CAR_Public/060301.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 43

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
21ST CENTURY: Faces Calif. Suit V. "Biased" Appraisal Software
21ST CENTURY: Faces Suit Over Reimbursement of Medical Payments
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Fenofibrate Lawsuits in Calif., Del.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Antitrust Suit Dismissal

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING: Complaint Raised on Phil. TV Show Stampede
ACU-GEN BIOLAB: Customers File Lawsuit Against Baby Gender Test  
APPLE COMPUTER: ipod Battery Lawsuit Settlement Schedule Set
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Receives Court Approval in Calif. Labor Pact
CIGNA CORPORATION: Employee Files Pension Plan Lawsuit in Conn.

CIGNA CORP: Plaintiff Files Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
COCA-COLA: Faces Channel Surfing, Insider Trading Lawsuit in Ga.
COCA-COLA: Firm, Subsidiary Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif.
CORE LABORATORIES: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CRYOLIFE INC: Reaches Settlement for Ga. Securities Fraud Suit

FIRST HORIZON: Plaintiff Accuses Exec of Intimidating Claimants
INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Series 6200 Window Suit Could Cost $1.1B
INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Considers Window Lawsuit Without Merit
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: New York Court Approves $3.5M Settlement
LOUISIANA: St. Bernard Cruise Ship Residents Want to Stay Afloat

MAXTOR CORPORATION: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Seagate Merger
MEAD JOHNSON: Korean Consumers Mull Suit V. Infant Formula Maker
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Sued Over Area Kirsch Retirees' Health Care
NORTH CAROLINA: School Faces Racial Discrimination Suit Threat
OHIO: Internist Faces Sexual Harassment Suit in Hamilton County

PENNSYLVANIA: Bethlehem School Faces Race Discrimination Suit
RED ROBIN: Faces Wage, Hour Complaint in Calif. State Court
RED ROBIN: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Col.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Settle Calif. Continental Forge, Nev. Lawsuits
SERVICE CORPORATION: Plaintiff Files Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif.

STEWART ENTERPRISES: Calif. Antitrust Suit Moved to Tex. Court
SHELL OIL: Claims Filing Deadline, Trial Date Set in Motiva Suit
SOUTH KOREA: Child Victims of Sexual Abuse Mull Suit V. Gov't.
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Penn. Court Reinstates Lawsuit V. Execs
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Morelock Enterprises Antitrust Case Put on Hold

WEYERHAEUSER CO: High Court Undecided on Reviewing Ore. Ruling


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Idaho
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Idaho
PROQUEST COMPANY: Federman Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Mich.
PROQUEST COMPANY: Schiffrin Shareholder Securities Suit in Mich.


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group faces a class action filed in the
Los Angeles Superior Court in California, and styled "Thomas
Theis v. 21st Century Insurance."

Plaintiff seeks California class action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.  
The complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the Company used a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area.  Plaintiff alleges that the adjusted amount is
"predetermined" and "biased," creating an unfair pretext for
reducing claims costs.  This case is consolidated with similar
actions against other insurers for discovery and pre-trial
motions.

Depositions were recently taken and the Company intends to
vigorously defend the suit.  This matter is in the discovery
stage of litigation and no reasonable estimate of potential
losses in the event of a negative outcome can be made at this
time.


21ST CENTURY: Faces Calif. Suit V. "Biased" Appraisal Software
--------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century Casualty Company
and 21st Century Insurance Group faces a class action filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, styled,
"Bryan Speck v. 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century
Casualty Company, and 21st Century Insurance Group."

Plaintiff seeks California class action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.
The complaint contends that the Company uses "biased" software
in determining the value of total-loss automobiles.  Plaintiff
alleges that database providers use improper methodology to
establish comparable auto values and populate their databases
with biased figures and that the Company and other carriers
allegedly subscribe to the programs to unfairly reduce claims
costs.  This case is consolidated with similar actions against
other insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.

A court-ordered appraisal of Mr. Speck's vehicle was favorable
to the Company and Ramona Goldenberg was substituted as a
Plaintiff, replacing Mr. Speck.  The matter is in the pleading
stage of litigation and no reasonable estimate of potential
losses in the event of a negative outcome can be made at this
time.


21ST CENTURY: Faces Suit Over Reimbursement of Medical Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance faces a class action filed in the
California state court, styled, "Silvia Quintana, on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 21st
Century Insurance.  Filed on November 16, 2005, the purported
class action, filed in San Diego, names the Company in four
causes of action:

     (1) violation of B&P Section 17200,

     (2) conversion,

     (3) unjust enrichment and,

     (4) declaratory relief.

Silvia Quintana alleges that the Company's demand for
reimbursement of the medical payments it made to her pursuant to
her insurance contract violates the made-whole rule.  The
Company anticipates that if the matter survives the initial
pleading stage, it will be consolidated, for discovery and pre-
trial motions, with actions alleging similar facts against other
insurers.  This matter is in the initial stages of pleading and
no reasonable estimate of potential losses in the event of a
negative outcome can be made at this time.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Fenofibrate Lawsuits in Calif., Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, and
Laboratoires Fournier, S.A. (Fournier) faces several lawsuits
that were filed in either the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware or in the Central District of California,
alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims in connection
with the sale of fenofibrate formulations.

Twenty lawsuits, including fifteen purported class actions, are
currently pending.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek actual
damages, treble damages and other relief.  One of the purported
class action by Paul T. Regan (filed in July 2005) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  
The other fourteen purported class actions and five individual
actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware and were filed by:

     (1) Alberto Litter (filed in August 2005),

     (2) Allied Services Division Welfare Fund and Hector Valdes
         (filed in June 2005),

     (3) Cindy Cronin (filed in July 2005),

     (4) Diana Kim (filed in June 2005),

     (5) Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers (filed in July2005),

     (6) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company,Inc. (filed in June
         2005),
   
     (7) Meijer,Inc. (filed in June 2005),  

     (8) Painters District Council No.30 Health and Welfare Fund
         (filed in June 2005),

     (9) Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund (filed in
         June 2005),

    (10) Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare
         Fund (filed in July 2005),  

    (11) Elaine M. Pullman (filed in June 2005),

    (12) Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (filed in June 2005),

    (13) Charles M. Shain (filed in July 2005), and

    (14) Vista Healthplan, Inc. (filed in June 2005),

    (15) CVS Pharmacy,Inc. (filed in August 2005),  

    (16) Impax Laboratories (filed in June 2005),

    (17) Pacificare Health Systems,Inc. (filed in August 2005),

    (18) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,Inc. (filed in June 2005),
         and  

    (19) Walgreen Co. (filed in June2005).


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Antitrust Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota's dismissal of the class action filed against Abbott
Laboratories, styled, "In re: Canadian Import Antitrust
Litigation."

The suit generally alleges that the Company and numerous other
pharmaceutical manufacturers violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to prevent re-importation of drugs from Canada.  The
consolidated lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all U.S. residents who purchased and/or paid for brand
name prescription drugs manufactured by the defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting efforts to stop re-
importation, a refund of all allegedly unlawful profits received
by the defendants, treble damages, and attorneys fees.

