CAR_Public/060224.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 40

                           Headlines

ABLE ENERGY: N.J. Court Grants Certification to 2003 Fire Suit
ACS STATE: Plaintiffs to Pursue California Speed Camera Lawsuit
ADMINISTAFF INC.: Tex. Court Yet to Rule on Stock Suit Dismissal
AIRLINES: Faces Suit for Alleged Air Cargo Prices Manipulation
AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement for Wash. Securities Fraud Suit

ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Plaintiff Withdraws from Overcharging Lawsuit
BOEING COMPANY: Ill. Lawsuit Filed over Helios Flight 522 Crash
BRISTOL-MYERS: Initiates Labeling Changes to Tequin Antibiotic
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Tex. Court's Class Ruling
CALIFORNIA: USW Lauds Student Athletes' Antitrust Suit V. NCAA

COOPER COMMUNITIES: Ark. Couple Sues to Keep Granada Lake Full
FIFTH THIRD: Ohio Court Mulls Approval of Securities Settlement
FLORIDA: Lawsuit on St. Lucie County Jail Overcrowding Confirmed
GOODYEAR TIRE: Continues to Face Property Damage Lawsuit in Ohio
GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Yet to Rule on Suits' Dismissal Motion

ILLINOIS: 2000 Flood Victims to Get Part of $12.75M Settlement
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Retirees' 401(k) Lawsuit in Ind. Continues
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Retirees Testify in Ind. ERISA Court Case
LIFELINE SYSTEMS: Faces Mass. Lawsuit over Philips, DAP Mergers
MASSACHUSETTS: City Nears Settlement of Suit Over Park Seating

MASTERCARD INC: Delays IPO to 2nd Quarter Due to CEO's Illness
MERRIMAN CURHAN: Faces Fla. Suit Over Odimo Registered Offering
NETFLIX INC: Modifies Terms of Settlement with DVD Subscribers
PENNSYLVANIA: Seniors Group Challenges CMS' "Passive Enrollment"
PERRY PRINTING: Employee Lawsuit Over Share Disposal Continues

PPG INDUSTRIES: Discovery Ensues in Automotive Refinishing Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Penn. Court Approves Glass Antitrust Settlement
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: $400M Settlement Receives Initial Approval
RADIATION THEREPY: Shareholder Launches Derivative Suit in Fla.
RANDOM HOUSE: Facing Lawsuit in Mich. Over James Frey's Memoirs

SOUTH CAROLINA: Pension Suit Now Open to Law Enforcers, Firemen
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Await Ruling in Fraud Lawsuit
T. ROWE PRICE: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
TEREX CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit in Conn. State Court

                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain's Removal Costs Soar in 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon, Subsidiary Reserves $50M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Confronts 1,082 Suits in 4Q2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Faces 500 Workers Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Notes US$11.7M Fees in `05

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock's Claims Drop 12% to 15,300 in 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Reserves $30,372 for 4Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Inc Confronts 116,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Northern Bears 2,121 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Reserves US$1.5B for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide, Carriers Agree in NY Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Bears With 125,500 Claims in 4Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcoa Lauds Junking of "Pattern Complaints"
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moen Bears Down 35 Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Confronts 67,000 Pending Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. to Set Standards to Aid Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Woman Asserts "Laundry" Exposure in Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Expects Tax Law to Fund $1.6B Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Asserts No Objections to Plan Hearing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-AAR Employee Gets 18 Months for Scandal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Awards Pipefitter $1M in Suit v. Exxon
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Relates Hazard to UK Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Organize Asbestos Support in UK Town
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Plan Has $1.8B Funding from Stockholder
ASBESTOS ALERT: Central Hudson Challenges 1,171 Pending Claims

ASBESTOS ALERT: CA Nursery to Pay US$600T Penalty for Violations

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
COOPER COMPANIES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Calif.
DOT HILL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
JARDEN CORP: Christopher Gray Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

PROQUEST COMPANY: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Stock Suit in Mich.
PROQUEST COMPANY: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Mich.

                       *********


ABLE ENERGY: N.J. Court Grants Certification to 2003 Fire Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey State Court granted class certification to a lawsuit
filed against Able Energy, Inc., styled, "Hicks vs. Able Energy,
Inc."

The suit was commenced after the Company's Newton, New Jersey
facility experienced an explosion and fire on March 14, 2003,
resulting in the destruction of an office building, as well as
damage to 18 company vehicles and neighboring properties, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 4,2003) states.
Due to the immediate response by employees, a quick evacuation
of all personnel occurred prior to the explosion, preventing any
serious injuries.  The preliminary results of the company's
investigation indicate that the explosion was an accident that
occurred as a result of a combination of human error, mechanical
malfunction and the failure to follow prescribed state standards
for propane delivery truck loading.

On April 3, 2003, the Company received a Notice of Violation
from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.  The dollar
amount of the assessed penalty totaled $414,000.  The Company
contested the Notice of Violation as well as the assessed
penalties with the State of New Jersey and is waiting for a
hearing date.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of property owners who allegedly
suffered property damages as a result of the March 14, 2003
explosion and fire.  The Company's insurance carrier is
defending as related to compensatory damages.

A hearing was held on March 11, 2004 on an application on
certain matters by the Plaintiffs, which were denied.
Plaintiffs then asked the court to grant class certification to
the suit.  On June 13, 2005, the Court granted a motion
certifying a plaintiff class action which is defined as "All
Persons and Entities that on and after March 14, 2003, residing
within a 1,000 yard radius of Able Oil Company's fuel depot
facility and were damaged as a result of the March 14, 2003
explosion".  The claim is limited to economic loss and claims
for personal injury have been specifically excluded from the
Class Certification.  The insurer has settled approximately 2190
claims against the Company.


ACS STATE: Plaintiffs to Pursue California Speed Camera Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against the operator of California's traffic
camera system is going forward despite the plaintiffs'
withdrawal of a similar suit filed against two cities.

Lawyers representing thousands of motorists who sued San
Francisco and San Diego said they will continue to sue ACS State
and Local Solutions Inc., a company that operates the camera
systems throughout California, according to the San Francisco
Chronicle.  That case is scheduled to go to trial next week in
San Diego, the report said.

Brian Burchett, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said
attorneys had dropped a two-and-a-half year litigation against
the cities to avoid exposing clients to a potential claim from
San Francisco and San Diego for legal costs.  The plaintiffs had
sought millions in fines, traffic school costs and attorney
fees.

The plaintiffs remain convinced, however, that the use of
automatic cameras is unconstitutional because some of the money
from ticket fines was being paid to a private company, which
installs and maintains the cameras.

San Francisco uses 23 cameras at intersections throughout the
city to catch red-light runners and plans to install 10 more.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement, "San
Francisco's red-light camera program has been very successful in
reducing an illegal and extremely dangerous practice."


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Tex. Court Yet to Rule on Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is
yet to rule on Administaff, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws.  It
claims that Administaff and certain of its officers and
directors made false and misleading statements or failed to make
adequate disclosures concerning, among other things:

     (1) the Company's pricing and billing systems with respect
         to recalibrating pricing for clients that experienced a
         decline in average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) the matching of price and cost for health insurance on
         new and renewing client contracts; and

     (3) the Company's former method of reporting worksite
         employee payroll costs as revenue

The complaint sought unspecified damages, among other remedies.
On March 31, 2004, the court appointed Carpenters Pension Trust
for South California as "lead plaintiff" and Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as "lead counsel."  The lead
plaintiff alleges that its losses are $352,000, although the
alleged damages of the purported class have not been specified.

In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff has
essentially abandoned the allegations of fraud contained in the
initial seven lawsuits.  Through the consolidated complaint, the
lead plaintiff now generally asserts, among other things, that
Administaff and certain of its officers and directors
fraudulently made false and misleading statements regarding the
cost of its health plan during 2001 and 2002.  In June 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

The suit is styled, "Arnone, et al. v. Administaff, Inc., et
al., Case No. 03-CV-2082," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Melinda Harmon.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, John G. Emerson of Emerson
Poynter, LLP, 830 Apollo Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-
907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com;
and Barry Craig Barnett of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 901 Main St.,
Ste. 5100, Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214-754-1903, Fax: 214-
665-0832, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com.  Representing the
Defendant/s is Philip J. John, Jr. of Baker Botts, 910
Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-229-1215, Fax: 713-229-
2815 fax, E-mail: philip.john@bakerbotts.com.


AIRLINES: Faces Suit for Alleged Air Cargo Prices Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two suits alleging collusion between major international
airlines to set airline fares by raising surcharges for fuel and
security have been filed in the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn,
according to Newsday.com.

One suit was filed by Fleurchem Inc., a Middletown, New York
supplier of ingredients for flavors and fragrances.  The case
alleges that airlines began conspiring "on or around" Jan. 1,
2000.  Barbara J. Hart, an attorney at Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff
in Manhattan, is representing Fleurchem.

The defendants in the suit filed are:

     (1) British Airways,

     (2) Air France-KLM, Lufthansa,

     (3) Japan Airlines Corp.,

     (4) Korean Air Co.,

     (5) Asiana Airlines Inc.,

     (6) Cathay Pacific Airways,

     (7) United Airlines Inc.,

     (8) Scandinavian Airlines System

The second suit was filed by an animal shipping company Animal
Land Inc. of Atlanta.  The suit alleges that airlines "used the
aftermath of the 9/11 attacks ... as a pretext for coordinated
price increases in the form of surcharges for additional
security measures."  Garrett Blanchfield, a lawyer for Reinhardt
Wendorf and Blanchfield of St. Paul, Minnesota represents Animal
Land.

The defendants in the suit are:

     (1) British Airways,

     (2) Air France-KLM, Lufthansa,

     (3) Japan Airlines Corp.,

     (4) Korean Air Co.,

     (5) Asiana Airlines Inc.,

     (6) Cathay Pacific Airways,

     (7) United Airlines Inc. and

     (8) Scandinavian Airlines System.

     (9) Air Canada,

    (10) Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc.,

    (11) Polar Air Cargo Inc.,

    (12) American Airlines Inc.,

    (13) Cargolux Airlines International,

    (14) Royal Dutch Airlines,

    (15) All Nippon Airways Co.

    (16) Nippon Cargo Airlines, and

    (17) LAN Airlines and Singapore Airlines.

The suits, which both seek class action status, came a week
after the Justice Department and European law-enforcement
authorities launched investigations into possible air-cargo
price-fixing.


AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement for Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its directors and
certain senior officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  Holders of the Company's equity
and debt securities, alleging violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, filed
several class action complaints.

On August 1, 2003, plaintiffs in the 1934 Act cases filed a
second consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company,
together with certain of its officers and directors, made false
or misleading statements during the period from October 29, 1998
through October 23, 2001 concerning the Company's business,
financial condition and results, inventories, future prospects,
and strategic alliance transactions.  The 1933 Act complaint
alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements
in connection with the Company's February 2000 offering of the
6.875% Premium Adjustable Convertible Securities Due 2010
("PEACS"). The complaints seek damages and injunctive relief
against all defendants.

In March 2005, the Company signed a Stipulation of Settlement
with counsel representing the plaintiff class with respect to
the 1934 Act claims.  In July 2005, the Company signed a
Stipulation of Settlement with counsel representing the
plaintiff class with respect to the 1933 Act claims.  If
finalized and approved by the Court, these settlements would
dispose of all claims asserted in these lawsuits in exchange for
payments totaling $48 million, substantially all of which the
Company expects to be funded by the Company's insurers.

The suit is styled, "In Re Amazon.com, et al. v., et al., Case
No. 2:01-cv-00358-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Robert S. Lasnik.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jan Adler of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 401
         B. Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423

     (2) Karl Phillip Barth of Lovell Mitchell & Barth, 11542
         NE, 21ST Street, STE. A, Bellevue, WA 98004, Phone:
         425-452-9800, E-mail: kbarth@lmbllp.com

     (3) Jonathan E. Behar, Douglas R. Britton and Alexandra S.
         Bernay of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, Phone: 310-278-2148 and 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         jbehar@lerachlaw.com, DougB@lerachlaw.com and
         XanB@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Ronald L. Berenstain of
Perkins Coie, 1201 3RD AVE., STE. 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099,
Phone: 206-583-8888, Fax: 583-8500, E-mail:
rberenstain@perkinscoie.com; and Paul J. Collins of Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher, 1530 Page Mill RD., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-849-5300, Fax: 1-650-849-5333, E-mail:
pcollins@gibsondunn.com.


ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Plaintiff Withdraws from Overcharging Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Fort Smith, Arkansas attorney who initiated a class action
against Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corporation had asked to be
dropped from the case, according to TheHomeTownChannel.com.

Attorney Brian Meadors filed the suit on behalf of several named
clients, as well as customers of AOG, claiming the Company
overcharged its customers. The suit claimed that AOG charged its
customers with a new rate increase on some November bills when
the increase wasn't allowed to go into effect until December 1
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

According to the report, Mr. Meadors requested to be dropped
from the case after the company complained to the Public Service
Commission.  He said the PSC doesn't have the right to tell him
which cases he can file.  The PSC said it would continue hearing
the customers' case despite Mr. Meadors' withdrawal.


BOEING COMPANY: Ill. Lawsuit Filed over Helios Flight 522 Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Families of victims of the crash of Helios Flight 522 filed a
lawsuit against The Boeing Company in U.S. District Court in
Chicago, Illinois on Feb. 21.  One hundred and fifteen
passengers and six crewmembers died on August 14, 2005, when the
Boeing 737-200 apparently flew without cabin pressure and then
crashed north of Athens, Greece.

