a class-action lawsuit
alleging religious discrimination by the U.S. Navy, The Toledo
Blade reports.

The chaplains claim that they were passed over for promotions
because their faith practices were not conformed to the Navy's
pluralism policies.  Navy Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, an
Evangelical Episcopal priest from Buffalo made the chaplains'
plight better known to the public after he staged an 18-day
hunger strike in front of the White House in December as the
deadline approached for his Navy contract to be extended.

He said that his superiors had punished him and called for his
contract not to be renewed after 14 years in the service,
largely because the chaplain had used Jesus' name and quoted the
Bible in public ceremonies.  Navy chaplaincy guidelines call for
generic references to God when leading prayers for a diverse
group of sailors, especially when attendance is mandatory.

"This is the result of the political correctness movement," Navy
Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, 37, told The Toledo Blade.  He
also said, "My commanding officer told the Navy board to end my
career, saying I overemphasized my own faith system in sermons
and prayers.  They also punished me, in writing, for quoting the
Bible in chapel."

Even though his hunger strike is over, the fight goes on for
him.  The chaplain says his battle to say prayers in Jesus' name
has cost him any chance for a promotion, and he's now joining an
effort to allow chaplains in the military to pray according to
their own traditions, instead of abiding by generic, pluralistic
texts.

In the wake of publicity over Lt. Klingenschmitt's case, 75
members of Congress, led by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., requested
President George Bush sign an executive order granting chaplains
in the armed forces permission to pray according to their
beliefs.

According to Lt. Klingenschmitt, "The Navy is telling me I have
to practice pluralism instead of the Christian faith, and they
tell me my sermons and prayers have to be pluralistic and
encompass all faiths.  That would violate my vows to my civilian
bishop who wants me to practice my Christian faith.  I wear a
cross on my uniform, not a `P' for pluralism."


UNITED STATES: Nev. Lawyer Sues President Bush & VP over PNAC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Reno attorney Douglas A. Wallace filed a class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nevada against George W. Bush
and Dick Cheney, according to an article at
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=20245.

"This class action lawsuit seeks an injunction against the
Defendants from further implementation of the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC) without a constitutional 2/3 vote of
Congress and full education of the American public," the
Complaint says.  "The lawsuit alleges the plan was the basis for
deception behind the Iraq war."

"We have a situation in the country that is so dire, it needs to
be corrected," Mr. Wallace says.  "I'm not asking for any legal
fees for myself.  It's a private treaty not authorized by
Congress, and by doing so, they've stepped outside their job
descriptions.  They've lied to the American public and the
Congress about the war in Iraq by entering into a private
treaty.  If the public agrees to it, and they get a two-thirds
vote of Congress, then I have nothing further to say."

"A finding by the court that they have acted outside their job
description in violation of the constitution would make them
personally liable to anyone who has been damaged by engaging in
the war in Iraq," Mr. Wallace reasons.   Mr. Wallace's
definition of anyone includes Iraqi citizens, the legitimate
Iraqi government, and U.S. military personnel, among others.  

According to Mr. Wallace, "They can't ignore the suit.  They
have 30 days to respond."

According to its Web site at http://www.newamericancentury.org/
the Project for the New American Century, commonly called the
PNAC, is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a
few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good
both for America and for the world; and that such leadership
requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to
moral principle.  The Web site goes on to state that PNAC
intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy
journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American
world leadership entails.  It will also strive to rally support
for a vigorous and principled policy of American international
involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and
defense policy and America's role in the world.

The signers of PNAC's statement of principles are well-
entrenched in the current U.S. administration: Elliott Abrams,
Gary Bauer, William Bennett, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Zalmay
Khalizad, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and
even Jeb Bush.  The organizations current chairman is William
Kristol.

The suit is styled, "Douglas A. Wallace v. George Walker Bush,
et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00025-HDM-VPC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.  The case has been
assigned to the Honorable Howard D. McKibben and referred to the
Honorable Valerie P. Cooke.  

More information about Mr. Wallace's 18-page complaint is
available at http://www.wallacevbushlawsuit.com/  


WESTPOINT CORPORATION: Bankrupt Firms' Financial Planners Named
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Slater and Gordon has named financial planners that
might be involved in a lawsuit relating to the collapse of
Westpoint Corp.'s financing firms.  