In August 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
federal law claims, and dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
state law claims.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Canadian Import Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 0:04-cv-02724-JNE-JGL," filed in the U.S.
District Court in Massachusetts under Judge Joan N. Ericksen.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Daniel E. Gustafson of
Gustafson Gluek, PLLC, 608 2nd Ave., S. Ste. 650, Minneapolis,
MN 55402, Phone: 612-333-8844, Fax: 612-339-6622, E-mail:
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com; and William R. Kane of Miller
Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, - PA, 18th & Cherry St., Ste. 1700,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
wkane@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Daniel R. Shulman of Gray
Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett, PA, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 500,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-632-3000, Fax: 612-632-4444,
E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com; and J. Cunyon Gordon of Eimer
Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP, 224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1100,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 312-660-7616, E-mail:
cgordon@eimerstahl.com.


ABS-CBN BROADCASTING: Complaint Raised on Phil. TV Show Stampede
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Philippine anti-crime group has filed a complaint against
authorities liable in a TV show stampede that killed more than
70 people last month, according to Xinhua News.

Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption filed the complaint with
the National Bureau of Investigation on behalf of some 45
victims.  The group's chairman Dante Jimenez said the move is
the first step towards a class action against the respondents.

Seventy-one people died, while more than 600 were hurt when an
estimated 25,000 people forcefully tried to get into the venue
where the first anniversary of noontime TV game show "Wowowee"
is being held in Pasig City, Metro Manila.  According to the
report, a government fact-finding committee earlier blamed
"Wowowee" organizers for failing to coordinate crowd control
measures with the police for the Feb. 4 show.

Mr. Jimenez said organizers of local TV game show "Wowowee," the
Pasig City Police and the Office of the Pasig City Mayor could
be charged with multiple homicide, multiple serious physical
injuries and less serious physical injuries.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting or Alto Broadcasting System-Chronicle
Broadcasting Network -- http://www.abscbn-ir.com-- is a leading  
radio and television broadcasting network and multimedia company
in the Philippines.


ACU-GEN BIOLAB: Customers File Lawsuit Against Baby Gender Test  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acu-Gen Biolab Inc. is facing a suit filed in Massachusetts by
40 people who purchased its baby gender test, according to ABC
News.

The defendants claim Acu's Baby Gender Mentor, which promised to
determine the sex of a baby as early as five weeks of pregnancy,
are claiming incorrect results.  They also alleged the Lowell,
Massachusetts company reneged on its promise of a 200% refund
should the test fail.  According to the report, the company
changed the terms of the refund policy by stipulating additional
requirements.  

Acu-Gen advertised the kit as being able to detect the gender of
a fetus using just a few drops of the mother's blood with 99.9%
accuracy.  The test, which hit the market last year, costs $275.

New Jersey law firm Gainey & McKenna is representing the
plaintiffs.  Contact information for Gainey & McKenna, Phone:
(201) 689-9000; Fax: (201) 689-9969; E-mail:
info@gaineyandmckenna.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: ipod Battery Lawsuit Settlement Schedule Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Girard Gibbs, the law firm representing consumers in the iPod
battery class action against Apple Computer Inc., announced a
new settlement timeframe.

In December 2003, Girard Gibbs filed the first class action suit
on behalf of all iPod owners in the U.S. based on allegations
that Apple misrepresented the playtime and lifespan of the
iPod's battery.  In June 2004, the class actions against Apple
were coordinated in the Superior Court of San Mateo, Honorable
Beth L. Freeman presiding.  Shortly after, Judge Freeman
appointed Girard Gibbs as Co-Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs.  
The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in July
2004, which Apple answered in August 2004.  After conducting
discovery, the parties began settlement negotiations and reached
a settlement agreement in April 2005.

Judge Freeman granted final approval of the settlement and
entered a final judgment on August 25, 2005.  On October 24,
2005, two individuals filed appeals from the Court's order
granting final approval of the settlement.  As a result of the
appeals, Apple and the Claims Administrator could not begin the
process of fulfilling claims.

On December 20, 2005, the appeals were abandoned.  Thereafter,
the Claims Administrator began the process of fulfilling the
claims.  The Claims Administrator has provided these timeframe
for the distribution of the settlement benefits:

February 17, 2006             The Claims Administrator will mail
                              $25 checks to Class Members, who
                              purchased the AppleCare Protection
                              Plan and obtained battery
                              repair/replacement under the
                              AppleCare Protection Plan.

Beginning of March 2006       For Class members who own a First
                              or Second Generation iPod and who
                              selected the $25 cash payment, the
                              Claims Administrator will begin
                              mailing $25 checks to those who
                              submitted valid claims.

Middle of March 2006          For Class members who own a Third
                              Generation iPod and who selected
                              battery/iPod replacement, the
                              Claims Administrator will begin
                              mailing letters containing
                              instructions for battery/iPod
                              replacement to those who submitted
                              valid claims.

Middle of March 2006          For Class members who own a First,
                              Second or Third Generation iPod
                              and who selected a $50 store
                              credit, the Claims Administrator
                              will begin mailing letters with  
                              certificate codes for the $50
                              store credit to those who  
                              submitted valid claims.

Around March 17, 2006         The Claims Administrator will
                              begin sending deficiency letters
                              to Class members who submitted an
                              incomplete/incorrect claim.

End of March 2006             The Claims Administrator will send
                              denial letters to those
                              individuals who do not fit the
                              class definition or who submitted
                              their claims past the claims
                              deadline.

Plaintiffs' counsel: Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP, 601
California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone:
415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846, E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com,   
Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Receives Court Approval in Calif. Labor Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheesecake Factory, Inc. recently received approval from the
Superior Court of the State of California of a negotiated
settlement of consolidated class action wage and hour lawsuits
filed in December 2002.  The suit was lodged by two former
hourly restaurant employees in California, alleging violations
of California labor laws with respect to providing meal and rest
breaks.

Notices of the settlement were sent to all class members, the
claims period has expired, and the administration of claims is
currently in process.  A number of former and current employees
also filed individual wage and hour claims, based upon alleged
similar violations, directly with various offices of the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE").  
The DLSE claims filed by employees who joined the approved
settlement also will be resolved by such settlement.  In fiscal
2004, the Company recorded a $4.5 million reserve based on an
estimate of the ultimate costs, expenses and fees that may be
incurred in connection with these matters.  The Company believes
this accrual is sufficient to cover the final settlement.


CIGNA CORPORATION: Employee Files Pension Plan Lawsuit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corp. is facing a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
Company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.  The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that:

     (1) the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
         certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
         pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not
         adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

     (2) the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
         older employees.  

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on December 20,
2002, and seek equitable relief.

The suit is styled, "Amara v. CIGNA Corp, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-02361-MRK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut under Judge Mark R. Kravitz.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Stephen R. Bruce, 805 15th St., NW Suite 210,
Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-289-1117, Fax: 202-371-0121, E-
mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net; and Thomas G. Moukawsher of
Moukawsher & Walsh - Hartford, Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite
209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-548-1740,
E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Bradford S. Babbitt of
Robinson & Cole, 280 Trumbull St., Hartford, CT 06103-3597,
Phone: 860-275-8209, Fax: 860-275-8299, E-mail: bbabbitt@rc.com;
and Jeremy P. Blumenfeld of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701
Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921, Phone: 215-963-5258,
Fax: 215-963-5001, E-mail: jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com.


CIGNA CORP: Plaintiff Files Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the suit captioned "In re CIGNA Corp.
Securities Litigation," filed an amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In late 2002, individuals seeking to represent a class of
purchasers of CIGNA securities from May 2, 2001 to October 24,
2002 filed several purported class actions against the Company
and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege, among other
things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of, and Rule
10b-5 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading
CIGNA shareholders with respect to the Company's performance
during the class period.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees.

In 2003, these suits were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as "In re CIGNA
Corp. Securities Litigation."  The Company's motions to dismiss
certain claims were granted in 2004 and 2005.  In January 2006,
the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint to conform to
Court Orders dismissing claims related to certain issues and
statements.

The suit is styled, "In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:02-cv-08088-MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M.
Baylson.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Stephanie M. Beige
and Michael S. Bigin of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, E-
mail: beige@bernlieb.com and bigin@bernlieb.com; and Deborah R.
Gross of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC, Juniper & Market
Streets, John Wanamaker Bldg, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19107,
Phone: 215-561-3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
debbie@bernardmgross.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, John G. Harkins, JR. and
Eleanor Morris Illoway of Harkins Cunningham, 2800 One Commerce
Square, 2005 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042, Phone:
215-851-6700, Fax: 215-851-6710, E-mail:
jharkins@harkinscunningham.com and emi@harkinscunningham.com;
and Alexander R. Sussman of Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
Jacobson, LLP, One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004-1980,
Phone: 212-859-8000, Fax: 212-859-8585.


COCA-COLA: Faces Channel Surfing, Insider Trading Lawsuit in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed against Coca-Cola Enterprises
and several current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.  

The lawsuit, styled, "Argento Trading Company, et al. vs. Coca-
Cola Enterprises Inc., et al., Civil Action File No. 1:06cv275,"
was filed on February 7, 2006.  It alleges that the Company
engaged in "channel stuffing" with customers.  In addition, the
suit raises certain insider trading claims.

The suit is styled, "Argento Trading Company L.P. v. Coca-Cola
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00275-TWT," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
under Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
are, Lauren S. Antonino, James M. Evangelista and Stuart Jay
Guber of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone: 404-664-9168 and 404-881-9199,
E-mail: lantonino@motleyrice.com, jevangelista@motleyrice.com
and sguber@motleyrice.com.


COCA-COLA: Firm, Subsidiary Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises and its California subsidiary are being
sued by several current and former employees over alleged
violations of state wage and hour rules.

In a matter combined in a consolidated class action proceeding
styled, "In re BCI Overtime Cases pending in San Bernardino
Superior Court (the first consolidated suit was filed July18,
2001)," plaintiffs allege that certain hourly employees were
required to work off the clock.  The Company denies the
allegations.


CORE LABORATORIES: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Core Laboratories, N.V. and certain of its officers.

In April 2003, four putative class actions were filed and later
consolidated.  On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint, which generally alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial results for
2001 and 2002 and by employing inadequate internal controls.  
The amended complaint sought unspecified monetary damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 21, 2004. The lead
plaintiff advised the Company that it intended to voluntarily
dismiss the amended complaint and accordingly, on May 13, 2005,
the parties filed an agreed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice.  The Court granted the motion and
dismissed the case with prejudice on May 16, 2005.  In
connection with the dismissal, no monies will be paid to the
plaintiff, but the parties agreed to be responsible for their
own costs and legal fees.  

The suit is styled, "Karlin, et al. v. Core Laboratories NV, et
al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03114," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Sandy A. Liebhard of Bernstein
Liebhard, et al., 10 E. 40th St., 22nd Floor, New York, NY
10016, Phone: 212-779-1414; and Richard Eugene Norman of Crowley
Douglas, et al., 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500, Houston, TX 77010,
Phone: 713-651-1771, Fax: 713-651-1775, E-mail:
rnorman@cdnlawfirm.com.  Representing the Defendant/s are, David
T. Harvin, N. Scott Fletcher and Michael C. Holmes of Vinson &
Elkins, LLP, 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-3234, 713-758-2825 and 713-758-2368, Fax:
713-615-5168, 713-615-5928 and 713-615-5269, E-mail:
sfletcher@velaw.com and mholmes@velaw.com; and Steven Wolowitz
of Mayer Brown, et al., 1675 Broadway, New York, NY 10019-5820,
Phone: 212-506-2500.


CRYOLIFE INC: Reaches Settlement for Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cryolife, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

Several putative class actions were filed in July through
September 2002, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on a series of
purportedly materially false and misleading statements to the
market. The suits were consolidated, and a consolidated amended
complaint filed, that principally alleges that the Company made
misrepresentations and omissions relating to product safety and
the Company did not comply with certain FDA regulations
regarding the handling and processing of certain tissues and
other product safety matters.  The consolidated complaint seeks
certification of a class of purchasers between April 2, 2001 and
August 14, 2002, compensatory damages, and other expenses of
litigation.  

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on February 28, 2003, which motion
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied in part and granted in part on May 27, 2003.  The
discovery phase of the case commenced on July 16, 2003. On
December 16, 2003 the Court certified a class of individuals and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock from
April 2, 2001 through August 14, 2002.

On March 11, 2005 defendants moved for summary judgment on all
plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment as to some of their claims against certain defendants.
On June 17, 2005 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 21, 2005 the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the securities class action.  The settlement will
resolve all claims asserted against the Company and the
individual defendants in this case.  The terms of the
settlement, which must be approved by the court following notice
to the class, include a total settlement of $23.25 million,
approximately $11.5 million of which is expected to be paid from
insurance proceeds. The remainder of the settlement is comprised
of a cash payment from the Company of approximately $8.0
million, expected to be paid in the third or fourth quarter of
2005, and common stock with a stipulated value of approximately
$3.75 million.

The suit is styled, "Robert Murray and Richard A. Pearson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cryolife, Inc., Steven G. Anderson, Albert E. Heacox, James C.
Vander Wyk and D. Ashley Lee," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood and Nikole Davenport of Chitwood &
         Harley, Mail: 2900 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street,
         NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax:
         404-876-4476

     (2) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, Barbara A.
         Podell, David F. Sorensen of Berger & Montague PC, 1622
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-
         3000, Fax: 215-875-4604

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?5eb.


FIRST HORIZON: Plaintiff Accuses Exec of Intimidating Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for loan originators in an overtime lawsuit against
First Horizon Home Loan Corp. asked the judge presiding the case
to punish the company for trying to impede legal proceedings,
according to The Kansas City Star.

U.S. District Judge Carlos Murquia conditionally certified the
case against Irving, Texas-based First Horizon as a collective
action last month.  As such, the suit is similar to a class
action except that would-be plaintiffs must take affirmative
steps to "opt in," or become members of the class.

In the process, the company's Senior Vice President and General
Counsel, Larry P. Cole, sent an e-mail instructing First Horizon
employees who receive communications from the attorneys not to
respond without consulting his office, the plaintiffs' attorneys
alleged in documents filed in federal court in Kansas City,
Kansas.  The e-mail was reportedly sent to First Horizon
employees a day after the parties in the case submitted briefs
on the lawsuit's notice.

Thus, the plaintiffs' attorney is asking Judge Murguia to order
First Horizon to send out a corrective e-mail.  They also asked
the judge to levy sanctions, including a possible default
judgment against the company.

The suit is styled, "Gieseke et. al v. First Horizon Home Loan
Corp., Case No. 2:04-cv-02511-CM-GLR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Carlos
Murguia with referral to Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt.  

Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     Virginia Stevens Crimmins
     E-mail: crimmins@sshwlaw.com
     George A. Hanson
     E-mail: hanson@sshwlaw.com
     Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody, LLP
     330 West 47th Street, Suite 250
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: 816-714-7100
     Fax: 816-714-7101
     
Representing the Defendant/s are:

     William T. Fiala
     E-mail: williamf@lfhc.com
     Frederick J. Lewis
     E-mail: fredl@lfhc.com
     James R. Mulroy, II
     E-mail: jrmulroy@lfhc.com
     Lewis Fisher Henderson Claxton & Mulroy, LLP
     6410 Poplar Ave., Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38119
     Phone: 901-767-6160
     Fax: 901-767-7411
           

INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Series 6200 Window Suit Could Cost $1.1B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of a class action against International Aluminum Corp.
and two of its wholly owned subsidiaries:

     (1) International Window Corp., and

     (2) General Window Corp. dba International Window Northern
         California,

is being released this week in major California newspapers,
http://www.internationalaluminumwindowlitigation.com,and via  
direct mail to more than 10,000 dealers, and home- and business-
owners, according to Eppsteiner & Smith, LLP, and Milstein,
Adelman & Kreger, LLP.

The notice of class action outlines a lawsuit involving IAL's
Series 6200 horizontal sliding; vertical hung, and fixed
aluminum windows.  The suit alleges that the windows are
inherently defective in their design and manufacture, and as a
result leak, sometimes into the interior walls of homes or
businesses often without the knowledge of the owner.

                          Damages Claim

The lawsuit is styled "Sheri Klotzer, et al., vs. International
Window Corporation, et al."   It seeks to recover the cost to
remove and replace the defective windows, and related damages.  
The plaintiffs estimate the total number of defective windows to
be in excess of 1.1 million in approximately 80,000 homes and
businesses in California.

According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, IAL has a potential
liability of $300 million to $1.1 billion.  The "class" is
composed of all persons who own buildings in California that
contain International's Series 6200 aluminum windows
manufactured by International from 1993 to the present.  IAL is
based in Monterey Park, California.

                           Trial Date

With the class action notices going out this week and a trial
date to be set in April, the plaintiffs' attorneys expressed
concern about IAL's Dec. 31, 2005 10Q report, saying the company
failed to disclose to shareholders and investors both the
potentially significant financial impact of the litigation and
its advanced status.

"While IAL disclosed the existence of the lawsuit, it failed to
disclose its potentially significant damages, which could exceed
$1 billion," said Stuart Eppsteiner, Esq., of Eppsteiner &
Smith, LLP, who, along with Paul Stevens, Esq. of Milstein
Adelman & Kreger, LLP, is representing the plaintiffs.

Additionally, IAL's 10Q filing states that "the suit is in its
preliminary stages and no prediction can be made as to its
eventual outcome."

In fact, the suit was filed in 2002 and certified as a class
action by the Superior Court on Nov. 15, 2005.  Attorneys said
they expect a trial date to be set at an April 19, 2006 court
hearing.

"Certainly a case that has been certified and is ready to
receive a date for trial is no longer in the preliminary
stages," Mr. Eppsteiner said.

Also in its 10Q filing, IAL reported to stockholders that the
"the company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without
merit," indicating the lawsuit is little more than a nuisance.

However, Eppsteiner said the plaintiffs' expert investigation
revealed that 100% of the vertical sliding windows in question,
and 75% of the horizontal sliding windows in question, leaked
when tested.  Additionally, he cited several recent court
decisions that continue to allow the class action to move
forward.

On Jan. 12, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District denied IAL's petition for appellate review, and
subsequently, the California Supreme Court denied IAL's petition
for review and its application for stay.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Stuart Eppsteiner, Esq.
         Eppsteiner & Smith, LLP
         Solana Beach,
     
     (2) Paul Stevens, Esq.
         Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP
         Santa Monica

The defendant is represented by

     (1) William Staples, Esq.,

     (2) Archer Norris (Walnut Creek),

     (3) Stephen Zovickian, Esq.
         Bingham McCuthen
         San Francisco

For background documents or interviews with the plaintiffs'
attorneys, contact Danielle Fairlee at DSF Communications, E-
mail: Danielle@dsfcommunications.com, Phone: or 818-346-7110.


INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Considers Window Lawsuit Without Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Aluminum Corporation dismissed claims made by
Eppsteiner & Smith, LLP and Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP, two
law firms representing the plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit
against IAL.

The company said that as it has previously said, it believes the
charges contained in litigation now before the Solano County
California Superior Court are without merit.

"The Court has allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action
at this time, but there has been no ruling by the Court on the
merits of any of plaintiffs' claims.  IAL denies the allegations
made by plaintiffs and intends vigorously to contest their
charges in the legal proceedings," the company said in a
statement.

International Aluminum Corporation, based in Monterey Park,
California, and founded and incorporated in 1963, is an
integrated building products manufacturer of diversified lines
of aluminum and vinyl products.  Its primary markets are focused
towards three distinct product lines: residential products
consisting of broad lines of aluminum and vinyl windows and
doors; commercial products encompassing state-of-the-art curtain
walls, window walls, storefronts and other commercial framing
components and aluminum extruded products which serve its
residential and commercial products segments as well as a
diversified outside customer base.


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: New York Court Approves $3.5M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese wireless value-added service provider Kongzhong
Corporation said that on January 20, the U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York preliminarily approved the class
action settlement agreement that was entered between the Company
and the lead plaintiff counsel.  

The Company made a settlement payment of $3.5 million into an
escrow account during the first quarter of 2006.  The settlement
is subject to final court approval and a final fairness hearing
is scheduled for April 2006.

In September, KongZhong Corporation reached an agreement in
principle to settle a securities class action pending against
it, certain of its officers and other co-defendants in the
United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New
York and arising out of the Company's 2004 initial public
offering (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

The tentative settlement, which is subject to completion of
final documentation and preliminary and final court approval, is
reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding, dated as of
September 13, 2005, between the lead plaintiff, the Company and
the other defendants.  Under the proposed settlement, the
Company will pay $3.5 million into a settlement fund for persons
who purchased or sold the Company's ADSs between July 9, 2004
and August 17, 2004.  

The Company stated that it has agreed to the settlement solely
to avoid the expense, distraction and uncertainty associated
with continued litigation without admitting any fault, liability
or wrongdoing.

For more details, contact JP Gan, Chief Financial Officer of
KONG, Phone: +86-10-8857-6000, E-mail: ir@kongzhong.com OR Tip
Fleming of ChristensenIR, Phone: +1-917-412-3333, E-mail:
tfleming@ChristensenIR.com OR Xiaohu Wang, Manager of KONG,
Phone: +86-10-8857-6000, E-mail: xiaohu@kongzhong.com.


LOUISIANA: St. Bernard Cruise Ship Residents Want to Stay Afloat
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Emergency Management Agency committed has committed
to transfer more than 1,400 people, including St. Bernard Parish
residents, out of emergency quarters on three cruise ships and
into ready-to-occupy travel trailers or local hotel rooms by
Wednesday, according The Times-Picayune.

Some St. Bernard Parish residents living on a cruise ship sued
FEMA on Friday in an effort to keep one of the vessels, the
Scotia Prince, berthed for another six months in Violet.  

Chalmette lawyer Michael Ginart Jr., who represents the St.
Bernard plaintiffs, hopes to convince officials in negotiations
the ship provides the parish "special services, not just
occupancy."  The parties are to report the progress of talks to
U.S. District Judge Peter Beer on Wednesday.  The report said it
is unclear whether the outcome of that suit also would affect
Carnival Cruise Lines' Ecstasy and Sensation, which are moored
in New Orleans.

Twenty-two of the 300 or so St. Bernard Parish residents filed
the suit, according to Associated Press.  They are asking to be
made representatives for all the ship's residents as a class
action.