The investigation of the crash of the Helios Airways Flight 522
has reportedly found that the pressurization system on the plane
was not properly configured by the pilots at the time the
aircraft took off from Larnaca, Cyprus.  However, Robert L.
Lieff, founding partner of the American law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, explained that "while there appears to
have been negligence on the part of the Helios pilots, Boeing
was also negligent and shares responsibility for the passengers'
deaths."

Christos Clerides, whose Cyprus law firm Phoebus, Christos
Clerides, N. Pirilides & Associates, of Nicosia and Limassol
will spearhead efforts to prosecute claims against Helios
itself, is working in partnership with Lieff Cabraser in
representing the families in pursuing Boeing and any other U.S.
manufacturers who may have contributed to the accident.  Mr.
Clerides stated, "I am very pleased to take this step forward in
achieving justice for my clients.  We intend to make sure that
no responsible party escapes accountability for this horrible
tragedy."

Nigel Taylor, an attorney with Lieff Cabraser based in London
and one of Europe's most experienced aviation attorneys, stated,
"This lawsuit holds out great hope for the victim families to
get fair compensation, and we have an outstanding team in place
to achieve that end."

Hans-Peter Graf, a former airline commander and investigator in
charge at the Swiss Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau who
specializes in flight operation and human factors, has been
retained by Lieff Cabraser to work on this case. Mr. Graf
commented, "The checklists that Boeing composed and recommended
for the 737 aircraft made it easy for crews to take off and fly
with the pressurization system set incorrectly.  The alerts and
warnings given to the crew were inexcusably vague and late.  The
design and implementation of a superior system would have cost a
minimal amount.  Thus, I am firmly convinced that Boeing and its
partners played a substantial role in this crash, and they could
have prevented it with a proper design of the crew alerting
system."

The complaint alleges that a series of design defects in the
Boeing 737-200 led to the pilots' failure to understand the
nature of the problems they were facing.  Foremost among these
was that the pressurization warning "horn" on the Boeing 737-200
emits the same sound used to alert pilots about improper takeoff
and landing configurations.  The pilots' confusion was
compounded by the fact that the very danger being warned of, low
cabin air pressure, impairs cognitive functions.  "If you are
warning about a dangerous condition that impairs a pilot's
ability to think, it is common sense that you make that warning
as clear as possible, and Boeing did not do that," commented
Robert L. Lieff.

The complaint alleges that two years before the Helios accident,
in 2003, Boeing communicated to 737 operators that "flight crews
may not recognize the (aircraft pressurization failure) horn as
an alert of excessive cabin altitude."  Yet, commented Robert L.
Lieff, "Boeing took no corrective action in response to this
potential safety hazard other than asking 737 operators to
revise their manuals.  Boeing could have eliminated the
confusion from multiple uses of the same horn by using a vocal
warning or a unique horn, through an inexpensive modification to
the 737 pressurization warning system."

Lieff Cabraser also currently represents aviation accident
victims in connection with, among others, the crash of a Flash
Air plane near Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt on January 3, 2004, the
crash of an Air Algerie plane in Tamanrasset on March 3, 2003,
the crash of a China Eastern plane on November 21, 2004, near
Bautou, China, the crash of a TANS plane near Pucullpa, Peru on
August 23, 2005, the crash of a Mandala plane near Medan,
Indonesia on September 5, 2005, and the crash of a West
Caribbean Airways plane in Venezuela on August 16, 2005.

For more information, visit http://www.globalaviationlaw.com;or
contact Lieff Cabraser partner Robert Nelson in San Francisco,
California, E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com; Phone: at 001 415-956-1000
(Cyprus); or Nigel Taylor of Lieff Cabraser in London, United
Kingdom, E-mail: ntaylor@lchb.com; Phone: 0044 173 274 2004; or
Christos Clerides in Nicosia, Phone: 22753015 (Cyprus local
number).


BRISTOL-MYERS: Initiates Labeling Changes to Tequin Antibiotic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. announced labeling changes for Tequin
(gatifloxacin), an antibiotic indicated for the treatment of
patients with pneumonia, bronchitis, uncomplicated gonorrhea,
and various infections including infections of urinary tract,
kidneys, and skin.

The labeling changes, announced by the Tequin manufacturer in a
letter to healthcare professionals, update the prescription
information as a result of continued reports of serious cases of
hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and hyperglycemia (high blood
sugar) in patients receiving Tequin.  Since the approval of
Tequin in 1999, there have been rare cases of life-threatening
events reported globally in patients treated with the drug.
Most of these events were reversible when properly managed, but
a few had fatal outcomes.

Information about the risks of low blood sugar and high blood
sugar was added to the WARNINGS section of the U.S. labeling in
2002. The changes strengthen the existing WARNING on
hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and hyperglycemia (high blood
sugar), add a CONTRAINDICATION for use in diabetic patients, and
include information identifying other risk factors for
developing low blood sugar and high blood sugar, including
advanced age, renal insufficiency, and concomitant glucose
altering medications while taking Tequin.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will continue monitoring
Tequin's safety to ensure that its benefits outweigh the risks
to patients. For more details, visit:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2006/NEW01318.html.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Tex. Court's Class Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled, "Ray Ridgeway, et al. v.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 48-185170-00,"
appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals to overturn the refusal
of the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th Judicial
District to certify the case as a class action.

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF) predecessor,
Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (SFSP). The complaint
alleges that SFSP erroneously informed shareholders as to the
tax treatment of the dividend "specifically, the apportionment
of the dividend as either a distribution of earnings and profits
or a return of capital," which allegedly caused some
shareholders to overpay their income taxes.

The plaintiffs assert, through their expert's report, that SFSP
had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits and that the
entire dividend distribution should have been treated as a
return of capital, rather than the approximately 34 percent that
SFSP determined was a return of capital.

On July 8, 2005, the court entered a final order denying the
plaintiffs' requests to certify a class action.  Subsequently,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal of this ruling to the Texas Court
of Appeals.


CALIFORNIA: USW Lauds Student Athletes' Antitrust Suit V. NCAA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United Steelworkers (USW) hailed the federal antitrust
lawsuit filed in Los Angeles by college student-athletes against
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) on Feb. 17.
The suit seeks to prohibit the NCAA from telling member colleges
they cannot offer athletic scholarships up to the full cost of
attendance.

The class-action claim was brought on behalf of Division I-A
football players and major-college basketball players, whose
programs generate the overwhelming amount of revenue that flows
into college athletic departments.  The suit is an outgrowth of
the work of the Collegiate Athletes Coalition, an advocacy group
started by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma, with support
from the USW.

"From day one, we saw that the NCAA took very good care of
everybody in Division-1 football and basketball, except the
student-athletes," said Leo W. Gerard, USW International
President. "When a major football program produces annual
revenues of more than $50 million, and nearly $40 million of
profits, how can the NCAA tell the school that it can't provide
its players, many from low-income backgrounds, with a thousand
dollars or so of incidental school expenses?"

Despite the revenues, athletes are the only students subject to
aid restrictions imposed by an agreement among universities.
Talented students in other fields like the arts or applied
sciences can be bid upon by individual colleges, without limits
on the total value of their scholarship packages.  The suit asks
for the restoration of funds for incidental expenses, which the
NCAA eliminated in 1973 in a cost-cutting move.

The suit alleges that "the (grant-in-aid) cap is simply a cost
containment mechanism that enables the NCAA and its member
institutions to preserve more of the benefits of their
enterprise for themselves."  The NCAA's current definition of a
scholarship, which is limited to covering tuition and fees, room
and board and required books, is by its own admission about
$2,500 less than a student would incur to attend the school.
Costs not covered include the student-athlete's travel costs,
laundry, supplies, insurance and other incidental expenses
outside of the NCAA definition of a scholarship.

                         Case Background

Three former college athletes filed an antitrust suit in the
federal district court in Los Angeles against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

The lawsuit challenges an agreement under which the NCAA and its
member schools have imposed a maximum cap on the amount of
athletics-based financial aid, or "grant-in-aid" (GIA), support
available to student athletes competing in major college sports.
Under this agreement, the amount of the GIA is artificially
fixed at an amount that falls far short of the full "cost of
attendance" (COA) at NCAA member institutions.  The lawsuit
alleges that this agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade in
violation of the federal antitrust laws.

The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of all football
and men's basketball players at major Division I schools.  The
plaintiffs allege that major college football and men's
basketball are lucrative and profitable businesses, with the
NCAA and its member institutions taking in hundreds of millions
of dollars each year as a result of the efforts of the student
athletes.

The plaintiffs further allege that the NCAA has enforced an
agreement to short-change student athletes by imposing an
artificial cap on the amount of financial aid a student athlete
may receive in the form of an athletic scholarship, or GIA. The
plaintiffs allege that this artificial cap has imposed
significant hardships on many student athletes, and that
competition among NCAA schools would result in student athletes
receiving GIA's covering the full COA if the artificial cap were
eliminated.

The named plaintiffs and class representatives are:

     (1) Jason White, who played football at Stanford;

     (2) Brian Polak, who played football at UCLA; and

     (3) Jovan Harris, who played basketball at the University
         of San Francisco.

The plaintiffs and class are represented by Marc Seltzer, Steve
Morrissey and Steven Sklaver of Susman Godfrey L.L.P., and
Maxwell Blecher and Courtney Palko of Blecher & Collins, P.C.

For information contact Stephen E. Morrissey, Phone:
(310) 789-3103; Fax: 310) 789-3150; E-mail:
smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com; or Maxwell M. Blecher, Phone:
(213) 622-4222; Fax: (213) 622-1656; E-mail:
mblecher@blechercollins.com.


COOPER COMMUNITIES: Ark. Couple Sues to Keep Granada Lake Full
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Springs Village property owners Jim and Phylis Armogida are
asking the Saline County Circuit Court in Arkansas to expand a
suit they filed against developer Cooper Communities, Inc. into
a class action.  No hearing date has been set yet.

The suit, which the Armogida's filed with another couple, could
include some 90 other property owners.  It is seeking guaranteed
water supply to the man-made lake near the couple's property.

According to the report, the lawsuit accuses Cooper of deceit
and fraud in creating a 55-acre lake and selling lots and
shoreline homes around it in the late 1990s and early 2000s even
though it could not guarantee it would always be full of water.
It doesn't ask for damages but wants Cooper ordered to come up
with a permanent solution to keeping the lake filled.  Lake
water could drop by seven feet in a dry year, and not two as
forecasted.

The Property Owners' Association was dragged to the lawsuit
after Cooper conveyed ownership of Lake Granada to the POA more
than a year ago.


FIFTH THIRD: Ohio Court Mulls Approval of Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
approved the settlement for the consolidated securities class
action filed against Fifth Third Bancorp and certain of its
officers.

The suit relates to disclosures made by the Company regarding
its integration of Old Kent Financial Corporation and its effect
on the Company's infrastructure, including internal controls,
prospects and related matters.  The complaint sought
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock, attorneys' fees and
other expenses.

On March 31, 2005 the Registrant announced that it had settled
this suit.  The settlement is subject to court approval. Under
the proposal, a settlement fund of $17 million plus interest,
but minus lawyers' fees and expenses would be established.  The
proposal further said that the settlement would be divided among
investors who bought Fifth Third Bancorp stock between September
21, 2001 and January 31, 2003.  Lawyers' fees would be limited
to a maximum of 28 percent of the fund plus about $300,000 for
expenses, according to a proposed order submitted for court
approval, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 4,2005)
reports.

The amount to which any investor would be entitled would depend
on how many investors sign up for the settlement, the number of
Fifth Third shares they bought and how much they paid for those
shares.  The plaintiffs' lawyers estimated that 116 million
shares were traded during the class period and that the average
amount recovered per share would be 14.6 cents.  Individual
investors could reject the settlement and pursue actions on
their own, the lawyers added.  Under terms of the proposed
settlement, the Company and the other defendants don't admit to
the validity of any claims made by the plaintiffs.

The settlement agreement was approved by the court on November
14, 2005 and has become non-appealable.  The Company, along with
its insurer and other parties paid a total of $17 million to a
fund to settle the claims with the class members.  The impact of
the disposition of this lawsuit is not material to the Company.

The suit is styled, "Slone v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al.,
Consolidated Case No. 1:03cv211," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Thomas M.
Rose.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Jeffrey Thomas Spinazzola
of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax:
212-868-1229, E-mail: jspinazzola@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Patrick F. Fischer and Rachael
Anne Rowe of Keating, Muething & Klekamp, 1400 Provident Tower,
One E. Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400,
Fax: 513-579-6419 and 513-579-6400, E-mail: pfischer@kmklaw.com
and rrowe@kmklaw.com; and Jeffrey A. Miller, Victor A. Walton,
Jr., and Glenn Virgil Whitaker of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease -
1 Atrium Two, 221 E Fourth Street, Suite 2100, Cincinnati, OH
45201-0236, Phone: 513-723-4000, E-mail: vawalton@vssp.com and
gvwhitaker@vssp.com.


FLORIDA: Lawsuit on St. Lucie County Jail Overcrowding Confirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida attorney Bob Watson and Public Defender Diamond Litty
filed a state class action against the St. Lucie County Board of
Commissioners and St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara.  The
suit was filed on behalf of four St. Lucie County jail inmates,
claiming conditions at the county jail violated inmates' civil
rights, TCPalm.com reports.

It is demanding that commissioners open a second new jail pod
under a $20 million jail expansion project to relieve
overcrowding at the county jail on Rock Road.

According to the report, the lawsuit claims inmates receive
insufficient delivery of medical services, insufficient
screening of inmates with mental health treatment needs,
insufficient security, plumbing failures, exposure to fire
hazards, insufficient food delivery, insufficient visitation,
insufficient recreation and insufficient access to legal
materials.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Continues to Face Property Damage Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. continues to face a civil action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division.  The suit is styled, "Adkins, et al. v.
Divested Atomic Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:98-cv-00595-
WHR."

On June 8, 1998, a civil action was filed against Divested
Atomic Corporation (DAC), the Company and Lockheed Martin Energy
Systems (LMES) on behalf of approximately 276 persons who
currently reside, or in the past resided, near the Portsmouth
Uranium Enrichment Complex, a facility owned by the U.S.
Department of Energy located in Pike County, Ohio (DOE Plant).
The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of all persons who were residents, property owners or
lessees of property subject to alleged windborne particulates
and water run off from the DOE Plant, that DAC (and, therefore,
the Company) and LMES in their operation of the Portsmouth DOE
Plant:

     (1) negligently contaminated, and are strictly liable for
         contaminating, the plaintiffs and their property with
         allegedly toxic substances,

     (2) have in the past maintained, and are continuing to
         maintain, a private nuisance,

     (3) have committed, and continue to commit, trespass, and

     (4) violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
         Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

The plaintiffs are seeking $30 million in actual damages, $300
million in punitive damages, other unspecified legal and
equitable remedies, costs, expenses and attorney's fees.

The suit is styled, "Adkins, et al. v. Divested Atomic Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:98-cv-00595-WHR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H.
Rice.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Louise Malbin Roselle of
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co - 1, Central Trust Tower,
Fourth & Vine Streets, Suite 1513, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
513-621-0267.  Representing the Defendant/s is Robert Edgar Tait
of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease - 2, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay
Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, Fax:
614-464-6341, E-mail: retait@vssp.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Yet to Rule on Suits' Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is still waiting a decision from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on the
Company's motion to dismiss three consolidated cases filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors.

On October 23, 2003, a purported class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of its common stock alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  After that date, a
total of 20 of these purported class actions were filed against
the Company in that court.  These lawsuits also name as
defendants several of the Company's present or former officers
and directors, including:

     (1) current chief executive officer Robert J. Keegan,

     (2) current chief financial officer Richard J. Kramer, and

     (3) former chief financial officer, Robert W. Tieken

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
other named defendants violated federal securities laws by
artificially inflating and maintaining the market price of the
Company's securities.

Five derivative lawsuits were also filed by purported
shareholders on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio and two similar derivative
lawsuits originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas for
Summit County, Ohio were removed to federal court. The
derivative actions are against present and former directors, the
Company's present and former chief executive officers and its
former chief financial officer.

The suits allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty
and corporate waste arising out of the same events and
circumstances upon which the securities class actions are based.
The plaintiffs in the federal derivative actions also allege
violations of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by
certain of the named defendants.

Finally, at least 11 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company, The Northern Trust Company, and current and/or former
officers of the Company asserting breach of fiduciary claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on
behalf of a putative class of participants in the Company's
Employee Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees and the
Company's Savings Plan for Salaried Employees.

The plaintiffs' claims in these actions arise out of the same
events and circumstances upon which the securities class actions
and derivative actions are based. All of these actions have been
consolidated into three separate actions before the Honorable
Judge John Adams in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

On June 28 and July 16, 2004, amended complaints were filed in
each of the three consolidated actions. The amended complaint in
the purported ERISA class action added certain current and
former directors and associates of Goodyear as additional
defendants and the Northern Trust Company was subsequently
dismissed without prejudice from this action.  On November 15,
2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all three
consolidated cases and the Court is considering these motions.


ILLINOIS: 2000 Flood Victims to Get Part of $12.75M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne County homeowners who lost $25 million in a 2000 flood
will finally get a cash settlement, court appointed special
master Ronald S. Longhofer said in a report, according to The
Detroit News.  Mr. Longhofer said the residents should receive
34.3% of the approved claims subject to the approval of U.S.
District Judge John Feikens.

Early in 2005, Judge Feikens, Wayne County and eight suburban
cities agreed to pay $12.75 million to settle flooding claims by
as many as 9,000 Downriver homeowners whose basements were
filled with raw sewage during a massive 2000 storm, the Detroit
News reports (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2005).

Believed to be the largest flood settlement in the state, it
ended a nearly five-year court battle. The communities that have
agreed to pay are Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster,
Lincoln Park, Southgate, Taylor and Riverview.

Under the settlement terms, Wayne County will pay $5.2 million,
and the rest will be footed by insurance carried by the county,
County Executive Robert Ficano told Detroit News. Allen Park's
share is $3.35 million, the most of any of the cities.

Some homeowners though got checks from the Federal Emergency
Management Administration, which declared the region a disaster
area. According to legal experts that could reduce the amount
paid under the settlement.  Three other communities Dearborn,
Wyandotte, River Rouge and Dearborn Heights previously settled
most claims of their residents covering about $4 million and
4,000 homeowners, said Steven Liddle, the lead lawyer for the
homeowners.  Wyandotte paid $1.7 million, he added (Class Action
Reporter, March 1, 2006).

Mr. Liddle said previously that of 9,000 homeowners who are
eligible, about 1,600 already have filed claims with the U.S.
District Court in Detroit, with some claiming losses of more
than $25,000 (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2006).

During the September 10-12, 2000, storm, raw sewage was
discharged into thousands of basements and businesses, with
people in a dozen communities losing millions.  The law firms
representing the homeowners stand to receive about $4 million
under the settlement.  Any contested claims will go to the judge
for resolution, who will give final approval to all settlements
(Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2006).


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Retirees' 401(k) Lawsuit in Ind. Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony continues in the class action filed against former
Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPALCO) Enterprises
executives involved in a stock swap transaction with AES Corp.
in 2000, according to Indystar.com.

The former chief of IPALCO was accused of leading executives in
dumping company stock in the wake of the sale, leaving retirees
to shoulder losses when AES' stock plummeted.

In 2002, three retirees of IPALCO brought a federal class action
against the Company's former top officers, claiming they ignored
fiduciary duties by encouraging employees to invest their 401(k)
money in company stock, the Indianapolis Business Journal
reports.  The lawsuit seeks up to $150 million in compensation.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) John Hodowal, former IPALCO Chairman and President,

     (2) Ramon Humke, former IPALCO President and Chief
        Operating Officer,

     (3) Bryan Tabler, former general counsel,

In total, 2,000 participants are enrolled in the Company's
401(k) plan.  The members reportedly lost more than $100
million.

In the recent testimony hearing the accused contends they sold
their IPALCO stock around the time of the acquisition because
they knew AES had cash-flow problems and was a bad risk.  The
top executives are accused of reaping more than $70 million from
the scheme.

According to Indystar.com, more than 77% of the workers'
company-sponsored retirement assets were invested in IPALCO
stock at the time the IPALCO board decided to accept the AES
stock swap.  The AES stock, which then sold for about $49.60, is
now trading at just $17 a share.

The report said U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton will
decide whether executives and pension committee members failed
to protect retirees.  If the plaintiffs prevail, evidence will
be heard regarding damages.

In 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana denied both IPALCO, and plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, alleging
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2005).

The suit, filed in March 2002, alleges breach of fiduciary
duties with respect to shares held in the Company's subsidiary
Indianapolis Power and Light Co.'s (k) thrift plan. The Company
filed a motion for summary judgment suit in October 2003, as did
the plaintiffs. On August 11, 2005, an Order was entered denying
both motions for summary judgment. The Order indicates that the
court will meet with counsel in the near future to schedule a
bench trial addressed to the fiduciary duty issues.

The suit is styled "Nelson et al v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. et
al., case no. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs is Steve W. Berman,
John R. Price, Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594,
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com, nick@hagens-
berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Retirees Testify in Ind. ERISA Court Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retirees and former workers who are suing Indianapolis Power and
Light Company Enterprises's top executives and company officers
recently testified before an Indiana federal court to prove that
the firm misled them, The Eyewitness News reports.  The
plaintiffs alleged violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

"They were telling us the AES-IPL transaction was a great deal,
that it is the future," says Michael Wycoff, who was an employee
and union official, "when all the while they were selling all
their stock."

Former CEO John Hodowal and IPL officials sold more than $100
million worth of stock.  After the 2001 sale, prices plummeted.
Employees and retirees invested in the company savings plan,
their attorney's say and lost more than $100 million.

Joe Nelson testified he lost $400,000 and started a lawn care
business because he can't afford retirement.  However, under
cross examination Mr. Nelson conceded that starting six years
before the sale the Company arranged numerous mailings and
meetings, telling employees not to invest all their retirement
savings in one stock.  The message, according to Mr. Nelson's
testimony was diversify, diversify, diversify.

Yet many lifelong employees kept their trust and stock in the
Company. Mr. Wycoff pointed out, "Take your money and put it
somewhere else, that you are not going to lose any money?
They've already got it here where they never lost any money."

The class action filed against the Company and certain of its
former officers and directors make allegations regarding matters
arising from the acquisition of the Company by AES Corporation.
Filed in March 2002, it alleges breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to shares held in the Company's subsidiary Indianapolis
Power and Light Co.'s thrift plan.  The Company filed a motion
for summary judgment suit in October 2003, as did the
plaintiffs.  But, on August 11, 2005, an order was entered
denying both motions for summary judgment.  The order indicates
that the court will meet with counsel in the near future to
schedule a bench trial addressed to the fiduciary duty issues,
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2005).

The suit is styled, "Nelson, et al. v. Ipalco Enterprises, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge
David Frank Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs is Steve W.
Berman, John R. Price, Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594,
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com, nick@hagens-
berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com.


LIFELINE SYSTEMS: Faces Mass. Lawsuit over Philips, DAP Mergers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifeline Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIFE) said it has been served
with a purported shareholder class action against Lifeline, its
directors and DAP Merger Sub, Inc.  The complaint was filed on
February 17, 2006 in Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex
County, and challenges the price of and the process leading to
Lifeline's previously announced merger agreement with
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and DAP Merger Sub.

Lifeline believes the allegations are without merit. Lifeline
does not believe that this lawsuit will affect the close of the
transaction.

Lifeline Systems, Inc., -- http://www.lifelinesys.com--  
established in 1974, provides personal response services and
emergency call systems in the U.S. and Canada. The company
expects to report that, as of December 31, 2005, it supported
approximately 470,000 subscribers from its response centers in
Massachusetts, Ontario and Quebec. Lifeline also supplies
emergency response equipment and services to owners and
developers of independent and assisted living and continuing
care retirement communities across North America.


MASSACHUSETTS: City Nears Settlement of Suit Over Park Seating
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of the City of Lowell, Massachusetts confirmed that
they are near a settlement that will comply with a federal court
ruling that they must provide better accommodation to
wheelchair-bound fans at LeLacheur Park, The Lowell Sun reports.

City Solicitor Christine O'Connor told city councilors during
their recent meeting that the city will construct 30 new seats
at the city-owned ballpark, which is home to the Lowell Spinners
and UMass Lowell's River Hawks baseball team, including 15
wheelchair seats and 15 "companion" seats.

The seats will be built level with the field along the third-
base line.  They will be protected by screens and accessible
from their own, street-level entrance.

"It will be the most dangerous seating in the park," Ms.
O'Connor said.  She said the city and the park's architect, the
international firm HOK Inc., would split the $59,000 legal tab
for the case.

The issue dates to an Aug. 30, 2004 decision by U.S. District
Court Judge Rya W. Zobel that wheelchair access at LeLacheur
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it is not
dispersed throughout the park.  Since that decision, city
officials have been negotiating with attorneys for the Lawrence-
based Northeast Independent Living Program, which brought the
class-action lawsuit on behalf of several wheelchair-bound
Spinners fans.

Reached at his home in Tyngsboro, Frank Berry, 47, the lead
plaintiff in the class-action case, told The Lowell Sun that he
was "very excited" by news of the settlement.  He specifically
said, "Let's just say it hasn't been a walk in the park as far
as getting it done, but the fact it is being done is such a
great thing."  An avid Spinners fan, Mr. Berry first became part
of the lawsuit because he was upset he was unable to sit with
his children -- his daughter is now 18 and his son is 16 -- and
their friends near the field during games.

Wheelchair-accessible seats now are located along LeLacheur
Park's concourse.  Mr. Berry told The Lowell Sun that he felt
isolated from his children and their friends while sitting
there. "Sitting up in back, you get a great view, but you're so
far from the action.  Dispersed seating, I don't even have the
words to say how much it means. On opening day, we'll be there."

Charles Carr, executive director of the Northeast Independent
Living Program, told The Lowell Sun that he would also be at
LeLacheur on opening day along with several other disabled
Spinners fans.  He pointed out, "The victory is that we get to
watch Spinners games.  That's what it's all about."

The suit is styled, "Swanson, et al v. Lowell, City of, et al.,
Case No. 1:01-cv-10694-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Pamela Coveney and Stanley J.
Eichner of Disability Law Center, 11 Beacon Street, Suite 925,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-723-8455, Fax: 617-723-9125, E-
mail: pcoveney@dlc-ma.org and seichner@dlc-ma.org.  Representing
the Defendant/s are, Thomas E. Sweeney, Kimberley A. McMahon and
Christine P. O'Connor, City of Lowell Law Department, Room 51,
375 Merrimac St., Lowell, MA 01852, Phone: 978-970-4050, Fax:
978-453-1510, E-mail: KMcMahon@ci.lowell.ma.us and
COConnor@ci.lowell.ma.us.


MASTERCARD INC: Delays IPO to 2nd Quarter Due to CEO's Illness
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Inc. said it would postpone its initial public
offering until the second quarter as its chief executive
recovers from prostate cancer surgery, The Associated Press
reports.

The Company had been expected to list on the New York Stock
Exchange during the first quarter.  However, it said President
and CEO Bob Selander was recently diagnosed with the ailment,
which would have made touting the IPO in an investor road show
more difficult.

The IPO was expected to raise about $2.5 billion for Purchase,
New York-based Company.  The offering is expected to be the
largest IPO since August 2004, when Internet search leader
Google, Inc. listed on the Nasdaq.

In a letter sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission Mr.
Selander said that his operation was successful and his
"prognosis excellent."  He is now working from home, and expects
to be back in the office in early March.  Mr. Selander alos
stated in the letter, "While I have already resumed my normal
responsibilities, I have been advised not to undertake a
demanding travel schedule, such as a road show, over the next
couple of months.  We expect that this, combined with the
timelines for our first quarter results, will mean a delay in
our transition to a new structure until the second quarter of
2006."

Eric Grover, an analyst with corporate consultancy firm Intrepid
Ventures, told The Associated Press that the postponement makes
sense because the road show process can be very taxing.  He adds
that potential investors are buying into Mr. Selander as a
leader as much as they're buying into the company.

"You can't do a road show without your CEO," Mr. Grover
explains.  According to him, "There are other people that can
certainly tell the story, but this is the guy that's going to be
managing the company.  If I'm a perspective investor, I want to
hear him telling me why it's a compelling story."

In addition, Mr. Grover told The Associated Press that it also
clears up speculation bandied about Wall Street earlier this
month that the IPO might be in trouble.  Several media reports
said the Company had fallen behind schedule assembling its IPO
and was forced to postpone the offering.  The Company had been
expected to court investors at road show presentations in late
January, but underwriters have not yet scheduled them.

There was also growing concern on Wall Street that the IPO might
be difficult to sell to some institutional investors because of
ongoing legal battles the Company faces.  The credit card
association, along with larger rival Visa, has been sued over
"interchange fees" that retailers pay to receive payments for
credit-card transactions.

In August, the 1,400 banks that issue its cards and together
control the brand approved a series of proposals that would give
public investors a 49 percent equity stake and voting control of
the company.  The Company plans to reserve $650 million from its
IPO proceeds to fight the litigation.

The biggest legal challenge, are 38 federal lawsuits that claim
the Company and the banks conspired to artificially inflate
interchange fees charged by card companies to merchants.  By
now, Mastercard and Visa have paid some $3 billion in damages
from a class-action lawsuit led by retail giant Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., which is captioned, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al v. Visa
USA, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM."

The suit was between retailers nationwide and credit providers
Visa and MasterCard and relates to how the stores process
transactions made with debit cards, which deduct cash from
consumers' existing bank accounts, rather than building up their
debt with credit accounts.  It charges both MasterCard and Visa
USA with violating U.S. antitrust law by monopolistic and
anticompetitive business practices concerning debit cards,
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2005) reports.

The association had announced plans for its IPO in September,
and named Goldman Sachs & Co. as lead underwriter.  MasterCard's
proposed ticker symbol is MA.


MERRIMAN CURHAN: Faces Fla. Suit Over Odimo Registered Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merriman Curhan Ford & Co., a subsidiary of MCF Corporation is a
defendant in an alleged class action suit brought in connection
with a registered offering involving Odimo Incorporated, where
the Company served as co-manager.

The complaint, filed in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court for
Broward County in Florida on September 30, 2005, alleges
violations of federal securities laws against Odimo and certain
of its officers as well as the its underwriters, including the
Company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the actions.
Based upon the facts, as the Company knows them to date, it
believes that the likelihood that it will not prevail is remote.
Further, the issuer defendant will indemnify the Company.


NETFLIX INC: Modifies Terms of Settlement with DVD Subscribers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix Inc.'s attorneys appeared before San Francisco Superior
Court Judge Thomas Mellon Jr. on Feb. 22 to confirm the firm has
changed a class action settlement with consumers, according to
Associated Press.

Under the modified settlement, some 6 million consumers eligible
for free DVDs from the online rental service won't be charged
automatically after the one-month offer expires, the report
said.  Netflix won't be able to extend the service beyond the
free month without explicit approval from consumers.

The revision came after the Federal Trade Commission and more
than 400 current and former customers filed objections to an
earlier settlement.  Judge Mellon give his final approval on the
revised settlement at a March 22 hearing.

The Los Gatos, California-based Company was sued more than a
year ago, after a consumer learned that the company used several
different methods to limit how many DVDs a customer could
receive a month, even though the Company promoted its service as
offering unlimited rentals.  The national class action, filed on
September 2004 in San Francisco Superior Court, alleged that the
Company misled consumers by failing to deliver DVDs as promised,
within one business day.  In reality, according to the suit, it
would often take as long as four to six business days for
customers to receive requested DVDs.  And that meant customers
could watch fewer videos than they had signed up for under
Company's monthly membership plan, (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
20, 2006).

The Company denied wrongdoing, but agreed to settle the suit,
whose costs dragged down its third-quarter net income by $3.4
million.  According to the original proposed settlement, Netflix
subscribers who joined the service before January 15 and
remained members through October 19, will get a one-month
upgrade in their service level while paying their usual
subscription price (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

In the original proposed settlement, plaintiffs' lawyers would
receive $2.5 million, but the plaintiffs, in this case, the
class of current and former Netflix customers would receive
either a free service upgrade for one month or a coupon for free
service for one month.  However, if customers receiving the
freebies do not cancel the upgrades or service before the end of
the month is up, Netflix would begin charging them for the extra
services, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

Under the original settlement proposal, almost 4.1 million
former Netflix subscribers are being offered a free month of
service. Another 2.08 million current customers are being
offered a free upgrade for a month.

The proposed settlement came under fire because the attorneys
who filed the suit will receive $2.53 million, almost 64 percent
of the $3.98 million that the Company expects to spend on the
deal.  According to a recent Associated Press report, if the
attorneys demand more $2.53 million in combined fees, Netflix
can still back out of the settlement.  The attorneys have until
March 13, 2006 to file their fee requests.

Mr. Gutride and Seth Safier, another attorney in the case,
maintain the settlement is worth $85.5 million if everyone
eligible accepts Netflix's free DVD offer.  The attorney says
that they deserve to be paid $2.53 million because they have
spent more than 2,100 hours working on the case.


PENNSYLVANIA: Seniors Group Challenges CMS' "Passive Enrollment"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A seniors' group in Philadelphia initiated a class action
challenging the procedure by which Pennsylvania residents
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid were enrolled in
Medicare Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs),
ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The suit challenges the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' (CMS) "passive enrollment" of 110,000 dual eligibles
in Pennsylvania into Medicare HMOs.  CMS allowed 6 insurance
companies which run both Medicaid and Medicare HMOs in the same
area to send notices last October to duals who were in their
Medicaid HMOs and who had original (fee-for-service) Medicare,
telling them that they would be enrolled in that company's
Medicare HMO effective January 1, 2006 unless they contacted the
company by the end of October to say that they did not want to
be enrolled.

The suit charges that the notices were confusing to many
seniors, and when consumers called the insurance companies to
say that they did not want to join the HMO, many of them were
misled or subjected to an aggressive sales pitch.  The suit also
charges that CMS had no legal authority to implement passive
enrollment.

Pedro Rodriguez of the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of
Greater Philadelphia told ConsumerAffairs.com, "Passive
enrollment has caused many people to have difficulty obtaining
access to their health care providers, because they're not in
the patient's new HMO's network." He added, "There have also
been a number of problems getting medications, despite the fact
that the HMOs promised to pay for all of the medications the
members received while in the Medicaid HMO."

Mr. Rodriguez told ConsumerAffairs.com that the lawyers have
obtained documents in discovery, which show that CMS decided to
approve passive enrollment after getting lots of pressure from
the managed care companies to do so.  A hearing on a request for
a preliminary injunction is scheduled for March 7.


PERRY PRINTING: Employee Lawsuit Over Share Disposal Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments continue in the Supreme Court in Madison,
Wisconsin regarding a class action filed by former employees of
Perry Printing, a subsidiary of Journal Communications, Inc.
The news emerged in TheMonroeTimes.com report saying students
from Juda Public School have been allowed to observe court
arguments on the case on Feb. 23.

In the lawsuit, former Perry Printing workers are claiming they
were not informed they could keep their shares of Journal
Communications stock by retiring when the printing plant was
sold.  In 2001, Circuit Judge John Ullsvik of Jefferson County,
Wisconsin, ruled that former employees of Perry Printing may
proceed with their class action against Journal Communications.
The plaintiffs contend that they lost money because they were
not allowed to sell their stock over a decade when Journal
Communications sold it in 1995 (Class Action Reporter, June 26,
2001).

Journal Communications, an employee-owned company, requires
workers who leave to sell their stock immediately, unless they
retire.  Retirees are permitted to sell their stock back over a
decade.  However, the company had waived the immediate stock
sale requirement when it sold Perry Printing, allowing former
employees to sell their stock over five years.  The plaintiffs
argue that they should have been considered retirees after the
sale and permitted to sell their stock over ten years.
Initially, Judge Ullsvik dismissed most of the lawsuit, saying
the sale did not make the employees retirees (Class Action
Reporter, June 26, 2001).

However, in the 2001 recent ruling, the judge said the lawsuit
could go forward to settle whether they should have been allowed
to sell their stock over ten years (Class Action Reporter, June
26, 2001).


PPG INDUSTRIES: Discovery Ensues in Automotive Refinishing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated antitrust class
action styled, "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1426," filed against PPG Industries, Inc. and
other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry were initially filed in various
state and federal jurisdictions.  The suits charged the Company
and the other defendants with conspiring to fix prices and
allocate markets in the automotive refinish industry.  The
approximately 55 federal cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish
case have settled. This case is still at an early stage and
discovery is continuing with the remaining defendants.

Except for a case in California and a recently filed case in
Vermont, the state automotive refinish cases have either been
stayed pending resolution of the federal proceedings or have
been dismissed.  The plaintiffs in these various antitrust cases
are seeking economic and treble damages as well as injunctive
relief.

Neither the Company's investigation conducted through its
counsel of the allegations in these cases nor the discovery
conducted to date has identified a basis for the plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company participated in a price-fixing
conspiracy in the U.S. automotive refinish industry.  The
Company's management continues to believe that there was no
wrongdoing on the part of the Company and also believes it has
meritorious defenses in these automotive refinish antitrust
cases.

As discovery in the federal class action antitrust case is
ongoing, the Company will continue to evaluate any additional
information that becomes available in developing a conclusion on
the outcome of this contingent liability.  While currently not
expected, if future developments in the case are adverse to the
company, it would consider a settlement of the automotive
refinish antitrust case. The Company though has no present
intention of settling any of the automotive refinish antitrust
cases.

The suit is styled, "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint
Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1426," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Richard Barclay Surrick.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Penn. Court Approves Glass Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
issued an order approving the proposed settlement for the
consolidated glass antitrust suit filed against PPG Industries,
Inc. and various co-defendants.

The Company was named as a defendant, along with various other
firms, in a number of antitrust lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts.  These suits allege that the Company acted with
competitors to fix prices and allocate markets in the flat glass
and automotive refinish industries.

Twenty-nine glass antitrust cases were filed in federal courts,
all of which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The Court has ruled
that the case may proceed as a class action.  Similar state
court actions are inactive pending resolution of the federal
proceedings.  All of the initial defendants in the glass class
action antitrust case, other than the Company, have entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs.

On May 29, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment dismissing the claims against the Company in
the glass class action antitrust case. The plaintiffs in that
case appealed that order to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of
the Company and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The
Company petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to
appeal the decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Company's petition
for review.

On October 19, 2005, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to settle the federal glass class action antitrust
case in order to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted
case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with
complex litigation involving jury trials.

The U.S. District Court entered an order on Feb. 7, 2006,
approving the settlement.  This order is subject to a thirty-day
appeal period.  If no appeals are filed, the settlement will
become effective at the expiration of the appeal period.  PPG
has deposited $60 million in an escrow account as of Dec. 31,
2005 pending the settlement becoming effective.  As a result of
the settlement, the Company will also pay $900,000 pursuant to a
pre-existing contractual obligation to a plaintiff that is not
participating in the federal glass class action antitrust case.

Finally, independent state court cases remain pending in
California and Tennessee involving claims that are not included
in the settlement of the federal glass class action antitrust
cases.  Notwithstanding that the Company agreed to settle the
federal glass class action antitrust case, the Company's
management remains steadfast in its belief that there was no
wrongdoing on the part of the Company and also believes that the
Company has meritorious defenses to the independent state court
cases.

The suit is styled, "In re: Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket Misc. No. 97-550," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Donetta W. Ambrose.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Steven A. Asher and Leonard Barrack of Barrack, Rodos &
         Bacine, 2001 Market Street, 3300 Two Commerce Square,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 963-0600

     (2) W. Joseph Bruckner and Richard Lockridge of Lockridge,
         Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, 100 Washington Avenue South,
         Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-
         6900

     (3) Richard L. Creighton, Jr., Keating, Muething & Klekamp,
         One East Fourth Street, 1800 Provident Tower,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: (513) 579-6513, Fax: (513)
         579-6400

     (4) Francis C. Rapp, Jr., Feldstein, Grinberg, Stein &
         McKee, 428 Boulevard of the Allies, Pittsburgh, PA
         15219, Phone: (412) 263 - 6099, Fax: (412) 263-6101, E-
         mail: fcr@fgsmlaw.com

Representing the Defendant/s is James R. Miller of Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcote, Two PPG Place, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA
15222-5402, Phone: (412) 281-7272, E-mail: jmiller@dmclaw.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: $400M Settlement Receives Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an
order that preliminary approves, sets a final approval hearing
and certifies the class in a proposed $400 million settlement of
the consolidated securities class action filed against Qwest
Communications International, Inc.

Since July 27, 2001, 13 putative class action complaints have
been filed against the Company.  One of those cases has been
dismissed. By court order, the remaining actions have been
consolidated into a consolidated securities action.

On August 21, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, or the Fourth Consolidated Complaint, which
defendants moved to dismiss.  On January 13, 2004, the court
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denied
them in part.  In that order, the court allowed plaintiffs to
file a proposed amended complaint seeking to remedy the pleading
defects addressed in the court's dismissal order.

On February 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Fifth Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Fifth Consolidated
Complaint.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of
the Company between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002, and names as
defendants the Company, former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Joseph P. Nacchio, former Chief Financial Officers,
Robin R. Szeliga and Robert S. Woodruff, other of Qwest's former
officers and current directors and Arthur Andersen, LLP.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things,
that during the putative class period, the Company and certain
of the individual defendants made materially false statements
regarding the results of Qwest's operations in violation of
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the
Exchange Act, certain of the individual defendants are liable as
control persons under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
certain of the individual defendants sold some of their shares
of Qwest's common stock in violation of section 20A of the
Exchange Act.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint further alleges that Qwest and
certain other defendants violated section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, by preparing and
disseminating false registration statements and prospectuses for
the registration of Qwest common stock to be issued to U.S. WEST
shareholders in connection with the merger of the two companies,
and for the exchange of $3 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to
a registration statement dated January 17, 2001, $3.25 billion
of Qwest's notes pursuant to a registration statement dated July
12, 2001, and $3.75 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to a
registration statement dated October 30, 2001.

Additionally, the Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges that
certain of the individual defendants are liable as control
persons under section 15 of the Securities Act by reason of
their stock ownership, management positions and/or membership or
representation on the Company's Board of Directors, or the
Board.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  However, counsel for
plaintiffs has indicated that the putative class will seek
damages in the tens of billions of dollars.  On March 8, 2004,
Qwest and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Fifth
Consolidated Complaint.

Further, a non-class action brought by Stichting Pensioenfonds
ABP (SPA) was also consolidated with the consolidated securities
action.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in
Colorado.  This action was filed on February 9, 2004.  SPA
alleges, among other things, that defendants created a false
perception of Qwest's revenue and growth prospects and that its
losses from investments in Company securities are in excess of
$100 million. SPA seeks, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages, rescission or rescissionary damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 31, 2005, the Company and the putative class
representatives in "In re Qwest Communications International
Inc. Securities Litigation" entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, or MOU, to settle that case.  The MOU requires
the parties to execute an agreement substantially in the form of
the settlement agreement attached to the MOU, provided that
plaintiffs' counsel prepare the following documents that are
acceptable to the Company:

     (1) a supplemental agreement regarding requests by putative
         class members to be excluded from the settlement;

     (2) a plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds; and

     (3) exhibits to the settlement agreement and related
         documents.

The company and the plaintiffs agreed to perform all necessary
actions to finalize and file the settlement agreement and
related documents as soon as reasonably possible.

On January 5, 2006, the federal district court in Colorado
issued an order:

     (i) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement,

    (ii) setting a hearing for May 19, 2006 to consider final
         approval of the proposed settlement, and

   (iii) certifying a class, for settlement purposes only, on
         behalf of purchasers of our publicly traded securities
         between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Company would pay a
total of $400 million in cash, $100 million of which was paid 30
days after preliminary approval of the proposed settlement by
the federal district court in Colorado, $100 million of which
would be paid 30 days after final approval of the settlement by
the court, and $200 million of which would be paid on January
15, 2007, plus interest at 3.75% per annum on the $200 million
between the date of final approval by the court and the date of
payment.

If approved, the proposed settlement agreement will settle the
individual claims of the class representatives and the claims of
the class they represent against the Company and all defendants
in the consolidated securities action, except Joseph Nacchio,
the Company's former chief executive officer, and Robert
Woodruff, the Company's former chief financial officer.  (The
non-class action brought by SPA that is consolidated for certain
purposes with the consolidated securities action is not part of
the settlement.)  As part of the proposed settlement, the
Company would receive $10 million from Arthur Andersen LLP,
which would also be released by the class representatives and
the class they represent, which will offset $10 million of the
$400 million that would be payable by the Company.

The proposed settlement agreement is subject to a number of
conditions and future contingencies.  Among others, it

     (a) requires final court approval;

     (b) provides plaintiffs with the right to terminate the
         settlement if the $250 million we previously paid to
         the SEC in settlement of its investigation against us
         is not distributed to the class members;

     (c) provides us with the right to terminate the settlement
         if class members representing more than a specified
         amount of alleged securities losses elect to opt out of
         the settlement;

     (d) provides us with the right to terminate the settlement
         if we do not receive adequate protections for claims
         relating to substantive liabilities of non-settling
         defendants; and

     (e) is subject to review on appeal even if the district
         court were finally to approve it.

Any lawsuits that may be brought by parties opting out of the
settlement will be vigorously defended regardless of whether the
settlement described herein is consummated.  No parties admit
any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement.

The suit is styled, "In re Qwest Communications International,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-cv-1451-REB-CBS,
(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 01-cv-1472-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
1527-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1616-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1799-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
1930-REB-CBS, 01-cv-2083-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0333-REB-CBS, 02-cv-
0374-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0507-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0658-REB-CBS, 02-cv-755-
REB-CBS, 02-cv-798-REB-CBS and 04-cv-0238-REB-CBS)," filed in
the U.S. District for the District of Colorado under Judge
Robert E. Blackburn with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.

Representing the Plaintiff/s are, X. Jay Alvarez, Spencer A.
Burkholz, Michael J. Dowd, Thomas E. Egler, Ray A. Mandlekar and
Scott Saham of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP-SD CA, 655 West Broadway #1900, San Diego, CA 92101, U.S.A,
Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
JayA@lerachlaw.com, SpenceB@lerachlaw.com, MikeD@lerachlaw.com,
TomE@lerachlaw.com, raym@lerachlaw.com and scotts@lerachlaw.com;
and Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, Phone: U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-
3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are, John M. Richilano of Richilano
& Gilligan, P.C., 633 17th Street #1700, Denver, CO 80202,
U.S.A, Phone: 303-893-8000, Fax: 303-893-8055, E-mail:
jmr@rglawoffice.net; and Timothy Granger Atkeson of Arnold &
Porter LLP - Colorado, 370 Seventeenth Street #4500, Denver, CO
80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-863-1000, Fax: 303-832-0428, E-mail:
Tim_Atkeson@aporter.com.


RADIATION THEREPY: Shareholder Launches Derivative Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., faces a shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, Lee County, Florida.

On April 13, 2005, the Company was served with the suit, Case
No. 05-CA-001103, which was filed by Steven Scheye, derivatively
on behalf of nominal defendant, Radiation Therapy Services,
Inc., against certain officers of the Company, all of the
members of its Board of Directors and the Company as nominal
defendant.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and states that
this action is brought for the benefit of Radiation Therapy
Services, Inc. (the Company) against the members of its Board of
Directors.  The complaint contains allegations substantially the
same as those raised in the purported class action filed by the
Kissel Family Trust in September 2004 in the U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Florida that was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and
good faith as a result of entering into related party
transactions and agreements and seeks to recover unspecified
damages in favor of the Company, appropriate equitable relief
and an award to plaintiff of the costs and disbursements of the
action including reasonable attorney's fees.

Based on its review of the complaint, the Company believes that
the derivative lawsuit is without merit and has moved for
dismissal of the complaint.  The court though has not yet ruled
on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Company
is obligated to provide indemnification to its officers and
directors in this matter to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Since by its inherent nature a derivative suit seeks to recover
alleged damages on behalf of the company involved, the Company
does not expect the ultimate resolution of this derivative suit
to have a material adverse effect on its results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.


RANDOM HOUSE: Facing Lawsuit in Mich. Over James Frey's Memoirs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Michigan law firms added another suit to the string of legal
actions against the author and publisher of "A Million Little
Pieces," according to Detroit News.

Rochester attorney E. Powell Miller of Miller Shea and Bingham
Farms lawyer Mark S. Baumkel of Provizer & Phillips filed new
suits against Random House in the U.S. District Court in
Detroit, alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the report, the suit alleged that Random House
"published, marketed, advertised, distributed, manufactured,
and/or sold [a fiction novel] as a true autobiographical work of
non-fiction covering the actual real life factual experiences of
the author."

Earlier, Montreal resident Joshua Adam Levy filed a complaint
seeking class-status in a Quebec Superior Court on behalf of
Quebec readers who he claims were defrauded by what they see as
a literary fraud, according to CTV.ca News (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13).

Mr. Levy is suing the book's author, James Frey, publisher
Random House Inc., and its Canadian arm, Random House of Canada
Ltd. for marketing the book as non-fiction.  He is demanding $2
million as reimbursement for the class.  Mr. Levy's lawyer is
Jeff Orenstein.

Jennifer Cohn, a Manhattan social worker, on Jan. 30 filed a
suit against the author and the publisher claiming she was
'injured' by the book and asking $10 million in compensation.
Karen Futernick filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan on
Jan. 27, seeking the return of $14.95 she spent for the book
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

Earlier, a suit was initiated in a Washington federal court
seeking compensation for lost time reading Mr. Frey's story of
recovery from alcohol and drug addiction.  Attorney Mike Myers
filed the suit, which is seeking class action status, on behalf
of two Seattle residents representing more than 2 million people
who bought the novel (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).

Chicago law firm Dale and lawyer Thomas Pakenas previously sued
Doubleday Books in a Cook County, Illinois court, alleging
consumer fraud (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006).  The
company acted on behalf of Pilar More, who said she felt cheated
after knowing key details of the memoir were fabricated.  The
suit did not specify how much it is seeking for damages.

Mr. Frey previously admitted on "Larry King Live" at CNN that he
added some details to his story, but insisted that is part of
memoir-writing.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Pension Suit Now Open to Law Enforcers, Firemen
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,600 South Carolina police officers and firefighters may
now join thousands of state employees in a class action against
the state's retirement system.

Circuit Judge John Breeden recently allowed the officers and
firefighters who were not included in the initial June lawsuit
to be included in the action filed by some 22,000 state
employees, according to Associated Press.

Originally, the state's Teacher and Employee Retention
Incentive, or TERI program allows employees who retire after 28
years to return to work after retirement and earn both pension
benefits and a salary without contributing to the retirement
system.  However, under the new law, workers will be required to
chip in 6.25 percent of their paycheck (Class Action Reporter
story June 28, 2005).  The incentive program rules were changed
to help pump more money into the retirement system.  The
revision could bring about $50 million a year the retirement
system, the report said.

State employees filed a suit on June 13, 2005 claiming changes
approved this year to South Carolina's retirement system
shortchange them of pay.  They claim that the state broke its
contract with TERI workers and asked a judge to temporarily stop
the state from deducting the money from their paychecks.
Requiring them to pay into the system but denying the credit for
extra service, which would increase their pension, is like a
sudden pay cut, the suit contends (Class Action Reporter, June
28, 2005).

South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled in August that a lawsuit by
four retirees about pension contributions applies to all state
workers in the program, The Myrtle Beach Sun News reports (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 30, 2005).   Along with granting the suit
class action status, the justices ordered the state to keep
money contributed to the Teacher and Employee Retention
Incentive, or TERI, program in an interest-bearing escrow
account at 4% interest until the lawsuit is settled.

Gene Connell, a Surfside Beach attorney, represents officers and
firefighters.


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Await Ruling in Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an amended class action against Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District are
awaiting a court's ruling for a summary judgment motion in a
related case that names as defendants Service Corporation
International (SCI) and Alderwoods Group, Inc.

The case was styled "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the
General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al., No.
BC328961."  This purported class action was filed on February
17, 2005, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all
persons, entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods
and/or services in the U.S. from defendants at any time on or
after February 17, 2001.

The suit named the Company and several of its Southern
California affiliates as defendants and also sought to assert
claims against a class of all entities located anywhere in the
U.S. whose ultimate parent corporation has been the Company at
any time on or after February 17, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose that
the prices charged by defendants for certain goods and services
exceeded what defendants paid to third parties for those same
goods and services on the plaintiffs' behalf.  Plaintiffs
further alleged that this failure violated provisions of the
Federal Trade Commission's "Funeral Rule" that require a funeral
home to disclose, if true, that it marks up the price of certain
items purchased from third parties on behalf of customers on a
"cash advance" or "accommodation" basis.  The plaintiffs alleged
that by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants:

     (1) breached contracts with the plaintiffs,

     (2) were unjustly enriched,

     (3) engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
         practices in violation of a provision of California's
         Business and Professions Code, and

     (4) engaged in a civil conspiracy among the defendants to
         breach plaintiffs' contracts and commit acts of unfair
         competition.

The plaintiffs sought restitution damages, disgorgement,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to
similar actions against SCI and Alderwoods Group, Inc., and
designated the SCI case as the lead case.  In response, on
August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the three cases filed
amended complaints.  SCI has filed a demurrer in its case, and
the Company joined in that demurrer on October 6, 2005.  The
case against the Company effectively has been held in abeyance
while the court tests Plaintiff's legal theories in the lead
case.  Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply
equally in the case against the Company, and the court has
allowed the Company to participate in hearings and briefings in
the lead case.

As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has
amended her complaint twice.  On January 31, 2006, however, the
court overruled SCI's demurrer to the third amended complaint
and established a schedule leading to hearing on a motion for
summary judgment in early July to test the viability of the
named plaintiff's claim against SCI.


T. ROWE PRICE: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois' refusal to alter or amend its ruling
dismissing the class action filed against T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc.  The suit was styled, "T.K.
Parthasarathy, et al., including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., et al."

The suit, which also names as defendants T. Rowe Price
International and the T. Rowe Price International Funds with
respect to the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund, was
initially filed in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial
Circuit in Madison County, Illinois.  The basic allegations in
the case were that the T. Rowe Price defendants did not make
appropriate value adjustments to the foreign securities of the
T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund prior to calculating the
Fund's daily share prices, thereby allegedly enabling market
timing traders to trade the Fund's shares in such a way as to
disadvantage long-term investors.  The plaintiffs sought
monetary damages.

The case was moved on April 22, 2005 to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, which dismissed the case
on May 27, 2005.  The plaintiff's motion to alter and/or amend
the order of dismissal was denied on July 7, 2005.  The
Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. The appeal is stayed pending a determination by the
U.S. Supreme Court to grant or deny a writ of certiorari filed
in another case involving unrelated third parties.  That
petition was recently granted, but the Court of Appeals has not
indicated whether it will now decide this case or await further
developments in the related case.

The suit is styled, "Parthasarathy, et al. v. T Rowe Price
International Funds Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00302-DRH,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, under Judge David R. Herndon.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Klint L. Bruno, Ellison, Nielsen et al., Generally
         Admitted, 100 West Monroe Street, 18th Floor, Chicago,
         IL 60603, Phone: 312-855-8391

     (2) Robert L. King, Swedlow & King - Chicago, 70 West
         Madison Street, Suite 660, Three First National Plaza,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 314-621-4002, Fax: 314-621-
         2586, E-mail: robertlking@charter.net

     (3) Stephen M. Tillery, Korein Tillery - Swansea, 10
         Executive Woods Court, Swansea, IL 62226-2030, Phone:
         618-277-1180, E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com

     (4) George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery - Chicago, 70 West
         Madison Street, Suite 660, 3 First National Plaza,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-641-9750, Fax: 312-641-
         9751, E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

Representing the Defendant/s are, Glenn E. Davis, Frank N.
Gundlach and Lisa M. Wood of Armstrong Teasdale - St. Louis, One
Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 2600, St. Louis,
MO 63102-2740, by Phone: 314-621-5070 or by E-mail:
gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com, fgundlach@armstrongteasdale.com,
lwood@armstrongteasdale.com; and Martin I. Kaminsky, Edward T.
Mcdermott, Daniel A. Pollack and Anthony Zaccaria of Pollack &
Kaminsky, 114 West 47th Street, Suite 1900, New York, NY 10036-
8295, Phone: 212-575-4700, E-mail:
mikaminsky@pollacklawfirm.com, etmcdermott@pollacklawfirm.com,
dapollack@pollacklawfirm.com, azaccaria@pollacklawfirm.com.


TEREX CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit in Conn. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation faces a purported class action and derivative
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut.

The complaint was filed on September 14, 2005, and is entitled
Michael Morter, derivately on behalf of nominal defendant Terex
Corporation, v. G. Chris Andersen, Ronald M. DeFeo, Don
DeFosset, William H. Fike, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
J.C. Watts, Jr., Helge H. Wehmeier and Phillip C. Widman,
defendants, and Terex Corporation, nominal defendant.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the
Company's by-laws.  The action is at the very early stages and
the Company has no information other than as set forth in the
complaint.  Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
requesting that the court order the Company to hold an annual
meeting of shareholders which has not been held to date due to
the inability of the Company to satisfy SEC and NYSE rules.

In connection therewith, the court has directed the Company to
hold an annual meeting of its shareholders on or before June 1,
2006.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter.



                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain's Removal Costs Soar in 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intermountain Refining Co. Inc., during the nine-month period
ended November 30, 2005, incurred US$277,207 of consultation and
abatement costs related to the dismantling and removal of unused
equipment from its Fredonia, Arizona site, according to a SEC
report.

The Company had initially estimated the cost to be between
US$65,000 and US$80,000.

In April 2005, Intermountain began to dismantle the portions of
its refining equipment at Fredonia that are no longer used for
operations. Asbestos insulating material was found in some
portions of the equipment.

Intermountain has hired a consultant to evaluate the asbestos'
extent on the site and to prepare a plan for the abatement and
removal of the material.

During the nine-month period ended November 30, 2005,
Intermountain recognized US$27,505 from the salvage of metals
and used equipment removed from the facility.

Upon completion of the evaluation and plan, Intermountain will
seek bids from licensed contractors for abatement and removal
costs. Implementation of the plan will require prior approval of
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.


COMPANY PROFILE

Intermountain Refining Co., Inc.
1921 Bloomfield Boulevard
Farmington, New Mexico 87401
Telephone: (505) 326-2668

Description:
The Company produces natural gas, manufactures and stores
asphalt-paving products. It also provides management and
consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon, Subsidiary Reserves $50M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and a subsidiary, Exelon Generation Co. LLC,
reserved about US$50 million for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims, as of December 31, 2005, according to the Company's 10-K
SEC report.

About US$9 million of the amount relates to Generation's 120
open claims, as of December 31, 2005. The remaining US$41
million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims expected to arise through 2030.

In the 2005-2nd quarter, Generation recorded an undiscounted
US$43 million pre-tax charge for its portion of all estimated
future asbestos-related personal injury claims to be presented
through 2030. (Class Action Reporter, November 4, 2005)

Generation defends against personal injury suits related to
asbestos exposure in certain facilities that are currently owned
by it or were previously owned by affiliates Commonwealth Edison
Co. and PECO Energy Co.

The vast majority of these claims allege lung-related diseases
based on alleged exposure to asbestos by former third-party
contractors involved in the original construction or maintenance
of the facilities from 1950 and 1975.

Generation does not have significant asbestos-related bodily
injury claims occurring after 1980.

As part of the 2001 restructuring in which Generation purchased
ComEd's and PECO's energy-producing facilities, the Company
assumed all of ComEd's and PECO's current and future benefits
and liabilities associated with these facilities.

Chicago, IL-based Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to
customers in northern Illinois (including Chicago) and in
southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia) through
subsidiaries ComEd and PECO.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Confronts 1,082 Suits in 4Q2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
AB Electrolux, as of December 31, 2005, faces a total of 1,082
asbestos-related pending cases with about 8,400 plaintiffs,
according to a Securities and Exchange report.

As of December 31, 2004, the Group had a total of 842 cases
pending, representing about 16,200 plaintiffs.

Almost all of the cases refer to externally supplied components
used in industrial products manufactured by discontinued
operations before the early 1970s. Many involve multiple
plaintiffs who have made identical allegations against many
other defendants not part of the Electrolux Group.

During 2005, 802 new cases with about 850 plaintiffs were filed
and 562 pending cases with about 8,600 plaintiffs were resolved.
About 7,100 of the plaintiffs relate to pending cases in
Mississippi.

Additional lawsuits may be filed against Electrolux in the
future. The Group believes its predecessor companies may have
had insurance coverage applicable to some of the cases during
some of the relevant years.

Established in 1910, Stockholm, Sweden-based AB Electrolux
supplies household appliances globally and also produces similar
equipment for professional use. Aktiebolaget Electrolux is the
Group's complete registered name.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Faces 500 Workers Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corp., at December 31, 2005, had about
500 asbestos-related worker's compensation claims open with loss
reserves of about US$3.6 million compared to its total workers'
compensation net loss reserves of US$1.3 billion, according to a
SEC report.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company had about 500 claims open
with loss reserves of about US$3.6 million compared to its total
workers' compensation loss reserves of US$1,074 million. (Class
Action Reporter, February 25, 2005)

The Woodland Hills, CA-based Company has exposure to asbestos
losses in its workers' compensation segment, which has not been
material to results of operations or financial condition in any
year or in the aggregate.

Historically, the Company has paid and closed about 3,900 such
claims for a total of US$10.2 million, or about US$2,600 per
claim.

Zenith also has potential exposure to environmental and asbestos
losses and loss adjustment expenses beginning in 1985 through
its reinsurance segment, but the business reinsured by Zenith in
this segment contains exclusion clauses for such losses.

Woodland Hills, CA-based Zenith National Insurance Corp. is the
holding company for Zenith Insurance, ZNAT Insurance, and Zenith
Star Insurance, which underwrite workers' compensation policies
in more than 40 states, as well as reinsurance treaties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Notes US$11.7M Fees in `05
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. reports that asbestos-related expenses
reached US$11.7 million in 2005, compared to US$10.4 million in
2004, according to a Company release.

These fees reflected higher legal fees and defense costs in
2005, although the increases were largely offset by recoveries
from insolvent insurers.

Asbestos expense decreased by US$5.2 million compared to the
2004-4th quarter due to increased recoveries from insolvent
insurers, which more than offset higher legal fees and defense
costs associated with trial activity.

The Company reported year over year improvements in its
financial performance for both the 2005-4th quarter and full
year as sales, segment profits and segment profit margins grew,
and as cash flows continued to be strong, reflecting the
Company's improved operating performance and lower net outflows
for asbestos claims and expenses.

In the 2005-4th quarter, the Company had net income of US$0.82 a
share, compared to US$0.18 in the 2004-4th quarter. A sizable
portion of the improvement came from the effect of significant
items, which increased net income in the 2005-4th quarter by
US$4.0 million, or US$0.19 a share and reduced net income in the
2004-4th quarter by US$3.1 million, or US$0.15 a share.

The Company's 2005 net income benefited from increased
recoveries from insolvent asbestos insurers, improved gross
margins and reduced selling, general and administrative expense.

"Our results in 2005 reflect the effectiveness of our management
strategies and the efforts of our employees as they embrace our
lean manufacturing initiative and other efforts to improve
profitability and the value of our company," said President and
CEO Ernie Schaub.

Charlotte, NC-based EnPro Industries Inc. has two segments: the
Sealing Products segment and the Engineered Products segment.
The Company also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel and
natural gas engines under the Fairbanks Morse brand name. EnPro
serves 50,000 customers worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock's Claims Drop 12% to 15,300 in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. reports that, during 2005, 15,300 new
asbestos claims were filed against subsidiary Garlock Sealing
Technologies, a 12% decrease from 2004 and a decrease of 66%
from the peak of new filings in 2003, according to a Company
release.

At the end of 2005, US$570 million of solvent insurance coverage
remained for asbestos claims. Of that amount, about US$222
million is the net amount due for claims paid by the Company
that have been billed but not yet collected from insurers.

About US$271 million is allocated to pending and future claims
the Company's claims valuation expert estimates will be paid
over the next 10 years and about US$77 million remains
uncommitted.

Charlotte, NC-based EnPro Industries Inc. has two segments: the
Sealing Products segment and the Engineered Products segment.
The Company also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel and
natural gas engines under the Fairbanks Morse brand name. EnPro
serves 50,000 customers worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Reserves $30,372 for 4Q05
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc., for the 2005-4th quarter, reserves a
net of US$30,372 for asbestos claims as compared to US$31,394 in
the year ended December 31, 2004, according to a SEC report.

During the 2005-4th quarter, the Company settled the two large
remaining claims where excess policy limits were exposed to
class action suits involved in the manufacturing or distribution
of asbestos products.

The Company has also withdrawn its demand for arbitration
against Equitas after reaching a settlement pursuant to which
Equitas, the Company's excess of loss reinsurer, agreed to
reimburse the Company for past and future loss payments in
connection with a 2004 settlement of a large asbestos claim.

Equitas is a lead reinsurer participating in excess of loss
reinsurance agreements for all three settled claims. No
significant net gain or loss was recorded as a result of such
settlements.

The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of insurance
and reinsurance to clients. The Group's main insurance
subsidiaries, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write
ocean and marine insurance and property insurance for onshore
energy concerns. The Group is based in New York, NY.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Inc Confronts 116,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc. reports that, as of December 31, 2005, it
co-defends against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving
about 116,000 claims, according to the Company's 10-K report.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company co-defended against about
116,000 claims, indicating no change since its last filing on
June 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, November 4, 2005)

About 9,000 of the 116,000 claims pending against PPG and its
subsidiaries are premises claims. Many of PPG's premises claims
have been resolved without payment from PPG. To date, PPG has
paid about US$7 million to settle about 1,100 premises claims,
virtually all of which has been covered by PPG's insurers.

PPG has been a defendant in these suits for over 30 years.

Most of PPG's potential exposure relates to plaintiffs'
allegations that PPG should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products manufactured and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

PPG and Corning Inc. are each 50% shareholders of PC. PPG has
denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any
injuries caused by PC products.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, in the 2000-
1st quarter, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of US$35 million
for the write-off of all of its investment in PC.

On May 14, 2002, PPG had agreed with several other parties,
including certain of its insurance carriers, the official
committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy,
and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants
appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement
arrangement relating to asbestos claims against PPG and PC.

On March 28, 2003, Corning Inc. had separately reached its own
arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for
the settlement of certain asbestos claims that might arise from
PC products or operations.

Based on remarks made by the Bankruptcy Court judge at a Dec.
13, 2005 hearing, the Company expects the judge to render her
decision concerning the confirmation of the PC plan of
reorganization during the 2006-1st quarter.

The channeling injunction would not extend to claims against PPG
alleging injury caused by asbestos on premises owned, leased or
occupied by PPG, or claims alleging property damage resulting
from asbestos.

Pittsburgh, PA-based PPG Industries Inc. makes coatings (paints
and stains) and sealants. The Company also manufactures glass
and chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities
in more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than
350 paint retail centers in the US.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Northern Bears 2,121 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation subsidiary, BNSF
Railway Co., faces 2,121 unresolved asbestos-related claims as
of December 31, 2005, according to a Securities and Exchange
Commission report.

Burlington Northern had about 2,120 asbestos-related claims as
of June 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, July 29, 2005)

The Company is party to personal injury claims by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The main
exposure for BNSF Railway employees was from work done in and
around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out
between 1950 and 1967.

Of the obligations at December 31, 2005, US$266 million is
related to unasserted asbestos-related claims and US$60 million
is related to asserted claims. At December 31, 2005 and 2004,
US$21 and US$18 million are included in current liabilities,
respectively.

The Company deems reasonably possible that future costs to
settle asbestos claims may range from about US$225 million to
US$425 million. However, BNSF Railway believes that the US$326
million recorded at December 31, 2005, is the best estimate of
the Company's future obligation for the settlement of asbestos
claims.

Fort Worth, TX-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., through
primary subsidiary BNSF Railway Co., operates trains through 28
states in the West, Midwest, and Sunbelt regions of the US and
in two Canadian provinces. The Company operates over a system of
about 32,000 route miles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Reserves US$1.5B for Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow
Chemical Company, states that its asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$1.5 billion at December 31,
2005 and US$1.6 billion at December 31, 2004, according to a SEC
report.

Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed in state courts during the past
three decades. The claims relate to products that Union Carbide
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union
Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a
former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure,
or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to
Union Carbide's products.

Union Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was US$535 million at December 31, 2005
and US$712 million at December 31, 2004. Union Carbide had
receivables for insurance recoveries of US$400 million at
December 31, 2005, for defense and resolution costs.

At December 31, 2005, about 39% of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 61% related to future
claims. At December 31, 2004, about 37% of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and about 63% related to
future claims.

At December 31, 2005, US$398 million, US$543 million at December
31, 2004, of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related
to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement
or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Union Carbide Corporation makes
chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted
into polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide, Carriers Agree in NY Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical Company subsidiary, Union Carbide Corporation,
reached settlements with several insurance carriers in a
comprehensive insurance coverage litigation, currently pending
in New York.

In the suit filed on September 2003 in a West Virginia Circuit
Court, Union Carbide sought to confirm its rights to insurance
for various asbestos claims and also to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds.

Although Union Carbide already has settlements in place
concerning coverage for asbestos claims with many of its
insurers, this suit was filed against insurers that are not
Wellington Agreement signatories or do not otherwise have
agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

The Wellington Agreement, established in 1985, and other
agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly
resolution and collection of Union Carbide's insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

In early 2004, several of the defendant insurers in the West
Virginia action filed a competing action in the New York Supreme
Court. On August 2004, the Court dismissed the West Virginia
action, citing that West Virginia was an inconvenient location
for the parties.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Union Carbide Corporation makes
chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are converted
into polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Bears With 125,500 Claims in 4Q05
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company states that, at December 31,
2005, it faced about 125,500 asbestos-related personal injury
claims, according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits involving individuals'
claims allegedly relating to asbestos exposure. The cases claim
various personal injuries purported to have resulted from
alleged exposure to asbestos in certain rubber encapsulated
products or aircraft braking systems manufactured by the Company
in the past or to asbestos in certain of its facilities.

These cases are pending in various state courts, including
courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West
Virginia, and in certain federal courts. Some of the claimants
are independent contractors or their employees who allege
exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities.

In 2005, the Company and its insurers, on defense and claim
resolution, expended about US$22 million.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 34,700 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering
into a settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments to date, including legal
costs, totaled about US$233 million through December 31, 2005
and US$226 million through December 31, 2004.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims totaling US$104 million and US$119 million at
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The portion of the
liability associated with unasserted claims and related defense
costs were US$31 million at December 31, 2005 and US$38 million
at December 31, 2004.

At December 31, 2005, the Company's liability with respect to
asserted claims and related defense costs was US$73 million,
compared to US$81 million at December 31, 2004.

At December 31, 2005, the Company believed it had about US$179
million in aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially
applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims,
in addition to limits of available primary insurance policies.

Headquartered in Akron, OH, the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
manufactures tires. Other products include automotive hoses,
belts, and industrial chemicals. The Company operates about 90
plants worldwide, and runs nearly 1,700 retail tire and auto
centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcoa Lauds Junking of "Pattern Complaints"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. reports that, to date, its subsidiary has been
dismissed from almost every asbestos-related personal injury
case that was placed in line for trial, according to the
Company's annual report to the SEC.

The subsidiary had been named, along with a large common group
of industrial firms, in a pattern complaint where the Company's
involvement is not evident.

The Company and its subsidiaries, along with various asbestos
manufacturers and distributors, as premises owners are
defendants in several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of
persons alleging injury resulting from occupational exposure to
asbestos at various Company facilities.

Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed.

Alcoa, its subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had
numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage
for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide
coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations.

Alcoa believes that it is adequately covered for its known
asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and
settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to
the financial condition of the Company.

Pittsburgh, PA-based Alcoa Inc. produces alumina (aluminum's
main ingredient) and aluminum. The company's non-aluminum
products include consumer products, fiber-optic cables, food
service and flexible packaging products, and plastic closures.
Major markets include the aerospace, automotive, construction,
and packaging industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moen Bears Down 35 Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moen Inc., a Fortune Brands Inc. subsidiary, contends with about
35 cases claiming personal injury from asbestos and has been
dismissed as a defendant in about 230 other cases, according to
a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Agreed dismissal orders are pending with the courts in an
additional 10 cases. The Company does not anticipate that the
court will object to the entry of these pending orders as both
parties have agreed to the terms of the orders. All of these
suits name multiple defendants.

Lincolnshire, IL-based Fortune Brands Inc is a leading US
producer and distributor of distilled spirits and golf
equipment. The firm, which spun off office products company ACCO
World Corp, has added former Allied Domecq brands Sauza,
Courvoisier, Canadian Club, and Clos du Bois to its stable of
imbibables.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Confronts 67,000 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. divulges that, as of December 31, 2005, it had
about 67,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Of these outstanding claims, about 58,000 are pending in just
three jurisdictions, where significant tort reform activities
are underway.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company reported about 83,000
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, in which
about 76,000 are pending in three jurisdictions where
significant tort reform activities are underway. (Class Action
Reporter, November 4, 2005)

The Company continues to be named as one of many defendants in
asbestos-related personal injury actions. Management believes
that the Company's involvement is limited because these claims
generally relate to few types of automotive friction products,
manufactured years ago that contained encapsulated asbestos. The
nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use
led the Company to believe that such products are unlikely to
cause harm.

In 2005, of the average 38,000 claims resolved, only 295 (0.8%)
resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf
of the Company. In 2004 of the 4,062 claims resolved, only 255
(6.3%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on
behalf of the Company.

The Company paid US$2.9 million in 2005 and US$1.0 million in
2004 as a result of the funding agreement for claims that have
been resolved. At December 31, 2005 an amount of US$3.9 million
was owed by insurance carriers in respect of claims settled and
funded by the Company in advance of the insurers' reimbursement.

At December 31, 2005, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$41.0 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$41.0 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

At December 31, 2004, the comparable value of the insurance
receivable and accrued liability was US$40.8 million.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, BorgWarner Inc.
(formerly BorgWarner Automotive) makes power train products for
the world's major automakers. Its largest customers include
Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, and Volkswagen.
BorgWarner runs 43 manufacturing facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. to Set Standards to Aid Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese Government faces a hard task ahead in ensuring that
all victims of asbestos-related diseases get compensation, while
at the same time ensuring that those not entitled to benefits
are excluded, the Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

According to a medical criteria set by the Environment and
Health, Labor and Welfare Ministries on February 2, mesothelioma
sufferers will be prioritized to receive aid, as more than 90%
of such patients are thought to have contracted the disease
through asbestos exposure.

The Government deems it harder to decide for lung cancer
patients. Out of the 60,000 people who die of lung cancer
yearly, only 1% to 3% of deaths are believed caused by asbestos.
Another factor in lung cancer is smoking.

The Government needs to set standards to identify those eligible
for financial aid following the enactment of a law to benefit
victims of asbestos-linked diseases, especially victims and
their families living near asbestos-using factories and are
currently not covered by workers compensation.

The Government aims to set the standards by the end of March,
and start accepting compensation applications.

The Government also will give JPY3 million in condolence money
to the families of those who died of asbestos-linked diseases.
In addition, victims will have their medical bills covered and
be entitled to benefits of JPY100,000 per month.

Organizations of asbestos victims had claimed that the new
relief plan is less favorable to victims compared to industrial
accident compensation, which includes benefits for missed work
or pensions for bereaved family members. However, it is a big
leap in compensating people who lived near factories using
asbestos or families of these factory workers.

Asbestos-related diseases became a big issue in June 2005 after
it was disclosed that people who lived near a Kubota
Corporation-owned factory in Amagasaki had mesothelioma. After
the revelation, it was learned that people living near asbestos-
related factories in Saga and Nara prefectures also had the
disease.

However, the disease seems limited to people living near such
factories, as there have not been many reports of people living
in other environments contracting asbestos-linked disease.

It takes 30 to 40 years after asbestos exposure until the
symptoms of mesothelioma become noticeable. This means that
those who inhaled asbestos in the early 1970s will now present
symptoms of asbestos-related diseases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Woman Asserts "Laundry" Exposure in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita O'Connell, an 84-year-old woman from Burbank, Illinois,
seeks to claim damages from a Madison County jury for asbestos
exposure while washing her husband's work clothes between 1966
and 1970, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. O'Connell claims Bondex International and Georgia-Pacific
were negligent for injuries she received from asbestos fibers
that became airborne while she shook out husband George O'
Connell's work clothes before washing them. He owned Bel-Aire
plastering in Burbank.

Chris Panatier, Mrs. O'Connell's lawyer, told the jury that Mr.
O'Connell and his sons used joint compound that was made by
Bondex and Georgia-Pacific and that Michael O'Connell will
testify that his father bought the products from George J. Roll
and Sons in Blue Island, Illinois.

Jeff Hebrank, attorney for Bondex and Georgia-Pacific, told the
jury they would hear experts talk about asbestos and its effects
in general, but the experts would not talk about this case and
they will not talk about asbestos in joint compound.

Mark Phillips of Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough in South
Carolina also represents Georgia-Pacific.

Mr. Phillips told the jury that Roll and Sons never carried any
Bondex products and have no record of selling any Georgia-
Pacific joint compound to Mr. O'Connell.

Mr. Phillips told the jury that one of his experts, Gerald
Kerby, M.D. of Kansas, will testify that Mrs. O'Connell's
mesothelioma was not caused by asbestos exposure.

Mr. Phillips will assert that short-fiber chrysotile asbestos,
the kind that Georgia-Pacific used in its joint compound, does
not cause mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Expects Tax Law to Fund $1.6B Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV hopes that new tax laws, which are
backdated to apply from July 1, 2005, could help fund its AUD1.6
billion settlement payout to asbestos sufferers, The Weekend
Australian reports.

The laws could provide Hardie millions of dollars in tax breaks
on the payout agreed to in December.

Unveiled by Assistant Treasurer Peter Dutton, the revisions
allow businesses to claim tax deductions for a range of costs
previously considered to be "black hole expenditures."

In 2005, the Australian Taxation Office knocked back a claim by
Hardie for AUD500 million in tax deductions.

Under a deal signed in December, Hardie agreed to pay up to 35%
of its yearly profits into a fund to compensate people harmed by
asbestos products. The deal was conditional on the firm
obtaining the tax deductions.

Treasurer Peter Costello declined to pass special laws, despite
pressure from the NSW Government and unions to give the global
building company tax breaks.

It is understood Hardie will apply again for a private ruling
based on the new laws if a review of the bill suggests a
reasonable chance of success.

After a 2001 restructure Hardie no longer owned its former
asbestos-making subsidiary, an independent foundation liable for
compensation payments to former employees suffering from
asbestos-related diseases.

"The Treasurer pointed us towards it in his statements last year
and now it's something for us to look at," a James Hardie
spokesman said.

"We are currently reviewing the Government's proposed
legislation for the treatment of black hole expenditures. It
would be inappropriate to comment on its implications at this
time."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Asserts No Objections to Plan Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd. states that no objections were filed to the US District
Court's February 28 hearing notice, which will confirm the
revised reorganization plan for US subsidiary Combustion
Engineering, Forbes reports.

Under the plan, which will protect ABB and its subsidiaries
against current and future asbestos claims, ABB committed
US$1.43 billion for a trust fund for asbestos claims against
Combustion Engineering.

The engineering Group said that the absence of objections means
that parties need not attend the scheduled February 28 at the
District Court.

ABB further stated that the Court indicated that it is likely to
issue the order affirming Combustion Engineering's Plan on that
day, which would be followed by a 30-day appeals period, then
assuming no appeals were filed, the order becomes final.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd., formerly known as Asea Brown
Boveri, provides power and automation technologies. The power
technologies division supplies the power industry with equipment
and services for transmission, distribution, and automation. The
automation technologies unit offers equipment used to monitor
and control processes in plants and utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-AAR Employee Gets 18 Months for Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Mongato, a former AAR Contractor Inc. employee, received
an 18-month prison sentence for his role in a massive asbestos
scam that authorities said left toxic dust in hundreds of
Capital Region buildings, the Times Union reports.

Mr. Mongato, 41, testified for the government in its case
against Alexander and Raul Salvagno, owners of abatement firm
AAR Contractor, who were sentenced to federal prison terms last
year of 25 and 19 years, respectively.

The Salvagnos were convicted of establishing a bogus laboratory
that falsified 75,000 tests for 1,555 projects, most in the
Capital Region, including dozens of schools and university
buildings.

In 2002, Mr. Mongato pleaded guilty to breaching the federal
Clean Air and Toxic Substances Control acts and providing false
information to federal authorities.

The U.S. attorney's office said, Mr. Mongato worked for AAR for
about a year and then started his own company so he could
pretend to be a subcontractor, even though he was still working
for AAR.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Awards Pipefitter $1M in Suit v. Exxon
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco jury awarded US$1,083,000 to Merly Sandy, a
pipefitter with asbestos disease caused by exposure while
working at a former Exxon Mobil Corporation refinery, PRWeb
reports.

Exxon Mobil is the former owner and operator of a Benicia,
California oil refinery where Mr. Sandy removed insulation and
worked with asbestos gaskets, packing and welding blankets.

Employed by an independent contractor, Mr. Sandy worked at the
Benicia refinery from 1970 through 1974. He also worked at the
refinery in 1977 and 1979.

Mr. Sandy said that, although Exxon Mobil personnel oversaw his
work, the company did not reveal that the products he was
working with were hazardous, nor did the Company provide
information about the location of asbestos at the refinery.

Exxon Mobil did not instruct Mr. Sandy about how to work safely
to prevent asbestos exposure or provide him with respiratory
protection.

The testimony of Exxon Mobil's medical officials, as well as
internal documents, established that the Company was fully aware
of the risk of disease posed by asbestos dust at its refinery
properties as early as 1937, according to Mr. Sandy.

Christopher Andreas and Andrew Chew of the Novato, CA office of
Brayton Purcell represented Merle Sandy at trial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Relates Hazard to UK Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk coroner Dr. Peter Dean links the death of a 77-year-old
scaffolder from a combination of natural and industrial
diseases, which means "undoubted exposure to respirable asbestos
dust," EveningStar 24 reports.

In a statement, Primrose Edmed said that her husband, John
Edmed, had worked with asbestos years before but without health
and safety procedures in place.

An inquest into Mr. Edmed's death heard that he was fit and
active until his health began to deteriorate in June 2002.

In written evidence, Ipswich Hospital's consultant physician Dr.
Douglas Seaton said Mr. Edmed suffered from high blood pressure
and recurrent strokes as well as the effects of "undoubted
exposure to respirable asbestos dust."

A post mortem examination found Mr. Edmed died from health
problems, including asbestosis, heart disease, and dementia.

Dr. Dean said, "It is difficult to be certain how each disease
combined to cause death. It would be wrong to come back with a
verdict of just natural causes."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Organize Asbestos Support in UK Town
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various groups join forces to create English town Barrow's first
support group for people suffering from asbestos-related
diseases, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

The Barrow Asbestos Related Disease Support is thought to be
unique in offering a one-stop shop where all kinds of help from
medical to benefits advice can be found. It is hoped the group
will launch in April.

St. Mary's Hospice, NHS in England, Barrow Trades Union Council,
and legal profession grouped together to establish BARDS.

BARDS will cost the hospice an additional GBP8,000 a year, which
it is hoping to meet by extra gifts of cash and grants.

Between 12 and 20 people in Barrow each year discover they have
mesothelioma, a rare and lethal form of cancer.

According to Dr. Helen Clayson, clinical director of St. Mary's
Hospice, "The hospice has a lot of experience of caring for
people with mesothelioma which is also a particular research
interest of mine."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Plan Has $1.8B Funding from Stockholder
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation states that its plan of reorganization includes
US$1.8 billion in backing from Warren Buffett and his company,
Berkshire Hathaway, which owns 15% of USG's stock, the Chicago
Sun-Times reports.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court has set USG's court hearing on the
plan for mid-June.

USG announced on January 30 its proposal to emerge from
bankruptcy, repay its debtors in full, and resolve all current
and future personal-injury asbestos claims against it.

The USG settlement plan is crafted so shareholders keep their
ownership of USG, and gives USG the advantages of tax breaks,
support from Berkshire Hathaway, and new possibly investment-
grade, long-term debt.

On June 25, 2001, USG filed for bankruptcy protection to put an
end to growing costs of fighting lawsuits filed by people who
claimed to have been sickened by exposure to asbestos in USG's
plasters and joint compounds.

Chicago, IL-based USG Corporation's North American Gypsum
division manufactures SHEETROCK brand gypsum products and joint
compound and DUROCK brand cement board. It also manufactures
abuse-resistant wall panels, poured gypsum underlayments
(LEVELROCK), and construction plaster products.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Central Hudson Challenges 1,171 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. reports that, as of January 16, 2006, its
subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. defends against
1,171 pending asbestos-related claims, according to a SEC
report.

Since 1987, Central Hudson has been named as a co-defendant or
third-party defendant in 3,256 asbestos lawsuits filed in New
York State and federal courts.

The plaintiffs have each sought millions of dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages from all defendants. The cases
were brought by or on behalf of individuals who have allegedly
suffered injury from asbestos exposure, including exposure that
allegedly occurred at the Roseton Plant and the Danskammer
Plant.

Of the 2,085 cases no longer pending against Central Hudson,
1,937 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by
Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 148 cases.

In June 2000, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation requested Central Hudson to provide information
about disposal of wastes at the Orange County Landfill located
in Goshen, New York.

The DEC stated that its records indicate that Central Hudson, or
a predecessor entity, disposed or may have disposed of wastes at
the Orange County Site or that Central Hudson transported wastes
to the Orange County Site for disposal.

Documents submitted by Central Hudson in response to the DEC's
request indicate that at least three shipments of wastes may
have been disposed of by Central Hudson at the Orange County
Site: one of construction waste, one of office and commercial
waste, and one of asbestos waste.

Central Hudson entered into a Tolling Agreement dated September
7, 2001, with the DEC and other state agencies in which Central
Hudson agreed to toll the applicable statute of limitations by
the state agencies against Central Hudson for certain alleged
causes of action until February 28, 2002.

The tolling agreement has been renewed through March 31, 2006.

Central Hudson has notified its insurers regarding this matter
and intends to seek reimbursement for amounts for which it may
become liable.


COMPANY PROFILE

CH Energy Group, Inc.
284 South Ave.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-4879
Phone: 845-452-2000
Fax: 845-486-5465
http://www.chenergygroup.com

Description:
Poughkeepsie, NY-based CH Energy Group Inc., through utility
subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric, provides electricity
to almost 290,000 customers and natural gas to more than 67,000
customers along the Hudson River in New York. Subsidiary Central
Hudson Enterprises oversees the Group's non-regulated businesses
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, including petroleum product
distribution and energy management services.


ASBESTOS ALERT: CA Nursery to Pay US$600T Penalty for Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California-based plant nursery agreed to pay more than
US$600,000 in health and safety penalties for allowing its
employees to improperly handle and dispose of hazardous
asbestos, Bay City News Wire reports.

Color Spot Nurseries Inc. reached settlement with the Monterey
County district attorney's office, which also charged the
Company for unfair business practices.

As part of the settlement, the Monterey County Health Department
will receive US$5,000 to train other businesses to better comply
with the state's hazardous material and hazardous waste laws.

Another US$50,000 will go toward agency costs, US$378,000 toward
cleaning up the site and maintaining compliance and US$170,000
toward penalties.

The DA's office stated that the Company directed its employees
to illegally handle and dispose of deteriorating asbestos
covering pipes and broilers at the Company's Espinoza Road
facility.

The DA's office stated, "The violations put workers, neighbors
and the environment at risk and the conduct gave Color Spot an
unfair advantage over those businesses that comply with
California law."

No injuries, however, were reported in connection with the
violations, according to the DA's office.

Color Spot Nurseries also received a permanent court-mandated
order to ensure employees receive proper training and follow
hazardous waste laws, the DA's office reported.


COMPANY PROFILE

Color Spot Nurseries, Inc.
2575 Olive Hill Rd.
Fallbrook, CA 92028-0849
Phone: 760-695-1430
Fax: 760-731-6762
Toll Free: 800-554-4065
http://www.colorspot.com

Description:
Established in 1983, the Company produces more than 1,000 types
of plants. Color Spot supplies more than 2,000 retailers and
commercial customers located in the western and southwestern US.
Color Spot operates about 10 production facilities in California
and Texas.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Chicago
Bridge & Iron Co. NV (NYSE: CBI) securities between March 9,
2005 and February 3, 2006, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. at 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone:
(215) 886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV (NYSE: CBI).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from March 9, 2005 through February 3, 2006.

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


COOPER COMPANIES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 The Cooper
Companies, Inc. between July 29, 2004 and November 21, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


DOT HILL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Dot Hill Systems Corporation ("Dot Hill" or the
"Company") between April 23, 2003 and February 3, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Dot Hill and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Dot Hill's operations and financial
performance caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.  Dot
Hill provides storage network solutions and data storage
products to channel and OEM partners worldwide.  The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded but concealed from the investing public
that:

     (1) the Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (2) the Company's inadequate internal accounting process
         and controls enabled Dot Hill management to manipulate
         the Company's Costs of Goods Sold and to routinely and
         inappropriately misclassify "expenses," causing Dot
         Hill to issue false financial statements;

     (3) the Company's internal controls suffered serious
         deficiencies in multiple areas, including data entry,
         expense classification, financial closing processing,
         fixed asset processing and inventory processing;

     (4) the Company's financial reporting process lacked
         effective internal controls which were required to
         properly analyze and/or estimate Dot Hill's future
         financial and operational performance, and

     (5) the Company falsely reported its financial results for
         the first three quarters of 2004, by improperly
         recognizing revenue and improperly recording expenses.

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 controls over its financial
closing process. As a result of this news, the price of Dot Hill
stock plummeted to as low as $5.70 per share -- 67% below the
Class Period high of $17.37 per share.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


JARDEN CORP: Christopher Gray Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Christopher Gray of the Law Office of Christopher J.
Gray, P.C. filed a class action on February 17, 2006 on behalf
of all persons who purchased the securities of defendant Jarden
Corp. between June 29, 2005 and January 11, 2006, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages.  Any member of
the class may move the Court to be named lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 4, 2006.

The Jarden class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (300 Quarropas Street,
White Plains, New York), Docket No. 06-CV-1313.  According to
the complaint, defendants made misstatements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts in violation of the federal
securities laws.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants caused the share price of
Jarden stock to be artificially inflated by misrepresenting the
business situation and earnings potential of the Holmes Group,
Inc. after that company was acquired by Jarden at the beginning
of the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that on January 12, 2006 Jarden announced
that Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the
market had been led to expect, and that as a result Jarden's
earnings for the fourth quarter of 2005 were lower than
analysts' expectations.  The complaint alleges that as a result
of this news, Jarden stock, which had traded at post-split
prices as high as $41.78 a share during the Class Period, fell
to prices as low as $26.50.

The class action seeks to recover investors' losses resulting
from defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerning Jarden's
business and prospects.

For more details, contact Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
P.C., 460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10022,
Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 937-3139, E-mail:
newcases@cjgraylaw.com.


PROQUEST COMPANY: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Stock Suit in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of purchasers of ProQuest Company ("ProQuest") (NYSE:
PQE) common stock during the period between January 9, 2003 and
February 8, 2006 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ProQuest and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  ProQuest publishes solutions for the education,
automotive, and power equipment markets.  The complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
ProQuest stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $37.89 per share on April 12,
2005.

Then, on February 9, 2006, prior to the market opening, the
Company announced that it had discovered material irregularities
in its accounting and would have to restate certain of its
previously issued financial statements.  As a result of the
irregularities, the Company's deferred income and accrued
royalty accounts were materially understated in previously
issued financial statements and its prepaid royalty account was
materially overstated. On this news, ProQuest's stock collapsed
to as low as $21.90 per share, before closing at $24.19 per
share on volume of 3 million shares, 13 times the average
volume.

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

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts; and

     (2) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly defer income
         and royalty payments and its improper capitalization of
          royalty expenses, thereby overstating its revenue and
          income from at least 1999 to 2005.

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

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com.


PROQUEST COMPANY: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock of ProQuest
Company ("ProQuest" or the "Company")(NYSE:PQE), during the
period January 9, 2003 through February 8, 2006 (the "Class
Period").  The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of ProQuest securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.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  * * *