CAR_Public/060331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 31, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 65

                            Headlines

AGENT ORANGE: Int'l. Conference Demands Compensation for Victims
AIMCO PROPERTIES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Calif., Md.
AMERIGROUP CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Va.
ANTHONY-THOMAS: Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Egg Whites
BRACHS CONFECTIONS: Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Almonds

BRADY SULLIVAN: Condo Buyers Sue Over Floor Board "Upgrades"  
CALIFORNIA: $1.2M Settlement Agreed in Manhattan Beach Contest
CAPTARIS INC: Subsidiary Settles TCPA Suit, Faces Several Others
CINTAS CORP: Judge Sends to Arbitration Part of Overtime Lawsuit
CRUM & FORSTER: Continues to Face Policyholders' Suit in N.J.

DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Settles Independent Retailers' Suit in Calif.
EEL RIVER: Workers, Management to Discuss Ownership Issue April
FINISAR CORP: Court Sets Stock Suit Fairness Hearing Next Month
FLORIDA: Judge Sides with Fort Lauderdale in Code Crackdown Suit
GENERAL NUTRITION: Continues to Face Pro-Hormone Products Suits

GNC CORP: Settles Consumer Lawsuits in Ala., Calif., Ill., Tex.
GUITAR CENTER: Musical Instruments Retailers File Suit in Fla.
IMERGENT INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
JARDEN CORP: Continues to Face Multiple Securities Suits in N.Y.
KENTUCKY: Judge Allows Independent Living for Mentally Retarded

LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Court Sets May 2006 Settlement Hearing
LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Faces Consumer Suits in Ohio, Pa., Fla.
MAIN STREET: Reserves $1.5M for Calif. Meal Breaks Lawsuits
NASSDA CORP: Del., Calif. Lawsuits Over Sale to Synopsys Nixed
NESTLE COUNTRY: Recalls Ice Cream Flavors with Undeclared Egg

NEW MEXICO: Title Insurance Regulations Challenged in Court
NISOURCE INC: Continues to Face Suit in W.Va. Over "Gas Scheme"
OHIO: Judge Okays Removal of Social Security Numbers from Web
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Minn.
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Faces ERISA Violations Complaint in Minn.

PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit Demands Safer Road Access for Disabled
RADIAN GUARANTY: Plaintiffs Appeal Pa. Court's Summary Judgment
SOUTH DAKOTA: Advocacy Group Files Racial Bias Suit V. School
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Rocking Chairs After Injury Reports

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Continues to Face Shareholder Suits in Okla.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Faces Hurricane-Related Lawsuits in La.

                         Asbestos Alert   

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Appeals Court Reinstates McCorkle Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Advance Auto, Units Named in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $214M Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Posts US$6.3M Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Allots $4.2M for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Notes US$72.2M LAE Reserves for A&E
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transatlantic Holdings Notes $99M Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Facing 42,600 Litigations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Mulls Grace Settlement Outlook

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Faces Liability Suits in Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cape Notes Net Charge for Claims at GBP3.7M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Financial Marks $132M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Acme United Marks US$1.5M for Removal Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Notes US$25.3M Liability in 2005

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Records Nearly US$7Mil for A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Posts $438,418 for A&E Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Unit Posts Cleanup Costs at US$3.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 500 Suits from Old Ventures
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Contends With 309 Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Holdings Injury Suits Drop to 325
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corporation Challenges 101,170 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Claims Rise to 4,500 in 4Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec Corp Notes Increase in Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former M&F Unit Contends With Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Reports US$873Mil A&E Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Incurs US$2.99B Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Posts 118 New Asbestos Claims in 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records US$24.3Mil Reserves in 4Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AM Best Reports Industry A&E Losses at $26B

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TN Judge Ends $20M "Clothing" Suit v. Alcoa
ASBESTOS ALERT: Belden CDT Inc. Acknowledges 147 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Tarragon Completes Remediation Costs at US$795T
ASBESTOS ALERT: West Hills Fined US$45T for Handling Violations


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COOPER COMPANIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Calif.
H&R BLOCK: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Miss.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Wis.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Smith & Smith Files Stock Suit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Stock Suit in Fla.

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.


                            *********


AGENT ORANGE: Int'l. Conference Demands Compensation for Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Activists and Vietnam War veterans attending a global conference
on Agent Orange called on the U.S. government and chemical
companies to pay compensation for damages caused by dioxin,
Orlando Sentinel reports.

The two-day conference in Hanoi that started March 28 was
attended by 100 activists from at least six countries including
the U.S., South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the
report said.  At the center of the discussion is the chemical
used during the Vietnam war.

Historians estimate some 300,000 South Korean troops fighting in
Vietnam with U.S.-led forces.  U.S. warplanes dropped defoliant
on Vietnamese forests between 1962 and 1971 to destroy sources
of food and cover.  Among the chemical by-products of Agent
Orange is dioxin, a compound that can cause cancer, deformities
and organ dysfunction.

The U.S. government insists there is no scientific evidence
directly linking dioxin to the ailments.  Last year, a U.S.
federal district court in Brooklyn dismissed a class action
filed on behalf of Vietnamese citizens alleging that U.S.
chemical companies committed war crimes by making Agent Orange
for use during the war.


AIMCO PROPERTIES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Calif., Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Company
faces class actions filed in the Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County and Montgomery County Maryland Circuit
Court, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

Initially, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, alleging that the Company failed to
pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess
of forty per week.  The suit attempts to bring a collective
action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in
California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the Company and NHPMN
failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were
required to be "on-call."  Additionally, the complaint alleges
the Company and NHPMN failed to comply with the FLSA in
compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

In June 2005, the court conditionally certified the collective
action on both the on-call and overtime issues, which allows the
plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all
non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the
present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to
the collective action, and the Company and NHPMN will have the
opportunity to move to decertify the collective action.  

The opt-in period has not yet closed.  When it does, the company
and NHPMN will have the opportunity to move to decertify the
collective action.  

Because the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify state
subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class
action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of
California (Contra Costa County), and on November 5, 2005 in
Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigroup Corp., as well as current and former officers of the
company, asked a federal judge to throw out a securities suit
filed against them in a joint response lodged with the court on
March 27, The Virginian-Pilot reports.

The company and its officers said plaintiff failed to:
adequately define its allegations and didn't meet the
requirements for a federal securities-fraud case; and the lead
plaintiff in the case disregarded Amerigroup's sufficient
warnings to shareholders about investment risks.

Amerigroup is facing a consolidated amended securities class
action, styled, "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
AMERIGROUP Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS,"
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2006).

Beginning Oct. 3, 2005, five purported class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia on behalf of persons who acquired common stock
between April 27, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2005.  The actions alleged
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 10, 2006, the Court issued an order:

     (1) consolidating the Actions;

     (2) setting "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
         AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-701
         as lead case for purposes of trial and all pretrial
         proceedings;

     (3) appointing Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI) as
         Lead Plaintiff and its choice of counsel as Lead
         Counsel; and

     (4) ordering that Lead Plaintiff file a Consolidated
         Amended Complaint (CAC) by February 24, 2006.

On February 24, 2006, ISBI filed the CAC, which purports to
allege claims on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased common stock from February 16, 2005 through September
28, 2005.

The CAC asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b),
20(a), 20(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against defendants AMERIGROUP Corporation, Jeffrey L.
McWaters, James G. Carlson, E. Paul Dunn, Jr. and Kathleen K.
Toth.  Lead Plaintiff alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's financial statements, business, and prospects.  Among
other things, the CAC seeks compensatory damages and attorneys'
fee and costs.

The suit was styled, "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
Amerigroup Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia under Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge
F. Bradford Stillman.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500
         World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446-
         8600;

     (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento,
         PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA
         23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000;

     (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580
         E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757)
         625-6787

Representing the defendants is Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman
& Canoles, PC, 150 W. Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA
23510, Phone: (757) 624-3000.


ANTHONY-THOMAS: Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Egg Whites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony-Thomas Candy Company in Columbus, Ohio is recalling 6
oz. and 12 oz. packages of Filled Easter Eggs because they may
contain undeclared egg whites, yellow no. 5 and yellow no.6.  
The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.  No illnesses
have been reported to date.

The Filled Easter Eggs were distributed through retail stores
between January 27, 2006 and March 27, 2006 in Alabama,
Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, IO, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin.

These flavors are included in the recall: Coconut Cream, Peanut
Butter, Butter Cream, Fruit and Nut, Chocolate Fudge, Chocolate
Fudge Pecan, and Maple Walnut Fudge with production code numbers
from 6027 to 6083.

The product is packaged in a cardboard package with a clear
cellophane top panel in which the filled egg can be viewed.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing egg was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of egg.  The egg whites are an ingredient in the
decorative flowers on these products.

Distribution of these products has been suspended until the
company and FDA are certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who purchased the products are advised to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company toll free at 1-877-226-3921.


BRACHS CONFECTIONS: Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Almonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brach's Confections, Inc. of Dallas, Texas is recalling a
limited production lot of Sam's Choice Belgian Milk Chocolate
Bars, because they may contain undeclared almonds.  The company
said people who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

Sam's Choice Belgian Milk Chocolate Bars are distributed by Wal-
Mart stores nationwide. A chocolate bar is a 7-ounce (200-gram)
bar wrapped in a purple paper outer wrap.  The upper right
corner of the back panel of the bar displays a "Best By:" marker
featuring code D2551A2 December 20, 2006.  No illnesses have
been reported.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing almonds was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of almonds.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by an isolated, temporary
breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased a Sam's Choice Belgian Milk
Chocolate Bar with this code date are advised to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-283-6303.


BRADY SULLIVAN: Condo Buyers Sue Over Floor Board "Upgrades"  
------------------------------------------------------------
Five homeowners in Stone Terrace Condominium in Manchester, New
Hampshire, filed a suit against their condo developer, alleging
the company engaged in "bait and switch" strategy when it
offered them "upgrades" in their flooring.  The homeowners said
Brady Sullivan Properties LLC passed off plywood flooring as
expensive board in their project, according to the Union Leader.

The suit, seeking class action status, is filed in Hillsborough
County Superior Court.  The proposed class includes anyone who
bought a condo from Brady Sullivan, provided the condo had been
represented as having wood baseboards or chair rails, and anyone
who bought a hardwood flooring upgrade, the report said.  No
defense response has yet been filed to the allegations, the
court clerk's office told the Union Leader.

The plaintiffs are residents Barry Stelmack, Michael and
Kathleen LaSala, and Reine and Sally Fortier, who bought their
units from Brady Sullivan in 2004 and 2005.  The defendants also
include:

      -- 1750 Elm Street LLC,
      -- Cypress Court Condominium LLC, and
      -- Stone House Condominium LLC.

The case is styled, "Stelmack et al. v. Brady Sullivan
Properties LLC et al. (No. 06-C-147)."  Representing the
plaintiffs is Rob Miller with Manchester-based Sheehan, Phinney,
Bass and Green.  Representing Brady Sullivan is David Moynihan,
PNGTS Operating Co., LLC, One Harbour Pl., 3rd Fl., Portsmouth,
New Hampshire.


CALIFORNIA: $1.2M Settlement Agreed in Manhattan Beach Contest
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Manhattan Beach man, who was convicted in a fraudulent house
giveaway contest, has agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a
class action, according to CBS2.com.

In 2000, Ben Waldrep sponsored a contest asking participants to
write an essay on why he or she wanted to live in Manhattan
Beach. He set the entry fee at $195.  When the contest ended in
July 2001, only about 1,800 people had entered, giving him only
$360,000.  The house's assessed value was $800,000.  He
cancelled the contest and sold the house for $1.2 million.  
Afterwards, a jury found that he had committed fraud and ordered
him to repay $1.8 million in entry fees and interest to the
contestants.

In a recent development, he agreed to turn over $600,000 to
$650,000 from a bank account that Superior Court Judge Andria
Richey froze last year, according to Associated Press.  He will
shell out the additional amount of the settlement from the sale
of a Lomita home that Mr. Waldrep transferred to his daughter's
boyfriend, the report said.  The settlement is still subject to
the approval of Judge Richey and a bankruptcy judge.

The suit was filed by Don Coulson nearly four years ago on
behalf of 1,724 contestants.


CAPTARIS INC: Subsidiary Settles TCPA Suit, Faces Several Others
----------------------------------------------------------------
A wholly owned subsidiary of Captaris, Inc. is trying to settle
as well as defend itself against several class actions alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

One of the services provided by MediaTel Corporation, the
company's subsidiary, until its business was sold, was the
transmission of facsimiles to travel industry participants on
behalf of travel service providers.  MediaTel held a license to
use a database supplied by NFO PLOG and then Northstar Travel
Media that listed recipients for these facsimiles.  All of the
assets of MediaTel were sold to a subsidiary of PTEK Holdings,
Inc. (PTEK) on September 1, 2003.

Travel 100 Group, Inc. (Travel 100) filed three lawsuits in
Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, one against
Mediterranean Shipping Company (Mediterranean), the second
against The Melrose Hotel Company (Melrose) and the third
against Oceania Cruises (Oceania).  Oceania Cruises was also
named in a fourth lawsuit filed by Travel Travel Kirkwood, Inc.
(Kirkwood) on or about April 13, 2004.  That suit was
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri.  

The Oceania case was dismissed without prejudice in March 2005.  
The parties entered into a cash settlement of the Kirkwood case,
the company's portion of which was not material, and that case
was dismissed with prejudice as to all parties on June 28, 2005.