Brisbane Courier Mail said lawyers acting for Westpoint
investors are planning suits aimed at recouping money from the
firm's financial planners (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23,
2006).  According to AAP News, IMP (Australia) is also doing the
same.

In a recent report, Slater and Gordon claims it knows at least
30 companies and 120 financial planners who advised people to
invest in the now-collapsed Westpoint Group of companies.  The
number could still go up, according to the report.  Brisbane
Courier names Bongiorno Financial Services, Glenhurst
Corporation and the Brisbane-based Brannelly Group in the
report.

Glenhurst Chief Executive Tony Kofkin said 82 of his clients
lost about $7 million in the collapse.  Meanwhile, independently
owned planners are also suing auditor KPMG for its accounting
work in Westpoint.

Brisbane Courier reported that about 6,000 investors faced up to
$300 million losses when Westpoint funds went bankrupt.  Joanne
Rees of Slater and Gordon said they are targeting financial
planners because there is little chance anything can be
recovered from Westpoint.

Seven Westpoint mezzanine financing firms called in
administrator Geoff Totterdell from PricewaterhouseCoopers in
2005.  Two of them are already in liquidation.


WYLE LABORATORIES: Former Facility in Calif. Under Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of El Segundo, Norco California are wary of potential
harmful health effects of Wyle Laboratories Inc.'s former
operation in the area despite assurances from experts.  A
Citizens Advisory Group meeting was held in the community last
month to discuss what could be done to protect children from
harmful chemicals that may have remained in the area.

Concern for the possible ill-effects of Wyle's former defense,
aerospace and manufacturing test activities in Norco emerged
after a 14-year old high school student in Norco was found to
have acute myelogenous leukemia, a rare form of the disease.  
Health officials believe it is unlikely that any contaminants
from Wyle contributed to Nicole's illness, but others remain
skeptical.  The site is under investigation by the state for
contamination.  

According to the report, although the cause of acute myelogenous
leukemia, is unknown, some environmental factors, such as
exposure to benzene or radiation, are linked to the disease.

"The major chemical of concern that we've seen off site has
really been TCE (the solvent trichloroethylene), not benzene.  
If we found (benzene), it was really at low levels and
sporadically," Dr. Bill Bosen, toxicologist for the state's
toxic substances agency said at the meeting.  He added that
benzene is not a Wyle-related contaminant.  Despite the
guarantee, some are not persuaded, saying there is no safe
amount of exposure.

Wyle Laboratories' testing facility for the military, aerospace
and manufacturing industries in Hillside Ave., Norco opened in
the 1950s and closed in the late 1990s.  The firm has pending
class actions, according to the report.

Wyle Laboratories on the Net: http://www.wylelabs.com/.



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


February 9, 2006
LEXISNEXIST PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS Mealey
Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 23-24, 2006
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

February 27-28, 2006
REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 06, 2006
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Marina del Rey, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 9-10, 2006
TOXIC TORT UPDATE: TEXAS
Mealey Publications
Las Colinas Four Seasons, Dallas, Texas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 23-24, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 27-28, 2006
CATASTROPHIC EVENT INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 29-30, 2006
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Bermuda
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 30, 2006
EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Grand Hyatt, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 5-6, 2006
AML COMPLIANCE FOR INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 5-8, 2006
13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 10, 2006
ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
W Chicago Lakeshore
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 24-25, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 27-28, 2006
RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 27-28, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

May 1-2, 2006
INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

June 5-6, 2006
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 2-3, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

February 01-28, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 7, 2006
ASBESTOS LEGISLATION TELECONFERENCE: WILL CONGRESS SOLVE THE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION CRISIS?
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 9, 2006
TELECONFERENCE ON ETHICS: ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 15, 2006
MOLD AND CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 16, 2006
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 1, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
AFFECT ON THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE INDUSTRIES
TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 7, 2006
BEXTRA AND CELEBREX TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 16, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
CLAIMS IMPACT TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 28, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 30, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF THE RI DECISION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 11, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIMS ANALYSIS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 18, 2006
FRAUDULENT JOINDER TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 26, 2006
P2P NETWORKS AND LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: PROTECTION OF DIGITAL
MATERIALS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 4, 2006
TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN
PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 18, 2006
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 23, 2006
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6, 2006
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 13, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL CASES TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.



                 New Securities Fraud Cases  


APPLICA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Applica
Incorporated ("Applica" or the "Company")(NYSE:APN) common stock
during the period between November 4, 2004 and April 28, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Applica and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.Applica engages in the manufacture, marketing, and
distribution of small household appliances. The Company markets
and distributes kitchen products, home products, pest control
products, pet care products, and personal care products.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
highlighting the Company's ability to transform its business and
become more profitable. As alleged in the Complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing decreasing demand for
         its products. In particular, demand for two key
         products, Tide(TM) Buzz(TM) Ultrasonic Stain Remover
         and Home Cafe(TM) single cup coffee maker, were not
         meeting internal expectations;

     (2) that Applica was materially overstating its net worth
         by failing to timely write down the value of its
         inventory which had become obsolete and unsaleable;

     (3) that Applica was experiencing higher product warranty
         returns, which it had not appropriately reserved for;
    
     (4) that Applica's financial statements issued during the
         Class Period were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
         therefore were materially false and misleading; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
         basis for the Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

The Complaint further alleges that, on April 20, 2005,
Defendants revealed that the Company would not come near
achieving the guidance they had previously sponsored and/or
endorsed, that the Company's business was suffering from
numerous adverse factors and that the Company was marking down
inventory and experiencing increased warranty expenses. Then, on
April 28, 2005, Defendants further detailed the impact of these
adverse factors on Applica's business. These belated disclosures
had an immediate, adverse impact on the price of Applica shares.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Website:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/applica/.


APPLICA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Applica
Incorporated (APN) ("Applica" or the "Company") from November 4,
2004 through April 28, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding Applica's financial condition.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) Applica was experiencing decreasing demand for its
         products, particularly Tide(tm) Buzz(tm) Ultrasonic
         Stain Remover and Home Cafe(tm) single cup coffee
         maker, which were not meeting internal expectations;

     (2) Applica was materially overstating its net worth by
         failing to timely write down the value of its inventory
         which had become obsolete and unsaleable;

     (3) Applica was experiencing higher product warranty
         returns, which it had not appropriately reserved for;
         and

     (4) Applica's financial statements issued during the Class
         Period were not prepared in accordance with Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and therefore
         were materially false and misleading.

The complaint further alleges that, on April 20, 2005,
defendants revealed that the Company would not come near
achieving the guidance they had previously sponsored and/or
endorsed, that Applica's business was suffering from numerous
adverse factors and that the Company was marking down inventory
and experiencing increased warranty expenses.  Then, on April
28, 2005, defendants further detailed the impact of these
adverse factors on Applica's business.  These belated
disclosures had an immediate, adverse impact on the price of
Applica shares.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.


DOT HILL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all securities purchasers of Dot Hill
Systems Corporation (HILL) ("Dot Hill" or the "Company") from
between April 23, 2003 and February 3, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Dot Hill and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Dot Hill provides storage systems for organizations that
require networked storage and data management solutions in an
open-systems architecture.  The complaint alleges that
defendants' issued a series of false and misleading statements
to the market artificially inflating the Company's stock. More
specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose the following
materially adverse facts to the market:

     (1) that the Company suffered from internal control
         deficiencies related to its financial closing process,
         inventory processing, and processing related to fixed
         assets;

     (2) that the Company's enterprise resource planning ("ERP")
         software was outdated, and the Company did not have
         enough personnel to properly manage incoming
         information;

     (3) that the Company incorrectly classified certain product
         costs as operating expenses, failed to eliminate
         corresponding revenue and cost of goods sold entries
         and failed to identify duplicate entries;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were false and misleading and the
         analysis of its future performance lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

On February 3, 2005, the Company announced its preliminary
financial results for the fourth quarter 2004 and that it would
be restating its 2004 unaudited financial results due to the
material weaknesses in its internal control over its financial
closing process.  On this news, shares of Dot Hill fell $0.66
per share, or 10.38 percent, to close, on February 4, 2005, at
$5.70 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


JARDEN CORP: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Jarden Corp.
(JAH) between June 29, 2005 and January 11, 2006, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Jarden and its
CEO, Martin Franklin.  The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

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


OMNICARE INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ky.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of all persons
who acquired the publicly traded securities of Omnicare, Inc.
("Omnicare" or the "Company") (NYSE:OCR) between August 3, 2005
and January 27, 2006, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding Omnicare's financial condition. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

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

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

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


REPSOL YPF: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Repsol YPF,
S.A. (REP) between July 28, 2005 and January 27, 2006, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

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


                            *********


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, Teena 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  * * *