The defendants in the case are:

     (1) FEMA;

     (2) Department of Homeland Security;

     (3) Secretary Michael Chertoff; and

     (4) four FEMA officials, including interim director David
         Paulison and Thad W. Allen, in charge of Gulf Coast
         programs for FEMA.

It was not clear on Monday how many people were actually aboard
the Scotia Prince.  Mr. Ginart said there are 643, but FEMA
spokesman David Passey said that as of Sunday night, there was
only 158.  Mr. Passey said transfer of evacuees off cruise ships
is the next, required step for FEMA to return them to permanent
housing.


MAXTOR CORPORATION: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Seagate Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder of Maxtor Corp. filed a purported shareholder
class action in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara over the proposed merger of the Company
with Seagate Technology.

Theodore F. Vahl filed the suit on January 20, 2006 against the
Company, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and
certain members of the Company's Board of Directors alleging
that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Seagate
Technology.  The complaint seeks only equitable
relief.  


MEAD JOHNSON: Korean Consumers Mull Suit V. Infant Formula Maker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Korean consumers of Enfamil are considering a suit against the
maker of infant formula, which is found to contain metal
fragments, according to Korea Times.

An Anti-Enfamil on the Internet portal Daum.net was created on
Feb. 14 after media reports circulated that the infant formula
powder contained traces of metals.  As of Friday, the on line
community recorded 2,400 members.  Parents have used the site to
call legal and medical advice for a possible class action that
could name U.S. baby formula maker, Mead Johnson & Company and
its Korean arm Korea BMS as defendants.

In a statement on Thursday, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry said the impurities found in 60% of the samples include
chrome, copper, manganese, nickel and silicon.  It assured the
public it believes the pieces are not harmful to babies, but
majority of Enfamil consumers are not convinced, the report
said.


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Sued Over Area Kirsch Retirees' Health Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. has filed a lawsuit in Illinois in
response to a class action initiated on behalf of hundreds of
area Kirsch retirees, according to Sturgis Journal.

The retirees are filing the suit against the company because of
a change in health care plans.  In 1993, after a bargaining
session, many Kirsch employees decided to retire before Jan. 1,
1994 to get medical coverage under the Cooper Comprehensive
Retiree Plan.  But now retirees are being asked to pay $40 per
month per person for health care after the firm's medical
provider was changed from Great West to Cigna Healthcare.

The group of retirees is trying to get the case moved from
Illinois to Michigan as they wait for it to obtain class action
status, said Bill Webster, a local representative of United Auto
Workers Union, which is helping retirees in the case.

Newell Rubbermaid -- http://ir.newellrubbermaid.com/index.cfm--  
is a $6.4 billion global manufacturer and marketer of consumer
and commercial products whose brand family includes Sharpie,
Paper Mate, EXPO, DYMO, Waterman, IRWIN, LENOX, BernzOmatic,
Rubbermaid, Graco, Calphalon and Goody.  It is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.  


NORTH CAROLINA: School Faces Racial Discrimination Suit Threat
--------------------------------------------------------------
A law professor at N.C. Central University is gathering evidence
for a racial discrimination suit she intends to file against
Durham Public Schools, according to ABC News.

Patti Solar is distributing questionnaire for potential
plaintiffs, who are parents and students who've been suspended
or expelled in the district for the past three years.  She
alleges the school is bias against African-American and Hispanic
students, kicking them out of school without proper notification
and advice on their legal rights.  Only seven parents are listed
on the possible suit, by far, the report said.

Data taken by ABC News from Durham Public School Web site shows
that the number of students served long-term suspensions last
year is composed of 78% African American, 10.3% Hispanic, and
12% white.  Of the short term suspensions, 82% were African
American, 8% were Hispanic, and 10% were white -- this in a
district that's 60% African American, 12% Hispanic and 27%
white, the report said.


OHIO: Internist Faces Sexual Harassment Suit in Hamilton County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio's Medical Board is investigating a Delhi doctor accused of
sexually molesting five women during medical exams that date
back as far as 1999, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

In November, attorney Barbara D. Bonar of Covington filed a suit
against Dr. Vikas Kashyap in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.  
The case accused the internist of assault and battery,
malpractice, destruction of evidence, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and defamation against five women.  The
defendants have asked presiding Judge Robert Ruehlman to make
the lawsuit a class action.  They are demanding unspecified
damages, and a ban against the medical practice of Dr. Kashyap.  

According to the report, Dr. Kashyap's practice remains open.  
He has offices in Delhi Township and East Price Hill.  His
lawyer, Michael Lyon, denied the allegations.  He wrote to Judge
Ruehlman asking for a conference.  He also asked the judge to
dismiss one case against his client because of statute of
limitations.  The case returns to court March 10, 2006, the
report said.

Contact information for defendant's lawyer Michael F. Lyon of
Lindhorst & Dreidame Co., L.P.A., 312 Walnut Street, Suite 2300,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4091, (Hamilton Co.), Phone:
513-421-6630, Telecopier: 513-421-0212.

The plaintiffs' lawyer is Barbara Dahlenburg Bonar of B.
Dahlenburg Bonar, P.S.C. Covington, Kentucky, (Kenton Co.).


PENNSYLVANIA: Bethlehem School Faces Race Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Hispanic women have filed a federal class action over the
system of electing school board members at the Bethlehem Area
School District, according to The Morning Call.

Olga Negron and Ramonita Garcia alleged the election at large
adopted by the school violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by
discriminating against Hispanics.  The suit follows a month
after school directors appointed a white director in favor of
two Hispanic candidates.  It was filed Feb. 14 in U.S. District
Court in Philadelphia.

Under the at-large system, school directors represent the entire
district, not a region of it.  The suit alleges that the school
district's "at-large method of electing board members
effectively forecloses Hispanic voters from electing a candidate
of their choice to the board..."  It seeks a system that divides
"the district into single-member regions, including at least one
region in which Hispanics constitute a majority or near-majority
of the region's eligible voters," according to the report.  

The suit is styled "Negron et al v. Bethlehem Area School
District et. al (2:06-cv-00666-LDD)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Legrome D. Davis.   

Representing the defendant is:

     Ellis h. Katz
     Sweet Stevens Tucker & Katz LLP
     331 Butler Ave.
     POBX 5069
     New Britain, PA 18901
     Phone: 215-345-9111
     Fax: 215-348-1147
     E-mail: ekatz@sweetstevens.com

Representing the plaintiff is:

     Peter d. Winebrake
     Trujillo Rodriquez & Richards
     226 W. Rittenhouse SQ.
     The Penthouse
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-731-9004
     E-mail: peter@trrlaw.com


RED ROBIN: Faces Wage, Hour Complaint in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., was served with a purported
class action, styled, "Huggett v. Red Robin International,
Inc.," in the Superior Court of the State of California.

Filed on January 2006, the suit is related to an alleged failure
to comply with California wage and hour regulations, including
those governing meal and rest periods, payment of wages upon
termination and provision of itemized statements to employees,
as well as unlawful business practices and unfair competition.
The complaint states claims for damages, including punitive and
exemplary damages, and injunctive relief.  

The Company filed an answer to the Huggett complaint and removed
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The suit is styled, "Matthew Huggett v. Red Robin International
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00181-JVS-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.  
Representing the Defendant/s are, J. Kevin Lilly, Darren E.
Nadel and Fermin H. Llaguno of Littler Mendelson, 2049 Century
Park E, 5th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107, Phone:
310-553-0308, Fax: 310-553-5583, E-mail: klilly@littler.com.  
Representing the Defendant/s are, Heather K. Rowell, Richard E.
Quintilone, II, and Devin R. Lucas of Quintilone and Associates,
15 Studebaker, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618-2013, Phone:
949-458-9675.