The complaints in the remaining cases are substantially
identical in form and allege violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with the receipt of
facsimile advertisements that were transmitted by MediaTel.  
Each of the Travel 100 complaints seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages and certification as a class action on
behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly situated throughout
the U.S. that received the facsimile advertisements.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a court can impose
liability of $500 per fax on a party that sends a fax without
the consent of the recipient.  A court can increase the
liability to $1,500 per fax if the sending of the fax is
willful.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean named
the company as a third-party defendant and asserted that, to the
extent that Mediterranean is liable, the company should be
liable under theories of indemnification, contribution or breach
of contract for any damages suffered by Mediterranean.

Similarly, in its answer filed on October 14, 2003, Melrose
named the company, as well as PTEK, as third-party defendants
based on allegations of breach of contract, indemnification and
contribution.

In response to Mediterranean's third-party complaint, the
company filed its answer on November 3, 2003, denying the
allegations filed by Mediterranean and further answering by way
of affirmative defenses that to the extent the company is found
liable for any damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs or any
third-party plaintiffs in this action, the company is entitled
to indemnification and/or contribution from other non-parties to
this action.  The company also filed similar answers to the
Melrose complaint on November 20, 2003.

Both the company and MediaTel denied any liability in the cases
because, among other facts and defenses, MediaTel understood
that the database and lists of travel agent recipients to whom
faxes were sent had authorized that information could be sent to
them by fax.  Based on the company's analysis to date, it
estimates that there were approximately 500,000 faxes sent
relating to the Mediterranean case and approximately 200,000
faxes sent relating to the Melrose case.

On January 30, 2006, the court in Melrose preliminarily approved
a settlement between the plaintiffs and Melrose.  Under the
settlement agreement, Melrose and its insurers will pay the
plaintiff-class between $500,000 and $2.4 million depending on
the resolution of certain issues between Melrose and its insurer
St. Paul.  Under the settlement, the plaintiff-class will
release the company and MediaTel from any further litigation
relating to Melrose facsimiles.

However, Melrose retains it right to pursue its claims for
contribution against the company and MediaTel.  The potential
liability of the company to Melrose would be the ultimate amount
of the settlement paid to the settlement class, its attorneys
and administrative costs.  The settlement will not become final
until several months after the preliminary approval.

Discovery is ongoing in the Mediterranean case.  The company
expects discovery to close, for purposes of class certification,
on March 31, 2006.  A status conference is set for April 11,
2006, at which time the company expects the court to set a
briefing schedule for class certification.


CINTAS CORP: Judge Sends to Arbitration Part of Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Uniform company Cintas Corp. wants some plaintiffs in an
overtime class action filed against it to enter arbitration
individually, according to Cincinnati Business Courier.

In February, federal judge in Oakland, California, allowed 483
workers to proceed with their claim over alleged unpaid overtime
wages, but determined that others were subject to the
arbitration clauses in their employment contracts.  About 2,400
employees had filed suit against the company.  In March, Cintas
filed motions in about 70 federal courts against 1,800 current
and former employees, the report said.

Cintas said the arbitration must be in the county where they
work or worked -- which is unusual, if not unprecedented, a law
professor told the Wall Street Journal.  The setup could save
Cintas money because it could be more difficult for individuals
to arbitrate claims and possibly result in lower awards, the
report said.

Cincinnati-based Cintas -- http://www.cintas-corp.com--  
provides uniforms and related services throughout North America.


CRUM & FORSTER: Continues to Face Policyholders' Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. and U.S. Fire, among numerous
other insurance company and insurance brokers, were named as
defendants in a class action suit filed by policyholders
alleging, among other things, that the defendants used the
contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of free
competition in the market for insurance.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  Plaintiffs seek certification of a
nationwide class consisting of all persons who between August
26, 1994 and the date of the class certification engaged the
services of any one of the broker defendants and who entered
into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the insurer
defendants.


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Settles Independent Retailers' Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Holdings, LLC settled a class action in California,
regarding the company's commission schemes and certain
chargeback disputes with independent retailers.  A similar
Oklahoma class action remains pending before the American
Arbitration Association.

In April 2001, Robert Garcia, doing business as Direct Satellite
TV, an independent retailer of DIRECTV System equipment,
instituted arbitration proceedings against DIRECTV Holdings,
LLC, in Los Angeles, California regarding commissions and
certain chargeback disputes.  

On October 4, 2001, Mr. Garcia filed a class action complaint
against the company in Los Angeles County Superior Court
asserting the same claims and a Consumer Legal Remedies Act
claim.  Mr. Garcia alleged $300 million in class-wide damages
and sought certification of a class of plaintiffs to proceed in
arbitration with court oversight.

In February 2004, the trial court compelled the matter to
arbitration and relinquished all jurisdictions in connection
with the case.  On November 5, 2005, the parties agreed to
settle and dismiss with prejudice all claims each had asserted
against the other in the arbitration, effective as of August 5,
2005.  Neither party paid any money to the other in connection
with the settlement, and each party agreed to bear its own costs
and attorneys' fees.

On May 18, 2001, plaintiffs Cable Connection, Inc., TV Options,
Inc., Swartzel Electronics, Inc. and Orbital Satellite, Inc.
filed a class action complaint against the company in Oklahoma
State Court, alleging claims similar to those in the Garcia
matter described above on behalf of all DIRECTV dealers.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  
After several procedural hearings and orders, the matter is now
pending before the American Arbitration Association.


EEL RIVER: Workers, Management to Discuss Ownership Issue April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action filed by sawmill workers against Eel
River Sawmill's management will meet on April 11, 2006 in San
Francisco, California to negotiate a possible settlement, The
Times-Standard reports.

The suit was filed in 2002 by sawmill workers Clifford Crowl and
Thomas Swain, who alleged the company's deceased founder
deceived them when he promised the workers -- who participated
in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan -- majority ownership before
he died in 1999.   But the mills were sold to a group of
investors in 2002.  Eel River Forest Products is now defunct
after federal timber sales were nearly eliminated in the 1990s.

Although, the stock is now essentially worthless, plaintiffs
want damages based on the value of the stock before the alleged
wrongdoing.  The suit named as defendants Company President
Dennis Scott and the McLean Foundation, which were set up by
founder Mel McLean.

Claims of breach of contract, breach of promise and professional
negligence have been tossed out in the case.  According to the
report, lawyers for the company are asking retired Trinity
County Judge John Letton to cut out the class action element of
the suit, and in a separate motion, to dismiss the entire suit.  
They argue that the federal government regulates Employee Stock
Ownership Plans, giving the federal court jurisdiction.

If a settlement is not reached, the case will go to trial on May
22, 2006 where a jury will decide whether more than 100 people
were defrauded and deceived by the defendants.  The suit was
originally filed by Eureka attorney William Bertain.  

Plaintiff's lawyer is San Francisco firm Cotchett, Pitre, Simon
and McCarthy (http://www.cpsmlaw.com/). Eel River Sawmill's  
lawyer is Patrick W. Emery of Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren &
Emery, 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 200, P.O. Box 1566 Santa
Rosa, California 95402-1566 (Sonoma Co.), Phone: 707-542-5050;
Fax: 707-542-2589.


FINISAR CORP: Court Sets Stock Suit Fairness Hearing Next Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Finisar
Corporation, which was filed on November 30, 2001, purportedly
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock from November 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  

The complaint named as defendants Finisar, Jerry S. Rawls, its
President and Chief Executive Officer, Frank H. Levinson, its
former Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical Officer,
Stephen K. Workman, its Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, and an investment banking firm that served as
an underwriter for its initial public offering in November 1999
and a secondary offering in April 2000.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration
statements for the offerings failed to disclose, among other
things:

     (1) that the underwriter had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the underwriter
         allocated to those investors material portions of the
         shares of its stock sold in the offerings and

     (2) the underwriter had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate
         shares of its stock sold in the offerings to those
         customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional shares of its stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations were made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, which were consolidated
for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims against the
individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.  In July 2004, the Company and the
individual defendants accepted a settlement proposal made to all
of the issuer defendants.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in
all related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.

Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases.  If the plaintiffs fail to recover
$1 billion and payment is required under the guaranty, the
company would be responsible to pay its pro rata portion of the
shortfall, up to the amount of the self-insured retention under
its insurance policy, which may be up to $2 million.

The timing and amount of payments that the company could be
required to make under the proposed settlement will depend on
several factors, principally the timing and amount of any
payment that the insurers may be required to make pursuant to
the $1 billion guaranty.

The Court held hearings on April 13, 2005 and September 6, 2005
to determine the form, substance and program of class notice and
the scheduling of a fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement.  The court set a hearing for April 24, 2006 to
consider final approval of the settlement.


FLORIDA: Judge Sides with Fort Lauderdale in Code Crackdown Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages dismissed a class
action filed against Fort Lauderdale's code enforcement
practices in black neighborhoods, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
reports.  The judge said the plaintiffs' code violations were
not similar enough.  But she left open the possibility that it
can be amended and refilled, according to the report.

Homeowners sued the city for its code enforcement practices,
claiming that poor and elderly residents of northwest Fort
Lauderdale were hit with gigantic fines in a confusing and
unfair process, The Sun-Sentinel.com reports (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 5, 2005).

Attorney Sharon Bourassa of Legal Aid Service filed the suit in  
Broward Circuit Court.  The suit contends that the city's Code
Enforcement Department uses selective enforcement and its
notices are a violation of residents' due process (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 5, 2005).  However, the judge wrote the
lawsuit's claim that black homeowners in northwest Fort
Lauderdale were targeted was not supported.  The federal court
refused to take on a claim that "the goal of gentrification
creates an unjustifiable classification raises novel and complex
issues of state law."  The code sweep is dubbed NEAT for
Neighborhood Enhancement Action Team.

Legal Aid's lawyer is Sharon Bourassa-Diaz of Broward Co., Inc.,
609 SW 1st Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, (Broward Co.).


GENERAL NUTRITION: Continues to Face Pro-Hormone Products Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Companies, Inc. and various manufacturers of
products containing pro-hormones, including androstenedione,
continues to face five substantially identical suits filed in
the state courts of the States of Florida, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Illinois.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Brown v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No.
         02-14221-AB, Florida Circuit Court for the 15th
         Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County;

     (2) Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Index
         No. 02/126277, New York Supreme Court, County of New
         York, Commercial Division;

     (3) Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Docket No.
         L-3789-02, New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County;

     (4) Toth v. Bodyonics, Ltd., Case No. 003886, Pennsylvania
         Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; and

     (5) Pio v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 2-
         CH-14122, Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County

On March 20, 2004, a similar lawsuit was filed in California
(Guzman v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 04-
00283).

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants distributed or published
periodicals that contain advertisements claiming that the
various pro-hormone products promote muscle growth.  The
complaints allege that the Company knew the advertisements and
label claims promoting muscle growth were false, but nonetheless
continued to sell the products to consumers.  

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
attorney's fees and the costs of suit.  All of the products
involved in the cases are third-party products.  The company has
tendered these cases to the various manufacturers for defense
and indemnification.


GNC CORP: Settles Consumer Lawsuits in Ala., Calif., Ill., Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Corporation reached a settlement for five class action filed
against it in the state courts of Alabama, California, Illinois
and Texas with respect to claims that the labeling, packaging
and advertising with respect to a third-party product sold by
the company were misleading and deceptive.

The company denies any wrongdoing and is pursuing
indemnification claims against the manufacturer.  As a result of
mediation, the parties have agreed in principle to a settlement
of the lawsuits, which is currently in the process of being
finalized.  Once finalized, the settlement will be subject to
court approval.

Pursuant to the settlement, a notice to the class will be
published in a one-time mass advertising media publication.  
Each person that purchased the third-party product and is part
of the class will receive a cash reimbursement equal to the
retail price paid, net of sales tax, upon presentation to the
company of a cash register receipt as proof of purchase or, if a
receipt is not available, return of the actual product.

If a person purchased the product, but does not have a cash
register receipt or the product itself, such a person may submit
a signed affidavit and will then be entitled to receive one or
more coupons.  The number of coupons will be based on the total
amount of purchases of the product subject to a maximum of five
coupons per purchaser.

Each coupon will have a cash value of $10.00 valid toward any
purchase of $25.00 or more at a GNC store.  The coupons will not
be redeemable by any GNC Gold Card member during Gold Card Week
and will not be redeemable for products subject to any other
price discount.  

The coupons are to be redeemed at point of sale and are not
mail-in rebates. They will be redeemable for a 90-day period
after the settlement is final.

The Company will issue a maximum of 5 million certificates with
a combined face value of $50.0 million.  Based on its experience
with coupons, the Company believes that the redemption rate will
be approximately 1%, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition to the cash reimbursements and coupons, as part of
the settlement, the company will be required to pay legal and
administrative fees of approximately $1.2 million and will incur
$0.7 million in 2006 for advertising and postage costs related
to the notification letters.


GUITAR CENTER: Musical Instruments Retailers File Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center, Inc. (Nasdaq: GTRC) and its Chief Executive
Officer were named as defendants in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO), several antitrust laws and trade
practices.

The complaint, filed on November 29, 2005, asserts, among other
things, violations of the RICO and a corresponding Florida
statute, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section
2 of the Clayton Act (as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act),
the Antidumping Act of 1916, the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980,
and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as
well as tortious interference with business relationship under
Florida law and civil conspiracy under Florida law by some or
all of the identified defendants in connection with the claimed
inability of Ace Pro Sound and Recording, L.L.C. to obtain
vendor lines for its store.

