CAR_Public/060413.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 13, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 74

                            Headlines

CANADA: Judge Rules Against Ontario Police in Camera Lawsuit
CARRIER ACCESS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Colo.
CONNECTICUT: Teachers Join Suit V. Towing Program, BootFinder
DAGOBA ORGANIC: Recalls Dark Chocolates with High Lead Content
DAVOL/BARD: Expands List of Recalled Composix Kugel Mesh Patch

DECODE GENETICS: N.Y. Court Sets Fairness Hearing for IPO Pact
DOW CHEMICAL: Court Says Removal of "Abrego" Under CAFA Improper
EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH: Ind. Court Finds Student Fee Illegal
FLORIDA: Judge Refuses to Delay Return of Fire-Fee Settlement
FRONT SIGHT: Misses Another Deadline to Meet Fire Safety Rules

GENESEE & WYOMING: Subsidiaries Appeal Outremont Lawsuit Ruling
IMPAC FUNDING: Continues to Face Mortgage-Related Litigation
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
IOWA: Faces Suit Seeking to Block Removal of TouchPlay Devices
JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Circuit Court Upholds $85M Settlement

LOUISIANA: Post-Katrina Salvage Operations in Orleans Questioned
MICROSOFT CORP: Consumer Suit Settlement Trial Set June 13, 2006
NEWS CORP: Allows Shareholders to Vote on "Poison Pill" at AGM
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mo.
NOVASTAR HOME: Calif. Court Mulls Approval of Labor Suit Deal

NOVASTAR HOME: Faces Consolidated RESPA Violations Suit in Ga.
NOVASTAR HOME: Faces FCRA Violations Complaint in M.D. La.
NOVASTAR HOME: Faces Lawsuits in Md., Ill. Over LLC's Conduct
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. Wash.
POLAR BEVERAGES: Suits Filed Over High Benzene Content of Sodas

POST PROPERTIES: Investor Appeals Ga. Suit Settlement Approval
ROYAL AHOLD: Stock, ERISA Settlement Hearing Set June 16, 2006
SANDISK CORP: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
SANDISK CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Suit
SAVINGS BANK: Mass. Judge Nixes Arguments in Policyholder's Suit

SEALED AIR: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
S&M NUTEC: Pet Owners File Lawsuit Over Greenies Dog Treat
UNION CARBIDE: Amicus Brief Filed in Suit Over Bhopal Gas Leak
WORTHINGTON FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Vegetable Skallops

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
AMERICA SERVICE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ESTEE LAUDER: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Stock Suit in Pa.
NATURES SUNSHINE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
SEA CONTAINERS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Gardy Notis Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

                            *********


CANADA: Judge Rules Against Ontario Police in Camera Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled that an Ontario
police detective violated his fellow officers' rights by
installing a video camera in their locker room, the Associated
Press reports.

Judge Philips said the installation of the camera by Det. Brad
Schneider violated the officers' rights under the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution's
right to privacy.  The camera was installed in the locker room
ceiling around 1996, and was discovered in 2003 when the
department was transferring to a new headquarters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California
filed the suit in 2003 on behalf of 125 officers.  It was
certified in 2005.  Sgt. Steven Trujillo was lead plaintiff.  

Defendants in the suit also included now-retired Police Chief
Lloyd Scharff, the city of Ontario and its police department.  
The suit claimed Chief Scharff was aware of the camera that was
allegedly installed under Sergeant Schneider's orders.  The
lawsuit demands financial damages.  

Judge Phillips said that a jury must consider whether Mr. Scharf
authorized the surveillance, as the plaintiffs allege, to decide
on possible damages.  The case will proceed to a jury trial
unless the city appeals the judge's ruling, according to ACLU.

The suit was styled "Robert Bernhard et al. v. City of Ontario
et al. (5:04-cv-01015-VAP-SGL)" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Virginia A.
Phillips with referral to Stephen G. Larson.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Della Bahan and Puja Batra of Bahan & Associates,
140 S Lake Ave, Ste 230, Pasadena, CA 91101, Phone: 626-796-
5100, Fax: 626-796-9895.  

Representing the defendants is Bruce E. Disenhouse of Kinkle
Rodiger & Spriggs, 3333 14th St., 2nd Fl. Riverside, CA 92501,
Phone: 951-683-2410.


CARRIER ACCESS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Access Corp. and certain of its officers and directors
are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  

Beginning on June 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the company and certain company
officials.  The cases were captioned:

     (1) "Croker v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1011-LTB,"

     (2) "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., Case
         No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and

     (3) "Sved v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al, Case No.
          05-cv-1280-EWN."

On January 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between
October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing
in connection with the company's announcement of the company's
intention to restate previously issued financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004 and certain interim
periods in each of the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004.

The consolidated suit is styled, "Croker v. Carrier Access
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01011-LTB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge
Lewis T. Babcock.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kip Brian Shuman, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
         KShuman@DyerShuman.com;

     (2) Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone, P.C., 1600 Stout
         Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-534-
         4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com

     (3) Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and Charles Walter Lilley,
         Lilley & Garcia, LLP, 1600 Stout Street #1100, Denver,
         CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-298-
         8975, E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com or
         clilley@lilleygarcia.com

Representing the company is Karen Thomas Stefano, Wilson,
Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1050, U.S.A., Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-
mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


CONNECTICUT: Teachers Join Suit V. Towing Program, BootFinder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Yale University lecturers added their names as plaintiffs in
a purported class action challenging the City of New Haven's
towing program and the infamous BootFinder, a license plate
scanner responsible for hundreds of tows since 2004, The New
Haven Register reports.

Michael Faison and Catherine Rockwood are joining the lawsuit by
attorney Arthur D. Machado of North Haven, Connecticut.  Mr.
Machado filed the suit against the city back in 2004 after his
car was towed from Orange Street.  

The BootFinder, a device resembling a radar gun, snaps photos of
license plates and feeds them to a laptop computer loaded with
tax data.  Cars owing taxes are hauled away and freed only after
owners settle the tab with the tax office and tow company.

Outraged over the city's collection tactics, Mr. Faison and Ms.
Rockwood agreed to become the plaintiffs in Mr. Machado's suit
after their cars were towed from outside their Wooster Square
apartment.  The two hopes that the lawsuit will force the city
to set clear guidelines for towing tax scofflaws.

Mr. Machado asserts in his suit, which seeks class action
status, that the BootFinder campaign amounts to illegal search
and seizure and denies car owners due process.  City lawyers
argue the BootFinder doesn't give the tax collector any special
powers, but rather makes collections more efficient.

The suit seeks a permanent injunction barring use of the device,
along with more than $15,000 in damages.  It alleges that the
scanner is being used randomly, and without probably cause, to
track license plate numbers of vehicles, which the defendant has
no reason to believe are in violation (Class Action Reporter,
October 26, 2004).

The plaintiffs say they want to city to set clearer rules about
where and when cars are towed and for how much owed.  Mr.
Machado is seeking a full reimbursement by the city of all
towing and storage fees associated with the BootFinder campaign.  
City lawyers though are asking a Superior Court judge to throw
out the case and filed a motion to strike.  


DAGOBA ORGANIC: Recalls Dark Chocolates with High Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dagoba Organic Chocolate of Ashland, Oregon, is recalling its
"ECLIPSE 87%," "LOS RIOS 68%," and "PRIMA MATERA 100%" dark
chocolate products in retail and bulk formats because they
contain high levels of lead.

The company said that if a child or fetus is exposed to high
lead levels on a routine basis (daily for a period of several
weeks), permanent damage to the central nervous system can
occur.  This can result in learning disorders, developmental
defects, and other long-term health problems.  In addition,
sustained consumption of products containing high lead levels
can produce lead poisoning, which has a number of symptoms
including anemia, neurologic effects such as ataxia and
irritability, constipation, muscular weakness, and chronic
nephritis.

The products were distributed nationally through wholesale food
distributors and through stores that sell organic, natural
and/or specialty foods, as well as via select Internet sites.

The six products are:

(1) Dagoba Organic Eclipse 87% Extra Dark, Size: 2 oz. bar
    Lot Codes:
    20061122
    20061130
    20061201
    20061206
    20061213
    20061214
    20061219
    20061227
    20070103
    20070116
    20070130
    20070213
    20070220
    20070227
    20070306
    20070313  

(2) Dagoba Organic Los Rios 68% - Ecuador Arriba, Size: 2 oz.
    bar
    Lot Codes:
    20070213
    20070223
    20070323  

(3) Dagoba Organic Prima Materia 100% - Ecuador Arriba, Size: 2  
    lb. brick
    Lot Code:
    20070109  

(4) Dagoba Organic Los Rios Choco Drops 68% - Ecuador Arriba  
    Nacional, Size: 5 lb. foil bag
    Lot Code:
    20070222  

(5) Dagoba Organic Los Rios 68% - Ecuador Arriba Nacional, Size:  
    25 lb bag
    Lot Code:
    310240498  

(6) Dagoba Organic "Eclipse Broken Bars" Forest Grown Organic
    Extra Dark Chocolate, Size: 1.5 lb. bulk bags
    Lot Codes:
    All

No documented illnesses associated with these products have been
reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
company which revealed that the finished products contained high
levels of lead.  The company has ceased the production and
distribution of the product as FDA and the company continue
their investigation as to what caused the problem.  Dagoba
Chocolate is committed to rectifying this issue and ensuring
that it does not occur again.

Consumers who have purchased these products should return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Dagoba on the Net: http://www.dagobachocolate.com/recall;Phone:  
1-800-393-6075 (toll-free), E-mail: recall@dagobachocolate.com.


DAVOL/BARD: Expands List of Recalled Composix Kugel Mesh Patch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Davol/Bard and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notified
healthcare professionals of an expanded recall of Composix Kugel
Mesh Patch to include Oval, Large Oval and Large Circle Kugel
mesh patches.  Bard also issued letters to hospitals and health
care professionals providing updated Instructions for Use,
clarifying the proper insertion technique and offering
supplemental patient management information.

Early in March, Bard/Davol and the FDA notified healthcare
professionals of a class 1 recall of Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-
Large Patch Oval with ePTFE, used to repair ventral (incisional)
hernias caused by thinning or stretching of scar tissue that
forms after surgery.  The "memory recoil ring" that opens the
Composix Kugel Mesh Patch after it has been inserted into the
intra-abdominal space can break.  This can lead to bowel
perforations and/or chronic intestinal fistulae (abnormal
connections or passageways between the intestines and other
organs).


DECODE GENETICS: N.Y. Court Sets Fairness Hearing for IPO Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a consolidated class action against deCODE
Genetics, Inc. over its initial public offering (IPO) in July
2000.

On or about April 20, 2002, an amended class action complaint,
captioned, "In re deCODE genetics, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation (01 Civ. 11219(SAS))," alleging violations
of federal securities laws in connection with the company's
initial public offering was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of deCODE common stock.

The complaint named the company, two individuals who were
executive officers of the company (Individual Defendants) at the
time of its initial public offering, and the two lead
underwriters (Underwriters Defendants) for the company's initial
public offering in July 2000 as defendants.

The company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
hundreds of other lawsuits filed (many by some of the same
plaintiff law firms) against numerous underwriter defendants and
issuer companies (and certain of their current and former
officers) in connection with various public offerings conducted
in recent years.

All of the lawsuits that have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira
Scheindlin.  

Pursuant to the underwriting agreement executed in connection
with the IPO, the company demanded indemnification from the
Underwriter Defendants.  The Underwriter Defendants have
asserted that the company's request for indemnification is
premature.  Pursuant to an agreement the Individual Defendants
have been dismissed from the case without prejudice.

On July 31, 2003, the company's board of directors -- other than
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, who recused himself
because he was an Individual Defendant -- approved a proposed
partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter, subject
to a number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by company's insurers.

In conjunction with the plaintiffs, the settling issuer
defendants filed a motion seeking the court's preliminary
approval of the settlement.  The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on February 15, 2005, subject to
certain modifications.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  

The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on
November 15, 2005.  The settlement fairness hearing has been set
April 24, 2006.


DOW CHEMICAL: Court Says Removal of "Abrego" Under CAFA Improper
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a ruling by a California judge that removal of a case against
Dow Chemical Co. under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA) was improper, The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

The court cited that legislation designed to shift many large-
scale lawsuits, including but not limited to large class
actions, into federal court does not alter the prior rule that
defendants bear the burden of showing that removal from state to
federal court is proper.

In the case, styled, "Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 06-55109," the
court rejected the company's interlocutory appeal from U.S.
District Judge Gary Klausner's order remanding a suit by 160
Panamanian banana workers to Superior Court.  

The workers claim that they suffered "sterility and other
serious injuries" after being exposed to a pesticide called
DBCP, sold under the brand names Nemagon and Fumazone.

The substance has been banned in the U.S. since 1979, but the
plaintiffs claim that it continues to be used in Panama despite
its harmful qualities.

The company sought to move the case to the federal court under
the CAFA of 20055.  The act provides that an action for damages
involving more than 100 plaintiffs as to whom there are common
issues of law or fact-called a "mass action" is removable to
federal court as to "those whose claims in a mass action satisfy
the jurisdictional amount requirements under" other provisions
of federal law, including the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.

For a mass action to be removable, the law further provides, the
aggregate amount in controversy must exceed $5 million and the
parties must be "minimal diversity" of citizenship between the
parties.

Judge Klausner ruled that the company failed to prove that there
were 100 plaintiffs whose claims could be tried jointly under
federal jurisdictional requirements, so that removal under CAFA
was improper.

In a per curiam opinion, Ninth Circuit Judges M. Margaret
McKeown and Marsha Berzon and Senior U.S. District Judge Samuel
P. King of the District of Hawaii agreed with Judge Klausner.

The judges noted in its opinion that while the statute is
"muddled," there is nothing in it indicating that plaintiffs
must prove that CAFA jurisdiction does not exist.  Nor was the
judge required to allow limited jurisdictional discovery, the
panel concluded, citing the deference normally shown the
district court with respect to discovery issues.

The suit is styled, "Antonio Abrego Abrego, et al. v. Dole Food
company Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03608-RGK-Mc," on appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge R. Gary Klausner with referral to Judge
James W. McMahon.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Howard B.
Miller of Girardi & Keese, 1126 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA,
Phone: 213-977-0211, E-mail: hmiller@girardikeese.com; and Joe J
Fisher, II, of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, P.O. Box 4905,
Beaumont, TX 77704, Phone: 409-835-6000.

Representing the defendants are, Michael L. Brem of
Schirrmeister Diaz-Arrastia Brem, Pennzoil Place-North Tower
700 Milam, 10th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-221-2500,
E-mail: mbrem@sdablaw.com; and Gennaro A Filice, III of Filice
Brown Eassa & McLeod, Lake Merritt Plaza, 1999 Harrison St.,
18th Fl., Oakland, CA 94612-3541, Phone: 510-444-3131, Fax: 510-
839-7940.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?7d1
(Abrego Opinion).


EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH: Ind. Court Finds Student Fee Illegal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of parents in a
class action over Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp.'s $20
student fee, 14 WFIE reports.

The Supreme Court sided with parents Frank Nagy, who filed the
suit in 2002, and Sonia Brackett, both claiming the student fee
was actually a tuition and was unconstitutional.  The fee was
imposed on parents in school year 2001/2002.  It was waived for
students on free and reduced lunch the following year.    

The parties are now waiting for the Vanderburgh County to decide
who should be paid back by the school: the plaintiffs or every
family.  Paying each family could potentially cost more than
half a million dollars, according to the report.  No timetable
has been set as to when the court will decide.


FLORIDA: Judge Refuses to Delay Return of Fire-Fee Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter Lopez refused the request of
seven people who unjustly shared in the state's $7 million fire-
fee settlement to delay the return of part of the money,
according to The Herald Today.

The seven people asked the court for an extension to pay back
$2.5 million until their appeals process is exhausted, but the
court refused.  It, however, allowed the seven about two weeks
to get an attorney to handle the task of paying back the amount.

In March, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter Lopez threw out the $7
million settlement in a class action over the city's fire rescue
fee, which had been deemed unconstitutional.  The judge
determined parties to the 2004 settlement knew the money was
going only to just seven people, cutting off more than 80,000
potential claimants.

In May 2004, lawyer Hank Adorno and City Manager Joe Arriola
agreed to the deal, avoiding a trial.  The City Commission
approved the agreement the following November believing the
settlement covered all taxpayers.  But it turned out that only
five Miami landlords and two others who helped organize the suit
received the money.  The city last year sued to undo the deal.

Acting on the suit, the judge determined that Mr. Adorno and the
plaintiffs deliberately concealed the details of the deal, and
ordered the return of $3.5 million that the city paid.  The
Adorno & Yoss law firm, which took $1 million, already returned
its share.  Of the seven people, two did not lend their names to
the suit.  It is now uncertain whether they will have to return
the money the report said.  Judge Lopez will finalize the
repayment terms on April 21, 2006.

Those who received the money were Eva Nagymihaly, Kenneth
Merker, Gordon Willitts and Jean and Jocelyne Prosper, and Judy
Clark and Peter Clancy.

Adorno & Yoss on the Net: http://www.adorno.com/.


FRONT SIGHT: Misses Another Deadline to Meet Fire Safety Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Front Sight Firearms Training Institute in southern Nevada
has once again failed to meet fire safety standards for its
classroom buildings, according to Klas-TV.  

Management had until March 31 to furnish its building with fire
safety basics like sprinkles, fire pumps and water.  It already
missed three other deadlines to meet fire safety standards in
the last two years.  The failure should have banned them from
legally using the classroom, but that did not happen, according
to the report.  Penalties for such violations include fines or
even shutting down the facility.

The State Fire Marshal is now considering legal action against
the facility, according to the report.  The institute is already
facing a class action in relation to the fire safety requirement
violations.

Front Sight on the Net: http://www.frontsight.com/.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Subsidiaries Appeal Outremont Lawsuit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. along with Canadian
Pacific Railway are appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada the
Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to allow a class action over
noise at the Outremont rail yard to proceed.

In February 2002, Mr. Paquin, an individual living adjacent to
the Outremont rail yard, filed a motion for authorization of
class certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in
connection with a claim against two of the company's
subsidiaries, Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming
Canada Inc., and Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc., as well as
Canadian Pacific.

Mr. Paquin alleged that the noise from the Outremont rail yard
causes significant nuisance problems to the residents who live
near the rail yard.  Canadian Pacific owns the rail yard with
part of it being leased and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway
Inc.

The plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all
owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined
section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which
surrounds the rail yard.  

Mr. Paquin requested the issuance of an injunction in order to
limit the hours when the rail yard may operate.  The plaintiff
has not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the
damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover
for his "trouble and inconvenience" as well as for "potential
devaluation of the value of his property."

On May 27, 2004, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the
plaintiff's request to institute the class action, and the
plaintiff filed an appeal with Quebec Court of Appeal.

On November 11, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the
Quebec Superior Court's finding a class could not be certified,
but noted the proposed class could only include owners and
tenants within the defined geographic area since 1999.  This
case was remanded back to the same judge who previously
dismissed the plaintiff's request to institute a class action.

On January 9, 2006, Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., Quebec-
Gatineau Railway Inc. and Canadian Pacific filed applications
for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the
Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to allow the class action to
proceed.

The plaintiff has not yet commenced proceedings on the merits of
the underlying claim.  The company considers the class action
certification to be improper and will contest the
appropriateness of the class certification and the lawsuit on
the merits.


IMPAC FUNDING: Continues to Face Mortgage-Related Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corp. is defendant in several purported class
actions in various courts, which allege that the mortgage loan
originators violated the respective state's statutes by charging
excessive fees and costs when making second mortgage loans on
residential real estate.

On June 27, 2000, a complaint captioned, "Michael P. and Shellie
Gilmor v. Preferred Credit Corporation and Impac Funding
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for Clay
County, Missouri, as a purported class action alleging that the
defendants violated Missouri's Second Loans Act and
Merchandising Practices Act.  

The Missouri complaint was amended in July 2001 to include Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and other Impac-related entities.  A
plaintiff class was certified on January 2, 2003.  On June 22,
2004, the court issued an order to stay all proceedings pending
the outcome of an appeal in a similar case in the Eighth
Circuit.

On February 3, 2004, a complaint captioned, "James and Jill
Baker v. Century Financial Group, Inc., et al.," was filed in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, as a purported class
action alleging that the defendants violated Missouri's Second
Loan Act and Merchandising Practices Act.

On October 2, 2001, a complaint captioned, "Deborah Searcy,
Shirley Walker, et al. v. Impac Funding Corporation, Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Wayne County
Circuit Court, State of Michigan, as a purported class action
alleging that the defendants violated Michigan's Secondary
Mortgage Loan Act, Credit Reform Act and Consumer Protection
Act. A motion to dismiss an amended complaint has been filed,
but not yet ruled upon.

On July 31, 2003, a purported class action complaint captioned,
"Frazier, et al. v. Impac Funding Corp., et al.," was filed in
federal court in Tennessee.  The causes of action in the action
allege violations of Tennessee's usury statute and Consumer
Protection Act.

A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed and not yet ruled
upon.  The court agreed to administratively close the case on
April 5, 2004 pending an appeal in a similar case.  On April 29,
2004, the court issued its order administratively closing the
case.

On November 25, 2003, a complaint captioned, "Michael and Amber
Stallings v. Empire Funding Home Loan Owner Trust 1997-3; U.S.
Bank, National Association; and Wilmington Trust company," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, as a purported class action alleging that the
defendants violated Tennessee predatory lending laws governing
second mortgage loans.

The complaint further alleged that certain assignees of mortgage
loans, including two Impac-related trusts, should be included as
defendants in the lawsuit.  Like the Frazier matter this case
was administratively closed on April 29, 2004 pending an appeal
in a similar case.

All of the above purported class actions allege that Impac
Funding was a purchaser, and is a holder, along with other
affiliated entities, of second mortgage loans originated by
other lenders.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages that include
disgorgement of interest paid, restitution, rescission, actual
damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment
interest and punitive damages.  No specific dollar amount of
damages is specified in the complaints.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. is defendant in several purported
securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

From January 10, 2006 through February 28, 2006, six purported
class action complaints were filed against the company and its
senior officers and all but one of its directors.  The
plaintiffs in the suits are:

     (1) Earl Schriver, Jr. (filed January 10, 2006),

     (2) Jeff Dayton (filed January 13, 2006),

     (3) Joseph Mathieu (filed January 18, 2006),

     (4) Fred Safir and Wilma Libar (filed January 26, 2006),

     (5) Ronald Kelner (filed February 1, 2006), and

     (6) Miroslav Bardos (filed February 9, 2006).

The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who acquired
the company's common stock during the period of May 13, 2005
through August 9, 2005.  

The plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants for
violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and claims
against the individual defendants for violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and
misleading statements related to the company's financial
condition and future prospects and that the individual
defendants improperly sold holdings.

The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants' actions, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

The first identified complaint is styled, "Earl L. Schriver,
Jr., et al. v. Impac Mortage Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-CV-00031," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  Plaintiff firms in this or similar
case:

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

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

     (3) Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@labaton.com;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (11) Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and
  
    (12) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com.


IOWA: Faces Suit Seeking to Block Removal of TouchPlay Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Lottery Authority (ILA) along with several state
officials faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa over the removal of
TouchPlay gambling machines, Radio Iowa reports.

Cedar Falls-based Hawkeye Commodity Promotions, Inc. filed the
suit on April 4, 2006.  According to Iowa Lottery spokeswoman
Mary Neubauer, the company is one of largest investors in the
ILA-sponsored gambling machines, which resemble slot machines.  

Since its appearance, the machines have generated much
criticism.  The legislature even ordered the machines to be
removed from all businesses by May 4, 2006.

Ms. Neubauer told Radio Iowa that Hawkeye operates about 580
TouchPlay machines throughout the state.  She explains, "The
lawsuit is seeking an injunction to prevent the shutdown of the
TouchPlay program."

The suit, styled, "Hawkeye Commodity Promotions, Inc. v.
Vilsack, et al.," named as defendants:

     -- Governor Tom Vilsack,

     -- Attorney General Tom Miller,

     -- Lottery chief Ed Stanek,

     -- Public Safety commissioner Kevin Techau, and

     -- the Iowa Lottery Authority.

Ms. Neubauer says the ILA is pushing forward with implementing
the law passed by the legislature in March to end the TouchPlay
program.  

She told Iowa Radio, "We have sent notifications to all of the
private companies involved in the program that their machines
need to be shut down by 11:59 PM on May 3rd because the
legislation that was passed says the machines shall not be
operated on or after the 45th day from enactment.  That is May
4th."

State leaders feared such a lawsuit, if granted class status to
represent all TouchPlay operators, could target the state for a
billion dollars in lost revenue.

The suit is styled, "Hawkeye Commodity Promotions, Inc. v.
Vilsack, et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-02026-LRR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under Judge
Linda R. Reade with referral to Judge John A. Jarvey.  
Representing the plaintiff are: Nancie G. Marzulla and Roger J.
Marzulla of Marzulla & Marzulla, 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW,
Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone: 202-822-6760, Fax:
202-822-6774, E-mail: nancie@marzulla.com and
roger@marzulla.com; and Patrick M. Roby of Elderkin Law Firm,
115 First Avenue SE, P.O. Box 1968, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-1968,
Phone: 319-362-2137, Fax: 362-1640, E-mail:
pmroby@elderkinpirnie.com.

Representing the defendants is Julie F. Pottorff, AAG, Hoover
State Office Building, Second Floor, Des Moines, IA 50319,
Phone: 515-281-5165, Fax: 281-4209, E-mail:
jpottor@ag.state.ia.us.


JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Circuit Court Upholds $85M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
denied objections raised by two former clients against a
proposed $85 million settlement of a class action over the
company's tax advice, the Texas Lawyer reports.

Some 1,000 former clients sued the Dallas-based company after
the Internal Revenue Service questioned the tax advice.  The
clients received the advice starting in late 1990s from several
of the firm's partners.

A proposed settlement of the class action was approved more than
two years ago by U.S. District Judge Schira A. Scheindlin in a
ruling in the case Thomas Denney, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et
al.  The ruling certified the former clients as a class of
plaintiffs and approved a proposed settlement of the class'
claims.

However, two different groups appealed the approval of the
Jenkens' settlement of its portion of the Denny claims: (i)
former clients who objected to the proposed settlement, and (ii)
defendant banks and accountants who allegedly had promoted the
tax shelters but refused to settle with the plaintiff class.

The 2nd Circuit's opinion overruled most of the two group's
objections, affirming Judge Scheindlin's decision.  But it
remanded the case to Judge Scheindlin so that necessary
revisions be made on the proposed Jenkens settlement that focus
on the potential liability of other defendants in the tax
shelter litigation with the plaintiff class.  The non-settling
defendants, among them Deutsche Bank, had argued that that area
should be more precise.  

Meanwhile, a separate group of former clients who opted out of
the settlement is negotiating their own deal with the firm.  
They are represented by Blair C. Fensterstock, a partner in New
York's Fensterstock & Partners, 30 Wall Street, New York, New
York 10005-2201 (New York Co.), Phone: 212-785-4100, Fax: 212-
785-4040.

The plaintiffs who appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court are
represented by Robert Clary, a partner in Dallas' Owens, Clary &
Aiken, 700 North Pearl Street, Suite 1600, Dallas, Texas 75201
(Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.), Phone: 214-698-2100, Fax: 214-
698-2121.  The first group has 90 days to file a writ of
certiorari with the high court, according to Mr. Clary.

David Deary, a partner in Dallas' Deary Montgomery DeFeo &
Canada, represents former Jenkens clients who are part of the
plaintiff class that agreed to settle with the firm.  To contact
Mr. Deary: 2515 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1565, Dallas, Texas 75201
(Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.), Phone: 214-292-2600, 800-497-
6444 (toll-free), Fax: 214-739-3879.

Deutsche Bank is represented by Lawrence Hill, a partner in New
York's Dewey Ballantine, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
New York 10019-6092 (New York Co.), Phone: 212-259-8000,
Cable Address: "Dewbalaw," Telex: 12-6825 Fax: 212-259-6333.


LOUISIANA: Post-Katrina Salvage Operations in Orleans Questioned
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report by Orleans' inspector general revealed that a class
action was filed in state district court in relation to a post-
Hurricane Katrina rescue operation orchestrated by former
Orleans Levee Board President James Huey, 2theAdvocate.com
reports.

The report, submitted by Inspector General Sharon Robinson and
approved by Gov. Kathleen Blanco, dealt on Mr. Huey's alleged
unauthorized boat-salvage operation and two other controversial
transactions he entered while chairman of the board.  The report
said Mr. Huey allowed Marine Recovery and Salvage, without the
board's authorization, to recover and store vessels damaged in
Orleans Marina and South Shore Harbor by Katrina.  The class
action was filed against all parties involved in the salvage
operations, including the board.  The litigation is ongoing,
according to the report.

In a response to a draft of the report, Mr. Huey admitted that
technically he did not have the authority to act on behalf of
the board, but that he was in "extreme circumstances" of
deciding upon safety and liability issues.  He said
communication with Levee Board members was "virtually non-
existent."

The report also accused Mr. Huey of improperly claiming more
than $90,000 in back pay and leasing Baton Rouge office space
from a relative of his wife as temporary office for the board
after Hurricane Katrina.  Mr. Huey resigned in October after 13
years since he joined the board in 1992.  


MICROSOFT CORP: Consumer Suit Settlement Trial Set June 13, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Supreme Court will hold a fairness hearing
for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Cox v. Microsoft
Corp., Index No. 105193/00."  The case was brought on behalf of
all consumers and businesses that acquired Microsoft software
from May 18, 1994 through December 31, 2004.

The hearing will be held on June 13, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., New
York State Supreme Court, 60 Centre St., Room 248, New York, New
York 10007.

Any objections must be made before May 18, 2006.  Claims forms
must be submitted by October 18, 2006.

For more details, visit: http://www.microsoftnysettlement.com/;
or call 1-877-867-6133.


NEWS CORP: Allows Shareholders to Vote on "Poison Pill" at AGM
--------------------------------------------------------------
News Corp. settled a class action filed against it in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County by agreeing to put its shareholder's-rights plan, also
known as a poison pill, up for a vote at its next annual
meeting, The Multichannel News reports.

Investors, including six Australian super funds, brought the
suit back in 2005, claiming that the company's board broke a
promise it made in the lead-up to its move from Australia to the
U.S.  Specifically the investors argued that the company reneged
on a promise to shareholders not to extend the poison pill
without first allowing them to vote on the matter.  But it did
renew the poison pill in August without a shareholder vote.  The
poison pill would make it expensive for an individual
shareholder to increase its voting stake in the company above
15%.

News Corp. initiated the poison pill in late 2004 after after
Liberty Media Corp. increased its voting stake in the media
giant from 9% to 18%, rendering it the second-largest voting
shareholder behind the Murdoch family.  The family owns about
30% of the vote.

Under the settlement, News Corp. agreed to put forth a special
proposal at its annual meeting in October, allowing shareholders
to vote on whether to extend the poison pill for two years.  
Under the proposal, the company could extend the pill for one
additional year, until October 2009, subject to certain
conditions.  If the proposal is approved, shareholders will have
the right to vote on subsequent poison-pill provisions for the
next 20 years.  The settlement is still subject to court
approval.

The suit is styled, "Unisuper Ltd., et al. v. News Corp., et
al., C.A. No. 1699-N," filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

For more details, contact Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Chase Manhattan Centre,
Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7070 and (302) 622-7000,
Fax: (302) 622-7100, E-Mail: sgrant@gelaw.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
securities class action in Missouri federal court.

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class actions against the company and three of its executive
officers were filed and consolidated into a single action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.

The plaintiffs purported to bring this consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period October 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004.

On January 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce D. Bernstein and Michael B. Eisenkraft of
         Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300;

     (2) James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP,
         1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-
         mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com; and

     (3) William W. Wickersham of Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP, 299
         Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10171, Phone:
         212-894-7200.

Representing the defendants are, Erin Bansal and William F.
Alderman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: (415)
773-5759, E-mail: walderman@orrick.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Calif. Court Mulls Approval of Labor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to give final approval to the settlement of a purported
class action against NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., which was
filed by company's loan officers.

In July 2004, an employee of the company filed a class and
collective action lawsuit against the company and NovaStar
Mortgage, Inc. in California Superior Court for the County of
Los Angeles.

Subsequently, the defendants removed the matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California and
NovaStar Mortgage was removed from the lawsuit.  The putative
class was comprised of all past and present employees of the
company who were employed since May 1, 2000 in the capacity
generally described as Loan Officer.

The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to pay them
overtime and minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California state laws for the period
commencing May 1, 2000 to present.

In 2005, the plaintiffs and the company agreed upon a nationwide
settlement in the amount of $3.3 million on behalf of a class of
all company Loan Officers.  The settlement, which is subject to
final court approval, covers all claims for minimum wage,
overtime, meal and rest periods, record keeping, and penalties
under California and federal law during the class period.

In 2004, since not all class members will elect to be part of
the settlement, the company estimated the probable obligation
related to the settlement to be in a range of $1.3 million to
$1.7 million.  In accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, the
company recorded a charge to earnings of $1.3 million in 2004.

In 2005, the company recorded an additional charge to earnings
of $200,000 as the estimated probable obligation increased to a
range of $1.5 million to $1.9 million.

The suit is styled, "Dawn Robertson v. Novastar Mortgage Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-08444-SGL-CT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California under Judge
Stephen G. Larson with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael S. Duberchin of the Michael S. Duberchin Law
         Offices, 4768 Park Granada, Suite 212, Calabasas, CA
         91302-3349, Phone: 818-222-7484;

     (2) Andre E. Jardini of Knapp Petersen & Clarke, 500 N.
         Brand Blvd., 20th Fl., Glendale, CA 91203-1094, Phone:
         818-547-5000, E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com;

     (3) Dennis F. Moss of Spiro Moss Barness Harrison and
         Barge, 11377 West Olympic Blvd, 5th Floor, Los Angeles,
         CA 90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, E-mail:
         secretary@smbhblaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Maria A. Audero and Paul Grossman
of Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker, 515 South Flower Street,
25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-683-6000, E-mail:
mariaaudero@paulhastings.com and paulgrossman@paulhastings.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Faces Consolidated RESPA Violations Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
class action alleging violations of the federal Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).  The suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

In April 2005, three putative class actions filed against the
company and certain of its affiliates were consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia entitled, "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage,
Inc. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL-1677."

These cases alleged that the company improperly shared
settlement service fees with limited liability companies in
which it had an interest (the LLCs) alleging violations of the
fee splitting and anti-referral provisions of RESPA, and
alleging certain violations of state law and civil conspiracy.

Plaintiffs sought treble damages with respect to the RESPA
claims, disgorgement of fees with respect to the state law
claims as well as other damages, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.

The suit is styled, "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. Mortgage
Lending Practices Litigation, MDL-1677," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia under Judge
William T. Moore.  


NOVASTAR HOME: Faces FCRA Violations Complaint in M.D. La.
----------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. is defendant in a putative class
action alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA), which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana.

Filed in December 2005, the suit's plaintiffs alleged that the
company violated FCRA in connection with its use of pre-approved
offers of credit and its failure to make certain disclosures
required by federal law.

Plaintiff sought, on his own behalf, as well as for others
similarly situated, statutory damages, other nominal damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The suit is styled, "Pearson v. Novastar Homre Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-01377-JVP-DLD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge John V.
Parker with referral to Judge Docia L Dalby.  Representing the
plaintiffs are: Philip Bohrer of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925-5297,
Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com; and Scott E.
Brady, 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Ste. B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone:
225-924-7636, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
scott@bradylawfirmllc.com.

Representing the defendants are: James Rodney Chastain, Jr.,
Kean, Miller-B.R., P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513,
Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133, E-mail:
sonny.chastain@keanmiller.com; and Tara E. Montgomery of Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513,
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 388-9133,
E-mail: tara.montgomery@keanmiller.com.


NOVASTAR HOME: Faces Lawsuits in Md., Ill. Over LLC's Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. is defendant in purported class
actions over the conduct of limited liability companies (LLCs)
in which the company had an interest.  The suits were filed in
state courts in Illinois and Maryland.

The suits are:

     (1) "Miller v. NovaStar Financial, Inc., et al.," filed on
         October 2004 in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
         Illinois; and

     (2) "Jones et al. v. NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., et al.,"
         filed on December 2004 in the Circuit Court for
         Baltimore City, Maryland.

In the Miller case, plaintiffs alleged violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and civil conspiracy
alleging certain LLCs provided settlement services without the
borrower's knowledge.  

In the Jones case, the plaintiffs alleged the LLCs violated the
Maryland Lender Act by acting as lenders and/or brokers in
Maryland without proper licenses and allege this arrangement
amounted to a civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs in both the Miller and Jones cases sought a
disgorgement of fees, other damages, injunctive relief and
attorney fees on behalf of the class of plaintiffs.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. is a defendant in a putative consumer
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed
to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made
on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans,
excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and
finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and attorney fees.

The suit is styled, "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J.
Bryan.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Matthew Phineas Bergman
of Law Office Of Matthew Bergman, 705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601,
Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-957-9510, E-mail:
matt@bergmanlegal.com; and Ari Y. Brown of Bergman & Frockt, 705
Second Avenue, Ste. 1601, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-957-
9510, E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com.

Representing the defendants are, Donald C Brown, Jr. of Weiner
Brodsky Sidmann Kider, 1300 19TH ST., NW, 5TH FL., Washington,
DC 20036, Phone: 202-628-2000, E-mail: brown@wbsk.com; and Sal
Mungia of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim,
P.O. BOX 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401-1157, Phone: 253-620-6500, Fax:
1-253-620-6565, E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com.


POLAR BEVERAGES: Suits Filed Over High Benzene Content of Sodas
---------------------------------------------------------------
McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer, L.L.P. released the result of
independent laboratory tests on the benzene content of two
widely sold soft drinks in conjunction with class actions filed
April 11 in Boston and Tallahassee.  The tests showed the soft
drinks contain benzene, a known carcinogen, at levels exceeding
safe drinking water standards.

The court complaints identify Polar Beverages of Worcester,
Massachusetts and In Zone Brands of Austell, Georgia as the
manufacturers of the products.

"Benzene is simply unfit for human consumption," said Andrew
Rainer, a partner with the Boston firm of McRoberts, Roberts &
Rainer, L.L.P., and a former state prosecutor.  "That's why we
have filed [the] suit, and are calling on Polar Beverages and In
Zone Brands, the manufacturer of BellyWashers, to pull their
products from store shelves."

According to the United State Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), nervous system disorders and immune system damage can
occur following short periods of exposure to Benzene.  Lifetime
exposure has the potential to cause cancer, and chromosomal
aberrations, according to the EPA.

To see consumer factsheet on benzene:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/c-voc/benzene.html

Independent lab testing conducted by the plaintiffs found that
Polar Diet Orange Dry contained 9.1 parts per billion (ppb) of
Benzene.

BellyWashers 2/3 Less Sugar (http://www.bellywashers.com)in the  
Spiderman bottle had 69 ppb, more than 13 times the level
allowed in public water supplies.  The EPA standard for tap
water is 5 ppb.  More product testing is underway.

"Toxic cocktails of benzene, artificial sweeteners, colorings,
additives, and sugar threaten our children's health," said
Boston University professor and attorney Dr. Tim Howard, of
Howard & Associates, P.A., a successful veteran of the nation's
tobacco wars. "Parents have a legal right to know if benzene is
in their children's drinks.  Responsible corporations must act
to remove these lethal toxins that are so easily prevented," Mr.
Howard added.

Researchers believe that Benzene forms when two commonly found
soft drink ingredients, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and the
preservative sodium benzoate react.  Excessive levels of the
colorless solvent Benzene can be created when soft drinks
containing these ingredients are exposed to heat or light.

Records show that in 1990, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the industry's trade association knew
of the risk of benzene in soft drink products, yet failed to
issue any recall or inform the public of the potential danger.
The FDA left it to the industry to modify its manufacturing
processes to prevent the chemical reaction that produces
Benzene, and the industry has failed to ensure that all its
products are safe.

"It's impossible for parents to know which soft drinks are safe
and which contain cancer-causing Benzene," said Timothy Newell,
a pre-school teacher and the named plaintiff in the Boston class
action suit filed in Massachusetts Superior Court.  "That's why
I'm bringing these companies to court.  I want to know that my
own kids are drinking sodas that are safe."

A related class action suit was filed in Florida Circuit Court.  
Lisbeth Gordon, the named plaintiff in that suit is a
Tallahassee Emergency Room nurse and mother of four children
ages seven through fifteen.  "I see children suffer needlessly
every day," she said. "We have a chance to prevent future
suffering and I'm proud to be part of it."

For more information, contact McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer,
L.L.P. on the Net: http://www.mcrobertslaw.com/


POST PROPERTIES: Investor Appeals Ga. Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged Post Properties, Inc. shareholder appealed the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia's approval of
the settlement of the shareholder derivative and purported class
actions filed against members of the company's board of
directors and the company as a nominal defendant.

On May 5, 2003, the company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action was filed against members
of the board of directors of the company and the company as a
nominal defendant.  

This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 2, 2003 and alleged various breaches of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the company and
sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain
information by the defendants.

The complaint also sought to compel the defendants to undertake
various actions to facilitate a sale of the company.  On May 7,
2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary expedited
discovery.

On May 13, 2003, the company received notice that a similar
shareholder derivative and purported class action was filed
against certain members of the board of directors of the company
and against the company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the
defendants.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as
appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation.  The estimated
legal and settlement costs, not covered by insurance, associated
with the expected resolution of the lawsuits were recorded in
2003 as a component of a proxy contest and related costs charge.

An alleged company shareholder, who had filed a separate
purported derivative and direct action against the company and
certain of its officers and directors has appealed from the
Superior Court's orders approving the settlement, overruling the
shareholder's objection to the settlement denying the
shareholder's motion to intervene, and dismissing the litigation
with prejudice.

In November 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
orders.  In December 2005, the alleged company shareholder asked
the Georgia Supreme Court to review the case, and his petition
remains pending.


ROYAL AHOLD: Stock, ERISA Settlement Hearing Set June 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $1.1 billion settlement
in the matter: "In re Royal Ahold Securities and 'ERISA'
Litigation, MDL 1539."  The case was brought on behalf of all
Royal Ahold investors who bought or received as a dividend the
company's common stock or American Depository Receipts from July
30, 1999 through February 23, 2003.

The court will hold the hearing on June 16, 2006 at U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Any objections must be made before May 12, 2006.  Claims forms
must be submitted by August 18, 2006.

For more details, call 1-888-410-0027 (North America), 00 800
1020 4060 (Europe, Hong Kong & Japan), 0011 800 1020 4060
(Australia) and +1-914-906-4864 (Other Countries); or visit:
http://www.aholdsettlement.com/us/home.php3and  
http://www.royalaholdsecuritieslitigation.com/.


SANDISK CORP: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. and a number of other manufacturers of flash
memory products were named as defendants in a consumer class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
City and County of San Francisco.  The suit was captioned,
"Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al."

Filed on February 20, 2004, the suit alleged false advertising,
unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedy Act.  

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.  
It sought restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified
amount.


SANDISK CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide on
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities class
action filed against Sandisk Corp., in its role as a shareholder
of Tower Semiconductor, Ltd.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of U.S. holders of
ordinary shares of Tower as of the close of business on April 1,
2002.  

Captioned, "Philippe de Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De Vries
Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil Case
No. 03 CV 4999," the suit was filed against Tower and certain of
its shareholders and directors, including the company and Dr.
Eli Harari, the company's president and chief executive officer,
who is also a Tower board member.

The suit asserted claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated there under.  It alleged that Tower and
certain of its directors made false and misleading statements in
a proxy solicitation to Tower shareholders regarding a proposed
amendment to a contract between Tower and certain of its
shareholders, including the company.  

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

On August 19, 2004, the judge granted the company and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.  On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The suit is styled, "De Vries, et al.v. Tower Semiconductor, et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Kimba M.
Wood.  Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey S. Abraham and
Lawrence Donald Levit of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One
Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)-279-
5050, Fax: (212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.  

Representing the company is Daniel Lucas Cantor and Michael R.
Patrick of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Seven Times Square, New York,
NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail:
dcantor@omm.com.


SAVINGS BANK: Mass. Judge Nixes Arguments in Policyholder's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ralph D. Gants of the Suffolk Superior Court knocked down
two arguments by Savings Bank Life Insurance of Massachusetts's
in a class action relating to payments to policyholders, The
Boston Globe reports.

Filed by attorney Jason Adkins in 1998, the suit contends that
the company did not pay enough dividends to its policyholders
and that it has kept too much money in its safety fund reserves.  

The company though disputed the allegations, saying Mr. Adkins
ignores deductions that it is legally allowed to take.  It also
pointed out that Insurance Commissioner Julianne Bowler gave the
company a waiver to put excess money in its safety fund.  

However, the judge ruled that Ms. Bowler should not have given
the waiver.


SEALED AIR: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. is a defendant in a putative securities suit
styled, "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the company during
the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.  It names
the company and five current and former officers and directors
of the company as defendants.  

One of these individuals and the company remain as defendants
after a partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the
action.  

The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the above-mentioned period the defendants materially
misled the investing public, artificially inflated the price of
the company's common stock by publicly issuing false and
misleading statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, by failing to properly account and accrue
for the company's contingent liability for asbestos claims
arising from past operations of W. R. Grace & Co.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.

The suit is styled, "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-
4372," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey under Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark
Falk.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Gregory B. Reilly of
Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ
07068-1791, Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail:
greilly@lowenstein.com.

Representing the defendant is Olimpio Lee Squitieri of Squitieri
& Fearon, LLP, 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202, Marlton, NJ
08053, Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612, E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com.


S&M NUTEC: Pet Owners File Lawsuit Over Greenies Dog Treat
----------------------------------------------------------
Dog treat maker S&M NuTec LLC is facing a federal class action
over allegations that its Greenies teeth-cleaning product hurt
or even killed dogs.

A group of 10 pet owners from eight states filed a federal suit
against the company, according to Associated Press.  The suit
accuses the company of knowing the dangers of Greenies, but
refused to adequately warn consumers or recall the product.  
According to the report, last year, S&M NuTec sold 315 million
of Greenies: a hard, dark green treat shaped like a bone on one
end and a toothbrush on the other.  The lawsuit wants S&M NuTec
to change Greenies' packaging and pay unspecified damages

The class action is in addition to several suits filed against
the company.  One suit was filed by a woman in Los Angeles
Superior Court, whose dog was forced to undergo surgery to
remove a piece of Greenie stuck on the pet's esophagus.  A New
York couple also filed a suit against the company after the
death of their dog.

Meanwhile, a Mercer Island, Washington attorney, Richard Wyde,
who says his dog died after eating Greenie, has formally asked
the U.S. Food and Drug Admin to open an investigation into
Greenies.  The FDA received 25 complaints about Greenies,
according to the report.

Representing the class action plaintiffs and the New York couple
is Alan E. Sash, associate of McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, 260
Madison Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10016 (New York
Co.), Phone: 212-448-1100, Fax: 212-448-0066.


UNION CARBIDE: Amicus Brief Filed in Suit Over Bhopal Gas Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Democrat Frank Pallone and 10 other lawmakers filed an
amicus brief on behalf of thousands of victims of the Union
Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India in 1984, the Central Chronicle
reports.

The brief was filed after a New York district court rejected
India's submission of a formal statement seeking relief for
damages that resulted from the chemical disaster.  Tons of toxic
gas leaked from a pesticide plant owned by American firm Union
Carbide in Bhopal, causing at least 1,750 people to die
instantly in December 1984.

The lawmakers argued that it was improper for the court to
disregard India's submission, and that it interferes with
America's public policy and foreign relations with the country.  

In 1999, survivors of the accident filed a class action against
Union Carbide and its officials in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit in New York.  The lawsuit was dismissed and
later reinstated by the New York Federal Appeals court in
November 2001 and dismissed again in March 2003.  In 2003, Rep.
Pallone and eight of his colleagues filed a prior amicus brief.  
Due in part to this brief "an appeal of this decision was upheld
and the case will now be heard by a superior court," Rep.
Pallone's office said in a statement, according to the report.

"In that decision, the appeals court held that the district
court should revisit the prior dismissal of claims for cleanup
of the Bhopal plant site if the Indian government submitted a
formal request asking for such relief," it said.


WORTHINGTON FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Vegetable Skallops
-------------------------------------------------------------
Worthington Foods of Battle Creek, Michigan is recalling about
9,456 cans of Worthington Vegetable Skallops because they may
contain undeclared egg and milk.  People with an allergy or
severe sensitivity to egg or milk, run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product,
the company said.

The affected cans of Worthington Vegetable Skallops were
distributed nationwide in the U.S. and in Oshawa, Canada through
grocery and natural food retail stores and foodservice
distributors.

The product is packaged in a 1 lb. 4 oz. can with a green
Worthington Vegetable Skallops label and a bar code of 28989
23303.  Only cans with a manufacturing code beginning with
10055CS SK stamped on the bottom of the can are included in this
alert.  No allergic reactions have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the label
for Worthington Vegetable Skallops, which does not declare egg
or milk, was mistakenly applied to a limited number of cans
containing a veggie hot dog type product containing egg and
milk.  Subsequently the packaging does not reveal the presence
of egg or milk.

Consumers who have a Worthington Vegetable Skallops can with a
bar code of 28989 23303 and a manufacturing code beginning
10055CS SK stamped on the bottom should call 1-800-557-6525.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action on April 7, 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against American International Group, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased SunAmerica mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group during the period between June
30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive.
During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

The SunAmerica mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

     (1) SunAmerica 2010 High Watermark (NASDAQ: HWIAX) (NASDAQ:
         HWICX)

     (2) SunAmerica 2015 High Watermark (NASDAQ: HWFAX)

     (3) SunAmerica 2020 High Watermark (NASDAQ: HWKAX)

     (4) SunAmerica Balanced Assets (NASDAQ: SBAAX) (NASDAQ:
         SBABX) (NASDAQ: SBDTX) (NASDAQ: NAAIX)

     (5) SunAmerica Biotech/Health (NASDAQ: SBHAX) (NASDAQ:
         SHFBX) (NASDAQ: SBHTX)

     (6) SunAmerica Blue Chip Growth (NASDAQ: SVLAX) (NASDAQ:
         SVLBX) (NASDAQ: NGECX) (NASDAQ: NGEIX)

     (7) SunAmerica Core Bond (NASDAQ: NAIBX) (NASDAQ: NAQBX)
         (NASDAQ: NIBCX) (NASDAQ: NIBIX)

     (8) SunAmerica Focused Balanced Strategy (NASDAQ: FBAAX)
         (NASDAQ: FBABX) (NASDAQ: FBACX)

     (9) SunAmerica Focused Dividend Strat (NASDAQ: FDSAX)
         (NASDAQ: FDSBX) (NASDAQ: FDSTX)

    (10) SunAmerica Focused Equity Strategy (NASDAQ: FESAX)
         (NASDAQ: FESBX) (NASDAQ: FESTX)

    (11) SunAmerica Focused Fxd Inc Eq Strat (NASDAQ: FFEAX)
         (NASDAQ: FFICX)

    (12) SunAmerica Focused Growth & Inc (NASDAQ: FOGAX)
         NASDAQ: FOGBX) (NASDAQ: FOGTX)

    (13) SunAmerica Focused Intl Equity (NASDAQ: SFINX) (NASDAQ:
         FINTX)

    (14) SunAmerica Focused Large Cap Gr (NASDAQ: SSFAX)
         (NASDAQ: SSFBX) (NASDAQ: SSFTX)

    (15) SunAmerica Focused Large Cap Value (NASDAQ: SSLAX)
         (NASDAQ: SELBX) (NASDAQ: SSLTX)

    (16) SunAmerica Focused Multi-Asset Strat (NASDAQ: FASAX)
         (NASDAQ: FMABX) (NASDAQ: FMATX)

    (17) SunAmerica Focused Multi-Cap Gr (NASDAQ: SSAAX)
         (NASDAQ: SSABX) (NASDAQ: SSACX)

    (18) SunAmerica Focused Multi-Cap Value (NASDAQ: SFVAX)
         (NASDAQ: SFDBX) (NASDAQ: SFVTX)

    (19) SunAmerica Focused Small-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: NSKAX)
         (NASDAQ: NBSCX) (NASDAQ: NCSCX) (NASDAQ: NSKIX)

    (20) SunAmerica Focused Small-Cap Value (NASDAQ: SSSAX)
         (NASDAQ: SSSBX) (NASDAQ: SSSTX)

    (21) SunAmerica Focused Technology (NASDAQ: STNAX) (NASDAQ:
         STNBX) (NASDAQ: STNTX)

    (22) SunAmerica GNMA (NASDAQ: GNMAX) (NASDAQ: GNMBX)
         (NASDAQ: GNMTX)

    (23) SunAmerica Growth & Income (NASDAQ: SEIAX) (NASDAQ:
         SEIBX) (NASDAQ: SEICX) (NASDAQ: NARIX)

    (24) SunAmerica Growth Opportunities (NASDAQ: SGWAX)
         (NASDAQ: SGWBX) (NASDAQ: SGWTX) (NASDAQ: NISIX)

    (25) SunAmerica High Yield Bond (NASDAQ: SHNAX) (NASDAQ:
         SHNBX) (NASDAQ: SHNCX)

    (26) SunAmerica International Equity (NASDAQ: SIEAX)
         (NASDAQ: SSIBX) (NASDAQ: SIETX) (NASDAQ: NAOIX)

    (27) SunAmerica New Century (NASDAQ: SEGAX) (NASDAQ: SEGBX)
         (NASDAQ: SEGCX)

    (28) SunAmerica Senior Floating Rate (NASDAQ: XNASX)
         (NASDAQ: NFRCX)

    (29) SunAmerica Strategic Bond (NASDAQ: SDIAX) (NASDAQ:
         SDIBX) (NASDAQ: NAICX)

    (30) SunAmerica Tax Managed Equity (NASDAQ: TXMAX) (NASDAQ:
         TXMBX) (NASDAQ: TXMTX)

    (31) SunAmerica Tax-Exempt Insured (NASDAQ: STEAX) (NASDAQ:
         STEBX) (NASDAQ: NNMCX)

    (32) SunAmerica U.S. Govt Securities (NASDAQ: SGTAX)
         (NASDAQ: SGTBX) (NASDAQ: NASBX)

    (33) SunAmerica Value (NASDAQ: SSVAX) (NASDAQ: SSVBX)
         (NASDAQ: SVPCX)

The Shelf-Space Funds include the following mutual fund
families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American,
American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton,
Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated
entities. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided
unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients.

Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.  The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately
disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal
securities laws.

For more details, James E. Lahm, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody,
Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.


AMERICA SERVICE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of America
Service Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASGRE) between September 24, 2003
and March 16, 2006, inclusive.

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

For more derails, 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.  


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Chicago Bridge & Iron company N.V. (NYSE: CBI) and certain of
its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the publicly traded common stock of CB&I between
March 9, 2005 and February 3, 2006.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
prospects, thus causing CB&I's shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

It is also alleged that certain company executives reaped
million in proceeds from the sale of their shares in the company
while the stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that on February 3, 2006,
the company stated that it expected to issue revised guidance
regarding its results of operations for the year ended December
31, 2005 and that all previous earnings guidance issued by the
company for 2005 is no longer operative and the company
announced the terminations of Gerald M. Glenn as Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert B. Jordan as
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

The Complaint further alleges that after the announcement of the
terminations, an attorney representing defendants Glenn and
Jordan issued a press release representing that they had been
terminated in connection with the company's internal accounting
investigation.

It is further alleged that the following trading day, February
6, 2006, the price of CB&I stock declined from $29.00 per share
to $22.33 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

The complaint alleges that CB&I misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following material adverse facts during the Class
Period:

     (1) that the company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the company's own
         revenue recognition policies and therefore were
         materially false and misleading; and

     (2) that the company had no reasonable basis for its
         financial guidance for the year ended December 31,
         2005.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
Donald R. Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-
1980 and (415) 772-4700, Fax: (212) 687-7714 and 415-772-4707,
Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com.


ESTEE LAUDER: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against The
Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE: EL).

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 April 28, 2005 through October 25, 2005.

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.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Stock Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities
of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT) between October 28, 2004
and March 10, 2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that GMH violated federal securities laws by
issuing false or misleading public statements.  Specifically,
the lawsuit alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading financial statements in a scheme to inflate the
earnings of the company and issued dividends in violation of
loan covenants.

The lawsuit further alleges that these misrepresentations drove
the stock price higher, allowing GMH to sell a secondary
offering in October 2005 at an artificially inflated price.

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

The Audit Committee launched an internal investigation
revealing:

     (1) the company had material weaknesses in internal
         controls;

     (2) key GMH executives had exerted pressure on the
         accounting function; and

     (3) GMH's financial statements for current and prior
         periods needed to be adjusted.

On this news, shares fell from a $16.83 close on March 10th to a
$12.90 close on March 13 -- a drop of 23%.

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's
Washington, DC, Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail:
contact@ftllaw.com.


NATURES SUNSHINE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. between October
19, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive.

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

     (1) that NSPI lacked requisite internal controls, and,
         consequently, the company's projections and reported
         results 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 $23.24 per share. During the Class Period, while NSPI
was trading at artificially inflated prices, top officers sold
over $2.9 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 received
notice from Nasdaq that its common stock was subject to
delisting.

On March 20, 2006, 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 Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


SEA CONTAINERS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Sea
Containers, Ltd. (NYSE: SCR.A) between March 15, 2004 and March
24, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  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.  


SEA CONTAINERS: Gardy Notis Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP, initiated a securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of Sea Containers Ltd. stock during a
class period of March 15, 2004 to March 24, 2006.

The lawsuit charges that Sea Containers misled investors and
failed to disclose that:

     (1) Sea Containers overvalued long-lived assets related to
         its ferry and container businesses by hundreds of
         millions of dollars;

     (2) Sea Containers' reported earnings were materially
         overstated;

     (3) Sea Containers' internal controls and procedures were
         deficient and its financial reports inherently
         unreliable;

     (4) Sea Containers' reported financial results falsely
         represented its true results of operations and
         prospects; and

     (5) Sea Containers overstated its gain on the sale of its
         interest in Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.

On March 24, 2006, Sea Containers disclosed that it was
completely quitting the ferry business, taking a $500 million
charge, was in talks to amend some of its loan agreements, and
would restate its earnings for 2005 and delay filing its annual
reports with the SEC until April to allow time to resolve
outstanding accounting issues.  The price of Sea Containers
stock dropped by 37.9 % in reaction to the news.

For more details, contact Mark C. Gardy of Gardy & Notis, LLP,
440 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, Phone:
(201) 567-7377, Fax: (201) 567-7337, E-mail:
mgardy@gardylaw.com, Web site: http://www.gardylaw.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  * * *