RED ROBIN: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Col.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ordered the
filing of a consolidated shareholder class action filed against
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer.

On August 15, 2005, Andre Andropolis filed the suit on behalf of
himself and all other purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the putative class period of November 8, 2004 through
August 11, 2005.  On September 30, 2005, Mark Baird filed a
similar purported class action complaint in the same court on
behalf of himself and the same class of stockholders as defined
in the Andropolis Complaint.

Both complaints allege that the company and defendants Michael
J. Snyder and James P. McCloskey violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10(b)(5) adopted pursuant to the Exchange Act by
disseminating false and misleading financial reports on behalf
of the company, by withholding adverse financial information on
behalf of the company from the class, and the individual
defendants were control persons who caused the company to engage
in such acts for their own benefit.  

The plaintiffs further allege that, because of the actions of
our former chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer, our stock price became inflated between November 8,
2004 and August 11, 2005, and on August 12, 2005, our stock
price fell sharply following their departures from their
positions with the company.  The class has not been certified
and no discovery has occurred.  Lead counsel and lead plaintiff
have been appointed and have received an extension to February
28, 2006 to file a consolidated complaint

The suit is styled, "Andropolis v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01563-EWN-BNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Edward
W. Nottingham, with referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland.

Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer &
Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
KShuman@DyerShuman.com; and Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins of Lilley &
Garcia, LLP, 1600 Stout Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-298-8975, E-mail: kcody-
hopkins@lilleygarcia.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Andrew Ryan Shoemaker and
Thomas Lee Strickland of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Phone:
720-406-5360 and 303-899-7300, Fax: 720-406-5301 and 899-7333,
E-mail: arshoemaker@hhlaw.com and tlstrickland@hhlaw.com.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Settle Calif. Continental Forge, Nev. Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy reached settlements in the Continental Forge
Litigation in California and a similar case filed in Nevada.

The litigation that is the subject of the settlement agreements
is frequently referred to as the Continental Forge litigation,
although the settlements also include other cases.  The
Continental Forge litigation, consisting of class-action and
individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
consolidated in San Diego Superior Court, allege that Sempra
Energy and the California Utilities, along with El Paso and
several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to control natural
gas and electricity markets and claim damages of $23 billion
after applicable trebling.

Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and
electric consumers served by the California IOUs.  The
settlement of Continental Forge would also include the
settlement of class action price reporting litigation,
consisting of antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that
Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported
natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and
engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions.

A second settlement agreement relates to class-action litigation
brought by the Nevada Attorney General in Nevada Clark County
District Court and involves virtually identical allegations to
those in the Continental Forge litigation.

                      Settlement Terms

To settle the California and Nevada litigation, the Company
would make cash payments in installments aggregating $377
million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge
and California class action price reporting litigation and $30
million relates to the Nevada antitrust litigation. Of the $377
million, $83 million would be paid within thirty days of final
approval of the settlement by the San Diego County Superior
Court, and an additional $83 million would be paid on the first
anniversary of that approval.  

Of the remaining amount, $27.3 million would be paid on the
closing date of the settlement and $26.3 million would be paid
on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the
seventh anniversary of the closing date. At any time after the
first anniversary of the closing date, the company would have
the option to prepay all or any portion of the remaining unpaid
settlement amounts at a discount rate of 7%, with any partial
prepayment applied to and reducing each remaining payment on an
equal and proportionate basis.

Additional consideration for the California settlement includes
an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the California
Utilities, subject to CPUC approval, re-gasified liquefied
natural gas from its liquefied natural gas terminal being
constructed in Baja California, Mexico at the California border
index price minus $0.02. The volumes to be purchased and sold
would be up to 500 million cubic feet per day that Sempra Energy
subsidiaries currently have contractual rights to purchase and
that is not delivered or sold to Mexican entities.  The
California Utilities also would seek approval from the CPUC to
integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to
develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for
access to their combined intrastate transmission system and
SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system.  In addition,
as described below, Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce
the price that it charges for power and limit the places at
which it would deliver power under its contract with the DWR.

The California settlement is subject to the approval of the San
Diego Superior Court, which has preliminarily approved the
settlement, and authorized providing notice to the plaintiff
class.  The Los Angeles City Council has not yet voted to
approve the City of Los Angeles's participation in the
settlement and it may elect to continue pursuing its individual
case against Sempra Energy and the California Utilities.  If the
City of Los Angeles decides not to participate, the company may,
at its option, either proceed with the settlement of the class
action and other individual cases or terminate the entire
agreement.  The California Attorney General, the DWR, the
California Energy Oversight Board, Edison, and Pacific Gas &
Electric Company unsuccessfully challenged the proposed notice
to the class based on their concern that, among other things,
the releases in the settlement agreement may be sufficiently
broad to encompass other proceedings against Sempra Energy and
its subsidiaries to which they are parties.

                     Final Approval Hearing

The final approval hearing for the Continental Forge settlement
is scheduled to occur on June 8, 2006.  The Nevada settlement is
subject to approval by the Nevada Clark County District Court,
which has not yet approved notice to the class or scheduled a
final approval hearing.  Both the California and Nevada
settlements must be approved for either settlement to take
effect, but the company is permitted to waive this condition.  
The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the CPUC,
the DWR, or any other governmental or regulatory agency to be
effective.

Sempra Energy recorded an after-tax charge of $116 million for
the quarter ended December 31, 2005 (all at the parent company)
to provide additional reserves to reflect the costs of the
settlements that exceed amounts previously reserved.  The
additional and previously reserved amounts for the California
and Nevada settlements aggregate $585 million (including $76
million at SDG&E and $155 million at SoCalGas) and fully provide
for the present value of both the cash amounts to be paid in the
settlements and the price discount to be provided on electricity
expected to be delivered under the DWR contract.







SERVICE CORPORATION: Plaintiff Files Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the action, captioned Ralph Lee Fancher, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, versus

     (1) Service Corporation International,

     (2) Alderwoods Group, Inc.,

     (3) Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,

     (4) Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.,

     (5) Aurora Casket Co., York Group, Inc., and

     (6) Batesville Casket Co.,"

re-filed an identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The suit was initially
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee on behalf of consumers in twenty-three states and the
District of Columbia who purchased caskets.

The allegations of fact were essentially the same as those made
in the FCA Case, but the plaintiff in this suit alleged that the
defendants violated various state antitrust, consumer protection
and/or unjust enrichment laws.  The plaintiff in this purported
class action withdrew his complaint on August 2, 2005, and re-
filed a nearly identical complaint under Tennessee law and on
behalf of only Tennessee consumers in the Northern District of
California on September 23, 2005, the same day that the
Consolidated Consumer Cases were transferred to the Southern
District of Texas.  Accordingly, this case remains pending in
the Northern District of California.

The suit is styled, "Fancher v. Service Corporation Int'l, et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-03855-BZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Bernard Zimmerman.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Richard
Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite
1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 217-6810, E-mail:
rick@saveri.com; and Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main
Avenue, Suite 601, Bank of America Center, Knoxville, TN 37902,
Phone: 865/525-7028, Fax: 865/525-4679.


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Calif. Antitrust Suit Moved to Tex. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two California casket antitrust lawsuits that name Stewart
Enterprises along with several other funeral homes and a casket
maker as defendants, were recently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On May 2, 2005, a purported class action, entitled, "Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises,
Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville
Casket Co., (FCA Case)," was filed in the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a
nationwide class defined to include all consumers who purchased
a Batesville casket from the funeral home defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants acted jointly to fix and
maintain prices on caskets and reduce competition from
independent casket discounters in violation of the federal
antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions Code.  
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Thereafter, five substantially similar lawsuits were filed in
the Northern District of California asserting claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  These five suits were transferred to the
division in which the FCA Case was pending and consolidated with
the FCA Case.

On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the
Northern District of California, entitled, "Pioneer Valley
Casket Co., Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation International,
Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co. (Pioneer
Valley Case).  The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims
asserted in the Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was
brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only
independent casket retailers.

On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for
failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust
and unfair competition claims.  On August 15, 2005, the Court
issued an order relating the Pioneer Valley Case to the
Consolidated Cases, but it has not been consolidated with the
Consolidated Consumer Cases for purposes of trial.  On September
9, 2005, the Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss,
without prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
and consolidated complaint that satisfies the objections raised
in the motions to dismiss.

At the defendants' request, the Court also issued orders in late
September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and
the Pioneer Valley Case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  The transferred cases were assigned
to different judges in the Southern District of Texas, but the
Company believes that they will ultimately be consolidated or
related before a single judge.

The FCA case is styled, "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc., et al.
v. Service Corporation International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,"
filed in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of
Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin
Botley.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Jonathan S. Abady of
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff, 545 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212-763-5000, Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail:
jabady@ecbalaw.com; and Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main
Ave., Ste. 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028, Fax:
865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Mark A. Cunningham of Jones
Walker, et al., 201 St. Charles Ave., New Orleans, LA 70170-
5100, Phone: 504-582-8000, Fax: 504-582-8583, E-mail:
mcunningham@joneswalker.com; and Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell
and Giuliani, LLP, 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
andrew.edison@bracewellguiliani.com.

The Pioneer Valley Case is styled, "Pioneer Valley Casket Co.,
Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al., Case No.
4:05-cv-03399, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to
Judge Calvin Botley.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Robert
S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710,
E-mail: rsg@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM; and Christine G. Pedigo of
Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601 Montgomery Street, Suite
665, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-398-8700, Fax: 415-398-
8704.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Robert E. Gooding of Howrey
Simon, et al., 2020 Main St., Ste. 1000, Irvine, CA 92614,
Phone: 949-721-6900, Fax: 949-721-6910; and Andrew M. Edison of
Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston,
TX 77002, Phone: 713-221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
ndrew.edison@bracewellguiliani.com.


SHELL OIL: Claims Filing Deadline, Trial Date Set in Motiva Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began Feb. 28, as ordered by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, about a
proposed settlement of the litigation against:

     (1) Shell Oil Company, and

     (2) Motiva Enterprises LLC, and others.  

The settlement concerns people who used or bought Motiva
gasoline from certain gasoline stations in Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida from May 11, 2004 to June 2,
2004, or through certain fleet storage facilities.

Lawsuits began in May 2004, after it was discovered that certain
batches of Motiva gasoline were sold with some amounts of
elemental sulfur and/or hydrogen sulfide.  Although the total
sulfur content was below the applicable governmental
regulations, these particular sulfur compounds can damage fuel
sensors in some models of cars and vehicles causing gas gauges
that measure the fuel level in the vehicle's gas tank, to break
or malfunction.  Problems with gas gauges usually occur within a
few days after the gas was used or not at all.  The gasoline was
supplied to a number of oil companies who, after adding their
own additives, sold the gasoline at their retail outlets.  The
vast majority of the gasoline was sold at some Shell and Texaco
gas stations.  The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong,
and the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an
indication that any law was violated.

                     Claims Filing Deadline

The settlement will make payments to people who submit valid
claims for reasonable and necessary vehicle repairs, actual lost
wages, incidental expenses, and other damages.  Those included
in the settlement may send in a claim form to ask for a payment,
or exercise other legal rights such as asking to be excluded
from, or objecting to, the settlement.  The deadline for
exclusions and objections is June 30, 2006.  The deadline to
submit claims is September 12, 2006.

                       Settlement Hearing

Notices informing people about their legal rights will be
mailed, and are scheduled to appear in newspapers and other
publications in states where the gas was sold, and also in other
states where Hurricane Katrina and Rita evacuees are now
located, leading up to a hearing on September 6, 2006, when the
Court will consider whether to approve the settlement.

The Court has appointed Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C.,
of Chicago, Illinois, and Don Barrett, Barrett Law Office, P.A.,
of Lexington, Mississippi, to represent the people included in
the class action, as the co- lead settlement Class Counsel.
For more information, visit: http://www.gasclaims.com.Phone: 1-
866-314-5812 (toll-free).  Those affected may also write to Gas
Settlement, P.O. Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007.

The suit is styled "In Re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products
Liability Litigation (2:04-md-01632-ILRL-KWR)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under
Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle, with referral to Karen Wells Roby.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ben Barnow
         Barnow & Associates, PC
         1 North La Salle St.
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-621-2000
         E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

     (2) Don John W. Barrett
         Barrett Law Offices
         404 Court Square North
         P.O. Drawer 987
         Lexington, MS 39095
         Phone: 662-834-2376


SOUTH KOREA: Child Victims of Sexual Abuse Mull Suit V. Gov't.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The families of sexually abused children are filing a lawsuit
against the South Korean government demanding damages, asserting
the children suffered additional emotional harm during their
case investigations, according to Joong Ang Daily National.

The families' lawyer Lee Myeong-suk said she will file the case
within the week on behalf of eight children, and claim KRW30
million ($30,880) for each victim.  She alleges that prosecutors
pressured victims to settle financially with offenders and
ordered the children to take part in abuse reenactments.  She is
calling for improvements in the investigation process, citing a
case of a five-year old boy, whose case was not investigated
until six months after the sex offender was charged.  

  
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Penn. Court Reinstates Lawsuit V. Execs
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court reinstated two lawsuits filed against
officials of bankrupt Paterson cheese company Suprema
Specialties, according to Courier Post Online.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in
Philadelphia overturns Federal Judge William H. Walls'
dismissals of the suit in 2004.

The defendants are Mark Cocchiola, former chief executive, and
Steve Venechanos, former chief financial officer.  The two face
criminal charges of conspiracy and fraud.  Authorities say Mr.
Cocchiola and Mr. Venechanos falsely reported hundreds of
millions of dollars of cheese revenues through fake invoices and
circular sales.  The lawsuit accuses the directors of overseeing
the fraud and then selling their own shares once the stock price
rose, according to North Jersey.com.  

Four directors and several hired contractors are also accused of
failing to carry out their responsibility to protect
shareholders.  The contractors are:

     (1) BDO Seidman of Chicago (company auditor),

     (2) Janney Montgomery Scott LLC of Philadelphia (secondary
         offering underwriters),

     (3) Pacific Growth Equities Inc. of San Francisco, and

     (4) Roth Capital Partners of Newport Beach, Calif.

Representing the main plaintiff, a Louisiana teachers' pension
fund, is:

     J. Erik Sandstedt
     Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
     1285 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, New York 10019
     (New York Co.)
     Phone: 212-554-1400
     Telecopier: 212-554-1444


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Morelock Enterprises Antitrust Case Put on Hold
----------------------------------------------------------------
The civil class action antitrust case against Weyerhaeuser Co.,
and styled, "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,"
was stayed pending the resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court of
the Initial Alder Case.

In April 2004, the lawsuit was filed against the Company in U.S.
District Court in Oregon claiming that as a result of its
alleged monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case, the Company
monopolized the market for finished alder and charged monopoly
prices for finished alder lumber.  In December 2004, the Judge
issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a class
representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber
between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of
awarding monetary damages.  The company denies the allegations
in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the matter.

In February 2005, class counsel notified the court that
approximately 5 percent of the class members opted out of the
class action.  The company has no litigation pending with any
entity that has opted out of the class, but it is possible that
entities that have opted out may file lawsuits against the
company in the future.  The case was stayed in the fourth
quarter of 2005 pending the U.S. Supreme Court entering a final
opinion in the Initial Alder Case.

The suit is styled, "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser
Co., Case No. 3:04-cv-00583-PA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Owen M. Panner.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Gregory Baruch and R. Stephen
Berry of Berry & Leftwich, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite
450, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 296-3020, Fax: (202)
296-3038, E-mail: gbaruch@berry-leftwich.com and sberry@berry-
leftwich.com; and Charles E. Corrigan of Ramis Crew Corrigan,
LLP, 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street, Portland, OR 97209, Phone:
(503) 222-4402, Fax: (503) 243-2944, E-mail:
chuckc@rcclawyers.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Kevin J. Arquit of Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10017, Phone: (212) 455-7680, Fax: (212) 455-2502, E-mail:
karquit@stblaw.com; and George J. Cooper, III of Dunn Carney
Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP, 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500,
Portland, OR 97204-1357, US, Phone: (503) 224-6440, Fax: (503)
224-7324, E-mail: gjc@dunn-carney.com.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: High Court Undecided on Reviewing Ore. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is yet to review Weyerhaeuser Co.'s
request for discretionary review of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals' ruling upholding summary judgment denial in the
Company's favor in the class action filed against it.

The suit (known as the Initial Alder Case) was initially filed
in the U.S. District Court in Oregon back in December 2000 and
is alleging that from 1996 to the present, the company had
monopoly power or attempted to gain monopoly power in the
Pacific Northwest market for alder logs and finished alder
lumber.  

In April 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of one of
the plaintiffs in the amount of $26 million, which was
automatically trebled to $79 million under the antitrust laws.
The company recognized a pretax charge of $79 million in the
first quarter of 2003.  The Company's motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict was denied in July 2003.  The
company appealed the matter.  A hearing on the appeal occurred
in December 2004.  The Company plans to ask for discretionary
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In September 2005, the Company asked for discretionary review of
the Initial Alder Case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In November
2005, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to
express the opinions of the U.S. on whether to accept review.

In a related matter, the Company received a copy of a "complaint
in equity" filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon to set aside
the judgment in the Initial Alder Case on behalf of a plaintiff
who did not prevail in the jury trial held in April 2003.  The
plaintiff, who filed the complaint back in January 2005, alleges
a fraud was committed on the court during the initial trial and
argues that as a result the judgment against the plaintiff
should be vacated and a new trial set on plaintiff's claim of
monopolization of the alder sawlog market.  

The complaint alleges damages after trebling of $20 million.  
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and is
actively defending the matter.  The appeals court upheld the
decision.  The U.S. District Court though stayed this matter
until the U.S. Supreme Court takes final action in the Initial
Alder Case.  The company denies the complaint's allegations.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 11, 2006
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
W Chicago Lakeshore Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 18, 2006
MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

June 8-9, 2006
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  
      




June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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



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

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
AFFECT ON THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE INDUSTRIES

TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 07, 2006
BEXTRA AND CELEBREX TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

March 28, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL CASES TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV (NYSE: CBI)
from March 9, 2005 through February 3, 2006 inclusive.

The complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding Chicago Bridge's business condition. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts that
the Company was materially overstating its financial results by
failing to properly utilize percentage-of-completion accounting;
and that the Company was not following its publicly stated
revenue recognition policies.

On October 26, 2005, Chicago Bridge announced that it would be
delaying the release of its third quarter financial results
because they were not finalized as scheduled.  On October 31,
2005, Chicago Bridge issued a press release announcing that the
delay in its release of financial results was "precipitated by a
memo from a senior member of CB&I's accounting department
alleging accounting improprieties, including the determination
of claim recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs
to complete two projects."

Then, on February 3, 2006, after the close of the market,
Chicago Bridge announced the terminations of Defendants Glenn
and Jordan.  Two hours after the announcement, an attorney
representing Defendants Glenn and Jordan issued a press release
representing that they had been terminated in connection with
the Company's internal accounting investigation. On the next
trading day, the price of Chicago Bridge stock dropped from
$29.00 to $22.33 per share.

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Micron
Technology, Inc. (NYSE: MU) between February 24, 2001 and
February 13, 2003, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho against defendant Micron 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.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho on behalf of all persons who acquired the publicly
traded securities of Micron Technology, Inc. (NYSE:MU) between
February 24, 2001 and February 13, 2003, inclusive.  Also
included are all those who acquired Micron through its
acquisitions of Dominion and Hynix.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements to manipulate the price of dynamic random access
memory, a type of computer memory semiconductor chip, known as
DRAM. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose these adverse
facts:

     (1) that Micron had entered into and engaged in a
         combination and conspiracy in the U.S. and
         elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of DRAM to be sold to certain
         original equipment manufacturers of personal computers
         and servers;

     (2) that Micron's publicly reported sales and earnings had
         been improperly inflated due to illegal price-fixing
         activities; and

     (3) that as a result of defendants' illegal price-fixing
         activities, Micron's sales and earnings reports and
         forward-looking price forecasts issued during the Class
         Period were false and misleading.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading Class Period
statements, Micron's shares traded at inflated prices enabling
the Company to issue more than $632 million worth of debt during
2003, sell over $480 million worth of warrants and complete
numerous stock-for-stock acquisitions using Micron's inflated
shares as currency. During the Class Period, insiders also sold
approximately $4.5 million worth of their own personally held
Micron stock.

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


PROQUEST COMPANY: Federman Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against
ProQuest Company.  

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 January 9, 2003 through February 8, 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.


PROQUEST COMPANY: Schiffrin Shareholder Securities Suit in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of all securities purchasers of ProQuest
Company between January 9, 2003 and February 8, 2006 inclusive.

The complaint charges ProQuest, Alan W. Aldworth, and Kevin G.
Gregory with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
ProQuest publishes solutions for the education, automotive, and
power equipment markets.  During the Class Period, defendants
embarked on a scheme to inflate the Company's stock price by
emphasizing the Company's consistent earnings growth and strong
financial results.  The accounting fraud raised the Company's
stock price from a Class Period low of $14 to a Class Period
high of $37.  This allowed defendants to complete an acquisition
of Voyager Expanded Learning (Voyager) for $340 million in cash
and approximately $21 million in stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the defendants materially manipulated the
         Company's financial results from at least 1999 to 2005
         by understating its defined income and accrued royalty
         accounts and by overstating its prepaid royalty
         account;

     (2) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         revenue and income figures were materially overstated
         during the Class Period;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
         and

     (4) that the Company lacked an adequate system of internal
         controls and as such, defendants financial projections
         lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On February 8, 2006, ProQuest shocked the market when it
announced that its "previously issued financial statements for
fiscal years 1999 through 2004, quarterly periods in 2005, and
the company's guidance for fiscal 2005, should no longer be
relied upon." On this news, shares of ProQuest fell $5.22 per
share, or 17.75 percent, to close, on February 9, 2006, at
$24.19 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA  19087, Phone: 1-800-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *