CAR_Public/060412.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 73

                            Headlines

AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Stock Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24
AMCOR LTD: Australian Firm Faces $300M Anti-Trust Litigation
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS: UCAN Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 9
BAYER CORP: June Hearing Set for NBR Anti-Trust Suit Settlement
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles on Injury Reports

CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
CANADA: HMCS Discovery Cadets Get Windfall in Sexual Abuse Case
CITIGROUP INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $13.25M
CONCRETE SUPPLIERS: New Info Emerge in Ind. Price-Fixing Suit
DUKE CAPITAL: Nev. Court Mulls Motions in Tenn. State Court Case

DUKE ENERGY: Faces Energy Markets Manipulation Suits in Kans.
DUKE ENERGY: Federal Court Approves NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement
EMACHINES INC: California Lawsuit Over Empire Merger Continues
ERNST & YOUNG: Florida Couple Sues Over Losses in Tax Shelters
FAMILY DOLLAR: Paying $33M to Misclassified Store Employees

FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Conn. Judge Okays Class in Pension Suit
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Settles Vacation Pay Lawsuit in Louisiana
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Certifies Class in Canadian Export Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Consolidates GMAC Debt Securities Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Class H Shares Suits

GENERAL MOTORS: JPMDL Considers Transfer Motions for Stock Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Mulls Approval of Retirees' Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Mich. Stock Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Subsidiary Faces Consolidated Mich. ERISA Suit

LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until Mid-July
LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Suit V. Execs Stayed Until Mid-July
LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Consolidated ERISA Suit
LORAL SPACE: Settlement Reached in Globalstar Securities Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Spending $310M for Disabled Riders' Needs

MICROSOFT CORP: Mass. Schools to Receive Up to $1M in Settlement
MINERAL SUPPLIERS: Chinese Firms Face Price-Fixing Complaints
NATURAL GAS: NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 19, 2006
OKLAHOMA: Bill Proposing to Change Civil Justice System Junked
OLD ENGLAND: Australian Hotel Settles Food Poisoning Lawsuit

PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts
TITAN CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq
UICI: Discovery Going Ahead in Texas Insurance Litigation
WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Allows Motion to Appeal Suit's Dismissal

               
                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

         
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
ASTEA INT'L: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
ESTEE LAUDER: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.Y.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 25
NATURES SUNSHINE: Stull, Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Utah
SAC CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.J.

                            *********


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Stock Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of securities class actions against Airnet
Communications Corp.

The company, two of its former officers and members of the
underwriting syndicate involved in the company's initial public
offering (IPO) were named as defendants in a class action
complaint filed on November 16, 2001 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  

The action, Case No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws, and sought unspecified damages
and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons
and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired shares of the company's common stock between December
6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In substance, the suit alleged that the
underwriters of the company's IPO charged commissions in excess
of those disclosed in the IPO materials and that these actions
were not properly disclosed.

More than 300 similar class actions filed in the Southern
District of New York have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes under the caption of "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."

On July 15, 2002, the defendants filed a joint motion to
dismiss.  In February 2003, the motion to dismiss was granted in
part with respect to the company and denied in part with respect
to all issuer defendants.  The claims against the company's two
former officers named in the class action were dismissed without
prejudice, pursuant to agreement.

The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have since drafted and
agreed upon a settlement, which is pending approval by the
court.  A committee of the company's board of directors has
accepted the pending settlement.

The terms of the settlement agreement calls for the defendant
issuers' insurers to guarantee the plaintiffs the amount of one
billion dollars less the total of all of the plaintiffs'
recoveries from the underwriter defendants.

None of the proceeds will be distributed to any proposed class
member until after the conclusion of the class members'
proceedings with respect to the underwriter defendants.

Furthermore, pursuant to the agreement, the issuer defendants
have assigned all their potential claims against the underwriter
defendants to a litigation trust, to be represented by
plaintiffs' counsel.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement, and has scheduled a hearing on April
24, 2006, to determine whether to grant final approval.  Its
final approval of the proposed settlement is expected.

Under the terms of the settlement, there would be no liability
to be recorded by the company.  Pursuant to a separate
agreement, the insurers have also agreed to pay the issuers'
defense costs incurred on or subsequent to June 1, 2003 on a
pooling basis.

In addition, pending approval, the individual tolling agreements
dismissing the named individual defendants have been extended,
so that the individual defendants will be covered by the
settlement as well.

Final approval of the settlement remains pending before the
Court and, given the Court's scheduling orders, will likely not
be determined until 2006.  While awaiting final court approval
of the settlement, the issuers, including the company, have
complied with discovery obligations specified in the settlement,
by providing a limited number of documents.


AMCOR LTD: Australian Firm Faces $300M Anti-Trust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Global packing company Amcor Ltd. based in Abbotsford, Australia
is facing a $300 million class action over alleged anti-
competitive practices, reports say.

The suit was filed in Federal Court in Sydney, Australia on
April 11 on behalf of about 1,700 businesses.  The plaintiffs
claim to have been damaged by price fixing and market sharing in
the cardboard box industry between 2000 and 2005.  The
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission  (ACCC) is
investigating the matter, including some of Amcor's business
activities with Visy packaging.  Amcor escaped prosecution after
being granted immunity by the ACCC in return for information
about the alleged conduct.

Ben Slade of law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman estimates that
businesses incurred damages at between $2 million and $3 million
as a result of anti-competitive practices.  He said Amcor
overcharged clients by up to 23%.

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the main industries
involved in the action include fruit and vegetable growers, and
people in the meat, milk, beer and wine market.

A date was being sought for a directions hearing into the class
action and a response was being sought from Amcor, according to
the Age.

Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


AT&T COMMUNICATIONS: UCAN Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 9
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Diego will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
in the matter: "UCAN, et al. v. AT&T Communications of
California, et al., Case No. GIC 837830."  The case was brought
on behalf of all current and former AT&T Single Line Business
customers nationwide, between October 1, 2002 and January 31,
2005 who were charged a Long Distance Carrier Line Charge.

The Hearing will be held before the Honorable Linda B. Quinn on
June 9, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 74 of the Court,
located at 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101.

Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
May 24, 2006.  Proof of claim must be submitted by July 31,
2006.

For more details, contact John W. Hanson, Esq. of Rosner, Law &
Mansfield, 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Floor, San Diego, CA
92131, Phone: (858) 348-1005 and Nancy L. Stagg of Fish &
Richardson, P.C., 12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, California
92130-2081, Phone: 858-678-5070, Fax: 858-678-5099, Web sites:
http://www.fr.comor http://www.ucansettlement.com/.


BAYER CORP: June Hearing Set for NBR Anti-Trust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $9.8 million
settlement with defendants Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and Bayer
Polymers, LLC, in the matter: "In Re NBR Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 03-1898."  The case was brought on behalf of
all individuals or entities (excluding government entities) that
directly purchased acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) in the
U.S. or form a facility located in the U.S. from any defendant
from January 1, 1995 to June 30, 2003.

The hearing will be held in the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse,
Seventh Ave., and Grant St., Courtroom 7A, Pittsburgh, PA 15219,
at 1:00 p.m., on June 1, 2006.

For more details, contact In Re NBR Antitrust Litigation (Bayer)
c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 808071, Petaluma, CA 94975-
8071; Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower,
Washington, DC 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202-
408-4699; Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 805
Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-
1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com; and
Steven O. Sidener, Esq. and Joseph M. Barton, Esq. of Gold
Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San
Francisco, California 94105, Phone: 415-777-2230, Fax: 415-777-
5189, Web site: http://www.gbcslaw.com.


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles on Injury Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. of Quebec, Canada, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling 3,600 Ski-Doo(R) Model Year 2005 and 2006 Mach Z(R)
and Model Year 2006 MX Z Renegade 1000 Snowmobiles.

The company said cracks can appear in the starter ring gears of
the snowmobiles, causing ring gear fragmentation at high speeds.  
The debris can act as a projectile causing injury or death to
riders or bystanders.

Bombardier Recreational has received six reported incidents of
fragmentation.  There have been three reported injuries,
including a laceration to a rider's foot that required stitches
and one rider who suffered a fractured toe.

The recall involves all models and packages of the Model Years
2005 and 2006 Mach Z and all models and packages of the Model
Year 2006 MX Z Renegade 1000 Ski-Doo(R) Snowmobiles.  The Mach Z
model was available in black and the MXZ model was available in
black or yellow.  Model name is located on the side panels.

The snowmobiles were made in Canada and sold by Ski-Doo dealers
nationwide from September 2004 through March 2006 for between
$9,300 and $11,600.

Consumers with recalled snowmobiles are being sent direct notice
from Bombardier Recreational.  Consumers are advised to stop
using these vehicles immediately and contact a local Ski-Doo
dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair.

Picture of recalled snowmobile:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06542a.jpg

Consumer Contact: Bombardier Recreational Phone: (888) 864-2002
(toll-free) between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday;
Web site: http://www.ski-doo.com.


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present and former
executives and directors.

The suit originally alleged that the company and the executives
and directors made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions in violation of federal securities laws.  The suit
sought damages on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased company stock during the period from November 19, 2003
through June 23, 2004.

In October 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  In
November 2004, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
naming the company, Ronald J. Fior, its vice president for
finance and chief financial officer and Reed D. Taussig, the
company's former chairman and chief executive officer as
defendants and amending the purported class to include
individuals who purchased company stock during the period from
January 22, 2004 through June 23, 2004.

In February 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court granted the motion to dismiss in
May 2005 and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.  Plaintiffs
declined to amend the complaint and the court thereafter entered
a dismissal with prejudice on July 5, 2005.

The suit was styled, "In Re: Callidus Software, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2707," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP, 235 Pine
Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104 Phone:
415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710, E-mail: gw@classcounsel.com;
and David Kessler, Michael K. Yarnoff and Christopher Nelson of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA,
19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.  

Representing the company is James N. Kramer, William F.
Alderman, M. Todd Scott of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe,
LLP, 405 Howard St., San Francisco CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-
5992, Fax: 415-773-5759.


CANADA: HMCS Discovery Cadets Get Windfall in Sexual Abuse Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court approved a $10 million
settlement in a class action alleging decade-long sexual abuse
of teenage boys by officers of HMCS Discovery's sea cadet
program, The Globe and Mail reports.

The court ruling awarded a compensation package worth $8 million
to 35 former sea cadets who were part of the suit filed by
former sea cadet William White against the officers and the
attorney general of Canada.  

In addition, an extra $1.8 million was set aside for cadets who
were not party to the class action, but who were also abused and
believed they may be entitled to compensation.  They have 45
days to file a claim.

The suit alleged that as many as 63 boys may have been abused by
reserve officers who preyed on cadets from Vancouver-based HMCS
Discovery between 1967 and 1977.  One investigator estimates
that four former officers might have abused as many as 200
cadets between 1964 and 1980.

Several former officers of HMCS Discovery, which was stationed
in Vancouver's Stanley Park, were named as third-party
defendants to the suit.  This included Conrad Sundman and Ralph
Bremner, both of whom were convicted of sexually assaulting
several sea cadets, who were between the ages of 13 and 17 when
they were abused.

In 2001, Mr. Sundman was sentenced to seven years in prison
after pleading guilty to 13 counts of indecent assault and three
counts of buggery.  Mr. Bremner was convicted of four counts of
indecent assault on boys aged between 13 and 15.

In the complaint, Mr. White alleged that the federal government
might have been liable for what was alleged to have occurred on
HMCS Discovery.  The allegation was based on the fact that the
sea cadets program was set up under the National Defense Act.

Essentially, Mr. White alleged that the attorney general failed
to take reasonable measures in the operation or management of
the program to protect the cadets from conduct of a sexual
nature by employees, agents and other cadets at HMCS Discovery.

Under the settlement, which was reached more than two years
after the attorney general was named as a defendant, each of the
35 victims in the class action is eligible for an average payout
of $227,867.

However, the actual amount each victim will receive depends on
the outcome of psychological tests to determine the severity of
abuse.  "Some will get more and some will get less," Robert
Gibbens, the lawyer retained by the former cadets told The Globe
and Mail.  

The maximum payout has been set as high as $500,000.  Some
victims though could still receive as little as $30,000 if they
elect to take the money without undergoing a psychological test.

"The settlement avoids protracted and numerous proceedings with
no clear prospect of success," Justice Austin Cullen of the B.C.
Supreme Court wrote in his decision.  

Additionally, the settlement, according to Justice Cullen,
stipulates that anonymity is afforded the members of the class
action and they are no longer obliged to give evidence in court
or be cross-examined on the issue of liability or on the issue
of damages.


CITIGROUP INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $13.25M  
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. will pay an estimated $13.25 million to the
University of California to settle a securities fraud lawsuit
stemming from the 2002 collapse of WorldCom, Inc., The
Associated Press reports.

The settlement is the latest in a series of investor lawsuits
targeting the company for its business ties with WorldCom, the
telecommunications company that plunged into bankruptcy in July
2002 after revealing that its profits had been grossly
exaggerated.

The deal is separate from a $6 billion federal court class-
action settlement completed last year by the company and other
underwriters.  The university, whose pension and endowment funds
invested in WorldCom's stock between 1998 and 2000, opted out of
the federal suit and filed its own action in San Francisco
Superior Court in 2003.

Like other similar suits, the university's complaint alleged
that the company's investment banking subsidiary, then known as
Salomon Smith Barney, consistently recommended WorldCom's stock
to keep the company as a customer.

Explaining their preference to sue in state court, James Holst,
the university's general counsel told the Associated Press, "The
merits of that strategy were borne out by the result we were
able to achieve."  

He also explains that the federal class action settlement
wouldn't have been as fruitful, since it primarily covered
investors that invested in WorldCom after the university's money
managers did.

The payment partially reimburses the University of California of
its losses on WorldCom's stock.  The university's funds suffered
a $353 million loss on its WorldCom investment when it sold 10.2
million shares after the accounting scandal ravaged the
WorldCom's stock price.  

The university's retirement and endowment fund, which totals
more than $64 billion, is the most likely benefactor of the
settlement.  But despite it, the university's suit still
continues to seek damages from Arthur Andersen, the now-defunct
accounting firm that audited WorldCom's books.

After going bankrupt, WorldCom changed its name to MCI Inc.  It
was sold for $7.5 billion to Verizon Communications Inc.

For more details, contact James E. Holst, General Counsel & Vice
President for Legal Affairs, University of California, 1111
Franklin St., 8th floor, Oakland, CA 94607, Phone: (510) 987-
9800.


CONCRETE SUPPLIERS: New Info Emerge in Ind. Price-Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal officials have filed documents identifying the mystery
barn where big players in the concrete industry in Indianapolis
conspired to drive up prices, according Indianapolis Star.  The
meeting place was the horse barn of Fishers concrete supplier
Gus B. Nuckols III, the report said.

Mr. Nuckols, president of Builder's Concrete & Supply of
Fishers, is identified in a proposed plea agreement as an
organizer of the conspiracy.  He and as many as five concrete
bosses reportedly twice agreed to hike up prices citywide from
July 2000 to May 25, 2004.  Federal officials estimate the
concrete cartel drove up prices more than 10%, according to the
report.  

The concrete industry is now facing a consumer class action over
the collusion to fix prices.  Named as defendants are:

     -- Price Irving, the Irving Materials executive now
        imprisoned at Terre Haute;

     -- Prairie,  

     -- Builder's Concrete & Supply;
     
     -- Shelby Materials;

     -- American;

     -- Ready Mixed;

     -- Carmel Concrete; and

     -- Beaver Gravel

Representing consumers in the class action is lawyer Irwin Levin
of Cohen & Malad, LLP (http://www.cohenandmalad.com),One  
Indiana Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (Marion
Co.), Phone: 317-636-6481, Fax: 317-636-2593.


DUKE CAPITAL: Nev. Court Mulls Motions in Tenn. State Court Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has yet to
rule on parties' motions on a Tennessee Chancery Court case
transferred to Multidistrict Litigation.

On January 28, 2005, four plaintiffs filed suit in Tennessee
Chancery Court against Duke Capital, LLC affiliates and other
energy companies seeking class-action certification on behalf of
indirect purchasers of natural gas.  The plaintiffs alleged they
have been harmed by defendants' manipulation of the natural gas
markets by various means, including providing false information
to natural gas trade publications and unlawfully exchanging
information, resulting in artificially high natural gas prices
paid by plaintiffs in the State of Tennessee.  Alleging that
defendants violated state antitrust laws and other laws,
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief.

Defendants removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee in March 2005, and the case was
transferred to the Hon. Philip M. Pro in the District of Nevada
under Multidistrict Litigation proceeding 1566, styled, "In re
Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation."

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on various
grounds, including the filed rate doctrine and federal pre-
emption.  The court has yet to rule on these motions.  

The suit was styled, "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1566," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro.  


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Energy Markets Manipulation Suits in Kans.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM),
as well as other energy companies, are defendants in several
class actions in Kansas over alleged manipulation of the natural
gas markets.

On August 8, 2005, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court in
Kansas against the company, DETM and other energy companies,
claiming that the plaintiff was harmed by the defendants'
alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various
means, including providing false information to natural gas
trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements.

The company removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on September 8, 2005, and the case was
subsequently transferred to the Hon. Philip M. Pro in the
District of Nevada under Multidistrict Litigation proceeding
1566, styled, "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation."

On September 26, 2005, a class action petition was filed by two
plaintiffs in state court in Kansas against various defendants
including Duke Energy and the company, based on substantially
similar allegations.  This matter was also moved to federal
court, and defendants were seeking to have the case transferred
to the MDL 1566 proceeding.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to
remand the case to state court.  

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated Kansas'
antitrust laws and sought damages in unspecified amounts.


DUKE ENERGY: Federal Court Approves NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to a consolidated class action
filed against Duke Energy Trading and Marketing (DETM) and other
natural gas firms.  The suit was filed on behalf of entities who
bought and sold natural gas futures and options contracts on the
New York Mercantile Exchange during the years 2000 through 2002.

Commencing August 2003, plaintiffs filed three class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of entities who bought and sold natural gas futures and
options contracts.  The company along with numerous other
entities was named as defendant.

The plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated the Commodity
Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading
information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses
to the plaintiffs.  They sought class action certification,
unspecified damages and other relief.

On September 24, 2004, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims filed on behalf of DETM and other defendants,
and on September 30, 2005, the court certified the class.

The company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in these
consolidated cases to resolve all issues and on February 8,
2006, the court granted preliminary approval of this settlement.
The agreement is subject to final court approval after
notification to all class members.

The suit was styled, "In Re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation,
Master File No. 03 CV 6186 (VM)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


EMACHINES INC: California Lawsuit Over Empire Merger Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action filed against eMachines, Inc. is
currently before the California State Superior Court, County of
Orange.   

The suit, styled, "Dvorchak v. eMachines, Inc., et al.," relates
to a 2001 transaction in which the company, which was then a
public company, was taken private.  The action originally sought
to enjoin the company's merger with Empire Acquisition
Corporation, to effectuate taking the company private.

The court denied the requested injunction on December 27, 2001,
allowing the consummation of the merger.  After the merger,
plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking unspecified monetary
damages and/or recision relating to the negotiations for and
terms of the Merger through allegations of breaches of fiduciary
duties by the company, its board members prior to the merger,
and certain of its officers.

The court granted class certification on August 25, 2003.  
Dispositive motions filed by the defendants were heard and
denied by the Court in August 2004 and August 2005.  The trial
was previously set to start April 3, 2006.


ERNST & YOUNG: Florida Couple Sues Over Losses in Tax Shelters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Ernst & Young LLP clients in Florida are suing the
accounting firm over claims they have been defrauded millions of
dollars in fees through the company's failed tax shelters,
Reuters reports.

Lawyers representing couple Rocco and Mary Abessinio filed the
suit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.  The plaintiffs
claim they were owed more than $40 million as a result of their
investment in the firm's Personal Investment Company or PICO
that cost more than $5.9 million of unnecessary fees.  They paid
more than $40 million in increased tax liabilities for 2001 and
2002 after PICO strategy was challenged by the Internal Revenue
Service.  Their suit seeks class-action status.

The lawsuit accuses Ernst & Young of marketing a tax strategy,
involving the creation of a "personal investment company" or
PICO that "had no legitimate purpose other than as a vehicle for
tax avoidance."  The plaintiffs are demanding actual and
punitive damages, reimbursement for not pursuing legitimate tax
savings because of the PICO strategy, and other costs.

"Defendants were aware or recklessly ignored that PICO was not a
legitimate tax strategy, in part due to their familiarity with
or participation in the marketing and/or implementation of other
discredited tax shelters," wrote Sherrie Savett, a lawyer for
Berger & Montague PC in Philadelphia.

The proposed class includes all individuals who were advised by
the accounting firm and others that the PICO tax shelter and the
transactions associated with it were legal, according to The
Wall Street Journal.

Based in New York, Ernst & Young -- http://www.eyi.com-- is one  
of the world's largest accounting firms (third in revenue of the
Big Four behind PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu) with some 700 offices in 140 countries, offering
auditing and accounting services.  The firm also provides legal
services and services relating to emerging growth companies,
human resources issues, and corporate transactions.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Paying $33M to Misclassified Store Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
A judge has doubled the amount of back and overtime payment that
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. must compensate managers
misclassified as hourly employees.

A Tuscaloosa federal jury on March 3 found Family Dollar Stores
guilty of willfully violating labor standards by misclassifying
hourly employees as salaried managers so they would not qualify
for overtime.  

The jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $19 million in back
pay and owed overtime.  After reducing the verdict to $16.6
million due to some plaintiffs filing for bankruptcy, Judge U.W.
Clemon, on March 31, 2006, liquidated the jury's award after
siding with them that the company purposely violated the law,
doubling the amount to equal $33.2 million.

"We were very confident the evidence presented to the jury
proved that the managers for Family Dollar were clearly nothing
more than working foreman," said Greg Wiggins, lead attorney on
the suit for Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis.  "This case
should send a strong message to Family Dollar and other retail
companies that simply because you give people the title of store
manager it does not make them exempt from overtime pay."

The 1,424 current and past employees worked 60-80 hour work-
weeks without overtime compensation due to their classification
as Store Managers.  The FLSA's requirements for overtime
exemption state that the employee's primary duty is management
of a department or subdivision and at least two or more full-
time employees, as well as the authority to hire and fire
employees.  Evidence showed the plaintiffs actually spent only
10-20% of their time conducting such managerial duties, and the
remaining time was spent doing manual labor such as unloading
trucks, stocking shelves, mopping the floor, and running the
cash register.

"Although the defendant has stated it would appeal the case, we
feel relatively confident that the verdict will be upheld by the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals," said Mr. Wiggins.

Since the verdict, law firm Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis
have been contacted by numerous current and/or former Family
Dollar Store managers who allege the same facts.  Because there
are thousands of current store managers who were not plaintiffs
in the Morgan case, the firm expects to file a new lawsuit on
behalf of those individuals.  The 1,424 plaintiffs in the Morgan
case are located in over 30 states across the U.S.

The suit was styled, "Morgan, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores,  
Case No. 7:01-cv-00303-UWC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge U.W. Clemon.  
Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. of  
Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, 301 19th Street, North  
Birmingham, AL 35203-3204, Phone: 328-0640, E-mail:  
RWiggins@WCQP.com; and Barry V. Frederick of The Frederick Firm,  
5409 Trace Ridge Lane, Hoover, AL 35244, Phone: 205-410-0822, E-
mail: bvf123@charter.net.    

Representing the defendants are: Jay D. St. Clair of Bradley  
Arant Rose & White, P.O. Box 830709, Birmingham, AL 35283-0709,  
Phone: 521-8000, E-mail: jstclair@bradleyarant.com; and Arnold  
W. Umbach, III, Starnes & Atchison, LLP, 100 Brookwood Place,  
Seventh Floor, P.O. Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512,  
Phone: 205-868-6072, Fax: 205-868-6099, E-mail:  
tumbach@starneslaw.com.  


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Conn. Judge Okays Class in Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Janet Hall of Connecticut granted class-
action certification in a lawsuit that accuses FleetBoston
Financial Corp. of discriminating against older workers by
switching pension plans, The Associated Press reports.

Despite the dismissal of three of six counts in the lawsuit,
Judge Hall, ruled that Donna Richards, a 57-year-old executive
with 33 years at the bank could go forward with her case.  Ms.
Richards contends the company broke federal pension law by
moving employees into a cash-balance plan that reduced the rate
at which older workers accrued retirement benefits.

With the granting of class-action certification to the case, Ms.
Richards' attorney told the Associated Press that some 25,000
employees will be included into that class, 10,000 of whom no
longer work for the bank.

Asked for comment on the recent ruling, Shirley Norton, a
spokeswoman for Bank of America Corp., which bought FleetBoston
in April 2005 in a $48 billion deal, told the Associated Press
that it would defend against Ms. Richards' claims.  She pointed
out that the judge dismissed three counts in the lawsuit, even
while allowing others to go forward.

The suit is styled, "Richards v. Fleetboston Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01638-JCH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet C. Hall.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas G. Moukawsher of
Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd., Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite
209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-548-1740,
E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendant are William F. Conlon, Scott E.
Gross, Brian P. Guarraci, Erin E. Kelly, Julie A. Koca and Anne
E. Rea of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP, Bank One Plaza, One
South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7384, 312-853-
7011, 312-853-7917, 312-853-7272, 312-853-7155 and 312-853-7156,
Fax: 312-853-7036, E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com,
sgross@sidley.com, bguarrac@sidley.com, ekelly@sidley.com and
area@sidley.com.


FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Settles Vacation Pay Lawsuit in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of former employees of apparel company Fruit of the
Loom in Acadiana, South Louisiana are set to receive the
vacation pay they demanded in a class action, according to The
Daily Advertiser.  

More than 5,000 former workers could get $100 each in
settlement, said Lafayette lawyer Patrick Wartelle, who
represented the class in the suits against the defunct company.  
Employees at Fruit of the Loom plants in Abbeville, St.
Martinville, Port Barre and Jeanerette demanded for the vacation
pay they said they earned but didn't get before the company laid
them off.  The $100 payments represent only 10% of the original
settlement agreed before the company filed for bankruptcy.  

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Fruit of the Loom, Inc., is
a leading international, vertically integrated basic apparel
company, emphasizing branded products for consumers ranging from
infants to senior citizens.  The company and its debtor-
affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Dec. 29, 1999.  It
started closing its Louisiana operations in 1997.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Certifies Class in Canadian Export Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Some 79 purported class actions were filed in various state and
federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles
in the U.S. since January 1, 2001.  The defendants include:

     -- General Motors Corporation,
     -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford,
     -- Daimler Chrysler,
     -- Toyota,
     -- Honda,
     -- Nissan and BMW,
     -- their Canadian affiliates,
     -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and
     -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association

The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption "In re
New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases"
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.  Meanwhile
the more than 30 California cases were consolidated in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco County under the case
captions "Belch v. Toyota, et al." and "Bell v. General Motors."

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.  

The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10%
to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale
of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of
supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers.  In addition, the
complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices act.

As amended, the complaints sought injunctive relief under
federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and state
antitrust laws, but did not specify damages.
  
On March 5, 2004, the federal court in Maine issued a decision
holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to
state a claim for damages but allowed a separate claim seeking
to enjoin future alleged violations to continue.

On March 10, 2006, the federal court in Maine certified a
nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule
23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief.  The court expressly
deferred to an unspecified later time a decision on plaintiffs'
Federal Rule 23(b)(3) motion to certify a class for damages
under the laws of as many as 23 states and the District of
Columbia.  No determination has been made to certify any of
these cases as a damages class action under federal or state
law.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Consolidates GMAC Debt Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp., General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) and
certain of the company's officers and directors are defendants
in several purported class actions in Florida and Michigan
courts in relation to GMAC debt securities.

The suits are styled:

     (1) "Zielezienski, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," filed
         on November 29, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Palm
         Beach County, Florida;

     (2) "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors Corporation,
         et al.," filed on December 28, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court for Wayne County, Michigan; and

     (3) "Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on
         February 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of Michigan.

Filed by Stanley Zielezienski, the Zielezienski action was filed
against the company, GMAC, the company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman,
Eric A. Feldstein; and company and GMAC officers William F.
Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas, Richard J.S. Clout, John E. Gibson, W.
Allen Reed, Walter G. Borst, John M. Devine, and Gary L. Cowger.  
The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt
securities as defendants.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act, and with respect to all defendants except the
company, Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  It also
alleges that the company violated Section 15 of the Securities
Act.  

In particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations
in certain GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference
with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus.

More specifically, the complaint alleges material
misrepresentations in connection with the offering for sale of
GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC financial statements contained
in GMAC's Forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended in March
31, 2004 and June 30, 2004 and the Form 8-K which disclosed
financial results for the quarterly period ended in September
30, 2004, as evidenced by GMAC's 2005 restatement of these
quarterly results.

In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
making substantially the same allegations as were in the
previous filing, with respect to additional debt securities
issued by GMAC during the period April 23, 2004 to March 14,
2005, and adding approximately 60 additional underwriters as
defendants.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought and
the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs
will seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.

On January 6, 2006, defendants named in the original complaint
removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  On February 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the case to Florida state court, which is
currently being briefed by the parties.

On March 28, 2006, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated
order withdrawing plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  If this order is entered, the parties have agreed to
seek to have this case consolidated with the J&R Marketing and
Mager cases.

Filed by J&R Marketing, SEP, the J&R Marketing action was filed
against the company, GMAC, the company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman,
Eric Feldstein; William F. Muir; Linda K. Zukauckas; Richard
J.S. Clout; John E. Gibson; W. Allen Reed; Walter G. Borst; John
M. Devine; Gary L. Cowger; and several underwriters of GMAC debt
securities.

Similar to the original complaint filed in the Zielezienski
case, the complaint alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and
15 of the Securities Act based on alleged material
misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration Statements
for GMAC SmartNotes purchased between September 30, 2003 and
March 16, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of the company's
financial condition and performance as well as issues arising
from GMAC's 2005 restatement of quarterly results for the three
quarters ended September 30, 2005.  

It does not specify the amount of damages sought and the
defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will
seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.  On January 13, 2006 defendants removed this case to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Filed by Alex Mager, the Mager action is substantively identical
to the J&R Marketing case.  On February 24, 2006, J&R Marketing
filed a motion to consolidate the Mager case with its case and
for appointment as lead plaintiff and the appointment of lead
counsel.  On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order
consolidating the two cases.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Class H Shares Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is defendant in several purported
shareholder class actions in Delaware and California in relation
to GM Class H common stocks.

On April 11 and 14, 2003, two purported class actions, styled,
"Young v. Pearce, et al.' and "Silverstein v. Pearce, et al.,"
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of owners of the
GM Class H shares against Hughes Electronics Corp., the company,
News Corp. and the Hughes directors.

On April 11 and 15, 2003, two purported class actions, styled,
"Matcovsky, et al., v. Hughes Electronics Corporation, et al."
and "Brody v. Hughes Electronics Corporation, et al.," were
filed in Superior Court in Los Angeles, California, against
Hughes, the company and the Hughes and company directors.  

Two purported stockholder class actions, which name only the
company and its directors have been brought in Delaware Chancery
Court challenging the agreements with News Corp.  The suits are
styled, "Wyser-Pratte Management Company v. General Motors
Corporation, et al.," which was filed April 18, 2003, and
"Robert LaMarche v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," which
was filed April 28, 2003.  

The Delaware cases were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery
Court and the California cases were consolidated in state court
in Los Angeles and plaintiffs in both cases have filed
consolidated complaints.

The Delaware cases alleged that the company and its directors
performed ultra vires acts and that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving a transaction that is more
favorable to the holders of GM $12/3 par value common stock than
the holders of GM Class H common stock.  They claimed that the
holders of GM Class H common stock were treated unfairly
because:

     (1) GM received mostly cash for its shares while the
         holders of GM Class H common stock received News Corp.
         American Depositary Shares (ADSs) that may fluctuate in
         Value;

     (2) GM received a $275 million payment from Hughes;

     (3) a substantial number of shares of GM Class H common
         stock were contributed to various GM employee benefit
         plans prior to announcement of the deal to improve the
         prospects of shareholder approval; and

     (4) the transaction was announced just prior to the
         announcement of improved financial results at Hughes
         and PanAmSat to make it appear that holders of GM Class
         H common stock would receive a premium that would
         exceed the 20% recapitalization premium provided for in
         the GM restated certificate of incorporation, as
         amended.

The California cases alleged that the transactions involving
News Corp.'s acquisition of a 34% interest in Hughes provides
benefits to GM not available to all GM Class H shareholders, in
violation of fiduciary duties.  

The new consolidated complaints were similar to the original
complaints, except that the Delaware complaint added allegations
challenging the adequacy of the disclosures in the consent
solicitation and only named GM and members of the GM board of
directors as defendants.  Plaintiffs in both cases sought
unspecified damages.  

The company 's motion to dismiss the Delaware cases was granted
by the Delaware Chancery Court on May 4, 2005.  On March 20,
2006, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated Delaware cases.  

In the California cases, the claims against directors without
any connection to California have been dismissed and the
consolidated case has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion
to dismiss the Delaware consolidated complaint.  


GENERAL MOTORS: JPMDL Considers Transfer Motions for Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) has yet
to rule on the motions by General Motors Corp., General Motors
Acceptance Corp. and certain of the company's officers and
directors that seeks consolidated pretrial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for
several securities class actions filed against them.

On September 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint,
styled, "Folksam Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, naming as defendants the company, GMAC, and the
company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G. Richard
Wagoner, Jr.; Vice Chairman, John Devine; Treasurer, Walter
Borst; and Chief Accounting Officer, Peter Bible.

Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers
of the company's debt and/or equity securities during the period
February 25, 2002 through March 16, 2005.  The complaint alleged
that defendants violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the
individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a),
and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 15 of
the Securities Act, in connection with certain registered debt
offerings during the class period.  In particular, the complaint
alleged that the company's cash flows during the class period
were overstated based on the reclassification of certain cash
items described in its 2004 Form 10-K.

The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the
financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that
resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to
revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended
2002 and 2003.  

The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to
forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings
forecast that were later revised significantly downward.

In October 2005, a substantially identical suit was filed and
consolidated with the Folksam case, styled, "Galliani v. General
Motors, et al."  The consolidated suit is now called, "In re
General Motors Securities Litigation."

On November 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an
amended complaint, which added several additional investors as
plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to November 9,
2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one
former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its
independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.  

In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint,
the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the
company's Form SEC 8-K dated November 8, 2005, which reported
that its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim
against defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance
Corporation Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive
compensation during the class period.

It also included further allegations regarding the company's
accounting for pension obligations, restatement of income for
2001, and financial results for the first and second quarters of
2005.

Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify
the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to
estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited
information available in the complaint.  Defendants have not yet
filed their response to the complaints, but intend to vigorously
defend these actions.

On January 17, 2006, the court made provisional designations of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which designations were made
final on February 6, 2006.

On December 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors
Securities Litigation" (previously Folksam Asset Management v.
General Motors, et al. and Galliani v. General Motors, et. al.)
and in certain other litigation against the company filed a
Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those cases
for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

On January 5, 2006, the defendants submitted to the JPMDL an
Amended Motion seeking to add to their original Motion several
other lawsuits pending against the company for consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  The Panel heard these motions on March
30, 2006.


GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
denied General Motors' motion to dismiss an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit claiming those in-charged
with overseeing employees' retirement accounts failed in their
responsibility.

The suit claimed that the company and plan fiduciaries ignored
the company's dire financial problems and in doing so
imprudently managed the two retirement funds, causing employee-
investors to incur huge losses.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds cited that the
company had a duty to convey complete and accurate financial
information about General Motors' true financial health to the
plaintiffs, something the suit claims it failed to do.  

The case involved two General Motors ERISA Plans namely: the
Personal Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, and the Savings-
Stock Purchased Program for Salaried Employees, both holding
large amounts of General Motors stock.

"It is our belief that GM and the investment fund committee sold
out [General Motors] employees, plain and simple, " said Steve
Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  "They stood
motionless and mute while the stock's slide devastated the
retirement savings of thousands."

The suit claimed the defendants put the interests of the company
ahead of the interests of the plan participants by continuing to
offer General Motors stock as an investment option, matching
employee contributions in General Motors stock and failing to
diversify the stock fund when it was clear General Motors stock
was not a prudent investment.

According to the suit, the members of the investment fund
committee were also responsible for overseeing the horribly
under-funded defined-benefit pension and healthcare plans.  
"That gave them first-hand knowledge of GM's problems early on,"
Berman added.  "Even when analysts begin issuing 'sell'
recommendations and the company's debt was reduced to junk
status, the committee refused to take action for their
employees."

Judge Edmonds granted State Street Bank's motion to dismiss
charges against it.  The judge also appointed Steve Berman as
co-lead counsel for the consolidation of three suits.  The
consolidated suit was filed May 13, 2005.

The suit is styled, "Pyrka, et al. v. General Motors
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-71085-NGE-RSW," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
under Judge Nancy G Edmunds with referral to Judge R. Steven
Whalen.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Geoffrey M. Johnson of Scott & Scott (Chagrin Falls),
         33 River Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022, Phone: 440-
         247-8200, Fax: 440-247-8275, E-mail:
         gjohnson@scott-scott.com;  

     (2) Elwood S. Simon and John P. Zuccarini of Elwood S.
         Simon Assoc., 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250,
         Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-
         258-2335, E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com and
         zuccarinis@aol.com; and

     (3) Andrew M. Volk of Hagens Berman, 1301 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292,
         Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail: andrew@hbsslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Timothy A. Duffy of Kirkland &
Ellis (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Mulls Approval of Retirees' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Michigan has yet to
make a final determination on the settlement agreement in the
putative class action styled, "UAW, et al. v. General Motors
Corporation."

On October 18, 2005, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and two
hourly retirees filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of hourly retirees,
spouses and dependants, seeking to enjoin unilateral
modifications by the company to hourly retiree health-care
benefits, claiming that such benefits are unalterably vested.

The company though maintains that retiree health-care benefits
are not vested and that it has expressly reserved the right to
make unilateral changes.  

On October 29, 2005, the company and the UAW entered into a
memorandum of understanding that provided for a number of
changes to health care coverage for both UAW represented active
employees and UAW retirees.

On October 31, 2005, plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint
adding four additional retirees and one surviving spouse as
putative class representatives.  The lawsuit followed months of
negotiations between the company and the UAW regarding changes
to retiree health-care benefits and is the initial step in
implementing this agreement.

On December 16, 2005, the company, the UAW and the putative
class representatives finalized a settlement agreement and
submitted motions to the court for certification of the class,
preliminary approval of the final settlement and approval of the
proposed notice to class members.

At a hearing on December 22, 2005, the court granted the motion
for class certification, preliminarily approved the final
settlement agreement and directed that proposed notice of the
settlement be mailed to class members.  That mailing was
complete on December 30, 2005.

A final hearing to determine whether the settlement agreement is
fair, reasonable and adequate with respect to the class was held
on March 6, 2006.  The company is awaiting a final determination
on the settlement agreement by the court.

The suit is styled, "United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. v. General
Motors Corporation, Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
under Judge Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M.
Morgan.  Representing the plaintiffs are,

     (1) Michael F. Saggau and Daniel W. Sherrick of UAW
         International Union, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit,
         MI 48214, US, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5240,
         E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net;

     (2) John M. West of Bredhoff and Kaiser (Washington), 805
         Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: 202-842-2600, Fax: 22-842-1888, E-mail:
         jwest@bredhoff.com; and

     (3) William T. Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15223, US, Phone: 412-492-5797, Fax: 412-492-8978,
         E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net.

Representing the defendants are: Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland
& Ellis, (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago,
IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2391; and Edward W. Risko and Francis
S. Jaworski of General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff, 300
Renaissance Center, Phone: 313-667-2408, Fax: 313-667-6323, E-
mail: edward.w.risko@gm.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Mich. Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two purported securities class actions filed in
Michigan federal court against General Motors Corporation
voluntarily dismissed their cases.  The dismissed suits were:

     (1) "Sacco, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.,"
         filed on November 21, 2005 by Teresa and Joseph Paul
         Sacco; and

     (2) "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.,"
         filed on December 21, 2005 by Charles Rosen.

Both of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan against the company, G. Richard
Wagoner, Jr., John F. Smith, Jr. (in Rosen only), Peter R.
Bible, and John M. Devine.  

Plaintiffs purported to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of
General Motors stock during the period April 18, 2001 through
November 9, 2005.  The complaints alleged that defendants
violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual
defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The complaints
focused on certain statements regarding the Corporation's
financial performance.

The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought, and
defendants had no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs
sought based upon the limited information available in the
complaints.

On January 6, 2006, the plaintiffs in Sacco filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal.  On February 16, 2006, the plaintiffs in
Rosen filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.


GENERAL MOTORS: Subsidiary Faces Consolidated Mich. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Investment Management Corp. (GMIMCo), a wholly
owned subsidiary of General Motors Corp., is one of numerous
defendants in several purported class actions alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) with respect to the Delphi company stock plans for
salaried and hourly employees.  The suits were filed in March
and April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On September 13, 2005, the cases were consolidated under the
case caption, "In re Delphi ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
05-CV-70882" and were transferred to the Eastern District of
Michigan for coordinated pretrial proceedings with other Delphi
shareholder lawsuits in which GMIMCo is not named as a
defendant.

On March 3, 2006, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the court
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging
that from May 28, 1999 to November 1, 2005, GMIMCo, a named
fiduciary of the Delphi plans, breached its fiduciary duties to
plan participants by:

     -- allowing them to invest in the Delphi Common Stock Fund
        when it was imprudent to do so;
    
     -- failing to monitor State Street Bank and Trust, the
        entity appointed by GMIMCo to serve as investment
        manager for the Delphi Common Stock Fund; and

     -- knowingly participating in, enabling, or failing to
        remedy breaches of fiduciary duty by other defendants.

No determination has been made that a class action can be
maintained against GMIMCo and there have been no decisions on
the merits of the claims.

The suit was styled, "In Re: Delphi ERISA Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-70882-GER-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen with
referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.  Representing the plaintiffs
are: Jeffrey T. Meyers of Morgan & Meyers, 3200 Greenfield Road,
Suite 260, Dearborn, MI 48120-1802, Phone: 313-961-0130; and
Lynn L. Sarko of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, E-mail:
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com.

Representing the defendants are: Michael P. Cooney of Dykema
Gossett, (Detroit), 400 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48243-
1668, Phone: 313-568-6800, Fax: 313-568-6701, E-mail:
mcooney@dykema.com; and Timothy A. Duffy, Robert J. Kopecky and
Jonathan E. Moore of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 E. Randolph Drive,
Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-
861-2200 and 312-861-2084, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com and
jmoore@kirkland.com.


LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until Mid-July
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Loral Space & Communications,
Ltd.'s chief executive officer and chairman of the board of
directors Bernard Schwartz in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled was stayed until mid-July
2006.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed the suit, alleging:

     (1) that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the
         Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
         making material misstatements or failing to state  
         material facts about the company's financial condition
         relating to the sale of assets to Intelsat and Loral's
         Chapter 11 filing; and

     (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the
defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with him.

In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  Defendant filed an answer in
March 2004.  

Discovery has been stayed pending the outcome of mediation
scheduled for January 2006.  The case has been stayed until mid-
July 2006.

The suit is styled, "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-
cv-06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East
45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-
7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022; and Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss & Yourman,
The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue 1600 New York, NY 10176,
Phone: (212) 682-3025.  

Representing Mr. Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja and Francis
James Menton, Jr., Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787
Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax:
(212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com.


LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Suit V. Execs Stayed Until Mid-July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against two Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York was stayed until mid-July 2006.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich filed a purported class action
complaint against Bernard Schwartz, the company's chief
executive officer and chairman of the board of directors and
Richard J. Townsend, the company's executive vice president.  

The complaint alleged:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange  
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about the company's financial condition relating
         to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements
         for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct
         accounting for certain general and administrative
         expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a
         satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd.;
         and

     (2) that each of the defendants are secondarily liable for
         these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
         20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
         person" of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of company common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.  

In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  Defendants filed an answer to
the complaint in December 2004.

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.  The parties have
requested a stay of discovery pending the outcome of mediation
scheduled for January 2006.  The case has been stayed until mid-
July 2006.

The suit is styled, "Hull v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-07829-
JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  Representing the
plaintiffs are: Lauren D. Antonino, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood
& Harley, 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta,
GA 30309, Phone: (404) 873-3900; and Christopher Scott Hinton,
Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com.


LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. reached an agreement to
settle the consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it by its
former employees and participants in the Loral Savings Plan.

In July 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the members of the Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative
Committee and certain existing and former members of the Board
of Directors of SS/ L, including Bernard L. Schwartz.  The
amended complaint alleges:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching
         their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage
         the assets of the Savings Plan by including Loral
         common stock as an investment alternative and by
         providing matching contributions under the Savings Plan
         in Loral stock,

     (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of
         ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor
         the committee defendants and to provide them with
         accurate information,

     (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by failing to provide complete and accurate information
         to Savings Plan participants and beneficiaries, and

     (4) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by breaching their fiduciary duties to avoid conflicts
         of interest.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the
present and whose accounts included investments in Loral stock.  

In September 2005, the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle
this case for $7.5 million payable solely from proceeds of
insurance coverage and without recourse to the individual
defendants. The District Court has suspended further proceedings
in this case pending the outcome of the insurance litigation
referred to below and final approval of the settlement.  

Plaintiffs have also filed a proof of claim against the company
with respect to this case in an unliquidated amount.  The
company believes that this claim is without merit and have filed
an objection in the Bankruptcy Court which is scheduled to be
heard in December 2005.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the
present and whose accounts included investments in Old Loral
stock.

In September 2005, the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle
this case for $7.5 million payable solely from proceeds of
insurance coverage and without recourse to the individual
defendants.  The District Court has suspended further
proceedings in this case pending the outcome of an insurance
litigation against the company and final approval of the
settlement.

Plaintiffs have also filed a proof of claim against the company
with respect to this case and have agreed that in no event will
their claim against the company with respect to this case exceed
$22 million.  

The suit is styled, "In Re Loral Space ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-09923-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith,
L.L.C., Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610.667.6200, Fax: 610.667.9029, E-mail: esmith@brodsky-
smith.com.  


LORAL SPACE: Settlement Reached in Globalstar Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors Bernard Schwartz
preliminarily settled the consolidated securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against him, the company and Globalstar
Telecommunications Limited (GTL).

On September 26, 2001, the nineteen separate purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by various holders of securities of GTL and
Globalstar L.P. (Globalstar) were consolidated.  In November
2001, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint, alleging:

     (1) that all defendants (except Loral) violated Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about
         Globalstar's business and prospects;

     (2) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
         under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged
         "controlling persons" of Globalstar;

     (3) that defendants GTL and Mr. Schwartz are liable under
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue
         statements of material facts in or omissions of
         material facts from a registration statement relating
         to the sale of shares of GTL common stock in January
         2000;

     (4) that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of
         the Securities Act for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the
         sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000; and

     (5) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's
         primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the
         Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar,
Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from December 6,
1999 through October 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and
certain persons related to or affiliated with them.

In December 2003, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety was denied by the court insofar as GTL and Mr.
Schwartz are concerned, and discovery has commenced and is
ongoing.  In December 2004, plaintiffs' motion for certification
of the class was granted.  In June 2004, Globalstar was
dissolved, and in October 2004, GTL was liquidated pursuant to
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

This case was preliminarily settled by Mr. Schwartz in July 2005
for $20 million with final approval of the settlement in
December 2005, and he has commenced a lawsuit against
Globalstar's directors and officers liability insurers seeking
to recover the full settlement amount plus legal fees and
expenses incurred in enforcing his rights under Globalstar's
directors and officers liability insurance policy.

In addition, Mr. Schwartz filed a proof of claim against the
company asserting a general unsecured prepetition claim for,
among other things, indemnification relating to this case.   Mr.
Schwartz and the company agreed that in no event would his claim
against the company with respect to the settlement of this case
exceed $25 million.

The suit was styled "In re Globalstar Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge P. Kevin Castel.   
Representing the plaintiffs is Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank
& Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.  

Representing the company and Bernard Schwartz are Jeanne Marie
Luboja, Francis James Menton of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
(NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-
8000, Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Spending $310M for Disabled Riders' Needs
-------------------------------------------------------------  
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and groups
representing people with disabilities agreed on a settlement
that would require MBTA to spend $310 million in making public
transit system accessible to the disabled community, according
to CBS4Boston.

The suit was filed in 2002 over allegations by disability
advocates who claimed broken elevators, ineffective wheelchair
lifts and inaccessible stations rendered the public transit
system useless to the disabled community.

The settlement includes:

     -- a $122 million budget over the next five years to add,
        replace, or upgrade elevators and escalators and to
        ensure continued, uninterrupted service;

     -- training MBTA employees with the help of disabled
        passengers;  

     -- continuing to buy accessible low-floor buses; and

     -- creating an assistant general manager for accessibility.

It involves no monetary damages payment, but the MBTA has to
shoulder all or a portion of the plaintiffs' legal costs.  
Progress of the changes will be assessed by undercover monitors
and a court-appointed overseer.  The settlement still needs
approval by U.S. District Court Judge Morris E. Lasker.

The lead counsel for the 11 plaintiffs and the Boston Center for
Independent Living is Daniel S. Manning, 197 Friend Street
Boston, Massachusetts, (Suffolk Co.).


MICROSOFT CORP: Mass. Schools to Receive Up to $1M in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lynn Public Schools in Massachusetts will be receiving
nearly $1 million in vouchers from Microsoft Corp. as part of a
settlement of a class action that accused the company of
violating the state's consumer protection and unfair competition
laws, The Daily Item reports.

Superintendent of Schools Nicholas Kostan said Lynn is eligible
for $475,000 in vouchers for new hardware, along with another
$475,000 in vouchers for new software.

                         Case Background   

In 2000, the company faced a flurry of lawsuits for using its
market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its
Windows operating system.  The federal cases were later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Maryland.  These
cases allege that the company competed unfairly and unlawfully
monopolized alleged markets for operating systems and certain
software applications.  They sought to recover alleged
overcharges for these products.

The courts dismissed all claims for damages in cases brought
against the company by indirect purchasers under federal law and
in 17 states.  Nine of those state court decisions were affirmed
on appeal.  An appeal of one of those state rulings is pending.   
There was no appeal in four states.  Claims under federal law
brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have been dismissed by
the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have all claims brought
on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive relief under federal
law, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).  

The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the
federal claims of indirect purchasers are currently on appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as is a ruling
denying certification of certain proposed classes of U.S. direct
purchasers.  Courts in eleven states have ruled that indirect
purchaser cases may proceed as class actions, while courts in
two states have denied class certification, (Class Action   
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

Based in Washington, Microsoft Corp. -- http://www.microsoft.com   
-- provides a variety of products and services, including its
Windows operating systems and Office software suite.  The
company has expanded into markets such as video game consoles,
interactive television, and Internet access.


MINERAL SUPPLIERS: Chinese Firms Face Price-Fixing Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese bauxite and magnesite suppliers are facing class action
complaints filed by two U.S. clients, according to Chemical
Business Newsbase.

In September 2005, several Chinese magnesite suppliers were
named in complaints by Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Resco Products
Inc. and Texas-based Animal Science Products Inc.  Recently,
certain Chinese bauxite suppliers were also named in complaints
by the same companies that use bauxite and magnesite as raw
materials.  The U.S. companies are requesting jury trial.

The Chinese firms are accused of conspiring to fix and/or
inflate the prices of refractory grade bauxite products they
supplied.  Named in the complaints is Bosai Materials, formerly
Nanchuan Minerals.  Ire ore company LKAB, parent of Swedish
company, Minelco Group, is also named as defendant.    

LKAB on the Net: http://www.lkab.com/.


NATURAL GAS: NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 19, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed, partial $72.75
million settlement in the matter: "In Re Natural Gas Commodity
Litigation, Master File No. 03 CV 6186 (VM)."  

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased,
sold, or settled New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) Natural
Gas contracts between June 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002 in a
lawsuit against:

     -- Cinergy Marketing and Trading, L.P.;

     -- CMS Field Services (n/k/a Cantera Gas Co., LLC);

     -- CMS Marketing Services & Trading Co. (n/k/a CMS Energy
        Resource Management Co.);

     -- Cook Inlet Energy Supply, LLC;

     -- Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC;

     -- Dynegy Marketing & Trade (including West Coast Power,
        LLC);

     -- Enserco Energy, Inc.;

     -- Entergy-Koch Trading, LP;

     -- e-prime, Inc.;

     -- MidAmerican Energy Co.;

     -- Mieco, Inc.;

     -- ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. (f/k/a ONEOK Energy
        & Marketing Company, L.P.);

     -- ONEOK, Inc.;

     -- Reliant Energy Services, Inc.;

     -- Sempra Energy Trading Corp.;

     -- WD Energy Services, Inc.;

     -- Western Gas Resources, Inc.;

     -- Williams Companies, Inc.; and

     -- Williams Power Company (f/k/a Williams Energy Marketing
        and Trading Company).

The hearing will be held on May 19, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. before
the Honorable Victor Marrero in Courtroom 905, U.S. District
Courthouse, New York, New York.

Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
April 26, 2006.  Proof of claim must be submitted by July 28,
2006.

For more details, contact In re Natural Gas Commodity
Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24626,
West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-877-741-1231, Web site:
http://www.naturalgascase.com/naturalgas/default.htm;and  
Christopher Lovell, P.C. of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500
Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110, Phone: 212-608-1900,
Fax: 212-719-4677, Web site: http://www.lshllp.com.


OKLAHOMA: Bill Proposing to Change Civil Justice System Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Senate committee has rejected a bill that would have affected
class actions in Oklahoma, according to Associated Press.  

The proposal was seeking to put limits on lawsuit awards in
order to protect businesses, doctors and others from being hit
by large lawsuit awards and high insurance rates.  It
contemplates limiting medical malpractice to $300,000.  
Meanwhile, it would add a section on class action that opponents
said would hamper royalty owners owed money by oil companies.

Arguments in support of the bill contend that lawsuits against
doctors and manufacturers drive up the cost of health care and
other services and products, encouraging professionals to go out
of the country.  Four Republicans voted for the bill, but the
State Judiciary Committee and seven Democrats rejected it.


OLD ENGLAND: Australian Hotel Settles Food Poisoning Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's Old England Hotel settled a food poisoning class
action filed by individuals who became ill after eating there
during a festive season two years ago, The Herald Sun reports.

The class action, launched by the Maurice Blackburn Cashman law
firm, alleges that food prepared by and served at the hotel was
contaminated with Salmonella bacteria.  

The Statement of Claim alleges that the Old England Hotel
breached the Trade Practices Act by serving food, which was
defective, unfit for the purpose and unmerchantable.  It thus
seeks compensation for injuries, including gastroenteritis,
nausea, diarrhea, cramps, fever, pain and suffering.

Under the settlement, which was approved by Justice Neil Young
of the Federal Court, the historic Melbourne hotel has to pay
significant compensation to the victims.  In approving the deal,
Justice Young noted that the hotel admitted liability and the
victims' damages claims would now be assessed.

An estimated 2000 people ate at the hotel between December 23,
2003 and January 7, 2004, the time period wherein the food
poisoning occurred.  With the court's approval of the deal, any
patron who became ill during this period may be entitled to
compensation ranging between  $5000 and $20,000.

The lead plaintiff in the case, a 47-year-old father who did not
want to be named, became seriously ill along with his daughters
then aged five and eight.  He claimed that they were affected
for weeks after the meal and that the younger child was treated
at the Royal Children's Hospital.

Patrons reported symptoms of gastroenteritis, nausea, diarrhea
and fever.  According to applicants' lawyer, Bernard Murphy, the
worst affected were the elderly.

For more details, contact Bernard Murphy, Anna Neesham and Carly
Nadenbousch of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Phone: 03 9605 2735,
Fax: 03 9600 2407, E-mail: cnadenbousch@mbc.aus.net.


PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey is
recalling a limited production run of Duncan Hines Double Fudge
Brownie mix due to undeclared walnuts ingredient.  The Brownie
mix was manufactured by a co-packer for distribution by
Pinnacle.

The recall applies only to "Duncan Hines(R) Family Style Chewy
Fudge Brownies" with the lot code listed below, which were sold
at Safeway stores located only in Northern California, Nevada
and Hawaii serviced by Safeway's Tracy, California Distribution
Center.

These cartons may contain "Walnut Brownie" mix rather than the
"Family Style Chewy Fudge Brownie" mix and could therefore
contain nuts not listed on the carton.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts may run the risk of a
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

This voluntary recall was initiated after the company received
call from a consumer informing the company that the "Duncan
Hines(R) Family Style Chewy Fudge Brownies" she purchased
actually contained a walnut brownie mix.  There have been no
reports of illness as a result of this incident.

Production Code information:

Retail Carton UPC Code:             6-44209-31131-6
Carton Description:                 "Duncan Hines(R) Family-
                                    Style Chewy Fudge Brownies",
                                    21 oz. Box

"Best If Used By" code
located on bottom of carton:       Jun 16, 07 GC6 "HH:MM",
                                    where HH:MM is a time stamp.

People who are allergic to or have a severe sensitivity to
treenuts, should not consume this product.  Consumers are
advised to return the product to the store where purchased for a
full refund.  The product is safe to eat by people who are not
allergic to nuts.  The Food and Drug Administration has been
made aware of this recall.

This announcement applies only to the ""Duncan Hines(R) Family
Style Chewy Fudge Brownies" and does not apply to any other
Duncan Hines products sold by Safeway in the states listed
above.

Consumers Contact: Pinnacle Foods, Phone: 1-800-554-5680.


TITAN CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits were filed against the Titan Corporation and other
defendants alleging that they participated in, approved of, or
condoned the mistreatment of prisoners by U.S. military
officials in certain prison facilities in Iraq in violation of
federal, state and international law.

The first of these cases was filed on June 9, 2004 and styled,
"Saleh v. Titan Corporation, No. 04-CV-1143 R," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company, CACI International, Inc. (CACI), and its
affiliates, and three individuals, one formally employed by
Titan and one by a Titan subcontractor.  Plaintiffs in the Saleh
suit are asking class certification.

The second case styled, "Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation, No. 04-
CV-1248," was filed on July 27, 2004, on behalf of five
individual plaintiffs against the company, CACI and CACI
affiliates, and contains allegations similar to those in the
Saleh case.  Class certification has not been requested in
Ibrahim.  


UICI: Discovery Going Ahead in Texas Insurance Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
UICI continues to face "Association-Group" Insurance Litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  
A status conference was held for the case on April 7.

UICI and MEGA were named as defendants in a purported class
action suit filed on May 6, 2004, styled, "Diaz v. The MEGA Life
and Health Insurance Company, UICI, et al.," in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino,
Rancho, Case No. RCV-080379.

Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and as
representatives of all other policyholders of MEGA in California
that the defendants engaged in an illegal and fraudulent
marketing scheme in violation of California common law and the
California Business and Professions Code 17200.  

They also have alleged that defendants:

     (1) "maintain NASE to illegally avoid premium rate
         regulation,"

     (2) fail to issue insurance coverage to members of the NASE
         on a guaranteed issue basis in violation of California
         law,

     (3) and rescind certificates in violation of California
         law.

The suit sought injunctive relief and monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.

UICI and MEGA were also named as defendants in a purported class
action filed on May 14, 2004, styled, "Joyce, et al. v. UICI,
MEGA, National Association for the Self-Employed, et al.," in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC315580.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and committed fraud, professional
negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.  In addition, they
also alleged, on behalf of themselves and persons similarly
situated in the state of California, that defendants violated
the unfair competition restrictions of California Business and
Professions Code 17200.  They sought injunctive relief and
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 21, 2004, defendants removed the Joyce case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On December 10, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) issued an order transferring these actions to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas for
coordinated pretrial proceedings (In re UICI "Association-Group"
Insurance Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1578).  


WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Allows Motion to Appeal Suit's Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia granted
plaintiffs' motion to appeal the dismissal of a class action
filed against Wells Real Estate Investment, Inc.'s President And
Director Leo. F. Wells, III, Wells Capital and Wells Management
in.

A suit styled, "Hendry, et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III, et al.,
Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2," was initially filed.  The Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to permit voluntary dismissal of
this suit, and it was subsequently dismissed without prejudice.  
In November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative
class action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells
Capital and Wells Management, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F.
Wells, III et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6."

The second action alleged, among other things, that:

     (1) Mr. Wells and Wells Capital breached their fiduciary
         duties to the limited partners of Wells Real Estate
         Fund I, a previously syndicated real estate
         partnership sponsored by Wells Capital and Mr. Wells,
         in connection with certain disclosures and prior
         actions relating to the distribution of net sale
         proceeds;

     (2) the defendants breached an alleged contract arising out
         of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited
         partners of Fund I relating to an alleged waiver of
         deferred management fees; and

     (3) certain misrepresentations and omissions in an April
         2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners of
         Fund I caused that consent solicitation to be
         materially misleading.

The plaintiffs sought, among other remedies, judgment against
Mr. Wells and Wells Capital, jointly and severally, in an amount
to be proven at trial: punitive damages, disgorgement of fees
earned by the general partners of Fund I, enforcement of the
alleged contract relating to the alleged waiver of deferred
management fees, and an award to the plaintiffs of their
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  
Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all
counts in the complaint.

Thus, this action has now been dismissed, subject to the
plaintiffs' right to file a notice of appeal within the required
time period.  On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting the court to vacate and re-enter the orders to give
the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a motion for
reconsideration or notice of appeal.

On February 15, 2006, the court heard argument on the
plaintiffs' motion to vacate and to re-enter the judgments
previously entered on July 1, 2005.  Following the argument, the
court stated orally from the bench that it would grant the
motion, so the judgments could be re-entered to allow the
plaintiffs thirty days within which to file a notice of appeal.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  
      
June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.mealeys.com/conferences_schedule.html
http://www.cleonline.com/
https://www.ali-aba.org/aliaba/CRSLST.asp
http://www.americanconference.com/Conferences.htm
http://www.ceb.com
http://www.pli.edu
http://www.worldjustice.com/class_action_seminars/
http://www.aei.org/events/filter./events.asp
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/index.html
http://masstortsmadeperfect.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases        


AMERICA SERVICE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of America Service Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASGRE) between
September 24, 2003 to March 16, 2006, inclusive, (the Class
Period).  The lawsuit was filed against America Service and
certain officers and directors of the company.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the company
and certain officers and directors issued numerous false and
misleading statements about the company's financial condition.
In particular, the company failed to disclose or misrepresented
that:

     (1) America Service was not charging its customers in
         accordance with their contracts;

     (2) That America Service failed to properly credit
         customers with discounts, rebates, and price
         concessions;

     (3) That the company failed to provide customers with
         appropriate credits for returned pharmaceutical
         products;

     (4) That the company inappropriately established and
         utilized reserves to help the company more closely meet
         its budgeted results.

On March 15, 2006, after the markets closed, America Service
announced the findings of an internal investigation into the
company's practices.  Consequently, based upon the results of
the investigation, the company will restate earnings for the
years ended December 31, 2001, through December 31, 2004 and for
the first six months of 2005, and issue refunds, of $3.6 million
to customers where it failed to appropriately credit their
accounts.  In reaction to the news, shares fell $5.65 per share,
or approximately 29%, to close at $13.95 per share.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


ASTEA INT'L: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Astea
International, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATEA) between May 11, 2005 and
March 31, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  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.  


ESTEE LAUDER: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of The Estee
Lauder Companies, Inc. (NYSE: EL) from April 28, 2005 through
October 25, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint charges Estee Lauder and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the demand for Estee Lauder's cosmetic products
         had sharply decreased due to consumers increasingly
         purchasing cosmetic products from alternate sources;

     (2) that Estee Lauder lacked the ability to effectively
         analyze promotions, wherefrom the company derived a
         substantial amount of business, which resulted in
         increased marketing costs;

     (3) that to mask the adverse effects of slowing sales,
         defendants flooded retailers with the company's
         products, which defendants knew would cut into 2006
         sales;

     (4) that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
     
     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements concerning the company's future prospects
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On September 19, 2005, after the market closed, Estee Lauder
revised downward its guidance for the first half of fiscal 2006,
but reaffirmed the company's outlook for full-year fiscal 2006.
On this news, shares of the company dropped $4, or 9.9 percent,
to close at $36.48 per share on September 20, 2005.

On October 26, 2005, before the market opened, Estee Lauder
announced financial and operational results well below analysts'
expectations, including a decline of as much as 33 percent in
profits, and significantly lowered guidance for the 2006 fiscal
year.

The company reported net earnings from continuing operations for
the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of $61.8 million, a 38
percent drop compared with $95.7 million last year.  Diluted
earnings per common share from continuing operations for the
quarter were 28 cents compared with 41 cents reported in the
prior year.

On this news, shares of Estee Lauder sank $2.55 per share, or
7.7 percent, to close on October 26, 2005 at $30.71 per share.

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


GMH COMMUNITIES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of GMH Communities Trust between October 28, 2004 and March 10,
2006, inclusive.  Also included are all those who purchased in a
secondary offering on or around September 28, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements in order to inflate earnings, issue dividends, and
complete a secondary offering.  

Specifically, in completing its year-end closing of its 2005
financial statements, GMH's Chief Financial Officer wrote to the
Audit Committee of the board indicating certain problems
including the "tone at the top" from the company's executive
management.

The Audit Committee launched an investigation and found, among
other things, that the company had material weaknesses in
internal controls, that pressure was exerted by key executives
on the accounting function and that there was a need for
adjustments in the company's financial statements for current
and prior periods.

On this news, shares fell 23% from the close of $16.83 on March
10, 2006 to reach $12.90 by the close on March 13.

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
who purchased the common stock of Micron Technology Inc. during
the period February 24, 2001 to February 13, 2003 that the
deadline be appointed as lead plaintiff is April 25, 2006.

Pomerantz filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho (1:06-cv-00105-EJL) against the company
and certain of its officers.  The complaint alleges violations
of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Micron,
along with others in the industry, engaged in a conspiracy to
suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of
Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM").  DRAM is the most
commonly used semiconductor memory product used in personal
computers.  Micron and other manufacturers conspired to raise
the price of DRAM sold to certain original equipment
manufacturers of personal computers and servers.

In June of 2002, Micron received a subpoena from the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") related to an
industry-wide investigation into alleged anti-competitive
practices among DRAM manufacturers.  At the time, Micron's
management refuted any wrongdoing.

In September 2004, Infineon, Micron's competitor, pled guilty to
participating in a criminal conspiracy from July 1, 1999 to June
15, 2002. In November 2004, Micron finally admitted that the
DOJ's investigation revealed evidence of price fixing by Micron
employees.

The complaint further alleges that defendants' issued a series
of false and misleading statements to the market, artificially
inflating the company's stock. More specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose the following materially adverse facts to the
market:

     (1) that Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive
         behavior to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of DRAM;

     (2) that Micron's financial results throughout the Class
         Period were materially inflated as a direct result of
         the price-fixing conspiracy due to the company's
         illegal behavior of price-fixing; and

     (3) that the company's financial projections during the
         class period lacked a reasonable basis because they
         were issued while the company involved itself in an
         illegal price-fixing scheme.
         
For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb and Carolyn S.
Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.


NATURES SUNSHINE: Stull, Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (OTC: NATR),
formerly (NASDAQ: NATRE), between October 19, 2004 and March 24,
2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements.
Specifically, defendants concealed the following:

     (1) that NSPI lacked requisite internal controls, and,
         consequently, the company's projections were based upon
         defective assumptions; and

     (2) that the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         foreign transactions.

As a result of defendants' false statements, NSPI's stock traded
as high as $23.34 per share.  During the Class Period, while
NSPI was trading at artificially inflated prices, top officers
sold over $1.9 million worth of their NSPI stock.

On February 17, 2006, NSPI announced that it had expanded a
previously announced review of selected financial information
concerning certain foreign operations and that it had revealed
notice from NASDAQ that its common stock was subject to
delisting.

On March 20, 2005, the company filed an 8-K announcing that its
previous financial statements could no longer be relied upon and
that it had expanded its investigation to include other matters
related to NSPI's financial statements.

Then on March 24, 2006, the company announced that it had
received a non-compliance notice from the Nasdaq due to its
failure to file its Form 10-K in a timely manner.  On this news,
NSPI's stock fell to $11.68 per share.

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


SAC CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against SAC
Capital Management L.L.C.: Biovail Corporation Common Stock
(NYSE: BVF).  

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 June 5, 2003 to March 24, 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.


                            *********


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  * * *