The complaint purports to be made as a class action on behalf of
all current and former retailers of musical instruments and/or
sound equipment and/or recording equipment with stores located
in geographical regions in the U.S. wherein some or all of the
defendants have carried on business.  The suit seeks
compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Service relating to the complaint was made on the company on
January 12, 2006 and a responsive pleading is due in March 2006.


IMERGENT INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah determined that
the complaint filed by the Hillel Hyman should be substituted as
the new consolidated amended complaint in a securities fraud
case pending against iMergent, Inc.

On March 8, 2005, Elliott Firestone filed a lawsuit, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, against the
Company, certain current and former officers, and current and
former directors, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah (Civil No. 2:05cv00204 DB).

This suit was followed by several other similar complaints.  The
Court ordered that the cases be consolidated, and on November
23, 2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws" against the company,
certain current and former officers, and current and former
directors, together with the former independent registered
public accounting firm for the Company, Grant Thornton LLP, as
defendants.  

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of
securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were
responsible for the making of material misleading statements and
omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and
failing to make proper disclosures, which required the Company
to restate its financial results.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Although this action was determined by the court to be the
"consolidated action," Hillel Hyman filed a complaint in October
2005 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the Company, certain current and former officers,
current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP.  

The group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the
"accounting restatement group" (ARG) and alleges that it should
be determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as
it properly alleges a class period consistent with timing
necessary to raise a claim based upon the restatement of
financial results announced by the company.  The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws by the company and
Grant Thornton LLP.

The company disputes the allegations in both actions, but has
not filed substantive responsive pleadings to the actions.  On
February 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference," the court
determined that the complaint filed by the ARG should be
substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint and
further ordered a new notice to be sent allowing allegedly
affected stockholders to petition to be lead plaintiff in the
consolidated amended complaint, and the court will subsequently
determine the lead law firm.

The court further ordered that the discovery stay imposed under
applicable federal law, which controls the administration of
class action, remain in place.  The court has not yet determined
a schedule by which it will determine the new lead plaintiff and
law firm.  

The suit is styled, "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-00861-DAK, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, C. Richard Henriksen, Jr. of Henriksen &
Henriksen, 320 S. 500 E., Salt Lake City, UT 84102, Phone: (801)
521-4145, E-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com; and Ira M. Press of Kirby
Mcinerney & Squire, 830 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, US,
Phone: (212) 317-6600, E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Jacqueline Benson and Gary F.
Bendinger of Howrey, LLP, Phone: (713) 654-7693 and (801) 533-
8383, E-mail: bendingerg@howrey.com.


JARDEN CORP: Continues to Face Multiple Securities Suits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarden Corporation and certain of its officers are defendants in
several securities fraud class actions pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January and February of 2006, purported class actions were
filed against the company alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The actions purport to be filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from
June 29, 2005 (the date the company announced our signing of the
agreement to acquire Holmes) through January 12, 2006.

The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the company relating to the expected benefits of the Holmes
acquisition.  

To date the Company has been served with only one of these
complaints.  No class has been certified in the actions.  The
complaints seek compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

The first identified complaint is styled, "Ernesto Darquea, et
al. v. Jarden Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

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

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

     (3) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 60 Park
         Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212.838.3221, E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com;

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

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

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

     (7) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com;

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

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

    (10) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


KENTUCKY: Judge Allows Independent Living for Mentally Retarded
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge finalized an agreement regarding the transfer of
some 1,500 mentally retarded people to homes or in communities
so that they could live independently, The Courier-Journal
reports.

The suit was field in 2002 on behalf of about 2,600 mentally
retarded adults on a waiting list for help for such services as
home health, therapy and adult day care.  The ruling allowed
hundreds to avail of the state Medicaid program.  The ruling,
however, is a setback to families of some mentally retarded
adults who fear the deal would lead to the closure of four
residential centers.  The families concerned are those of 500
residents at Oakwood, Hazelwood Center and the Bingham Unit in
Louisville, and Outwood in Dawson Springs.  They point to the
provision of the agreement that require the state not "backfill"
beds when a resident leaves to live in the community.

The agreement intends to provide about $230 million in expanded
services at home or in the community for mentally retarded
adults over the next several years.  

The suit is styled, "P., et al v. Birdwhistle, et al, Case No.
3:02-cv-00023-JMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge Joseph M. Hood with
referral to J. Gregory Wehrman.  Representing the plaintiffs
are: William Stuart Dolan, Kenneth Zeller and Kevin D. McManis
of Protection & Advocacy Division, 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Third
Floor, Frankfort, KY 40601, Phone: 502-564-3948 and
859-971-6253.


LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Court Sets May 2006 Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
slated a May 16, 2006 final fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of the consolidated class action filed against
subsidiaries of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., alleging that
certain Michigan homeowners were overcharged for title
insurance.

On May 9, 2000, Romeo Jergess filed a putative class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Case No. 00-72124) against Transnation Title Insurance Company,
a subsidiary of the company.

The suit alleged that the company rate for an owner's title
insurance policy, charged in accordance with rates for new
construction filed with the Insurance Bureau of the State of
Michigan, were less than the rate paid by the lender for a
simultaneously issued lender's title insurance policy.  It also
alleged that the lower rate paid by the builder/developer for
the owner's policy involved an illegal kickback for a referral
and an illegal splitting of fees in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

On April 27, 2001, a similar suit was filed by Elaine Miller in
the same court (Case No. 01-71647) against Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation, another subsidiary of the company.  

The plaintiffs in both suits sought an unspecified amount of
damages equal to three times the amount of the charge for each
simultaneously issued lender's title insurance policy in
connection with a new home purchase commencing with the period
one year before the filing of each complaint, plus costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

Both Transnation and Lawyers Title engaged a forensic accountant
to review plaintiffs' estimate that the charges collected for
such policies by the LandAmerica subsidiaries from the class as
originally defined was approximately $15.0 million.  

On July 18, 2002, the suits were consolidated with cases pending
against First American Title Insurance Company and Chicago Title
Insurance Company.  On December 5, 2002, the court certified a
class defined as all individuals who, during the period
commencing prior to one year of the filing of the applicable
suit and ending on October 30, 2002, purchased a newly
constructed one to four family dwelling or condominium and were
charged for a lender's title insurance policy allegedly in
violation of RESPA.

On February 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit denied Transnation's and Lawyers Title's petitions for
an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order.  On
October 30, 2003, the judge ordered that individuals otherwise
meeting the class definition, but who closed transactions
involving relevant policies between October 31, 2002 through
October 30, 2003, would not be subject to a statute of
limitations defense raised by Transnation Title or Lawyers Title
between October 30, 2003 and October 31, 2004.

On October 28, 2004, Transnation and Lawyers Title stipulated to
an order that individuals otherwise meeting the class
definition, but who closed transactions involving relevant
policies between October 31, 2002 through October 30, 2004,
would not be subject to a statute of limitations defense raised
by either subsidiary between October 30, 2004 and October 31,
2005.  The court later reserved decision on a Motion to proceed
to trial with the certified class as originally defined.

On January 13, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case for lack of standing.  On February 7, 2005, the
court dismissed without prejudice Transnation's and Lawyers
Title's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to
those members of the class covered by the affiliated business
exception under RESPA with the court indicating that the parties
could resubmit the motion with additional information.  

The court has not yet ruled on the parties' cross Motions for
Summary Judgment on Count II of plaintiffs' complaint alleging
an illegal splitting of fees under RESPA.  On April 21, 2005,
defendants' filed various Motions for Summary Judgment and
Limine with respect to multiple issues.  The parties
participated in non-binding mediation beginning May 3, 2005.

On May 19, 2005, Transnation and Lawyers Title entered into a
binding term sheet to settle the consolidated suits.  The
parties entered into a final Settlement Agreement incorporating
the provisions of the Term Sheet on February 8, 2006.  

The Settlement Agreement provides for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims by plaintiffs against Transnation and
Lawyers Title and a release of all claims by plaintiffs except
claims under their title policies.  The court granted Motions
for Preliminary Approval on February 10, 2006.  A final
settlement/fairness hearing will be held on May 16, 2006.

If approved, Transnation and Lawyers Title, who did not admit
any liability in the settlement will be obligated to make a
single aggregate payment of $10.3 million out of an established
reserve into a settlement fund to be established for the benefit
of eligible class members within seven days following the
issuance of a final order by the court approving the settlement.

The suit is styled, "Jergess v. Transnation Title, et al., Case
No. 2:00-cv-72124-AC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey A. Yellen, 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 300,
         Farmington Hills, MI 48335, Phone: 248-473-0001, Email:
         jeffyellen@ntlmj.com;

     (2) Patrick J. Bruetsch, Bruetsch Assoc., 401 S. Old
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-646-1114, E-mail: pbruetsch@aol.com; and   

     (3) Timothy K. McConaghy, Hardy, Lewis, 401 S. Old Woodward
         Avenue, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009-6629, Phone:
         248-645-0800, E-mail: tkm@hardylewis.com.  

Representing the Company is Francis R. Ortiz of Dickinson
Wright, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI 48226-3425,
Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail: fortiz@dickinson-wright.com.


LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Faces Consumer Suits in Ohio, Pa., Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., is defendant in six purported
class action cases pending in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida
for allegedly over charging consumers.

Generally, the suits are claiming that consumers were
overcharged because the named defendants allegedly failed to
give such consumers the benefits of charging a filed discounted
rate for the transactions.  In some cases the defendants
allegedly failed to notify the consumers of discounted rate
availability, and in one case in particular, defendants
allegedly marked up certain closing charges.

The dollar amount of damages sought has generally not been
specified in these cases except for jurisdictional limits.


MAIN STREET: Reserves $1.5M for Calif. Meal Breaks Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Main Street Restaurant Group, Inc. was served with two lawsuits
filed on behalf of current employees, seeking damages under
California law, for both missed breaks and missed meal breaks
the employees allege they did not receive.

These lawsuits seek to establish a class action relating to the
company's California operations.  The company fought these
lawsuits, both on the merits of the employees' cases and the
issues relating to class action status.

In July 2005, the court ruled to grant class action status in
one of these cases.  During the fourth quarter of 2005, the
appellate Court in California ruled on the same issues involved
in the cases, which effectively characterizes damages as a
penalty and not wages, which shortens the period for which the
company could be liable to one year versus three and eliminates
the exposure for the employees' attorney's fees.

Subsequent to that ruling, additional appellate court rulings
were made including one, which ruled that the claim was a claim
for wages.  As a result of the overall developments in the cases
and the appellate court rulings over similar facts in unrelated
cases, the company recorded, in the fourth quarter of 2005, an
estimated settlement reserve of $1.5 million.


NASSDA CORP: Del., Calif. Lawsuits Over Sale to Synopsys Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
State court class actions over Synopsys, Inc.'s acquisition of
Nassda Corporation (Nassda), which are pending in Delaware and
California were recently dismissed with prejudice.

In connection with the Company's December 1, 2004 announcement
that it had signed agreements to acquire Nassda and to settle
all outstanding litigation between the two companies, a class
action complaint entitled, "Robert Israel v. Nassda Corporation,
et al., No. 4705695," was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware naming Nassda, its directors and the Company
as defendants.

The complaint purported to be a class action brought on behalf
of shareholders of Nassda, other than the defendant directors
and their affiliates, who allegedly would be injured or
threatened with injury if the proposed acquisition of Nassda by
the Company proceeded forward on the terms announced.  A class
action complaint alleging substantially the same facts was also
filed in California Superior Court.  

The purported class actions sought to enjoin the transaction or,
alternatively, unspecified damages.  In May 2005, the Company
completed its acquisition of Nassda.  

In October 2005, the Chancery Court approved a settlement of the
Delaware action by which the Company would pay an aggregate of
$0.15 per share to each former shareholder of Nassda (other than
the defendant directors and their affiliates), for a total of
approximately $1.8 million, and would pay certain fees and
expenses of plaintiff's counsel.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
dismissed their complaint with prejudice and the Company paid
the agreed-upon amounts.  The California action was also
dismissed with prejudice in December 2005, with each party
bearing its own costs.


NESTLE COUNTRY: Recalls Ice Cream Flavors with Undeclared Egg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two flavors of Nestle Country Creamery Ice Cream purchased from
Wal-Mart stores in Texas are being recalled because the ice
cream may contain egg not identified on the label.  The Nestle
Country Creamery flavors being recalled are Toll House(R)
Chocolate Chip and French Vanilla.

The potentially affected cartons of Nestle Country Creamery Toll
House(R) Chocolate Chip 1.75-quart and Nestle Country Creamery
French Vanilla 1.75-quart have a "Best If Purchased By 11/10/06"
date.  The date can be found on the bottom of the carton.  Only
43 mislabeled cartons are believed to be in the marketplace.  
The affected cartons, which pose no risk to those without egg
allergies, were sold only in Wal-Mart stores in Texas.

No other Nestle Country Creamery ice cream products are
affected.

Only individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
egg may run the risk of serious or potentially life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.  People with an
egg allergy or sensitivity to eggs should not consume the ice
cream and should immediately dispose of the product.  For most
consumers, there is no quality or safety issue with the ice
cream.

No consumers have reported symptoms of allergic reaction.  
Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, which manufactures Nestle Country
Creamery, is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
in implementing this voluntary product recall and is
investigating the incident.  Dreyer's is also working with the
Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network to alert consumers in the
Texas areas.

Consumers who have purchased the ice cream in question should
call the Nestle Country Creamery Consumer Call Center at 1 888
837-4438, for a full refund.

Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream manufactures and distributes ice cream
and frozen snacks across the U.S.


NEW MEXICO: Title Insurance Regulations Challenged in Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A former legislator is filing a class action against New
Mexico's law and regulations on title insurance, Associated
Press reports.   

Former Democratic Representative Max Coll of Santa Fe is
bringing the suit on behalf of New Mexicans who had to buy title
insurance to get mortgage financing.  According to him, title
insurance companies charge excessive prices provide for price
fixing and violate the state Constitution's anti-monopoly
provisions.  He wants part of the law invalidated.

Defendants in the case are First American Title Insurance
Company, members of the state Public Regulation Commission and
Insurance Superintendent Eric Serna.


NISOURCE INC: Continues to Face Suit in W.Va. Over "Gas Scheme"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., were
named as defendants in a purported class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia alleging
an "illegal gas scheme" perpetrated by the companies and certain
"select shippers."

On July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corporation filed a complaint in
Kanawha County Court in West Virginia styled, "Stand Energy
Corporation, et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, et
al."  The complaint contains allegations against various
NiSource, Inc. subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia
Transmission and Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies
and certain "select shippers" engaged in an "illegal gas scheme"
that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law.  

The "illegal gas scheme" complained of by the plaintiffs relates
to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance
transactions that were the subject of the FERC enforcement staff
investigation and subsequent settlement approved in October
2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a Notice of
Removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on August 13, 2004 and a Motion to Dismiss on September
10, 2004.  In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Complaint, which clarified the identity of some
of the "select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust
cause of action.

On January 6, 2005, the Court denied the Columbia companies'
motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend.  To address the issues raised in the
Second Amended Complaint, the Columbia companies revised their
briefs in support of the previously filed motions to dismiss.  

In June 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corporation, was dismissed
from the case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of
Appeals.  On December 1, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify this case as a class action.  The Court has ordered that
discovery will proceed on the issue of class certification as
well as the merits.

The suit is styled "Stand Energy Corporation v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly
McGinley Han and Lonnie C. Simmons of Ditrapano Barrett &
Dipiero, 604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301, Phone:
304/342-0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and Robert C. Sanders, The Law
Office of Robert C. Sanders, 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper
Marlboro, MD 20772-2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153.  

Representing the Company are Michael S. Becker, James W.
Draughn, Jr., Avery Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of Kirkland &
Ellis, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and John H.
Tinney of The Tinney Law Firm, P. O. Box 3752, Charleston, WV
25337-3752, phone: 304/720-3310, Fax: 304 720-3315.


OHIO: Judge Okays Removal of Social Security Numbers from Web
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge approved a settlement in a suit filed against
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell over the Social Security
numbers posted on the state's Web site, Associated Press
reports.

The settlement provides for the removal of the Social Security
numbers from financial documents on the Web site, and for Mr.
Blackwell to submit monthly reports to the court regarding his
progress in removing the data, as well as to remove such numbers
form any documents to be posted in the future.  In addition,
online users will now be required to register before they can
view the records.  The records are list of debts and other
financial information used by banks and creditors in making
loans under the state's Uniform Commercial Code.
The suit was filed March 2, 2006 by a southwest Ohio truck
driver.

The suit is styled, "Estep v. Blackwell, Case No. 1:06-cv-00106-
MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio under Judge Michael H. Watson.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Stacy Ann Hinners, Christian A Jenkins and Marc  
David Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins, 401 East Court St., Ste.  
600, Cincinnati, Ohio, Phone: 513-723-1600, Fax: 513-723-1620,  
E-mail: shinners@mezibovjenkins.com, cjenkins@mezibovjenkins.com
and mmezibov@mezibovjenkins.com; and John Charles Murdock of  
Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA, 35 East Seventh  
Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2015, Phone: 513-345-
8291, E-mail: jmurdock@mgsglaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are, Matthew D. Shuler and Frederick  
Michael Erny of Dinsmore & Shohl - 1, 1900 Chemed Center, 255 E.  
5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-977-8200, Fax: 513-
977-8560, E-mail: matthew.shuler@dinslaw.com; and  
fred.erny@dinslaw.com.  


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

Initially, five purported class actions were filed, naming the
company and certain officers and directors and alleging certain
violations of the federal securities laws.

On August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order consolidating the
cases into a single action captioned, "In re Patterson
Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 05cv1757
DSD/NMJ."

The first identified complaint is styled, "Rosenbaum Capital,
LLC, et al. v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Plaintiff
firms in this or similar cases are:

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

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

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

     (4) Law Offices of Marc Henzel of 273 Montgomery Ave.,
         Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000,
         Fax: 610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com;

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

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;
  
     (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

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

     (9) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, E-
         1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax:
         651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com; and

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Faces ERISA Violations Complaint in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. is defendant in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

On October 11, 2005, a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Tamara
Dolliver, et al. v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al., File No.
05-cv-02383 JNE/SRN."  This class action was brought on behalf
of the participants in the Company's Employee Stock Ownership
Plan against the Company and certain officers and directors, and
alleges violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The suit is predicated on essentially the same factual
allegations alleged in, and are related cases to, the class
actions consolidated as "In Re Patterson Companies, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  

The suit is styled, "Dolliver v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 0:05-cv-02383-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge David S. Doty
with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Karl L. Cambronne, Jack L. Chestnut and Stewart C.
         Loper of Chestnut & Cambronne, Phone: 612-339-7300,
         Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail:
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com,    
         jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
         sloper@chestnutcambronne.com;

     (2) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Ave., 3rd
         Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-983-1300, E-mail:
         tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com; and

     (3) Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, LLP, 2499
         Glades Rd., Ste. 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-
         392-4750, E-mail: kvianale@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Jeffrey A. Abrahamson, Frank A.
Taylor and Patrick S. Williams of Briggs & Morgan, PA, Phone:
651-808-6600, 612-977-8445 and 612-977-8400, Fax: 651-808-6450
and 612-977-8650, E-mail: jabrahamson@briggs.com,
ftaylor@briggs.com and pwilliams@briggs.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit Demands Safer Road Access for Disabled
------------------------------------------------------------
Local advocacy group Voices for Independence is accusing the
Department of Transportation of failing to meet federal
accessibility standards for disabled people, Associated Press
reports.

The human rights group filed a class action in Erie federal
court.  It alleged the department failed to provide ramps for
wheelchair users in Erie and Meadville.  It claimed the
department misused millions of taxes in making sidewalks and
intersection renovations that failed the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act.  It is asking the judge to require the
transportation department to make intersections and sidewalks
useable and safe.  


RADIAN GUARANTY: Plaintiffs Appeal Pa. Court's Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania's decision to grant the Radian Guaranty
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a class action filed
against the company over alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

In January 2004, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the
company by Whitney Whitfield and Celeste Whitfield seeking class
action status on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who
allegedly were required to pay for private mortgage insurance
provided by the company and whose loans allegedly were insured
at more than it's "best available rate," based upon credit
information obtained by Radian Guaranty.  

The action alleged that the FCRA requires a notice to borrowers
of such "adverse action" and that the company violated FCRA by
failing to give such notice.  The action seeks statutory
damages, actual damages, or both, for the people in the class,
and attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.  It also alleged that the failure to give notice to
borrowers in the circumstances alleged is a violation of state
law applicable to sales practices and sought declaratory and
injunctive relief for this alleged violation.

On October 21, 2005, the U.S. District Court granted the
company's motion for summary judgment.  The court held that
mortgage insurance transactions between mortgage lenders and
mortgage insurers are not consumer credit actions and are not
subject to the notice requirements of FCRA.  On November 8,
2005, the plaintiffs in this case appealed the district court's
judgment.

The suit is styled, "Whitfield et al v. Radian Guaranty, Inc.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00111-JS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Juan R.
Sanchez. Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdin of Douglas Bowdin, PA, Suite 800 Citrus
         Center, 255 S. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
         407-422-0025, E-mail: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf, PC, One South
         Broad St., Ste. 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone:
         215-238-1700, Fax: 215-238-1968; and

     (3) W. Christian Hoyer, Kathleen Clark Knight and Terry A.
         Smiljanich of James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA,
         4830 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609,
         Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com and
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the defendants are, Dionna K. Litvin and David
Smith of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, 1600 Market St.,
Ste. 3600, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-751-2190, Fax:
215-972-7409, E-mail: dlitvin@schnader.com and
dsmith@schnader.com.

For more details, contact Mona Zeehandelaar of Radian Guaranty
Inc., Phone: +1-215-231-1674, E-mail:
mona.zeehandelaar@radian.biz, Web site: http://www.radian.bizor  
Radian Corporate Communications, Phone: +1-888-NEWS-520, E-mail:
media@radian.biz.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Advocacy Group Files Racial Bias Suit V. School
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action in
federal court against the Winner School District in South
Dakota, charging that the District maintains an environment
hostile to Native Americans by:

     -- disciplining Native American students more harshly than
        Caucasians, and

     -- forcing them to sign "confessions" for minor rule-  
        breaking, which often leads to juvenile court
        convictions.

"The treatment received by Native American students in Winner
and throughout the region is completely different than that of
their white counterparts," said Jennifer Ring, Executive
Director of the ACLU of the Dakotas.  "These experiences
demonstrate the reasons why Native American children so often
fail to reach graduation -- hostility of peers, discrimination
of school officials and knee-jerk police involvement."

ACLU national staff attorney Catherine Kim said the problems in
Winner are part of a nationwide trend of "get tough" policies on
school misconduct, which lead to increases in suspensions for
trivial conduct and the use of law enforcement to handle minor
school discipline.  According to Kim, research consistently
shows that students of color are far more likely than Caucasian
students to feel the brunt of this trend, which advocates refer
to as the "school-to-prison pipeline."

Nationwide, minority students are suspended at rates of two to
three times that of other students, according to studies by
youth law experts.  They are also more likely to be subjected to
office referrals, corporal punishment, and expulsion.

"Winner is a prime example of the national school-to-prison
trend," Kim said.  "Minority students are being pushed out of
the classroom and into jail cells at alarming rates and for very
minor wrongdoings."   Native American students in Winner are
three times more likely than their Caucasian counterparts to be
suspended, and ten times more likely to be referred to law
enforcement.

At the heart of the complaint is the issue of coerced
confessions at the Winner Middle and High Schools in Tripp
County.  The ACLU said the principals of the schools have been
singling out Native American students for perceived violations
of school rules, and then forcing them to write a "confession,"
which is in fact a legal document.  The principal, having acted
in a law enforcement capacity, then calls the police, who come
to the school and take the child into custody often without
notifying parents, and forwards the "confessions" to the Tripp
County State's Attorneys.  These prosecutors, both of whom serve
as legal counsel for the Winner School District, use the
confession to secure a conviction against the child in juvenile
court.

Dana Hanna, the Attorney General of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and
an ACLU cooperating attorney in today's lawsuit, noted that
while the school district is the second largest employer in the
county, only two employees out of more than 100 are Native
American.  That disparity is reflected in the treatment of
Native American students, he said.

"According to the Winner School District's own statistics, only
two children were punished for racial harassment between
September of 2003 and June of 2005," Hanna said.  "Native
American students are accused of gang-related activities for
walking in groups of three or more or wearing bandanas, while
their white counterparts are encouraged to wear bandanas at
sporting events.  And Native Americans are actively discouraged
from participating in sports activities."

Out of Winner Elementary School's 340 students, 30 percent are
Native American, while only 14 percent of the 320 Winner High
School students are Native American.  Between two and four
Native American students have graduated from Winner High School
in recent years.  Students seeking a less punitive environment
often have no choice but to leave behind their Rosebud Sioux
Tribe community and board at schools located outside the county.

"Native American students are doomed before they start in
Winner, and that is the plan," said ACLU senior staff attorney
Robin Dahlberg.  "The Native American student population
plummets in the higher grades because these kids can no longer
bear the discrimination."

Last June, acting on behalf of 14 Native American families, the
ACLU filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Civil Rights, documenting the racial harassment and
discriminatory discipline in Winner schools.   But the Office of
Civil Rights did not respond until March 2006, nine months
later, and by then, most of the complainants had left the
district -- either transferring to other districts, dropping out
of school, or becoming incarcerated.  The federal class action
seeks to challenge not only the discrimination, but also the
unlawful policy of coercing confessions from Native American
students.

More information is available at:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/juv/schooltoprisonpipeline.html


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a defendant in several purported
class actions in state courts alleging violations of the
California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

On September 28, 2004, the court granted the company's petition
to coordinate two pending wage and hour actions, respectively,
captioned, "McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation"
and "Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," in Los
Angeles Superior Court.  The McDonough case was originally filed
on June 24, 2003 in San Diego Superior Court and the Tien case
was originally filed on May 21, 2004 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The company will now be defending in a single court this
proposed class action alleging that its hospitals violated
certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with
respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of one
hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest periods not taken.

The complaint in the Tien case also alleges:

     (1) that the company did not included certain payments
         (including the California Differential payments
         described below) in the regular rate of pay that is
         used for purposes of calculating overtime,

     (2) that the company improperly "rounded off" time entries
         on timekeeping records,

     (3) that the company's pay stubs do not include all
         information required by California law, and

     (4) that the company has not paid a double time premium
         when employees work in excess of 12 hours in a day.

The plaintiffs are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees, and seek to certify this action on behalf of
virtually all nonexempt employees of the company's California
subsidiaries.

The company contends that certification of a class in the action
is not appropriate because its uniform policies comply and have
complied with the applicable Labor Code and Wage Orders.  The
company's policies are intended to ensure that:

     (i) employees who miss a rest period or meal break on any
         given day are appropriately paid,

    (ii) all appropriate forms of compensation are included in
         the regular rate for overtime calculations and all
         appropriate overtime premiums are paid, and

   (iii) our "rounding off" practices and pay stubs comply with
         California law.

In addition, the company contends that each of these claims must
be addressed individually based on its particular facts and,
therefore, should not be subject to class certification.

Two other proposed class actions, captioned, "Pagaduan v.
Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center," pending in Orange
County Superior Court, and "Falck v. Tenet Healthcare
Corporation," pending in Los Angeles Superior Court, also
involve allegations regarding unpaid overtime.  

These suits allege that the company's pay practices since 2000
for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate California
overtime laws by virtue of the alleged failure to include
certain payments known as Flexible (or California) Differential
payments in the regular rate of pay that is used to calculate
overtime pay.  These payments are made to 12-hour shift
employees when they do not work a shift that is exactly 12
hours.   

The company contends that these differential payments need only
be included in the regular rate of pay when they actually are
paid (as opposed to merely being potentially payable), and that
they always are included in the regular rate calculation in
these circumstances.  Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back
pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Rocking Chairs After Injury Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, is recalling
643,000 mainstays love seat rocker and porch rocker.

The company said poor construction and over-curvature of the
chair's runners can cause instability, imbalance, fracturing of
the wood, and tip-over during use.  This poses a fall hazard to
consumers.

Wal-Mart has received 55 incident reports including 45 injuries.  
Those injuries include a cut in the leg requiring 16 stitches, a
slight concussion, fractured ribs, wrist and cervical/lumbar
sprains, upper back injuries, a pinched nerve, a shoulder joint
tear, and one incident in which a pregnant woman began having
contractions after the display chair in which she was sitting
flipped over backwards.  Many of the injuries occurred on
display models in Wal-Mart stores.

The recall includes three models of rocking chairs, the
Mainstays Love Seat Rocker (Model IT-13380) and the Mainstays
Porch Rocker (Model IT-13379 and IT-13270).  The Love Seat
Rocker is wooden, white and seats two persons.  The back support
frame and the seat are made of slats.  "Made in China" is
printed on a sticker under the seat.  The wooden Porch Rocker is
sold in white and "natural" (light brown) color and seats only
one person.  "Made in Indonesia" is printed on a sticker under
the Porch Rocker's seat.  They sit on curved runners.  The model
number is printed on the rocker's packaging.

The rockers were made in China and Indonesia, and sold
exclusively at Wal-Mart stores nationwide and on Wal-Mart's Web
site.  The Love Seat Rockers were sold from May 2004 through
September 2005 for about $100.  The Porch Rockers were sold from
April 2004 through March 2006 for about $50.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these rocking
chairs and return them to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

Pictures of the recalled rockers:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06117c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06117c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06117c.jpg

Consumer Contact: Wal-Mart, Phone: (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m.
and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.walmart.com.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Continues to Face Shareholder Suits in Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Companies, Inc. is a defendant in several shareholder
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.

The majority of the suits, which were filed in 2002, allege that
the company and co-defendants, WilTel Communications (WilTel),
previously an owned subsidiary known as Williams Communications,
and certain corporate officers, have acted jointly and
separately to inflate the stock price of both companies.

Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public
offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS
offering.  These cases were also filed in 2002 against the
company, certain corporate officers, all members of its board of
directors and all of the offerings' underwriters.  WilTel is no
longer a defendant as a result of its bankruptcy.

These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued
requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The
underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and
defense from these cases.

If the company grants the requested indemnifications to the
underwriters, any related settlement costs will not be covered
by its insurance policies.  The company is currently covering
the cost of defending the underwriters.  

In 2002, the amended complaints of the WilTel securities holders
and of the company's securities holders added numerous claims
related to Power.  The parties are currently engaged in
discovery, and the trial date is currently set for August 16,
2006.  Preliminary settlement discussions have occurred.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Faces Hurricane-Related Lawsuits in La.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Williams Companies, Inc. was named as a defendant in two class
action petitions for damages filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana in September and October
2005 arising from hurricanes that struck Louisiana in 2005.

The class plaintiffs are purporting to represent all persons,
businesses and entities in the State of Louisiana who have
suffered damage as a result of the winds and storm surge from
the hurricanes.  They allege that the operating activities of
the two sub-classes of defendants, which are all oil and gas
pipelines that dredged pipeline canals or installed pipelines in
the marshes of south Louisiana (including Transco) and all oil
and gas exploration and production companies which drilled for
oil and gas or dredged canals in the marshes of south Louisiana,
have altered marshland ecology and caused marshland destruction
which otherwise would have averted all or almost all of the
destruction and loss of life caused by the hurricanes.

Plaintiffs request that the court allow the lawsuits to proceed
as class actions and seek legal and equitable relief in an
unspecified amount.  The company is presently reviewing the
petitions in preparation for filing responsive pleadings in
these cases.


                         Asbestos Alert   


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Appeals Court Reinstates McCorkle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane McCorkle gained the proper legal status to be the personal
representative in her husband's asbestos-related suit within the
statute of limitations, held the Indiana Court of Appeals in
reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the suit
for further proceedings.

The Appeals Court, composed of Judges John G. Baker, Edward W.
Najam, Jr. and L. Mark Bailey, heard Case No. 49A02-0506-CV-493
on February 21, 2006.

On April 6, 2001, Philip and Diane McCorkle sued product
manufacturers and premises owners claiming that Mr. McCorkle's
injuries were caused by asbestos or asbestos-containing products
made, sold, installed, caused to be installed, used,
distributed, or placed into the stream of commerce by ACandS.

On December 21, 2001, Mrs. McCorkle was named representative to
Mr. McCorkle's estate. On January 21, 2001, Mr. McCorkle died
from causes unrelated to the injuries alleged in the complaint.

On November 25, 2003, the stay was modified to permit the filing
of an amended complaint, and on August 10, 2004, Mrs. McCorkle
moved to substitute the personal representative of Mr.
McCorkle's estate as the party plaintiff.

The companies opposed these motions, arguing that the original
complaint was a nullity and that Mrs. McCorkle should not be
allowed to amend the complaint because there were no pending
wrongful death or survival claims into which the personal
representatives could be substituted.

On May 4, 2005, the trial court denied Mrs. McCorkle's motions
to substitute and dismissed all of the defendants from the suit.
Mrs. McCorkle appealed.

The Appeals Court concluded that Mrs. McCorkle was rightfully
substituted to bring this claim within 11 months of Mr.
McCorkle's death, and her amended complaint related to the
original complaint for she gained the proper legal status within
18 months of Mr. McCorkle's death.

Linda George, W. Russell Sipes, Laudig George Rutherford &
Sipes, Indianapolis, represented the McCorkles.

Michael A. Bergin, Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Daniel M. Long,
Locke Reynolds LLP, Indianapolis, represented ACandS Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Advance Auto, Units Named in Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts Inc. and some of its subsidiaries,
particularly Western Auto, co-defend against lawsuits alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

Other defendants in these suits include automobile
manufacturers, automotive parts manufacturers, and other
retailers.

The plaintiffs have alleged that these products were made,
distributed or sold by the various defendants. To date, these
products have included brake and clutch parts and roofing
materials.

Many of the cases pending against the Company, or its
subsidiaries, are in the early stages of litigation, in which
the damages claimed against the defendants in some of these
proceedings are substantial.

Some of the defendant auto parts manufacturers in these suits
have declared bankruptcy, which will limit plaintiffs' ability
to recover monetary damages from those defendants.

Although the Company diligently defends against these claims,
the Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of
such suits and may enter into agreements.

Headquartered in Roanoke, Virginia, Advance Auto Parts Inc.,
which was formerly Advance Holding, is an auto parts chain with
more than 2,600 stores under the Advance Auto Parts and Discount
Auto Parts names in 39 states. The Company's stores operate
under the Western Auto name in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $214M Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc., a subsidiary of Crown Holdings Inc.,
states that its accrual for pending and future asbestos-related
claims as of December 31, 2005 was US$214 million, according to
the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

Crown Cork estimates that its range of potential liability for
pending and future asbestos claims that are probable and
estimable is between US$214 million and US$272 million.

Crown Cork's accrual includes estimates for probable costs for
claims through the year 2015. The upper end of Crown Cork's
estimated range of possible asbestos costs of US$272 million
includes claims beyond that date.

Crown Cork co-defends against lawsuits filed throughout the U.S.
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of asbestos
exposure. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. Company, which Crown Cork acquired in 1963.

About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. Company sold
its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Crown Holdings recorded pre-tax charges of US$10 million, US$35
million, US$44 million, US$30 and US$51 million to increase its
accrual for asbestos-related liabilities in 2005, 2004, 2003,
2002 and 2001, respectively.

Crown Cork made cash payments of US$29 million, US$41 million,
US$68 million, US$114 million and $118 million in 2005, 2004,
2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively, for asbestos-related claims.

Crown Cork & Seal Co., Crown Holdings Inc.'s operating
subsidiary, produces consumer packaging worldwide. Crown
Holdings, which is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
derives more than half of its sales from Europe. In 2005, the
Company sold its plastics closures business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Posts US$6.3M Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
United America Indemnity Ltd., as of December 31, 2005, records
US$6.3 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims
and US$5.2 million for environmental claims, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company had US$6.4 million of net
loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$5.4 million for
environmental claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2005)

The Company's asbestos exposure primarily arises from the sale
of product liability insurance, and the environmental exposure
arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-
peril insurance.

Liabilities are recognized for known claims when sufficient
information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a
specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably
estimate its liability. Liabilities have also been established
to cover additional exposures on both known and unasserted
claims.

Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004 were incurred but not reported
reserves of US$7.5 million and US$8.2 million, respectively, and
case reserves of about US$4.0 million and US$3.6 million,
respectively, for known A&E-related claims.

Headquartered in the Cayman Islands, United America Indemnity
Ltd., through its United National Group and Penn-America Group
subsidiaries, provides specialty and surplus property/casualty
insurance, including insurance for social service agencies,
equine mortality risks, and vacant properties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since about 1990, Essex International Inc. and other
subsidiaries of Superior Essex Inc. have been named as
defendants in a number of product liability lawsuits, according
to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

These suits are brought by electricians, other skilled tradesmen
and others claiming injury, in most cases, from exposure to
asbestos found in electrical wire products produced many years
ago.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International
who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex
International against these suits was settled during 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for
substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the
defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have undertaken to
defend, are currently directly defending and will indemnify
Essex International against those asbestos suits, subject to the
terms and limits of the respective policies.

Under the plan of reorganization, several claimants in these
actions will be able to assert claims under applicable insurance
coverage and other similar arrangements.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Superior Essex Inc., which was
formerly known as Superior TeleCom, makes communications wire
and cable and magnet wire. Its products can be found in
transformers, generators, and electrical controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Allots $4.2M for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group Inc., as of December 31, 2005, accrues
US$4.2 million for the remediation of environmental hazards such
as asbestos materials in the Company's properties, according to
the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

With respect to asbestos materials present at the Company
headquarters at the City National Plaza in Los Angeles,
California, these materials have been removed or abated from
certain tenant and common areas of the building. The Company
continues the remediation of asbestos materials from various
areas of the structure.

The Company is aware of potentially environmentally hazardous or
toxic materials at two of its properties in which the Company
holds an ownership interest.

At Thomas Properties' 2101 Market Street plot, the Company has
begun remediation efforts as a result of a gasoline spill that
occurred on the premises in April 2002, due to an accident
caused by the tenant's agent. The Company undertook remediation
for the gasoline spill and other contaminants, including
removing contaminated soil.

The Company's lease requires the tenant, or its successor in
interest, to indemnify the Company against all costs and
expenses of every kind relating directly or indirectly to the
tenant's use and occupancy of the premises.


COMPANY PROFILE

Thomas Properties Group, Inc.
515 S. Flower St., 6th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-613-1900
Fax: 213-633-4760
http://www.thomaspropertiesgroup.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$75.5
1-Year Sales Growth:              447.1%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$0.6
2004 Employees:                   86
1-Year Employee Growth:           43.3%

Description:
The Company invests in, develops, and manages multifamily,
office, and retail real estate, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic
and West. The firm owns or manages some 20 properties in
California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Notes US$72.2M LAE Reserves for A&E
----------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC INC. notes that its gross loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves for all asbestos/environmental policies
amounted to US$72.2 million at December 31, 2005, according to
the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's ceded and net loss and loss adjustment expense
reserves, at December 31, 2005, for all asbestos/environmental
policies amounted to US$59.2 million and US$13 million,
respectively.

The Company provides for incurred but not reported Asbestos and
Environmental liabilities after considering various reserving
methodologies. One methodology considers a specific ground up
analysis which reviews the potential exposure based upon actual
policies issued by Mutual Marine Office Inc. Other methodologies
include industry survival ratios and market share statistics per
loss settlement.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company's net unpaid loss and loss
adjustment expense reserves in the aggregate represent
management's best estimate of the losses that arise from
asbestos and environmental claims.

Headquartered in New York City, New York, NYMAGIC INC., through
subsidiaries New York Marine And General Insurance and Gotham
Insurance, provides ocean marine, inland marine, and other
liability lines. The Company has sold its Lloyd's managing
agency and is no longer writing new aviation policies after that
division lost money during the 1990s.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transatlantic Holdings Notes $99M Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings Inc.'s net loss reserves, which includes
risks linked to asbestos-related illnesses and environmental
impairment, total US$99 million, as of December 31, 2005,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company's net loss reserves
amounted to US$85 million. (Class Action Reporter, December 19,
2005)

The net loss reserves include US$27 million and US$23 million as
of December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively,
related to losses occurring in 1985 and prior.

These obligations mainly arose from contracts underwritten
specifically as environmental or asbestos-related coverages
rather than from standard general liability coverages where the
environmental or asbestos-related liabilities were neither
clearly defined nor specifically excluded. The reserves carried
at December 31, 2005 for such claims, including those incurred
but not reported, are based upon known facts and current law.

Significant uncertainty exists in determining the amount of
ultimate liability for environment impairment and asbestos-
related losses, particularly for those occurring in 1985 and
prior. This uncertainty is due to inconsistent court resolutions
and judicial interpretations with respect to underlying policy
intent and coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of
responsibility for resultant damages.

As Transatlantic Insurance Co., the Company's major operating
subsidiary, commenced operations in 1978, most of the Company's
environmental and asbestos-related liabilities arose from
contracts entered into after 1985 that were underwritten
specifically as environmental or asbestos-related coverages
rather than as standard general liability coverages, where the
environmental or asbestos-related liabilities were neither
clearly defined nor specifically excluded.

Headquartered in New York City, New York, Transatlantic Holdings
Inc., through units Transatlantic Reinsurance, Putnam
Reinsurance, and Trans Re Zurich, offers reinsurance for
property/casualty products, including general liability, medical
malpractice, automobile liability, and surety lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Facing 42,600 Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of December 31, 2005, defends
itself against about 42,600 asbestos-related lawsuits, according
to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The Company has been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for about 16 years.

At December 31, 2005, there were about 9,300 non-maritime claims
and 33,300 maritime asbestos claims. In 2005, there were about
90 new non-maritime suits and 100 new maritime claims filed.
About 7,000 non-maritime claims, the vast majority from
Mississippi, were dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed in
this period. No maritime claims were dismissed during 2005.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, General Cable had accrued about
US$2.5 million and US$3.0 million, respectively, for these
suits.

The maritime suits have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by
a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified
damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases allege that they
formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-
related injuries from products that General Cable stopped making
in the mid-1970.

The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge
in the District Court for Pennsylvania's Eastern District by
reason of a transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

About 5,700 of General Cable's non-maritime cases have been
filed in Mississippi or other federal courts and then been
transferred to the JPMDL, but are on a different docket from the
MARDOC cases. Most cases on this JPMDL docket have been inactive
for over five years.

To date, in cases that General Cable is a defendant, no
plaintiff has requested return of any action to the originating
district court for trial. With regard to about 3,600 remaining
cases, General Cable has aggressively defended these cases based
upon either lack of product identification as to General Cable
manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure
to asbestos dust from the use of a General Cable product.

In the last 11 years, General Cable has had no cases proceed to
verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was dismissed as a
defendant before trial for lack of product identification.

Headquartered in Highland Heights, Kentucky, General Cable
Corporation makes aluminum, copper, and fiber-optic wire and
cable products. The Company also produces power cables,
automotive wire, mining cables, and custom-designed cables for
medical equipment and other products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Mulls Grace Settlement Outlook
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation disclosed it expects that the settlement
agreement between the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. will become
effective upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of
reorganization, according to the Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Although Grace filed a proposed plan with the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court in January 2005, the Company cannot predict
when a final plan of reorganization will become effective or
whether the final plan will be consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement.

On November 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property
Damage Claimants appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the Grace bankruptcy case to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its
affiliates.

The settlement will also resolve the fraudulent transfer claims
and successor liability claims, as well as indemnification
claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated
companies in connection with the Cryovac transaction.

The Cryovac transaction was a multi-step transaction, completed
on March 31, 1998, which brought the Cryovac packaging business
and the former Sealed Air Corp.'s business under the common
ownership of the Company.

The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive
settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003 consistent with the
terms of the agreement in principle.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court approved the definitive
settlement agreement. Although Grace is not a party, it is
directed to comply with the settlement agreement subject to
limited exceptions.

If the settlement agreement does not become effective, either
because Grace fails to emerge from bankruptcy or because Grace
does not emerge from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization
that is consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement,
then the Company will not be released from the various asbestos-
related, fraudulent transfer, successor liability, and
indemnification claims made against the Company and its
affiliates, and all of these claims would remain pending and
would have to be resolved through other means, such as through
agreement on alternative settlement terms or trials.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.
produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays to
protect meat and poultry. The Company also makes Bubble Wrap,
Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Rapid Fill inflatable
packaging systems. Other products include adhesive tape, solar
pool covers, and recycled kraft paper.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Faces Liability Suits in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation and specified subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in a number of cases, including several
putative class actions, brought in Canada as a result of W.R.
Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing
of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada, according
to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

The lawsuits have been pending in Canadian jurisdictions since
November 2004.

Grace has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company and its
subsidiaries in these cases. The cases are currently stayed, and
Grace's proposed plan of reorganization provides for payment of
these claims and enforcement of the plan of reorganization in
the Canadian courts.

However, if Grace's final plan does not make the same provisions
or if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce Grace's final plan
in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries
in these cases, then the Company could be required to pay
substantial damages.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.
produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays to
protect meat and poultry. The Company also makes Bubble Wrap,
Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Rapid Fill inflatable
packaging systems. Other products include adhesive tape, solar
pool covers, and recycled kraft paper.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cape Notes Net Charge for Claims at GBP3.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cape PLC divulges that the Company's net charge for asbestos-
related compensation claims was GBP3.7 million through December
31, 2005, Yorkshire Post Today reports.

The Company reported a 60% rise in profits, but the bottom line
figure was shadowed by costs linked to asbestos claims that go
back 50 years.

In the 1960s, Cape stopped using asbestos in Britain, but the
Company expects to have to deal with claims for the next 45
years.

In a bid to guarantee the safety of these payments and ensure
that there is always enough money to pay the claims, the Company
has set up a scheme of arrangement. Advisers' fees for the
scheme amounted to GBP9.7 million in 2005. Cape operating
profits rose 59%t to GBP9.2 million on the back of a 10%
increase in turnover to GBP261.8 million.

The Company said it had delivered strong growth in its core
markets in the UK and the Middle East and had maintained its
market share elsewhere.

Wakefield, UK-based Cape PLC manufactures fire protection,
insulation, and building products for the construction industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Financial Marks $132M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation's net reserves for all asbestos
and environmental claims totaled US$132 million in 2005,
according to the Company's 10-K/A report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

This figure compares to US$135 million in 2004 and US$105
million in 2003.

Net reserves for all asbestos and environmental claims were
4.2%, 4.5% and 3.7% of total reserves, in 2005, 2004 and 2003,
respectively.

The Company generally wrote commercial accounts after the
development of coverage forms that exclude asbestos cleanup
costs. The commercial coverage the Company offered was mainly
related to local-market construction activity rather than
asbestos manufacturing. Over the past four years, to limit the
Company's exposure to mold and other environmental risks going
forward, the Company has revised policy terms where permitted by
state regulation.

In 2005, the Company incurred US$12 million, or 0.7% of the
total, as loss and loss expenses for all asbestos and
environmental claims.

This compares to US$41 million, or 2.4%, in 2004, and US$28
million or 1.6%, in 2003.

Headquartered in Fairfield, Ohio, Cincinnati Financial Corp.,
through Cincinnati Insurance, Cincinnati Casualty and Cincinnati
Indemnity, sells commercial property, liability, auto, bond, and
fire insurance. Personal lines include homeowners and liability
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Acme United Marks US$1.5M for Removal Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acme United Corporation accrues a US$1.5 million charge, which
includes estimates for the removal of asbestos, lead and two
abandoned oil tanks, according to the Company's 10-K report to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The charge pertains to the requirement by the City of
Bridgeport, Connecticut that the Company demolish its former
manufacturing facility. This is the only environmental liability
recorded by the Company.

The funding of the demolition and asbestos removal costs of
US$1,500,000 could be incurred in the first half of 2006. The
costs will be paid with funds borrowed under the Company's
existing revolving credit facility and is not expected to have a
material impact on the Company's liquidity.


COMPANY PROFILE

Acme United Corporation
1931 Black Rock Tpke.
Fairfield, CT 06825
Phone: 203-332-7330
Fax: 203-332-1588
http://www.acmeunited.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$49.9
1-Year Sales Growth:              15.0%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$2.9
1-Year Net Income Growth:         (9.4%)
2004 Employees:                   103
1-Year Employee Growth:           14.4%

Description:
The Company focuses on its core products: scissors, rulers, and
first aid kits, which are used in schools, offices, and homes.
The Company sells its products to stationery and school supply
distributors, office supply stores, and mass merchants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Notes US$25.3M Liability in 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation discloses that its 2005 results include
US$25.3 million in charges related to asbestos liabilities, of
which US$15.5 million were recorded in the 2005-2nd quarter and
US$9.9 million were recorded in the 2005-4th quarter, according
to the Company's financial results in the year ended December
31, 2005.

This compares to US$5.0 million in charges to resolve asbestos
liabilities in 2004.

Board Chair Roger S. Marcus commented, "It is unfortunate that
the intense litigation surrounding the company's asbestos
situation and reorganization process has greatly increased the
time and cost needed to put these problems behind us. However, I
am very encouraged by our latest plan, which the company are
currently preparing and will soon file with the Bankruptcy
Court.

"We believe this plan will eliminate issues that were the basis
of objections by opponents of prior plans. I'm optimistic that
we will receive the requisite consents to confirm this plan in
2006, and that the charge in the fourth quarter, together with
existing reserves, will be adequate to cover costs through the
confirmation date."

Sales for the year ended December 31, 2005 were US$237.6
million, an increase of 3.5% compared to the US$229.5 million
reported in 2004. The net loss for 2005 was US$21.6 million
after charges for asbestos liabilities, compared with net income
of US$2.9 million in 2004 after charges for asbestos
liabilities.

Without the charges for asbestos liabilities, net income before
taxes would have been US$1.2 million in 2005 and US$5.4 million
in 2004. The net loss per share in 2005 was US$2.61, compared to
net income per basic share of US$0.36 in 2004.

On December 31, 2003, Congoleum filed a voluntary petition with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as a means
to resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of
asbestos in its products decades ago.

Headquartered in Mercerville, New Jersey, Congoleum Corp.
manufactures resilient flooring, serving both residential and
commercial markets. Congoleum is a 55% owned subsidiary of
American Biltrite Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Records Nearly US$7Mil for A&E Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. divulges that its reserves for asbestos
and environmental related claims for direct insurance and
assumed reinsurance business amounted to US$6,895,641 and
US$5,459,912 at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Asbestos and environmental losses paid by the Company have
averaged only US$303,530 per year over the past five years.

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related
claims associated with the insurance business written by the
parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business
assumed from Employers Mutual Casualty Co. by the reinsurance
subsidiary.

The Company currently defends against an average of 500 asbestos
bodily injury suits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs.
Most of these defenses are subject to express reservation of
rights based upon the lack of an injury within the Company's
policy periods, because many asbestos suits do not specifically
allege dates of exposure or dates of injury.

During 2003, as a direct result of proposed federal legislation
in the areas of asbestos and class action reform, the Company
was presented with several hundred additional lawsuits filed
against three former policyholders representing about 66,500
claims related to exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing
products.

Management did not establish a significant amount of loss
reserves associated with these claims. The Company has denied
coverage to one of the former policyholders, representing about
10,000 claims, because of express asbestos exclusion language
contained in the policy.

Minimal expense payments have been made to date on the suits
related to the other two former policyholders and no payments
have been made for either defense or indemnity.

The asbestos and environmental reserves include US$1,819,000 of
case reserves, US$3,527,000 of incurred but not reported
reserves and US$1,549,000 of bulk settlement expense reserves.

Headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, EMC Insurance Group Inc.,
through subsidiaries EMCASCO Insurance, Illinois EMCASCO, and
Dakota Fire Insurance, sell property/casualty lines including
automobile, property, liability, and workers' compensation
insurance. Employers Mutual, a multi-line property/casualty
insurance company, owns 54% of EMC Insurance Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Posts $438,418 for A&E Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Enstar Group Inc.'s liability for unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses as of December 31, 2005 included US$438,418
representing an estimate of its net ultimate liability for
asbestos and environmental claims, according to the Company's
10-K report to the SEC.

This compares to US$525,642 as of December 31, 2004. The gross
liability for such claims as at December 31, 2005 and 2004 was
US$578,079 and US$743,294, respectively.

The Company's reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 included US$29,763 and
US$14,112, respectively, that represents an estimate of its net
ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims.

The gross liability for such claims as at December 31, 2005 and
2004 was US$33,635 and US$34,403, respectively.

Headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, The Enstar Group Inc.,
through Castlewood Holdings and other affiliates, provides
claims administration, adjustment and settlement, and collection
services for the companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Unit Posts Cleanup Costs at US$3.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International Inc. states that the City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania has asserted a remediation cost of US$3.5 million
for a subsidiary's North Viaduct property, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Philadelphia has also asserted that the Company should demolish
certain bridges and overpasses that comprise a portion of the
North Viaduct. The Company has recently discussed with the City
involving a possible conveyance of the property.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries were historically involved
in railroad operations, coal mining and manufacturing.  

The Company periodically has claims brought against it arising
from its former railroad employees' exposure to asbestos and
coal dust. These claims are mainly covered by an insurance
settlement reached in September 1990 with the Company's
insurance carriers.

However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by
people who were not the Company's employees and who may claim
second hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust or other chemicals
or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in
humans.

Based in Los Angeles, California, Reading International Inc. own
nearly 50 theaters in Australia, New Zealand, and the US. The
Company also owns about 10 "off Broadway" style theaters in New
York and Chicago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 500 Suits from Old Ventures
--------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. defends against an average of 500 personal
injury lawsuits, which resulted from occupational exposure
mainly to products containing asbestos, silica, or mixed dust
manufactured by former NL operations, according to the Company's
10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These cases, which involve a total of about 12,000 plaintiffs
and their spouses, remain pending.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company battled about 490 suits in
different jurisdictions. These cases involved about 14,500
plaintiffs and their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, December
30, 2005)

NL has not accrued any amounts for this litigation because
liability that might result to NL cannot currently be reasonably
estimated. To date, NL has not been adjudicated liable in any of
these matters.  

NL has periodically received notices regarding asbestos or
silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries of NL, including notices provided to insurers with
which NL has entered into settlements extinguishing certain
insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from
NL.

Based in Dallas, Texas, NL Industries Inc., through subsidiary
Kronos Worldwide, supplies titanium dioxide, which maximizes the
whiteness, opacity, and brightness of paints, plastics, paper,
fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc., which is controlled by Contran
Corp., owns about 83% of NL Industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Contends With 309 Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc., as of December 31, 2005, has been
named as a co-defendant in about 309 personal injury liability
cases alleging exposure to asbestos and other substances,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In all of these cases, which are pending in courts in various
states, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense. These cases, which involve about 902 plaintiffs,
are in various pre-trial stages.

Bucyrus has been named a co-defendant in about 308 personal
injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to
asbestos and other substances, involving about 1,498 plaintiffs.
The cases are pending in courts in nine states. (Class Action
Reporter, November 18, 2005)

South Milwaukee, WI-based Bucyrus International Inc. provides
replacement parts and services, which accounts for more than 70%
of sales, to the surface mining industry. Bucyrus also makes
large excavation machinery used for surface mining.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Holdings Injury Suits Drop to 325
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corporation, at December 31, 2005, co-defends
against an average of 325 cases asserting claims on behalf of
about 10,000 plaintiffs alleging personal injury resulting from
asbestos exposure, according to the Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company co-defended against an
average of 1,100 asbestos-related claims on behalf of about
10,800 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, November 18, 2005)

These multi-defendants cases mainly relate to production and
sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories
of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In most of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim
damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in
which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

There are only five asbestos cases, which involve 22 plaintiffs
that plead specified damages. In each of the five cases, the
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3.0 million for four separate causes of
action and US$1.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In another
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$20.0 million for three separate causes of action
and US$5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$20.0 million.

In the final case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$0.41 million and punitive damages in
the amount of US$2.5 million.

The Company has historically been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company
or its subsidiaries.

Park-Ohio Holdings Inc., through Park-Ohio Industries and its
subsidiaries, provides logistics services and makes engineered
products for the aerospace, auto, semiconductor, and other
industries. The Company is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corporation Challenges 101,170 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation, as of December 31, 2005, faces about 101,170
pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's 10-K
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The 2005 figures compare to about 112,140 claims as of December
31, 2004 and about 112,280 claims as of December 31, 2003.

The Company is a defendant in suits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by
various products manufactured by predecessor Westinghouse, which
neither produced nor manufactured asbestos, before the early
1970s.  

The Company is typically named as one of a large number of
defendants in both state and federal cases. In most asbestos
suits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's
products is the basis of a claim.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified mainly relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Of the Company's claims pending as of December 31, 2005, about
70,910 were pending in state courts, 27,640 in federal courts
and about 2,620 were third party claims. During 2005, the
Company received about 11,470 new claims and closed or moved to
an inactive docket about 22,440 claims.  

To date, the Company has not been liable for any third party
claims. The Company's total costs for the years 2005 and 2004
for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$37.2 million
and US$58.4 million, respectively.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of which the risk of which is
allegedly increased primarily by exposure to asbestos; lung
cancer, a cancer that may be caused by various factors, one of
which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and
conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims
brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an
allegedly asbestos-related disease.  

Headquartered in New York City, New York, CBS Corporation owns
the CBS and UPN broadcast networks (along with about 40
affiliated TV stations), pay-TV's Showtime, TV production houses
CBS Paramount Television and King World, CBS Radio (180
stations), and the CBS Outdoor advertising business.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Claims Rise to 4,500 in 4Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc. discloses that, at December 31,
2005, about 4,500 asbestos-related cases were outstanding for
which the Company was responsible for any related liabilities,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company maintained its June 30,
2005 figure of 3,900 outstanding asbestos liability claims.
(Class Action Reporter, November 18, 2005)

In early 2006, the Company settled a significant number of
cases, in which the Company expects the outstanding cases to
increase gradually due to recent legislation in certain states
mandating minimum medical criteria before a case can be heard.

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When the Company originally acquired
this brake business, it assumed future liabilities relating to
any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after September 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through February 28, 2006, the
amounts paid for settled claims are US$3.9 million. The Company
does not have insurance coverage for the defense and indemnity
costs associated with these claims.

Headquartered in Long Island City, New York, Standard Motor
Products Inc. manufactures engine management and air-
conditioning replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket.
Among the Company's customers are auto parts warehouse
distributors such as CARQUEST and NAPA and major auto parts
retailers such as Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec Corp Notes Increase in Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, which does
business as Wabtec Corporation, notes that the asbestos-related
actions filed against it and certain of its affiliates have been
rising since 2000, according to the Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Most of these claims, which are pending in various U.S.
jurisdictions, have been made against its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp., and are based on a
product sold by RFPC before the Company acquired American
Standard Inc.'s 50% interest in RFPC in 1990. The Company
acquired the remaining interest in RFPC in 1992.

These claims include a suit against RFPC and its insurers
seeking coverage under RFPC's insurance policies. On April 17,
2005, the claim against the Company contending that the Company
assumed ASI's liability for asbestos claims arising from
exposure to RFPC's products was resolved in the Company's favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. manufactures braking
equipment and other parts for locomotives, freight cars, and
passenger railcars. The Company is headquartered in Wilmerding,
Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former M&F Unit Contends With Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide Corp. states that a former subsidiary Pneumo Abex
LLC has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or
more other companies, as a defendant in various personal injury
suits claiming asbestos-related damages, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

Pneumo Abex manufactured certain asbestos-containing friction
products before 1988.

Based on indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc.,
formerly known as Whitman Corp. (the "Original Indemnitor"), has
ultimate liability for all the remaining asbestos-related claims
asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain
asbestos-related claims asserted after.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (the "Second
Indemnitor") of Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries,
LLC, the "Indemnity Guarantor") assumed responsibility for
substantially all asbestos-related claims asserted against
Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by the
Original Indemnitor.

Federal-Mogul Corp. purchased the Second Indemnitor in October
1998. In October 2001, the Second Indemnitor filed for Chapter
11 protection of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing
its indemnity obligations to Mafco Worldwide.

After the Second Indemnitor's bankruptcy filing, Mafco Worldwide
confirmed that the Indemnity Guarantor would fulfill the Second
Indemnitor's indemnity obligations to the extent that the Second
Indemnitor is no longer performing them.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
asbestos-containing products were manufactured. In 1982, the
subsidiary commenced litigation against a portion of these
insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers and payments by the Original
Indemnitor, the Second Indemnitor and the Indemnity Guarantor
pursuant to their indemnities, the Company has been receiving
reimbursement each month for substantially all of its monthly
expenditures for asbestos-related claims.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company incurred or expected to
incur about US$952,000 of unindemnified costs, as to which it
either has received or expects to receive about US$739,000 in
insurance reimbursements for matters pending or settled through
December 31, 2005.

Headquartered in New York City, New York, M&F Worldwide Corp.,
operates as a flavorings manufacturer. It makes licorice extract
used for candy and as a tobacco additive. The Company has
expanded into the security printing business through its
acquisition of Clarke American Checks from Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Reports US$873Mil A&E Net Loss Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc. discloses that part of the net
loss reserve increase in the 2005-4th quarter is attributable to
its US$873 million reserves for asbestos and environmental
exposures, according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

The net loss reserve increased to about US$1.8 billion and also
comprised of US$960 million for non-asbestos and environmental
exposures.

The increase in non-asbestos and environmental reserves includes
an increase of US$1.44 billion for Domestic Brokerage Group and
decreases of US$455 million for Foreign General Insurance and
$29 million for Mortgage Guaranty.

The DBG increase of US$1.44 billion is US$140 million greater
than the amount previously announced in AIG's February 9, 2006
press release as a result of an additional change in estimate
related to a commuted reinsurance agreement. The aggregate
increase in A&E reserves includes increases of US$706 million
and US$167 million, respectively, for DBG and Foreign General
Insurance.

AIG determined its best estimate was to recognize an increase of
US$843 million in its carried net asbestos reserves, and an
increase of US$30 million in its carried net environmental
reserves at December 31, 2005.

The corresponding increases in gross reserves were about US$1.97
billion for asbestos and US$56 million for environmental.

Headquartered in New York City, New York, American International
Group Inc. operates as an insurer. Domestically, the Company
provides property/casualty and specialty insurance. The Company
also provides financial services and asset management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Incurs US$2.99B Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning with its 1993 initial liability of US$975 million,
Owens-Illinois Inc. has accrued a total of about US$2.99 billion
through 2005, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability, according to the Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

Since its first claim, the Company as of December 31, 2005, has
disposed of the asbestos claims of about 325,000 plaintiffs and
claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of about
US$6,400. Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$91 million
at December 31, 2005 and are included in the foregoing average
indemnity payment per claim.

During 2005, the Company disposed of about 12,000 claims.

The 2005-4th quarter charge for asbestos-related costs was
US$135.0 million (US$86.0 million after tax), compared to the
fourth quarter 2004 charge of US$152.6 million (US$84.9 million
after tax).

Asbestos-related cash payments for 2005 were US$171.1 million, a
reduction of US$19.0 million, or 10.0%, from 2004.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc. operates as a
maker of glass containers. Its products include glass bottles
and plastic healthcare packaging (prescription bottles, tamper-
proof closures, and plastic medical devices). The Company
derives 90% of sales from its glass operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Posts 118 New Asbestos Claims in 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd. discloses that, in 2005, it has 118 newly reported
asbestos claims compared to 190 new claims in 2004, a decrease
of 38%, according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

The total pending asbestos claims at December 31, 2005 were
1,349, a 1% increase over pending claims at December 31, 2004.

Included in the Company's liabilities for losses and loss
expenses are amounts for asbestos & environmental claims, which
mainly relate to claims arising from bodily-injury claims
related to asbestos products and remediation costs associated
with hazardous waste sites.

At December 31, 2005, the Company notes that its gross loss and
allocated loss expense reserves for asbestos was at US$3,641
million. Its net loss and allocated loss expense reserves was at
US$1,751 million.

The Company's exposure to A&E claims arises out of liabilities
acquired when the Company purchased Westchester Specialty in
1998 and the P&C business of CIGNA in 1999, with the larger
exposure contained within the liabilities acquired in the CIGNA
transaction.

In 1996, prior to the Company's acquisition of the P&C business
of CIGNA, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner approved a
plan to restructure INA Financial Corp. and its subsidiaries,
which included the division of Insurance Co. of North America
(INA) into two separate corporations: (1) an active insurance
company that retained the INA name and continued to write P&C
business and (2) an inactive run-off company, now called Century
Indemnity Co.

As a result of the division, predominantly all A&E and certain
other liabilities of INA were allocated to Century and
extinguished, as a matter of Pennsylvania law, as liabilities of
INA.

As part of the Restructuring, the A&E liabilities of various
U.S. affiliates of INA were reinsured to Century, and Century
and certain other run-off companies having A&E and other
liabilities were contributed to Brandywine Holdings Corp.

As part of the 1999 acquisition of the P&C business of CIGNA,
the company acquired Brandywine Holdings and its various
subsidiaries.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd. sells property and
casualty insurance and reinsurance in the U.S. and about 50
other countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records US$24.3Mil Reserves in 4Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group Inc., formerly known as Allmerica
Financial Corporation, states that its ending loss and LAE
reserves for asbestos and environmental in the 2005-4th quarter
was at US$24.3 million, net of reinsurance of US$16.2 million,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by
the Company's property and casualty companies related to
asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability,
included in the reserve for losses and LAE, were US$24.7 million
and US$24.9 million, respectively, net of reinsurance of US$16.3
million and US$15.0 million in 2004 and 2003, respectively.

The Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed
reinsurance pool business with asbestos, environmental damage
and toxic tort liability of US$49.2 million, US$46.4 million,
and US$45.6 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.  

Renamed in late 2005, The Hanover Insurance Group Inc. provides
personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers'
compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance coverage
through its Citizens and Hanover subsidiaries. The Company is
based in Worcester, Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AM Best Reports Industry A&E Losses at $26B
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.M. Best Co. reports that the total asbestos & environmental
losses incurred by the industry since 2000 have amounted to more
than US$26 billion, of which US$24 billion was for asbestos
losses alone, according to a special Company report.

As a result, A.M. Best's year-end 2004 estimate of un-funded A&E
liabilities for the U.S. property/casualty industry is US$10
billion for asbestos and US$24 billion for environmental, for a
total funding shortfall of US$34 billion.

During 2004, U.S. property/casualty insurers narrowed the
funding gap in their A&E loss reserves, mainly for asbestos
liabilities, as a result of 2004's pretax charge of nearly US$6
billion.

While total funding levels have improved significantly from
2001's US$53 billion shortfall, essentially all of this
improvement has occurred on the asbestos side of the A&E
equation.

Furthermore, a significant number of insurer groups remain under
funded by relatively wide margins. A.M. Best's view of industry
funding levels continues to be centered on estimates of ultimate
industry losses of US$65 billion and US$56 billion for asbestos
and environmental, respectively.

Asbestos losses accelerated rapidly in the late 1990s and early
2000s, peaking at US$8 billion in 2002 before retreating
somewhat in more recent years when the industry incurred US$6
billion in 2003 and less than US$4 billion in 2004 in asbestos
losses.

Loss payouts grew 23% during 2004, capping three years of
extraordinary annual growth rates in excess of 20% per annum.
Prior to 2001, asbestos payouts typically had been very close to
US$1.3 billion annually.

As of year-end 2004, A.M. Best estimated incurred-to-date losses
for the industry of US$55 billion for asbestos and US$32 billion
for environmental.

Headquartered in Oldwick, New Jersey, A.M. Best Co. operates as
an insurance rating and information source. The Company was
established in 1899.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TN Judge Ends $20M "Clothing" Suit v. Alcoa
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale W. Young, of the Blount County Circuit Court in
Tennessee, dismissed a US$20 million asbestos lawsuit against
Alcoa Inc. filed by Doug Satterfield claiming for his daughter's
death to second-hand exposure, The Daily Times reports.

The Satterfield family sought US$10 million in compensatory and
US$10 million in punitive damages.

Amanda N. Satterfield initially filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2003,
against Breeding Insulation Co. Inc. of Nashville and Alcoa. She
alleged Mr. Satterfield, who first started working at Alcoa's
Tennessee operations in 1973, was exposed to asbestos at work
and brought it home on his clothes, which resulted in her
contracting mesothelioma, a rare cancer.

In his ruling, Judge Young first sympathized with Ms.
Satterfield's family. After her death on Jan. 1, 2005, Mr.
Satterfield continued her legal fight as representative of her
estate.

Judge Young granted Alcoa's motion for judgment, "leaving it to
consideration by the Tennessee Legislature as to whether it is
wise to establish the duty sought to be imposed by the
plaintiff."

Mr. Satterfield's lawyer, Knoxville attorney H. Douglas Nichol,
said, "We strongly disagree with his opinion. However, we're
going to make an immediate appeal."

Mr. Nichol anticipates it could be two years before the
Tennessee Court of Appeals rules on the matter.

The issue of secondary exposure of asbestos products caught the
attention of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
which spoke in support of Alcoa at a hearing for the Company's
motion on January 30, 2006, in Blount County Circuit Court.

Pittsburgh, PA-based Alcoa Inc. produces alumina (aluminum's
principal ingredient, processed from bauxite) and aluminum. Its
vertically integrated operations include bauxite mining, alumina
refining, and aluminum smelting; primary products include
alumina and its chemicals, automotive components, and sheet
aluminum for beverage cans.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Belden CDT Inc. Acknowledges 147 Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belden CDT Inc. attests its awareness of 147 asbestos-related
injury claims, in which the Company is named as a defendant, as
of February 24, 2006, according to Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Electricians have filed most of these cases mainly in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania. Fifty-eight cases are scheduled for trial in
2006.

Typically in these cases, the claimant alleges injury from
alleged exposure to asbestos fiber, which was usually
encapsulated or embedded and lacquer-coated or covered by
another material. Exposure to the fiber would have occurred
while stripping or cutting the wire or cable that had asbestos.

Stripping was done mainly to repair or to attach a connector to
the wire or cable. Alleged predecessors of the Company had a
small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased
production of such products more than fifteen years ago.

As of February 24, 2006, in 23 of these cases, plaintiffs
generally allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount
(i.e., in one case, not less than US$15,000 in the other cases,
in excess of US$50,000 in compensatory damages and US$50,000 in
punitive damages).

In 122 of these cases, plaintiffs generally do not allege a
specific monetary damage demand. As to each of the other 2
cases, the plaintiffs generally allege US$5 million in
compensatory and US$5 million in punitive damages.

Through February 24, 2006, the Company had been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 156 similar cases
without any going to trial, and with only seven of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

Some of these cases were dismissed without prejudice primarily
because the claimants could not show any injury, or could not
show that injury was caused from exposure to products of alleged
predecessors of the Company.  


COMPANY PROFILE

Belden CDT Inc.
7701 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-854-8000
Fax: 314-854-8001
http://www.beldencdt.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$1,352.1
1-Year Sales Growth:              39.9%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$47.5
1-Year Net Income Growth:         212.5%
2004 Employees:                   6,750
1-Year Employee Growth:           73.1%

Description:
Belden CDT Inc. makes cable and wire products for use in the
broadcasting, computer, entertainment, instrumentation,
networking, and telecommunications industries. The Company was
established on July 15, 2004 when Belden Inc. and Cable Design
Technologies Corp. completed a merger transaction.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Tarragon Completes Remediation Costs at US$795T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tarragon Corp. notes about US$795,000 in remediation costs
relating to asbestos-containing materials found in the Company's
property at Pine Crest Village at Victoria Park, according to
the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.

In April 2003, in connection with the renovations at Pine Crest,
the Company contractor inadvertently disturbed asbestos-
containing materials.

These actions have been investigated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Florida, and a federal grand jury for possible violations of
federal criminal laws.

The Company engages in discussions with the U.S. Attorney
concerning a possible resolution of this matter that would
involve the imposition of fines and a felony criminal plea. The
Company has accrued a US$1 million loss contingency for the
estimated fines.

Moreover, one current and one former Tarragon employee with
oversight responsibility for the Pine Crest condominium
conversion have been advised by the U.S. Attorney's Office,
which told them that they are targets of the grand jury's
criminal investigation.

To date, the Company has incurred legal and other professional
fees and costs of relocation of residents in connection with
this matter of US$468,000.


COMPANY PROFILE

Tarragon Corporation
1775 Broadway, 23rd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-949-5000
Fax: 212-949-8001
http://www.tarragoncorp.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$673.7
1-Year Sales Growth:              100.7%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$145.8
1-Year Net Income Growth:         226.2%
2004 Employees:                   495
1-Year Employee Growth:           15.1%

Description:
Tarragon Corp., through its two primary divisions, Homebuilding
and Investment, engages in the development and renovation of
single and multifamily residences and communities.


ASBESTOS ALERT: West Hills Fined US$45T for Handling Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Hills Enterprises of Salem, states the U.S. Attorney's
Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, will pay a
US$45,000 fine for a felony violation of the Clean Air Act for
failing to comply with workplace standards for handling
asbestos, The Oregonian reports.

The Government charged that in September 2004, West Hills
improperly demolished a building at 730 Liberty Road in Salem
that contained thousands of square feet of asbestos-containing
materials.

The Company violated the law by not providing required prior
written notice of the project to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. The U.S. Attorney's Office said West
Hills also did not wet the material before demolition to prevent
emission into the air, and that it did not have adequate
supervision for the work or properly dispose of the waste.

According to a U.S. Attorney's Office statement, West Hills
Enterprises took full responsibility and admitted its wrongdoing
from the outset of the investigation.

The statement added that the sanctions could have been much more
severe if West Hills had not been so forthcoming.

The US$45,000 fine will go to the Oregon Governor's Fund for the
Environment, an endowment established by U.S. Attorney Karin J.
Immergut and Governor Ted Kulongoski in April 2005 to fund
environmental projects statewide.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COOPER COMPANIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
The Cooper Companies  (NYSE: COO) between July 29, 2004 and
November 21, 2005, including persons who received Cooper shares
in exchange for shares of Ocular Sciences in the January 2005
merger between Cooper and Ocular Sciences, Inc.

The complaint charges Cooper and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Cooper
publishes solutions for the education, automotive, and power
equipment markets.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements,
made in press releases and SEC filings, were materially false
and misleading for the following reasons, among others:

     (1) the Company improperly accounted for assets acquired in
         the Ocular Sciences merger, as reported in the Proxy
         Statement, by misclassifying intangible assets as
         tangible ones, which had the effect of lowering
         amortization expenses;

     (2) the Company's aggressive earnings guidance reflected
         the improper accounting for intangible assets and was
         inflated by (among other things) the amount of the
         understated amortization expenses;

     (3) the merger synergies touted by defendants were
         unrealistic and were lacking in any reasonable basis;

     (4) Ocular Sciences had stuffed the channel with its
         Biomedics products;

     (5) the Company's lack of a two-week silicone hydrogel
         product would prevent it from meeting its aggressive
         growth targets for 2005 and beyond, contrary to
         defendants' repeated representations that the Company's
         Proclear product was competing favorably against the
         silicone hydrogel products; and

     (6) Cooper and Ocular in fact competed in the two-week lens
         market.

When the truth was disclosed at the end of the Class Period, on
November 21 and November 22, 2005, the price of Cooper common
stock collapsed, falling by $21 per share, or 29%, to close at
$51.47 per share on November 22, 2005.  During the Class Period,
before the value of Cooper securities collapsed, insiders sold a
total of 1,970,233 shares of common stock for proceeds of
$141,492,613, at the mean price of $71.82 per share.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Pamela Macker
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com and
pmacker@cmht.com, Web site: http://www.cmht.com.


H&R BLOCK: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri against H&R
Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB).  

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 31, 2005 through March 14, 2006.

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


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
Merge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRGE) between August 2, 2005
and March 16, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, against defendants
Merge Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Merge Healthcare, Richard A.
Linden and Scott T. Veech.  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.  


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Smith & Smith Files Stock Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Northfield
Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq:NFLD) between February 20, 2004 and
February 21, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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

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


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Stock Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, initiated a securities class action
against PainCare Holdings, Inc., Randy Lubinsky, its Chief
Executive Officer, and Mark Szporka, its Chief Financial Officer
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  

The action styled, "Zausmer v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., No.
6:06-cv-00396-GKS-DAB," was brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired for value common stock of
PainCare between August 27, 2002 and March 15, 2006 (the
"Class").  Excluded from the Class are defendants, members of
their families, and the directors and officers of PainCare and
its subsidiaries.  The law firms of Cooper, Ridge & Lantinberg,
P.A. and Miller Shea, P.C also represent the plaintiff.

PainCare, which has grown rapidly through acquisitions,
announced publicly on March 15, 2006 that it would be restating
its financial statements from 2000 through the third quarter of
2005, based upon discussions with the staff of the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  According to the Company's March 15
announcement, PainCare estimates that the total restatement for
the years 2000 to 2004 would be a net negative $23.5 million.
Following this news, shares of PainCare dropped by 12.5% on
heavy trading to close at $2.50 per share on March 16, 2006, a
drop of over 52% in value from the stock's Class period high of
$5.25.

The complaint alleges that PainCare, along with defendants
Lubinsky and Szporka, violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of public
disclosures that falsely portrayed the Company's financial
conditions and results of operations during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that PainCare's financial
statements were not prepared in compliance with generally
accepted accounting principles and that the Company improperly
accounted for its acquisitions, as well as other non-cash items.
The complaint alleges that the price for PainCare common stock
was artificially inflated during the period from August 27, 2002
to March 15, 2006 because of the false and misleading statements
made by the defendants, and seeks to recover damages for the
members of the Class from the defendants.

For more details, James R. Malone, Jr. and Joseph G. Sauder of
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, One Haverford Center, Haverford, PA
19041, Phone: 1-888-805-7848, E-mail: jamesmalone@chimicles.com
and josephsauder@chimicles.com, Web site:
http://www.chimicles.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a suit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of PainCare
Holdings, Inc. between August 27, 2002, and March 15, 2006.

Also included are all those who acquired PainCare in a secondary
offering in October of 2004, or through the acquisitions of
Dynamic, Denver Pain, PainCare, Inc., Amphora, REC, Inc., PHS
Alpha, Center for Pain Management or Desert Pain.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  Specifically, defendants engaged in improper
accounting practices in order to bolster the Company's stock
price, thereby enabling the Company to complete numerous
acquisitions of related pain care companies during the Class
Period.  The Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants directly participated in an accounting fraud
which materially overstated the Company's financial results by
improperly accounting for its numerous acquisitions and certain
other non-cash expenses.

On March 15, 2006, defendants revealed that PainCare's financial
results would be restated for fiscal years 2000-2005, its entire
corporate existence.  On this news, PainCare's stock price
dropped by nearly 13% and has lost more than 50% of its value
from the stock's Class Period high.

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



                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *