CAR_Public/060421.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 79

                            Headlines

ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Suit in Idaho Over Merger
ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Gives Final OK to Salaried Managers' Deal
ALBERTSON'S INC: Idaho Court Mulls Motions for Labor Suit Deal
ARIZONA: Lawsuit Filed in Maricopa Superior Court Over AIMS Test
CANADA: Claims Filing Deadline in Cadet Sexual Abuse Suit Nears

CANO PETROLEUM: Disappointed by Suit Over Tex. Panhandle Fire
CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Mulls Motion in Consolidated Stock Suit
DILLARD DEPARTMENT: Hairstylists Allege Discriminatory Practices
DUPONT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Ground Water Pollution in N.J.
HCA INC: Widow Files Suit in Kans. Over Hospital Understaffing

HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Fla. Court Gives Approval to ADA Settlement
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Reaches Deal for Ala. Consolidated Stock Suit
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Settles Consolidated ERISA Fraud Suit in Ala.
H&R BLOCK: Reaches $39M Deal in Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
ILLINOIS: Insurers Agree to $92M Settlement in "Total Loss" Case

ILLINOIS: Judge Grants Class Certification to Protesters' Suit
MERCK & CO: Tenn. Woman Files Lawsuit Over Fosamax Side Effects
MICROSOFT CORP: Indirect Software Buyers' Case Dismissed
MISSOURI STATE: Faces Title IX Violations Lawsuit in W.D. Mo.
MTR GAMING: Continues to Face Lawsuit in W.Va. Over Sale to TBR

POINT BLANK: Reaches $45M Settlement in Bullet-Proof Vests Suit
SAMSON RESOURCES: Wyo. Court Refuses Review of "Scott" Rulings
SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Suit Over Proposed Merger
SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Nixes Appeal for Calif. Glass Suit
SUPER STEEL: Minority Workers Launch Discrimination Suit in N.Y.

TOSHIBA OF CANADA: Owners of Notebook Computers File Lawsuit

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Increases Reserves to US$99.2Mil in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Reaches $575M Deal With Equitas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 592 Pending Policyholders
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Folksamerica Holds 1,339 Suits at Year-End
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kansas City Southern Provides for Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Carries US$1,554M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Fends Off 164,800 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's UK Units Face 306 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Posts $1.3Bil for T&N Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Notes $213.6M for Liabilities

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Subsidiaries' Cases Increase to 10,175
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc.'s Injury Cases Increase to 155
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants USG Corp. Disclosure Statement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Responds to Exide Technologies Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Train Crews Abandon Action v. RailCorp

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family to Sue Cape Asbestos for Kin's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tests Found No Hazard in Canadian Complexes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Orders Building Tests in Canadian Town
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCOR Raises Risk Reserves by EUR13M in 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Int'l. Corp. Claimants Drop to 2,642

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Town Seals Contaminated Landfill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MA Judge Allows Courthouse Repairs to Begin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard to Complicate JPN Airport Demolition
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Donates US$250,000 to Benefit Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indirect Exposure Claims Increase in Canada

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota To Offer Payout to Amagasaki Locals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Named in 2,600 Suits Since '01
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Court Junks 18 Out-of-State Claims v. 3M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Creditors Call For Committee Rejection
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. DuPont, Others Joined in WV Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Businessman Convicted for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Residents Seek Relocation After Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victims to Name Japan Govt. in Class Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aborigines to Begin 10 Test Cases v. Hardie
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: One Claim v. Champion Parts Remains Pending

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experimental Removal Proposal Stirs Debate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Levels Detected in Kubota Site in '75
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSR to Receive AUD103M Payout From Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Locals Denounce Removal of Asbestos Drug
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Courthouse Closes Due to High Hazard Levels

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Confirms Known Hazard at MA Work Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Moves to Grant AIG Settlement Terms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser States Insurance Settlement Updates
ASBESTOS ALERT: TX Court Dismisses Tort Claims v. Verizon Calif.
ASBESTOS ALERT: HB Fuller Records US$0.6Mil for Liability Claims

ASBESTOS ALERT: Arabian American Affiliate Settles 3 Texas Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Const. Firms, Others Charged for Handling Breach
ASBESTOS ALERT: Three Firms Settle US$29T for Improper Handling

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GMH COMMUNITIES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Cohen Milstein Files Stock Suit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set May
PIXELPLUS CO: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.

PIXELPLUS CO: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
ST JUDE: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Minn.


                            *********


ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Suit in Idaho Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. is a defendant in a putative class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho,
styled, "Carmona v. Bryant, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00078-BLW,"
challenging the merger agreement entered into in connection with
the pending sale of the Company and related transactions.

On January 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for
the County of Ada, naming the Company and its directors as
defendants. The action, entitled, "Christopher Carmona v. Henry
Bryant et al., No. CV-OC-0601251," was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho.

The Company entered into a series of agreements (the Agreements)
providing for the sale of Albertsons to SUPERVALU INC.
(Supervalu), CVS Corporation (CVS) and a consortium of investors
including Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Kimco Realty
Corporation, Lubert-Adler Management, Inc., Klaff Realty, L.P.
and Schottenstein Stores Corporation (the Cerberus Group) on
January 22, 2006.

As a result of a series of transactions provided for under the
Agreements (the Transactions), the Company's shareholders will
ultimately be entitled to receive $20.35 in cash and 0.182
shares of Supervalu common stock for each share of Albertsons'
common stock that they held before the Transactions.

The Transactions are subject to approval by Albertsons'
shareholders and Supervalu's shareholders as well as antitrust
clearance and the satisfaction or waiver of other customary
closing conditions.  The Transactions are currently anticipated
to be completed in the second quarter of calendar year 2006, but
the completion of the Transactions could be delayed if, among
other things, all necessary approvals are not obtained by that
time.

The complaint specifically alleges that the Company and its
directors violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or
aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
including by failing to value Albertsons properly and by
ignoring conflicts of interest.

Among other things, the complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the completion of the
Transactions.

The suit is styled, "Carmona v. Bryant, et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00078-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Philip H. Gordon of Gordon Law Offices, 623 W Hays
Boise, ID 83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345-7100, Fax: 1-208-345-
0050, E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com.

Representing the defendants are, Mark S. Geston and Samia E
McCall of Stoel Rives, LLP, 101 S. Capitol Blvd. #1900, Boise,
ID 83702-5958, Phone: (208) 389-9000, Fax: 1-208-389-9040, E-
mail: msgeston@stoel.com and semccall@stoel.com; and John M.
Newman, Jr. and Robert S Walker of Jones Day, N. Point 901,
Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-3939, Fax:
216-579-0212, E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com and
rswalker@jonesday.com.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Gives Final OK to Salaried Managers' Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Alameda granted final approval to the settlement of a
purported class action against Albertson's, Inc., styled,
"Victoria A. Moore, et al. v. Albertson's, Inc."

In July 2004 the suit was on behalf of salaried drug/merchandise
managers seeking recovery including overtime pay based upon
allegations that the Company improperly classified them as
exempt under California law.

In March 2005 the parties reached a tentative settlement.  On
March 10, 2006, the court granted final approval to the
settlement.

Based on information presently available to the Company,
management does not expect that payments under this settlement
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Idaho Court Mulls Motions for Labor Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho has yet to
rule on various motions in a settlement of a consolidated class
action against Albertson's, Inc., which raised various issues
including "off-the-clock" work allegations and allegations
regarding certain salaried grocery managers' exempt status.

In September 2000 an agreement was reached and court approval
granted to settle eight purported class and/or collective
actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho.

Under the settlement agreement, current and former employees who
met eligibility criteria were allowed to present their off-the-
clock work claims to a claims administrator.

Additionally, current and former grocery managers employed in
the State of California were allowed to present their exempt
status claims to a claims administrator.

The Company mailed notices of the settlement and claims forms to
approximately 70,500 associates and former associates.  About
6,000 claim forms were returned, of which approximately 5,000
were deemed by the claims administrator to be incapable of
valuation, presumed untimely, or both (the Unvalued Claims).

The claims administrator was able to assign a value to
approximately 1,080 claims although the value of many of those
claims is still subject to challenge by either party.  Two other
claims processes occurred during 2004.

First, there was a supplemental mailing and in-store posting
directed toward a narrow subset of current and former
associates.  This process resulted in approximately 260
individuals submitting claims documents.

Second, in response to the Court's instruction to plaintiffs'
counsel to submit supplemental and/or corrected information for
the Unvalued Claims, plaintiffs' counsel submitted such
information for approximately 4,700 of the Unvalued Claims in
2005.

The claims administrator has been assigning values to claims as
a result of the 2004 claims process.  The value of these claims
will likewise be subject to challenge by either party.

The Company raised certain challenges to the claims process,
including the supplemental information submitted by plaintiffs'
counsel in 2005, and valuation protocols.

On January 4, 2006, the court granted in part the Company's
motion and directed the claims administrator to value the claims
disregarding certain information.  Presently pending before the
court is a motion filed by the plaintiffs making further
challenge to the process.


ARIZONA: Lawsuit Filed in Maricopa Superior Court Over AIMS Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two local advocacy groups filed a lawsuit hoping to overturn the
Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) test as high
school graduation test, according to The Arizona Republic.

The William E. Morris Institute for Justice, the Arizona Center
for Law in the Public Interest and Phoenix attorney Jeremy
Butler filed the suit in Maricopa County Superior Court on
behalf of two seniors who are expected to have met all
graduation requirements by May, except for passing the AIMS
test.  Defendants are Arizona Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Horne, along with the state and the Arizona
Board of Education.

The suit is called Espinoza v. State of Arizona after Perla
Espinoza of Nogales High School.  The other plaintiff is Hannah
Gonzales of Scottsdale's Coronado High School.  The lawsuit
alleges that because inadequate funding for schools students are
not prepared well for the test.  It calls the state's
educational funding system "arbitrary and not based on
educational need.

The suit wants high school seniors, who completed their required
course work but did not pass the statewide AIMS test, to earn
their diplomas.  The AIMS tests students in reading, writing and
math.  The graduating class of 2006 is the first in the state's
history that must pass all three parts of the test to graduate.

Ellen Katz, litigation director for the Morris Institute for
Justice, said the institute will file a preliminary injunction
next week in hopes of halting the AIMS test while the case is in
court, according to the report.  Ms. Katz is the lead attorney
on the case, but the legal team also includes Tim Hogan of the
Center for Law in the Public Interest, lead attorney in the
English learner litigation, according to the Tribune.


CANADA: Claims Filing Deadline in Cadet Sexual Abuse Suit Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gibbens, the attorney who successfully handled a class
action against the federal government over allegations of
decades-long sexual abuse of teenage boys by officers of Her
Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) Discovery's sea cadet program
says that time is running out for victims to file a claim for
the $10-million settlement in the case.

The deadline to file a claim is June 5, 2006, according to a
news release published in CCNMatthews.

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently approved the $10-
million settlement.  In its ruling, the court awarded a
compensation package worth $8-million to 35 former sea cadets
who were part of the successful suit, filed by former sea cadet
William White against the officers and the attorney general of
Canada.  Additionally, an extra $1.8 million was set aside for
cadets who were not party to the class action, but who were also
abused and believe they may be entitled to compensation, (Class
Action Reporter, April 12, 2006).

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 estimated
that four former officers might have abused as many as 200
cadets between 1964 and 1980.

The case named as defendants the Attorney General of Canada, the
Navy League of Canada and Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps
commanding officers Ralph Bremner, Conrad Sundman, Richard
Wilson, and the estate of the late Clarence Anderson.

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,
(Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006).

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,
(Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006).

Under 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, (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006).

The $10-million deal will compensate as many as 200 cadets who
were victimized in the 1960s and 70s.  So far, there are 35
known victims, about a third of them from Surrey and Delta,
according to Mr. Gibbens.  He told The Surrey Leader that since
the news of the judgment broke his law office has been flooded
with calls from as far away as Newfoundland and Labrador.

For more details, contact Mr. Gibbens, Phone: 604-682-3871, E-
mail rgibbens@laxtonco.com; or The Department of National
Defence Media Liaison Office, Phone: (613) 996-2353/2354.


CANO PETROLEUM: Disappointed by Suit Over Tex. Panhandle Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cano Petroleum Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeff
Johnson is stunned and disappointed that Cano and three of its
subsidiaries have been sued by the Burnett Trust Ltd., owners of
the Four Sixes Ranch.

Three weeks earlier, Mr. Johnson had helped Cano's subsidiary,
W.O. Operating Company, direct its employees' efforts in
response to massive wildfires in the Texas Panhandle, according
to the Company.

"We don't understand it.  It looks like they want to fight fires
with lawsuits," said Johnson.  "Our focus has been on protecting
the land and the people during this extraordinary drought.  Over
the past four months, hundreds of grass fires in the Texas
Panhandle have been blamed on careless cigarette disposal,
fireworks, trash burning, and, even, arson.  The claims in this
lawsuit are an unbelievable stretch."

Mr. Johnson noted the suit was filed only 11 days after the fire
started and before any state or federal agency issued a report
identifying possible causes of one of the largest wildfires to
ever hit the Panhandle.

"The legal blame game has begun, even without the facts," said
Mr. Johnson.  "Presumably, state and federal investigators will
also examine the origin of the ten fires at Four Sixes that
preceded the March blazes," he said.

The Cano Chairman and CEO said the Company and its subsidiaries
have spent the past 30 days focusing on "helping things get back
to normal" for employees.  Production in the Panhandle field is
now at 95% of normal operations.

"Texans, especially the folks in the Panhandle, suspect that the
real cause of the tragic fires that occurred in March is Mother
Nature," said Mr. Johnson. "We have been too dry for too long.
Litigation that blames some other cause is, quite frankly, a sad
situation and a rush to judgment."

Mr. Johnson said the Company is deeply concerned about its
employees and all those affected by the fires and current
conditions in the Texas Panhandle.

"Our people are back to work, and we are assisting our
industry's workers so they, too, can return to their
livelihood," he added.

The suit was filed in state court in Carson County,
Texas, seeking damages and other relief relating to the recent
grass fires in Texas panhandle (Class Action Reporter, March 29,
2006).  It said the Company failed to comply with the applicable
standards in the installation, maintenance and operation of its
electrical equipment used in connection with oil production,
according to the report.  Burnett is seeking the termination of
Cano's oil and gas lease and the market value of the destroyed
property in damages.

Cano said that the subsidiaries named in the suit intend to seek
compensation for lost production, damages and other costs from
those who are determined to be at fault for the fires and the
effects thereof.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com-- is an
independent Texas-based energy producer with properties in the
mid-continent region of the U.S.  For more information, contact
Cano Petroleum's Investor Relations: Craig Scott, Phone: 800-
769-7205; E-mail: craig@canopetro.com; or HWH Public
Relations/New Media Media Inquiries: Norman Iannarelli; Phone:
203-856-3487; E-mail: normani@hwhpr.com.


CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Mulls Motion in Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on Constar International Inc.'s objections to
the ruling that denied its motion for judgment on the pleadings
in a consolidated putative securities class action, styled, "In
re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File
No. 03-CV-05020)."

The Company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters
were named as defendants in the consolidated suit.

The action consolidates previous lawsuits, namely: "Parkside
Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc et al. (Civil Action
No. 03-5020)," filed on September 5, 2003 and "Walter Frejek v.
Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action No.03-5166),"
filed on September 15, 2003.

The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering of its common stock on
November 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They seek
class action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the Company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the Company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005
and the Company's answer was filed on August 8, 2005.

The Special Master issued a Report and Order denying the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 22,
2006.  The Company filed objections to the Report and Order on
March 6, 2006.  Those objections are still pending.

The suit is styled, "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 03-CV-05020)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Edmund V. Ludwig.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414, E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes &
         Lerach, LLP, 401 B. Street, STE. 1700, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com;
         and

     (3) Darren J. Check of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Steven B. Feirson, Michael L.
Kichline and Scott A. Thompson of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 1717
Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2793, Phone: 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2390, Fax: 215-994-2222,
E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com
and scott.thompson@dechert.com.


DILLARD DEPARTMENT: Hairstylists Allege Discriminatory Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hairstylists at Dillard's Department Store's beauty salons have
made sworn declarations in relation to a racial discrimination
class action filed against the Company.

The Dillard's department store chain is defendant in a federal
class action that was filed in April 2005, alleging racial
discrimination and deceptive sales practices relating to the
marketing and sale of beauty salon services.  Dillard's
continues to deny these charges, but several former hairstylists
from Dillard's salons in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and
Georgia confirm the racist practices alleged by plaintiffs.

Dillard's has reportedly responded with sworn declarations that
contain racist and inflammatory statements from its own current
stylists.

Dillard's has contended that the hair of African-Americans is
dirtier than the hair of Caucasians.  In a recent court filing,
a current stylist from Dillard's Jackson, MS salon where
Plaintiff Artis Smith received services stated, "I cannot
shampoo an African-American customer in the same time as I can a
Caucasian customer.  It may take two or three shampoo
applications to get the typical African-American customer's hair
clean but it may take less for Caucasian hair."

Other current Dillard's stylists have submitted written
declarations to the court that contain statements such as
"ethnic hair is harder to handle, coarser and breaks more
easily."

This statement comes from a stylist at Dillard's Madison Square
Mall location in Huntsville, Alabama, where Plaintiff Sandra
Moody allegedly experienced discrimination.  Another current
stylist from that same salon says "In my experience, the hair of
African-American customers takes longer to do.  Also, more heat
is needed to get it straight.  I have found that the hair is
more fragile and breakage is more likely to occur."

A Dillard's stylist from Florence, AL says, "I understand
[ethnic hair to mean African-American hair, usually difficult to
work with and tending to be dry, coarse and frizzy."  Such
sweeping stereotypes assume that all African-Americans have the
same type and texture of hair.

Debbie Deavers Sturdivant allegedly experienced racial
discrimination at the Dillard's Salon in Tuscaloosa (AL) when
she visited the salon for a wash and set and Vaughan Thomas
experienced the same treatment in the Montgomery Dillard's Salon
and recorded her conversation with the stylists.

The original class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of Alabama by Debbie Deavers
Sturdivant, a Springville, AL resident.  The civil action [CV-
05-TMP-0305-W states, "Following a policy imposed by Dillard's
management, Dillard's salons have charged significantly more for
the same salon services for African American customers than for
Caucasian customers. . . Dillard's has profited from this
discriminatory and illegal pricing scheme, while intentionally
concealing it from the public."

Although discovery is ongoing, evidence demonstrating that
Dillard's discriminatory pricing has interfered with the rights
of African-Americans is substantial and has also been confirmed
by over a dozen former hair stylists at Dillard's Salons
nationwide.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and equitable relief, punitive
damages and other remedies to stop Dillard's allegedly unlawful
and racially discriminatory conduct.

Dillard's is Delaware Corporation headquartered in Little Rock,
Arkansas.  It is a publicly traded Company with annual revenues
exceeding $7.8 billion.  Dillard's owns over 330 department
stores in 29 different states, with a concentration of stores in
the South and Southwest.  At present, Dillard's operates over 70
hair salons.  Dillard's has faced several discrimination
lawsuits since 1988, claiming racial discrimination.  Of these
numerous cases, a few include:

     (1) a verdict against Dillard's in the case of a black
         customer who died after being beaten and hogtied at one
         of its Texas stores;

     (20 a verdict against Dillard's in which a black woman was
         awarded $1.1 million dollars because Dillard's accused
         her of shoplifting and denied her a perfume sample
         after she had just made a purchase; and

     (3) A case in Mississippi which accuses Dillard's of
         "tracking" African-American customers who enter the
         store and using race "codes" to identify black shoppers
         as being suspicious.

The plaintiff representatives in the class action are:

     -- Debbie Deavers Sturdivant - (Springville) Tuscaloosa, AL
     -- Vaughn Thomas - Montgomery, AL
     -- Patricia Mallory - Montgomery, AL
     -- Hollis Casey - Montgomery, AL
     -- Artis Smith - Jackson, MS
     -- Vanessa Jones - Montgomery, AL
     -- Sandra Moody - Huntsville, AL
     -- Lessie Harris - Tuscaloosa, AL

The suit is styled "Sturdivant v. Dillard's, Inc. (7:05-cv-
00305-TMP)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge T. Michael Putnam, with referral
to Judge Patrick C. Cooper.  Representing the plaintiffs is W.
Percy Badham, III Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, AmSouth Harbert
Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203-2618, Phone: 205-254-1089, Fax: 205-254-1999, E-mail:
pcooper@maynardcooper.com.

Representing the defendant are: A. Craig Cleland of Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite
2100, Atlanta, GA 30308, Phone: 404-881-1300, Fax: 404-870-1732,
E-mail: craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com; and Sandra B. Reiss
of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, One Federal Place,
Suite 1000, 1819 5th Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203 328-
1900, E-mail: sandra.reiss@odnss.com.


DUPONT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Ground Water Pollution in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours is facing a suit over allegations it
was responsible for contaminating drinking water source in Salem
County, New Jersey.

The suit, which is seeking class action status, was filed in
U.S. District Court in New Jersey on April 18.  It alleged that
the contamination of the area's drinking water supply is linked
to the manufacturing, use and disposal of perfluorinated
chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), at DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Salem County.  PFOA, used in the
production of Teflon, is alleged to have been determined to be
"likely" to cause cancer in humans.  Dupont is the sole producer
of PFOA in the U.S.

The lawsuit accuses Dupont of knowingly releasing PFOA into the
air from operations and activities at the Chambers Works Plant
and contaminating groundwater for years.  The New Jersey suit
plaintiffs alleged Dupont failed to put up medical monitoring
and remedial measures it provided Ohio and West Virginia
residents under a class action settlement.  It said that DuPont
found elevated levels of organic fluorine in the blood of
Chambers Works employees exposed to perfluorinated chemicals in
the 1970s, but it stopped its blood monitoring program without
informing workers of its findings.

The suit is asking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
medical monitoring of people exposed to the contaminant.

Lawyers for the plaintiff, includes Shari Blecher of Lieberman &
Blecher, P.C. (http://www.liebermanblecher.com),Princeton, New
Jersey (Mercer Co.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont -- http://www.dupont.com/
-- manufactures resins and additives used in the trenchless pipe
rehabilitation industry.


HCA INC: Widow Files Suit in Kans. Over Hospital Understaffing
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCA, Inc. is named defendant in a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for District of Kansas alleging that to
maximize profits the Company compromises patient care by
deliberately understaffing registered nurses at its hospitals,
The BusinessWeek Online reports.

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the
Company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit.  She
claims that her husband died because the hospital did not have
enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized
in 2004.

The lawsuit, filed on April 10, 2006, seeks class action status
and asks the Company, the country's largest for-profit hospital
chain, to repay no less than $12.5 billion to millions of
patients who have been treated at its hospitals.

Company spokesman Jeff Prescott told The BusinessWeek Online
that HCA would fight the lawsuit.  Though declining to address
specific allegations in the lawsuit, he told The BusinessWeek
Online, "Bringing a lawsuit as a class action like that is
simply designed to be sensational and get media attention, which
drives up health care costs for everyone."

Lawrence Williamson, Mrs. Spires' attorney, claims in the
lawsuit that the Company set out in about 1996 to become a $50
billion Company and has tried to reach that goal by reducing
costs, primarily by cutting staff.  The Company reported
revenues of $24.5 billion in 2005.

According to the lawsuit, "The defendant's reduction of staffing
of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the
revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its
markets."

Mr. Williamson filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mrs. Spires, whose
husband, Joseph, died at Wesley on April 22, 2004.  However, he
is also seeking to include millions of patients at the Company's
other hospitals since 1996.

The suit is styled, "Spires v. Hospital Corporation of America,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum
with referral to Judge James P. O'Hara.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. and Uzo L. Ohaebosim
of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N. Main, 1400 Epic
Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400, Fax: 316-261-
5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Fla. Court Gives Approval to ADA Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida gave
approval to the settlement of a nationwide Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) class action against HealthSouth Corp.,
styled, "Michael Yelapi, et al. v. St. Petersburg Surgery
Center, et al., Case No. 8:01-CV-787-T-17EAJ."

On April 19, 2001 a nationwide class action was filed, alleging
violations of ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181, et seq. and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 U.S.C. Section 792 et seq. (the
Rehabilitation Act) at the Company's facilities.

The complaint alleges violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation
Act for the purported failure to remove barriers and provide
accessibility to the Company's facilities, including reception
and admitting areas, signage, restrooms, phones, paths of
access, elevators, treatment and changing rooms, parking, and
door hardware.

As a result of these alleged violations, the plaintiffs are
seeking an injunction ordering that the Company make necessary
modifications to achieve compliance with the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act, as well as attorneys' fees.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs that provides for inspection of its facilities and
requires it to correct any deficiencies under the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act.  The court approved the settlement agreement
on December 29, 2005.

The suit is styled, "Access Now, Inc., et al. v. St. Petersburg
Surgery Center, et al., Case No. 8:01-cv-00787-EAK-EAJ," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich.  Representing the
plaintiffs Access Now, Inc. are Bruce D. Fischman, Fischman,
Harvey & Dutton, PA, 3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 600, Miami, FL
33137, Phone: 305/576-5522, Fax: 305/576-7079, E-mail:
bruce@fhdlaw.com; and Kip P. Roth, Law Office of Kip Roth, P.A.,
601 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 210, Tampa, FL 33602, phone: 813/221-
8383 or Fax: 813/2241-8363, E-mail: roth@frlawgroup.com.

Representing the Company is Miguel Manuel de la O, de la O &
Marko, 3001 S.W. 3rd Ave., Miami, FL 33129, Phone: 305/285-2000,
Fax: 305/285-5555, E-mail: delao@delao-marko.com.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Reaches Deal for Ala. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corp. reached a global, preliminary settlement with
the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action,
styled, "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
Consolidation File No. CV-03-BE-1500-S," (the Consolidated
Securities Action).

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama consolidated a number of separate securities
lawsuits filed against the Company.

The Consolidated Securities Action included two prior
consolidated cases namely: "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities
Litigation, CV-98-J-2634-S" and "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002
Securities Litigation, Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S,"
as well as six lawsuits filed in 2003.

Including the cases previously consolidated, the Consolidated
Securities Action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the Consolidated Securities Action into two
subclasses:

     (1) Complaints based on purchases of our common stock were
         grouped under the caption, "In re HealthSouth Corp.
         Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-
         1501-S," (the Stockholder Securities Action), which was
         further divided into complaints based on purchases of
         our common stock in the open market (grouped under the
         caption, "In re HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder
         Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S" and
         claims based on the receipt of the Company's common
         stock in mergers (grouped under the caption,
         "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case No. CV-98-
         2777-S)."  Although the plaintiffs in the HealthSouth
         Merger Cases have separate counsel and have filed
         separate claims, the HealthSouth Merger Cases are
         otherwise consolidated with the Stockholder Securities
         Action for all purposes.

     (2) Complaints based on purchases of our debt securities
         were grouped under the caption, "In re HealthSouth
         Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-
         03-BE-1502-S," (the Bondholder Securities Action).

On January 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The complaint names the Company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that we misrepresented or failed to disclose certain
         material facts concerning our business and financial
         condition and the impact of the Balanced Budget Act of
         1997 on our operations in order to artificially inflate
         the price of the Company's common stock,

    (ii) that from January 14, 2002 through August 27, 2002, the
         Company misrepresented or failed to disclose certain
         material facts concerning our business and financial
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on the
         Company's operations in order to artificially inflate
         the price of its common stock, and that some of the
         individual defendants sold shares of such stock during
         the purported class period, and

     (3) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former
         senior officers and accounting personnel to materially
         inflate the Company's earnings to match Wall Street
         analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of
         HealthSouth and other members of a self-described
         "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which
         the Company's earnings could be inflated and that some
         of the individual defendants sold shares of the common
         stock during the purported class period.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and claims
under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934 Act.

On February 22, 2006, the Company reached a global, preliminary
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Securities Action, the Bondholder Securities Action, and the
derivative litigation, as well as with the Company's insurance
carriers, to settle claims filed in those actions against the
Company and many of its former directors and officers.

Under the proposed settlement, claims brought against the
settling defendants will be settled for consideration consisting
of the Company's common stock and warrants valued at
approximately $215 million and cash payments by our insurance
carriers of $230 million.

In addition, the Company agreed to give the class 25% of the
Company's net recovery from any future judgments won by the
Company or on its behalf against Richard M. Scrushy, the
Company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ernst &
Young LLP, the Company's former auditor, and certain affiliates
of UBS Group, the Company's former lead investment banker, none
of whom are included in the settlement.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including the successful negotiation of definitive documentation
and final court approval.  The proposed settlement does not
include Richard Scrushy or any director or officer who has
agreed to plead guilty or otherwise been convicted in connection
with the Company's former financial reporting activities.

There can be no assurances that a final settlement agreement can
be reached or that the proposed settlement will receive the
required court approval.

The suit is styled, "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master Consolidation File No. CV-03-BE-1500-S,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Richard Bemporad of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
Selinger, One North Lexington Avenue, Floor 11, White Plains, NY
10601-1714, Phone: 1-914-997-0500, E-mail: rbemporad@ldbs.com;
and Max W. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP,
1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 1-212-
554-1400, Fax: 1-212-554-1444, E-mail: mwb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, W. Michael Atchison of Starnes
& Atchison, LLP, P.O. Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512,
Phone: 868-6000, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com; and Patrick J.
Ballard of Ballard Law Office, 2214 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100,
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 321-9600, Fax: 323-9805, E-mail:
pjballard@ballardlawoffice.com.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Settles Consolidated ERISA Fraud Suit in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corp. entered in to a settlement agreement on March
6, 2006 to resolve claims in a consolidated class action styled,
"In re HealthSouth Corp. ERISA Litigation, Consolidated Case No.
CV-03-BE-1700-S," (the ERISA Action).

In 2003, six lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama against the Company and some of
its current and former officers and directors alleging breaches
of fiduciary duties in connection with the administration of the
Company's Employee Stock Benefit Plan (the ESOP).

These lawsuits were later consolidated.  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on December 19, 2003 that alleges,
generally, that fiduciaries to the ESOP breached their duties to
loyally and prudently manage and administer the ESOP and its
assets in violation of sections 404 and 405 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001
et seq. (ERISA), by failing to monitor the administration of the
ESOP, failing to diversify the portfolio held by the ESOP, and
failing to provide other fiduciaries with material information
about the ESOP.

The plaintiffs seek actual damages including losses suffered by
the plan, imposition of a constructive trust, equitable and
injunctive relief against further alleged violations of ERISA,
costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(g), and attorneys'
fees.

They also seek damages related to losses under the plan as a
result of alleged imprudent investment of plan assets,
restoration of any profits made by the defendants through use of
plan assets, and restoration of profits that the plan would have
made if the defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary
obligations.

Pursuant to an Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement entered
into on March 6, 2006, all parties have agreed to a global
settlement of the claims in the ERISA Action.

Under the terms of this settlement, Michael Martin, a former
chief financial officer of the Company, will contribute $350,000
to resolve claims against him, Richard Scrushy, former chief
executive officer of the Company, and the Company's insurance
carriers, will contribute $3.5 million to resolve claims against
him, and HealthSouth and its insurance carriers will contribute
$25 million to settle claims against all remaining defendants,
including HealthSouth.

In addition, if the Company recovers any or all of the judgment
against Mr. Scrushy for the restitution of incentive bonuses
paid to him during 1996 through 2002, it will contribute the
first $1 million recovered to the class in the ERISA Action.

There can be no assurance that the settlement will be approved
by an independent fiduciary appointed to review the settlement
on behalf of the ESOP or that the settlement will receive the
required court approval.

The suit is styled, "In re HealthSouth Corp. ERISA Litigation,
Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1700-S," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge
Karon O. Bowdre.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Derek W.
Loeser of Keller Rohrback, LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 206-224-1498, Fax: 206-623-3384,
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com; and Richard R. Rosenthal of
Law Offices of Richard R. Rosenthal, P.C., 200 Title Building,
300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd., North, Birmingham, AL 35203,
Phone: 252-1146, Fax: 252-4907, E-mail:
rosenthallaw@bellsouth.net.

Representing the defendants are, Arthur W. Leach of 4371 Quail
Ridge Way, Norcross, GA 30092, Phone: 404-786-6443, E-mail:
art@arthurwleach.com; and Leslie V. Moore of Moore & Associates,
LLC, 4000 Eagle Point Corporate Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242,
Phone: 314-5709, E-mail: les.moore@mooreandassociatesllc.com.


H&R BLOCK: Reaches $39M Deal in Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff class representative Lynne A. Carnegie reached an
agreement with H&R Block Inc. and Beneficial National Bank that
would settle a 1998 Chicago class action related to refund
anticipation loans (RALs).

The proposed $39 million settlement, which would be paid equally
by Beneficial National Bank and H&R Block, was filed April 19 in
an action that has been pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under the caption "Carnegie v.
Household International, Inc., et al."

The proposed settlement would cover refund anticipation loans
that had been funded by Beneficial National Bank and offered
through an H&R Block office from April 8, 1994 through Dec. 31,
1996.  Overall, the proposed nationwide settlement would make
available cash payments to approximately 1.7 million class
members who made approximately 2 million individual RAL
transactions.

The proposed settlement makes at least $30 million cash
available to the class.  Class members who submit valid timely
claims will receive a cash payment for each RAL.  The amount per
RAL will depend on the number of claims to be paid.  The
remainder of the settlement fund would be used to reimburse
plaintiffs' counsel for the costs of the litigation and pay
their fees, and also cover costs associated with mailing and
publishing the class notice and administering the settlement.

The proposed settlement is subject to the review and approval of
U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo.  If Judge Bucklo grants
preliminary approval of the settlement, then the parties
anticipate that notices will be mailed to class members within
45 days thereafter.

Class members would have the right to exclude themselves from
the settlement, subject to certain limitations, or to object to
its terms at a fairness hearing that would be held later in
2006.

The suit was filed April 8, 1998.  According to an Oct. 12, 2005
Class Action Reporter story, plaintiffs in the RAL Cases
alleged, among other things:

     (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were
         inadequate, misleading and untimely;

     (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and
         unconscionable;

     (3) that the Company did not disclose that it would receive
         part of the finance charges paid by the customer for
         such loans;

     (4) that Company breached state laws on credit service
         organizations;

     (5) that the Company committed a breach of contract, unjust
         enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and
         violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
         Act; and

     (6) that the Company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty
         to its customers in connection with the RAL program.


ILLINOIS: Insurers Agree to $92M Settlement in "Total Loss" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several American insurance companies recently agreed to a $92
million settlement for a class action pending in Madison County
Circuit Court involving the amount policyholders were paid for
wrecked cars, The Belleville News Democrat reports.

The settlement, which approved by Associate Circuit Judge Ralph
Mendelsohn on December 20, 2005, stipulates that motorists who
accepted payouts on "total loss" crashes would qualify for up to
$132.  It will also require the defendants to pay notice and
administration fees and other costs associated with the
settlement, (Class Action Reporter, January 5, 2006).

The suit alleged the insurance companies used a computer system
to routinely pay below-market claims when vehicles were declared
total losses.  The Lakin Law Firm in Wood River and Freed &
Weiss LLC in Chicago, both of which will receive about $16
million in legal fees, filed the class action.

Lakin attorney Richard Burke told The Belleville News Democrat,
"Potentially, approximately 3 million people may be eligible to
file a claim, with some of those people receiving up to $132
above the amount the insurance Company paid on a total loss
claim."

Those eligible to make a claim are policyholders who received a
payment for a total-loss vehicle claim between Jan. 28, 1989,
and July 18, 2005, and whose vehicle value was calculated by CCC
Information Services Inc.  The total amount the insurance
companies will pay to policyholders depends on the number of
people making claims.


ILLINOIS: Judge Grants Class Certification to Protesters' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall granted class action status
for a lawsuit brought by a group of anti-war demonstrators
against the city of Chicago over arrests at a 2003 march to
oppose the start of the Iraq war, The Chicago Tribune reports.

By virtue of the judge's order, about 800 demonstrators are
entitled to sue as a group.  Commenting on Judge Kendall's
ruling, Melinda Power, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, told
The Chicago Tribune, "Implicit in that decision ... is a concern
that what the police did to everybody was wrong.  We would like
the city to seriously try to make amends."

In their suit, plaintiffs want the city to change its policies
on how it handles demonstrations.  They would also like
compensation, Ms. Power told The Chicago Tribune.

On March 20, 2003, shortly after the Iraq war approximately
10,000 demonstrators flooded the plaza near the city's federal
courthouse.  The protesters then marched to Lake Shore Drive,
blocking traffic on an artery running up the lakefront.

At the time, witnesses recounted that police tried to contain
the crowd.  However, demonstrators repeatedly broke through
their ranks and marched on, only to be stopped again as horse-
mounted officers and others in riot gear headed them off.

Police actually blocked protesters and bystanders into an area
on Chicago Avenue between Michigan Avenue and inner Lake Shore
Drive and held them in that area for hours before arresting them
en masse.  Those arrested were charged with reckless conduct,
but all the charges later were dropped.

Demonstrators claimed that police had given their permission for
the march.  Later though they would abruptly rescinded it and
began arresting demonstrators.

Despite going against them, Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for
the city's Law Department, described the ruling as "a small
setback."  She told The Chicago Tribune, "It makes it a more
complex case.  But we still think that the city has a strong
case in this matter."


MERCK & CO: Tenn. Woman Files Lawsuit Over Fosamax Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
A 76-year-old Tennessee woman is suing Merck & Co., claiming
that its osteoporosis drug Fosamax resulted in a side effect she
never imagined, according to WATE.com.

Gwendolyn Wolfe though her attorney, John Threadgill filed a
lawsuit seeking class action in Tennessee, claiming Fosamax has
injured countless patients around America.  The suit also claims
the Company knew about the problems but failed to report them.

Medical reports recently emerged linking long-term use of the
Fosamax, the Company's second-best-selling drug, to a condition,
which causes patients' jawbones to rot and die.  That disease is
known as osteonecrosis (ONJ).

The drug is alleged to have caused Ms. Wolfe to develop ONJ.
Mr. Threadgill told WATE.com, "A substantial portion of her
jawbone had to be removed and Dr. Carlson did that in surgery.
She's still having significant pain and will for the rest of her
life."

According to Mr. Threadgill, "We also say that their initial
testing was flawed, that they didn't have the right personnel
involved in the medical testing, didn't do the right test to
determine if this risk was apparent, and it's something that
they should have known."

Mr. Threadgill expects a court decision on his request for class
action certification by early next year.

In the meantime, several more individual cases are expected to
be filed against the Company, which is already facing a flood of
lawsuits over its drug Vioxx, and possibly even more class
action requests.

For more details, contact John O. Threadgill of Threadgill Law
Firm, P.C., 4823 Old Kingston Pike, Suite 120, P.O. Box 10606,
Knoxville, TN 37939-0606, Phone: (865) 675-1500, Fax: (865) 675-
1567.


MICROSOFT CORP: Indirect Software Buyers' Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed claims made
against Microsoft Corp. by a group of people who owned Microsoft
software but did not buy the product directly from the Company,
reports say.

The suit, seeking certification as national class action, was
filed in Baltimore in 2000.  It alleged the Company overcharged
consumers for PC software bought in the 1990s.  It had hoped to
collect as much as $10 billion.

The Appeals Court ruling affirms a decision by Maryland District
Court Judge Frederick Motz two years ago, which provided that
people who bought Microsoft software from computer makers and
retailers may not recover alleged overcharges by Microsoft.  The
suit is styled Kloth v. Microsoft.

In 2000, the Company faced a flurry of lawsuits alleging the
Company used 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).

A ruling denying certification of certain proposed classes of
U.S. direct purchasers is currently on appeal.  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).

One of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs is Christopher
Lovell, P.C. of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10110 (New York Co.), Phone: 212-608-1900,
Fax: 212-719-4677, On the Net: http://www.lshllp.com.

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.


MISSOURI STATE: Faces Title IX Violations Lawsuit in W.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four women's tennis players initiated a purported class action
against Missouri State University, alleging that by cutting
their program as part of a reduction in university athletics,
the university is violating Title IX, the federal law that
prohibits sex discrimination in institutions that receive
federal funds.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri under the caption, "Manzur, et al. v. Missouri State
University, et al."  The named plaintiffs in the suit are
Eleonora Kuruc, Maja Stanojevic, Monika Musilova, and Paty
Manzur.

Back in December, Missouri State decided to drop five of its 21
sports programs at the end of the school year in an effort to
reduce athletics costs.  Essentially, it claimed that that the
programs were growing faster than the University budget as a
whole.  The programs that were cut included men's indoor and
outdoor track, men's cross country and men's and women's tennis.

Plaintiffs are asking the federal court to order the University
to reinstate the women's tennis program.  They also seek a
temporary injunction to immediately reinstate the team while the
larger question of whether the university has broken the law is
decided.

Additionally, the suit, filed on April 11, 2006, alleges that
state's second-largest university has a history of failing to
comply with Title IX.  It seeks to represent all current and
future women tennis players.

University legal counsel John Black though vehemently denies
that claim.  He told The Associated Press, "The University has
complied, is complying and will continue to comply with Title
IX."

Under Title IX, Missouri State must meet at least one of three
requirements:

     (1) The participation rate of women must be "substantially
         proportionate" to the undergraduate enrollment rate;

     (2) the program must show a "history of continuing practice
         of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive
         to the developing interest and abilities" of women; and

     (3) the program must "fully and effectively" accommodate
         women's interests and abilities.

"We believe that they are in violation of all three," said
Anthony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU of Eastern
Missouri.

The suit is styled, "Manzur, et al. v. Missouri State
University, et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-03160-RED," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under
Judge Richard E. Dorr.  Representing the plaintiffs is Anthony
E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern MO, 4557
Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63108, US, Phone: (314) 361-3635,
Fax: (314) 361-3135, E-mail: tony@aclu-em.org.


MTR GAMING: Continues to Face Lawsuit in W.Va. Over Sale to TBR
---------------------------------------------------------------
MTR Gaming Group, Inc., is a defendant purported class actions
in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia in
relation to the alleged sale of the Company to TBR Acquisition
Group TBR Acquisition Group, LLC (TBR).  The suits are styled:

     (1) "Sherwin Seiden, Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc.,
         Edson R. Arneault, Robert A. Blatt, Donald J. Duffy,
         James V. Stanton, LC Greenwood and Richard Delatore,
         Civil Action No. 05-C-266M," and

     (2) "Patricia L. Williams, Individually and On Behalf of
         All Others Similarly Situated v. MTR Gaming Group,
         Inc., Edson R. Arneault, Robert A. Blatt, Donald J.
         Duffy, James V. Stanton, LC Greenwood and Richard
         Deltore, Civil Action No. 05-C-267 G."

On December 14, 2005, Sherwin Seiden, a Company stockholder
filed his suit as an individual and as a class action against
the Company and the members of its Board of Directors alleging
that the defendants were unlawfully attempting to complete the
sale of the Company to TBR at a grossly inadequate and unfair
price in breach of the director defendants' fiduciary duties to
MTR's shareholders.

On December 15, 2005, Patricia L. Williams, a Company
stockholder filed her suit as an individual and as a class
action against the Company and the members its Board of
Directors, alleging substantially the same facts and seeking
substantially the same relief as described with respect to the
Seiden action described above.

Edson R. Arneault, MTR CEO, President and Chairman of its Board
of Directors, and Robert A. Blatt, MTR Executive Vice President
and a member of its Board, controls TBR.

The actions seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with
or completing the proposal sale, and if the sale is completed,
the action seeks its rescission and the award of recessionary
damages to the class.

The Company believes these claims are moot because the Special
Committee of its Board has rejected the TBR proposal and no
other purchase proposal has been made.


POINT BLANK: Reaches $45M Settlement in Bullet-Proof Vests Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and Protective Apparel Corporation
of America, Inc. (PACA) reached a nationwide settlement on
behalf of purchasers of bullet resistant vests containing
Zylon(R).

The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Broward County,
Florida issued a Final Approval Order granting a product recall
and replacement valued at over $45,000,000.00.  The settlement
provides that all purchasers and owners of Point Blank, PACA and
Galls brand vests containing Zylon(R) are entitled to receive
new non-Zylon(R) replacement vests and other benefits, at no
cost.  In addition, the defendants must conduct substantial
testing of their used body armor and make their testing data,
protocols and other information available to consumers.

"We are encouraged that law enforcement agencies will now have
better equipment to protect themselves in the line of duty,"
said Pitts Carr, Lead Class Counsel.  "It is our strong hope
that any brand of vest containing Zylon(R), be replaced with a
quality non-Zylon(R) vest."

The named plaintiffs for the class included the Southern States
Police Benevolent Association and members of the Ohio Troopers
Coalition.

All the vests involved contain the product Zylon(C) and were
sold under the trade names Fusion, Legacy, Galls ZL1, Galls
ZL2, Galls ZL3, The Beast, RTZ, ZG, and ZPG (Class Action
Reporter, March 8, 2006).

The U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), released scientific data in August of 2005 showing that
vests containing Zylon(C) were prone to failures, particularly
when exposed to heat and moisture.  Consequently, the NIJ
decertified all vests containing Zylon(C) material.

                     Claims Filing Deadline

Under the terms of the settlement, agencies and officers who
purchased the questioned vests may either obtain a replacement
vest at no cost or may receive vouchers that can be used to
obtain other police equipment.  Claims need to be submitted by
June 30, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).

                        Case Background

Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Inc. filed the
suit on August 29,2005, alleging that the test results released
by the NIJ demonstrated that all of Defendants' Zylon-containing
vests fail to comply with their certifications and warranties.
Southern States brought causes of action for breach of warranty
on label in vest, breach of warranty in warranty statement,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and for injunctive
relief (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2005).

On 19, 2005, Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses
denying that Defendants are in breach of any warranty and
denying that injunctive relief is proper.  On October 20, 2005,
the Court entered a Consent Order Certifying Class Action.  The
certified classes include all law enforcement personnel and
organizations, and other individuals, who purchased new
ballistic resistant soft body armor containing Zylon from the
Defendants, except for federal agencies and any persons who have
been physically injured as a result of defects in their vests.

For more information, visit http://www.zylonvestexchange.comor
call 1-866-778-1150.


SAMSON RESOURCES: Wyo. Court Refuses Review of "Scott" Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wyoming Supreme Court denied Samson Resources Company's
request for a review of the District Court of Sweetwater County,
Wyoming's decisions in the class action, styled "Robert W.
Scott, Individually and as Managing Member of R.W. Scott
Investments, LLC v. Samson Resources Company, Case No. C-01-
385."

The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
the Company deducted from its payments to royalty and overriding
royalty owners certain charges, which were improper under the
Wyoming royalty payment statutes.

A number of these royalty and overriding royalty payments
burdened the interests of the Geodyne Energy Income Limited
Partnership II-C and Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership
II-D (II-C and II-D Partnerships).

In February 2003, the Company made a supplemental payment to the
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners who were
potential class members of amounts, which were then thought to
have been improperly deducted, plus statutory interest thereon.

The applicable portions of these payments, $2,548.31 and
$26,768.96, respectively, were recouped from the II-C and II-D
Partnerships in the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit also
alleges that Company's check stubs did not fully comply with the
Wyoming Royalty Payment Act.

On May 13, 2005 the trial court certified this lawsuit as a
class action and denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment.  On June 25, 2005 the Wyoming Supreme Court denied the
Company's request for it to review these decisions.


SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Suit Over Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action filed in connection with Schick
Technologies, Inc.'s proposed merger with Sirona Dental Systems
has been voluntarily dismissed.

The dismissal is without prejudice, with each party bearing its
own costs, and without any payment, or promise of payment, being
made to the plaintiff or his attorneys.  The Court granted the
Notice and Order of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on
April 13, 2006.

The suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2005.
It named the Company, its directors, Sirona Holdings, Sirona
Holdings S.A., Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, and related
parties, as Defendants.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the terms of the
contemplated transaction are unfair to the Company's public
shareholders and that the members of the Board of Directors
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing
to maximize shareholder value in a sale of control of the
Company, and that they have effectively made an acquisition of
the Company untenable for any third party other than Sirona.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, class action
certification, a preliminary and permanent injunction against
consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission should the
transaction be consummated, compensatory damages to the class,
and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Schick Technologies, Inc., -- http://www.schicktech.com--  
(Nasdaq: SCHK) an ISO 9001 certified Company, designs, develops
and manufactures innovative digital radiographic imaging systems
and devices for the dental and medical markets.  The Company's
products, which are based on proprietary digital imaging
technologies, create instant high-resolution radiographs and
offer significant advantages over conventional x-ray devices.


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Nixes Appeal for Calif. Glass Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of the purported class
action against Southwall Technologies, Inc., styled, "WASCO
Products, Inc. v. Southwall Technologies, Inc. and Bostik, Inc.,
Civil Action No. C 02 2926 SBA."

The Company was named as a defendant, along with Bostik, Inc. in
the action, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 18, 2002.

The Company was served with the Complaint in this matter on July
1, 2002.  The plaintiff filed the matter as a class action on
behalf of all entities and individuals in the U.S. who
manufactured and/or sold and warranted the service life of
insulated glass units manufactured between 1989 and 1999, which
contained Southwall Heat Mirror film and were sealed with a
specific type of sealant manufactured by Bostik, Inc.

The suit alleged that the sealant provided by Bostik, Inc. was
defective, resulting in elevated warranty replacement claims and
costs.

It also asserted claims against the Company for breach of an
implied warranty of fitness, misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, negligence, negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage, breach of contract, unfair business
practices and false or misleading business practices.

Plaintiff sought recovery on behalf of the class of $100 million
for damages allegedly resulting from elevated warranty
replacement claims, restitution, injunctive relief, and non-
specific compensation for lost profits.

By Order entered December 22, 2003, the Court dismissed all
claims against the Company.  The plaintiff has filed a notice of
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On January 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court decision.  On January 26, 2006, the plaintiff filed a
petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March of 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiff's petition.  Under reservation of rights, the
Company's insurance carriers are paying a percentage of the
defense costs.

The suit is styled, "Wasco Products, Inc. v. Southwall
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-02926-SBA," on
appeal form the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with referral to
Judge Wayne D. Brazil.  Representing the plaintiffs is T. Scott
Tate of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, One Montgomery
Street, Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94104-5501, Phone: 415-
364-6700, Fax: 415-364-6785, E-mail: state@schnader.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark S. Freeman of Choate Hall & Stewart, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-248-5000;

     (2) Jeffrey A. Leon of Leon & Leon, 2101 Webster Street,
         Suite 1570, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 208-6600,
         Fax: (510) 451-1010, E-mail: jleon@leonandleon.com;
         and

     (3) David R. Scheidemantle of Proskauer Rose, LLP, 2049
         Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-
         3206, Phone: 310/284-5686, E-mail:
         dscheidemantle@proskauer.com.


SUPER STEEL: Minority Workers Launch Discrimination Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nine current and former African-American employees of Super
Steel Schenectady Inc. initiated a class action against the
their employer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York to redress the racial discrimination and
harassment that they claim is deeply embedded in the Company's
culture and work climate.

Plaintiffs in the matter are Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino
Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David
Chambers, Herion Murphy and Vincent Safford and a class of
current and former African American employees of the Company.
They are represented in the matter by David Sanford of Sanford,
Wittels & Heisler, LLP.

Mr. Sanford was asked by the New York Commission on Human Rights
and the NAACP to investigate a hate crime at the Company that
occurred late in 2005.  An employee of the Company vandalized an
African-American's locker, writing "Die Nigger Die" and "KKK"
inside the door of the locker, and placed a monkey on the coat
hook, its head torn off and its body ripped apart.  That
incident remains unsolved and continues to be investigated by
local police.

That hate crime was the latest in a string of incidents dating
back years.  A police officer investigating the drawing of a man
hanging by a noose in another Plaintiff's workstation commented
in his police report that Super Steel "had not yet come to an
understanding of the serious nature of the incident(s) and was
still under the assumption that they [Super Steel] would be able
to handle everything internally."

According to David Sanford, racial discrimination and hostility
permeate every aspect of the working day of the African-
Americans employed by the Company.  "A typical shift for
African-American employees requires avoiding the 'white' parts
of the break areas, using a restroom with graffiti that degrades
African-Americans with depictions of black men hung from nooses
and that expounds support for the KKK, and suffering under a
non-responsive Human Resources Department," he explains.

In the words of one plaintiff, "As a fifty-year old man, born
and raised in Mississippi, I have never experienced the kind of
racism that was at Super Steel."

Another plaintiff compared his arrival at the Company to that of
a slave being sold at market.  He described being treated as
though he had been "ordered up" from "some small farm" in
Mississippi, and being given orders as if he was a "boy" that
was "not supposed to know any better."  Still another plaintiff
was told that a "nigger whipping" would make him work faster,
and that he should be hung.

Each of the nine Plaintiffs' treatment at the hands of white
fellow employees, supervisors and Company management is
painstakingly discussed in the Complaint, including the racial
epithets and slurs and outrageous taunts black employees must
endure.

"Super Steel has repeatedly made decisions that create and
cultivate an atmosphere where its African American employees are
threatened, harassed, criticized and denied advancement," said
Mr. Sanford.  "All of the Plaintiffs who came to Schenectady
from the south have since returned home."  The Complaint also
documents the Company's ongoing efforts to minimize, ignore and
excuse the constant racial tension.

"It is nearly unthinkable that in this day and age African
Americans living in New York continue to encounter such blatant
discrimination and prejudice in the workplace," said Fred Clark,
Vice President of the Schenectady NAACP.  "The racially
motivated behavior of white employees and supervisors that the
black employees of Super Steel must endure to earn a living and
support their families is shameful and must come to an end.  We
applaud the courage these nine men have shown in stepping
forward and exposing the conditions to the light of day."

The nine named plaintiffs seek:

     (1) certification of their case as a class action under
         federal statutes;

     (2) their designation as representatives of the class and
         Mr. Sanford as counsel of record for the class;

     (3) declaratory judgments that Super Steel's employment
         practices are illegal and in violation of the Civil
         Rights Acts of 1866; and

     (4) temporary and permanent injunctions against Super
         Steel, which would bar Super Steel from engaging in
         further unlawful practices, policies and customs.

In addition, the plaintiffs are also requesting an order
requiring the Company to implement programs that effectively
remedy the hostile work environment and eliminate the
discriminatory and retaliatory practices currently in use; an
order establishing a workplace task force on equality and
fairness to monitor conditions at the Company; and damages,
including not less than $25 million dollars in compensatory
damages, not less than $150 million dollars in punitive damages,
and nominal damages.  The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial
in the matter.

The suit is styled, "Murphy, et al. v. Super Steel Schenectady,
Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH," filed in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of New York under Judge Gary
L. Sharpe with referral to Judge David R. Homer.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Steven L. Wittels of Sanford, Wittels Law
Firm, 18 Half Mile Road, Armonk, NY 10504, US, Phone: 914-273-
7314, Fax: 914-273-7314, E-mail: classaxe@optonline.net.


TOSHIBA OF CANADA: Owners of Notebook Computers File Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has been commenced on behalf of
Canadians who own Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Notebook Computers.
The claim seeks compensation as a result of alleged defects in
the Satellite Pro 6100 Computers.

The defendant named in the lawsuit is Toshiba of Canada Limited.
A similar action in the U.S. involving the Satellite Pro 6100
Computers against Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. was
recently settled.

The claim, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
alleges that Toshiba was negligent in the design of the
Satellite Pro 6100 Computers, and that Toshiba knew or ought to
have known of the inherent defects in the computers' design but
nevertheless sold, marketed and distributed the computers in
Canada.  As alleged in the claim, the fundamental problem with
the Satellite Pro 6100 Computers involves design defects that
make the computers unreasonably susceptible to premature
motherboard and video graphics array failures.

The failures involving the Satellite Pro 6100 Computers often
occur outside of the warranty period, and therefore, owners of
these computers have spent hundreds of dollars in replacing the
motherboard and/or hard drives at their own expense.  Further,
these owners are unable to use their computer for extended
periods of time because of the premature failures/unexpected
shutdowns.

"Many people rely on their notebook computers as a means of
earning a living and for educational purposes", said Joel P.
Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP.  "The objective of this
action is to deliver fair compensation to Canadian consumers who
own these defective computers."

Toshiba is one of Canada's leading manufacturers of computers
and computer products.  Toshiba began to design and manufacture
the Satellite Pro 6100 in 2002 as a line of portable computer
notebooks.

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiff and the prospective class members are
represented by Rochon Genova LLP (http://www.rochongenova.com/).


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Increases Reserves to US$99.2Mil in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. took an extra US$15.0 million pre-tax
charge in the third quarter to increase its asbestos liability
reserves, which now total US$99.2 million, according to a
Company press release.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company took a pre-tax
charge of US$15.0 million to increase its asbestos liability
reserves, which now total US$101.2 million. (Class Action
Reporter, January 13, 2006)

The charge for this third quarter matches a similar charge taken
a year ago. On a year-to-date basis, RPM has taken US$45.0
million in pre-tax charges to increase asbestos liability
reserves, compared with US$62.0 million in the first nine months
of fiscal 2005.

Before tax asbestos-related payments were US$17.1 million in the
third quarter, bringing total payments for the first nine months
of fiscal 2006 to US$47.0 million, which compares favorably to
US$56.3 million paid during the first nine months of fiscal
2005.

During the quarter, RPM retained a third-party consultant to
assist in a review of its potential liability for future,
unasserted asbestos claims and expects to complete this
evaluation in the coming months.

"While asbestos remains a challenge, we are pleased with our
year over year progress in managing this issue, which has
resulted in reduced settlement costs, increased dismissal rates,
and lower total costs on an annual basis.

"Our defense strategy, coupled with the benefit of an improving
legal environment at the state level and greater scrutiny of the
abuses inherent in this litigation at several levels, should
continue to favorably impact our annual costs," said President
and CEO Frank C. Sullivan.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. operates more than
70 factories worldwide. The Company is divided into two units:
industrial (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Reaches $575M Deal With Equitas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co. reaches an agreement with reinsurance firm
Equitas to enable the energy services firm to receive US$575
million in its claim against Lloyds of London, Money News
reports.

The deal settles claims made against Lloyds, an Equitas client,
over asbestos-related compensation claims.

Halliburton had estimated US$4 billion as its total asbestos
liability, noting that the Company expects insurers to cover
about half of the cost. The Company's settlement is subject to
the approval of related bankruptcy plans.

The first payment will be made at the same time as DII and other
Halliburton affiliates pay asbestos claimants as part of
Halliburton's global asbestos settlement. Halliburton reported
earnings of US$61 million on revenue of US$14.15 billion.

In a joint statement, Halliburton and Equitas said their
settlement resolves all asbestos-related claims made against
Lloyd's underwriters by Halliburton and its affiliates and
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 592 Pending Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group LLC, a White Mountains Insurance Group
Ltd. subsidiary, notes that 592 policyholders had asbestos-
related claims against it at December 31, 2005, according to
White Mountains' 2005 annual report.

In 2005, 128 new insureds with such peripheral involvement
presented asbestos claims under prior OneBeacon policies.

OneBeacon's reserves include provisions made for claims that
assert damages from A&E related exposures, in which a large
portion of its A&E losses resulted from the operations of the
Employers Group, an entity acquired by one of the legacy
companies in 1971.

Since the 1990s, OneBeacon has experienced an influx of claims
from commercial insureds, including many non-Fortune 500-sized
accounts written during the 1970s and 1980s named in asbestos
suits.

As manufacturers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products
have gone into bankruptcy, plaintiffs have sought recoveries
from peripheral defendants, such as installers, transporters or
sellers of such products, or from owners of premises on which
the exposure to asbestos allegedly occurred.

Headquartered in Hanover, New Hampshire, White Mountains
Insurance Group Ltd. provides insurance products and services
through its three main divisions: OneBeacon Insurance
(specialty, commercial, and personal property & casualty), White
Mountains Re (reinsurance and advisory services; subsidiaries
include Sirius International and Folksamerica), and Esurance
(personal auto).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Folksamerica Holds 1,339 Suits at Year-End
---------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd. divulges that its
subsidiary Folksamerica Holding Co., which does business as
White Mountains Re, had about 1,339 open claim files for
asbestos and 750 claim files for environmental exposures as of
December 31, 2005, according to White Mountains' 2005 annual
report.

In 2005, White Mountains Re completed an asbestos study on all
reported Folksamerica insureds that had over US$250,000 of
asbestos claims as well as a significant sample of all other
insureds with reported asbestos claims of less than US$250,000.

Folksamerica continues to have some asbestos exposure from its
acquisitions of MONY Re and Christiania Re. The Company
increased its asbestos reserves by US$50 million in the 2005-3rd
quarter.

During the year ended December 31, 2005, White Mountains
experienced US$161.1 million of unfavorable development on prior
accident year loss reserves, of which about US$95.0 million was
experienced at OneBeacon and White Mountains Re experienced
about US$51.8 million.

The adverse development at OneBeacon is due to higher than
anticipated defense costs and higher damages from liability
assessments in general liability and multiple peril reserves in
OneBeacon's run-off operations.

Headquartered in Hanover, New Hampshire, White Mountains
Insurance Group Ltd. provides insurance products and services
through its three main divisions: OneBeacon Insurance
(specialty, commercial, and personal property & casualty), White
Mountains Re (reinsurance and advisory services; subsidiaries
include Sirius International and Folksamerica), and Esurance
(personal auto).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kansas City Southern Provides for Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
For the first time, Kansas City Southern includes reserves for
occupational illness including asbestos-related claims, in its
liability charges, according to the Company's 10-K Securities
and Exchange Commission report.

During the third quarter, the Company initiated a new
comprehensive actuarial study of all of its casualty reserves.
Based on that study, the reserves for Federal Employers'
Liability Act, third-party, and occupational illness claims were
increased, resulting in a charge to third quarter operating
income of US$37.8 million.

The charge reflects the impact of higher settlements for major
FELA and third-party claims and significant increases in the
frequency of these claims in 2004 and 2005.


COMPANY PROFILE
Kansas City Southern
427 W. 12th St.
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: 816-983-1303
Fax: 816-983-1108
http://www.kcsi.com

Description:
Kansas City Southern, through subsidiary Kansas City Southern
Railway, owns and operates about 3,100 miles of track in the
mid-western and southern US. KCSR transports freight such as
forest products and metals, chemical and petroleum products, and
agricultural and mineral products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Carries US$1,554M for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation, as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
carries about US$1,554 million and US$1,686 million of claim and
claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance
recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company carried about US$1,579
million of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, November 4, 2005)

The Company recorded US$10 million, US$54 million and US$642
million of unfavorable asbestos-related net claim and claim
adjustment expense reserve development for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.

The 2004 unfavorable net prior year development was mainly
related to a loss from the commutation of reinsurance treaties
with The Trenwick Group. The Company paid asbestos-related
claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, of US$142 million, US$135
million and US$121 million for the years ended December 31,
2005, 2004 and 2003.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp. provides
commercial coverage, with such offerings as workers'
compensation, general and professional liability, and other
products for businesses and institutions. Holding Company Loews
owns 91% of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Fends Off 164,800 Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of December 30, 2005, contends with open
asbestos-related cases involving about 164,800 claimants,
according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.

Of those claimants, the Company has determined that its
subsidiaries are respondents in about 105,200 open
administrative claims and are named defendants in suits with
about 59,600 plaintiffs.

Some of the Company's US subsidiaries co-defend against suits
and administrative claims pending in the US. Plaintiffs claim
damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure
to or use of asbestos in connection with the work allegedly
performed by the Company's subsidiaries during and before the
1970s.

In all cases, requests for monetary damages are asserted against
multiple named defendants, typically ranging from 25 to 250, in
a single complaint.

On February 13, 2001, litigation was commenced against certain
of the Company's domestic subsidiaries by certain insurers
seeking to recover from other insurers amounts previously paid
by them and to adjudicate their rights and responsibilities
under the subsidiaries' insurance policies.

As of December 30, 2005, the Company estimated the value of its
asbestos insurance asset contested by its subsidiaries' insurers
in ongoing litigation as US$115 million. The litigation relates
to the proper allocation of the coverage liability among the
Company's subsidiaries' various insurers and its subsidiaries as
self-insurers.

As of December 30, 2005, the Company noted assets at an
aggregate of US$320 million, which represents the Company's best
estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating to
its domestic liability for pending and estimated future asbestos
claims through year-end 2020.

Headquartered in Clinton, New Jersey, Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds
business process and power generating facilities. The Company
operates through two business groups. It also builds, owns, and
leases cogeneration and independent power projects. Europe
accounts for just over half of sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's UK Units Face 306 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the UK contended that out
of the 747 claims received to date, 306 remained open at
December 30, 2005, according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company noted that of 699 received
claims, 276 remained open. (Class Action Reporter, November 25,
2005)

The Company expects these subsidiaries to be named as defendants
in similar suits and claims brought in the future. To date,
insurance policies have provided coverage for substantially all
of the costs incurred in connection with resolving asbestos
claims in the UK.

As of December 30, 2005, the Company had recorded total
liabilities of US$26,200,000 comprised of an estimated liability
relating to open (outstanding) claims of US$3,100,000 and an
estimated liability relating to future unasserted claims of
US$23,100,000.

Of the total, US$1,000,000 is recorded in accrued expenses and
US$25,200,000 is recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
consolidated balance sheet.

The liability and asset estimates are based on a recent UK court
of appeal ruling that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.

Should this ruling change, the asbestos liability and asset
recorded in the UK would be about US$66,200,000.

Headquartered in Clinton, New Jersey, Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds
business process and power generating facilities. The Company
operates through two business groups. It also builds, owns, and
leases cogeneration and independent power projects. Europe
accounts for just over half of sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Posts $1.3Bil for T&N Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation, as of December 31, 2005, recorded a
US$1.3 billion liability for the Company's UK subsidiary T&N
Ltd. and two other US subsidiaries, according the Company's 10-K
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

T&N Ltd. and the two US subsidiaries are among many defendants
named in numerous court actions in the U.S. alleging personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products.

T&N is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser
extent, in the UK and France. As of October 1, 2001, T&N was a
defendant in about 115,000 pending personal injury claims.

The two US subsidiaries were defendants in about 199,000 pending
personal injury claims.

In 1996, T&N (formerly T&N, plc) purchased for itself and its
then defined global subsidiaries a GBP500 million layer of
insurance which will be triggered should the aggregate costs of
claims made or brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure
occurred prior to that date, exceed GBP690 million.

During 2000, the Company concluded that the aggregate cost of
the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger
point and recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N
policy of US$577 million. As of December 31, 2005, the recorded
insurance recoverable was US$615 million.

Based in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corporation makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Its
products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing
systems sold under brand names such as Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and
Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Notes $213.6M for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation, as of December 31, 2005, recorded an
aggregate liability of US$213.6 million for Abex and Wagner
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's 10-K
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

As of December 31, 2005, Abex liabilities amount to US$129.5
million while Wagner liabilities amount to US84.1 million.

Abex and Wagner, two of the Company's businesses which where
formerly owned by Cooper Industries Inc., are defendants in
numerous court actions in the US alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. These
claims mainly involve vehicle safety and performance products.

As of October 1, 2001, Abex and Wagner were defendants in about
66,000 and 33,000 pending claims, respectively. The Company
includes as a pending claim open served claims, settled but not
documented claims and settled but not paid claims.

The Company's liability with respect to claims alleging exposure
to Wagner products arises from the 1998 stock purchase from
Cooper Industries of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner
Electric Co., in which the purchased entity is now a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company and one of the Debtors in the
Restructuring Proceedings.

The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging
exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability
entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose
stock the Company purchased in 1998.

Under that contract and before the Restructuring Proceedings,
the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for
certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an
entity known as Pneumo Abex Corp., the successor in interest to
Abex Corp.

Effective as of October 1, 2001, the Company ceased making such
payments and is currently considering whether to accept or
reject the 1994 contractual liability. Pending asbestos
litigation of Abex and Wagner is stayed.

Based in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corporation makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Its
products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing
systems sold under brand names such as Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and
Signal-Stat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Subsidiaries' Cases Increase to 10,175
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several RPM International Inc. subsidiaries, mainly Bondex
International Inc., defend against 10,175 active asbestos-
related cases as of February 28, 2006, according to the
Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

While the lawsuits are filed in various state courts, most of
the current claims are pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio,
Mississippi, Texas, and Florida.

These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company's
subsidiaries.

As of February 28, 2005, Company subsidiaries faced a total of
8,259 cases.

Such subsidiaries defended against 9,501 active asbestos-related
bodily injury lawsuits as of November 30, 2005, which
represented an increase of claims as compared to 7,523 cases as
of November 30, 2004. (Class Action Reporter, January 13, 2006)

For the quarter ended February 28, 2006, Company subsidiaries
secured dismissals or settlements of 213 claims and made total
payments of US$17.0 million, which included defense costs paid
during the current quarter of US$6.9 million.

For the comparable period ended February 28, 2005, dismissals or
settlements covered 206 claims and total payments were US$21.9
million, which included defense costs paid during the quarter of
US$2.7 million.

In some jurisdictions, cases may involve more than one
individual claimant. As a result, settlement or dismissal
statistics on a per case basis are not necessarily reflective of
the payment amounts on a per claimant basis and the amounts and
rates can vary widely depending on a variety of factors
including the mix of malignancy and non-malignancy claims and
the amount of defense costs incurred during the period.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home
repair products. The Company is divided into two units:
industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks
and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints,
patch and repair products, and hobby paints).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc.'s Injury Cases Increase to 155
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. confronted 155 pending asbestos-related cases at
February 28, 2006, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

As of August 31, 2004, the Company faced 49 pending asbestos-
related cases. (Class Action Reporter, November 12, 2004)

From time to time, the Company has been named a defendant in
suits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products or in manufacturing
operations.

Most of the suits had been filed in Madison County, Illinois and
San Francisco, California. Since 1998, more than 175 of these
suits have been resolved with the majority being dismissed.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the
first quarter of fiscal 2006 was US$0.2 million. Legal and
administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal 2005 and
fiscal 2004 were US$0.5 million and US$1.0 million,
respectively.

Headquartered in Rancho Cordova, California, GenCorp Inc.,
through its main subsidiary Aerojet-General, manufactures
missile propulsion technologies for defense and space systems.
Lockheed Martin accounts for about 40% of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants USG Corp. Disclosure Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judith Fitzgerald of the US Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania approves USG Corporation's
disclosure statement and plan voting procedures, according to a
Company press release.

The approval paves the way for the Company to begin soliciting
votes from asbestos personal injury claimants for its plan of
reorganization.

USG filed the disclosure statement and plan of reorganization in
connection with its plan to emerge from Chapter 11 later this
year. The official committee representing asbestos personal
injury claimants supports the plan and the court-appointed
representative for future asbestos personal injury claimants, as
well as the official committees representing unsecured creditors
and stockholders.

On January 30, 2006, USG announced an agreement to resolve the
asbestos personal injury claims in its Chapter 11 reorganization
case.

Under the agreement, USG would establish and fund a personal
injury trust to pay asbestos personal injury claims. USG's bank
lenders, bondholders and trade suppliers would be paid in full,
with interest. Stockholders would retain their shares in the
Company.

The terms of the agreement are contained in the plan of
reorganization and disclosure statement. After voting on the
plan, the plan will require approval by both the Bankruptcy
Court and the District Court that oversees the cases.

Under the court's order, voting on the plan runs until June 2,
2006 and any objections to the plan must be filed by May 26,
2006. Confirmation hearings are scheduled for June 15 and 16,
2006, in Pittsburgh.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, USG Corp. and its
subsidiaries manufacture and market gypsum wallboard, joint
compound and related gypsum products, cement board, gypsum fiber
panels, and ceiling panels and grid.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Responds to Exide Technologies Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Edwards, Esq., at Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, P.C., in
Memphis, Tennessee, stated that Charlotte E. Eoff's husband,
Homer C. Eoff, III, was exposed to asbestos-containing products
in the scope and course of his employment as a battery builder
for Exide Technologies.

Mr. Eoff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos fibers, on August 20, 2003. Mr. Eoff died
in March 2004.

"Under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, as interpreted by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, and under Tennessee workers
compensation law, a manifest injury is a necessary requirement
of an asbestos-related tort action," Mr. Edwards explained.

Before his diagnosis of mesothelioma, Mr. Eoff was not aware
that he has been injured due to the asbestos he was exposed to,
and did not have a claim or a cause of action against Exide and
the Debtors. He did not have a claim until his mesothelioma
manifested, which was subsequent to both the General Bar Date
and the Contaminant Bar Date established in the Debtors' Chapter
11 cases.

Alternatively, Mr. Eoff could not have been given effective
notice to file claims against the Debtors before his injuries
manifested.

Mr. Edwards notes that the order confirming the Joint Plan of
Reorganization filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors and the Debtors did not include a provision for the
compensation of "future" contaminant claimants, even though the
bankruptcy proceedings could significantly impact the remedies
of future claimants against the Debtors.

Mr. Edwards tells Judge Kevin J. Carey that Ms. Eoff's due
process rights will be violated if her claims are deemed
discharged in bankruptcy, or if her State Court Action is deemed
enjoined due to any of the injunctive provisions contained in
the Debtors' Plan.

Moreover, the General Bar Date Order issued by the Court in the
Debtors' cases specifically excluded Contaminant Claims, while
the Contaminant-Related Personal Injury Proof of Claim Form
specifically excluded claims for workers' compensation benefits.

If Mr. Eoff did actually have a "claim" prior to the relevant
bar dates, and did actually receive notice of the General Bar
Date and the Contaminant Bar Date, the language contained in
both proof of claim forms specifically excluded his type of
claim, and he could not have reasonably been expected to know
how to pursue his claim in the reorganization proceedings, Mr.
Edwards asserted.

For these reasons, Ms. Eoff asked the Court to dismiss Exide's
complaint with prejudice.

Under Rule 7001(6) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, Ms. Eoff asks the Court to declare that:

(1) She did not have a claim during the Debtors' reorganization
proceedings, and that the General Claims Injunction, the
Contaminant Claims Injunction, and the Confirmation Injunction
are not applicable to her; and

(2) She is allowed to continue the prosecution of her claim for
workers' compensation benefits in the State Court.

Alternatively, Ms. Eoff asks Judge Carey to declare that:

(1) Her workers' compensation claim was not discharged in
bankruptcy;

(2) The notices of the Debtors' proceedings and the acCompanying
bar dates were not sufficient to put Mr. Eoff, a future
claimant, on notice that he might have a claim; and

(3) Even if Mr. Eoff received adequate notice regarding the
proceedings and bar dates, he still would not be able to pursue
his claim, since the Contaminant-Related Proof of Injury Claim
Form excluded claims for relief under workers' compensation law.

(Exide Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 83; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Train Crews Abandon Action v. RailCorp
---------------------------------------------------------------
Train crews in New South Wales in Australia cancel their
threatened industrial action to RailCorp, Sydney's weekend
services, in which the crews had intended to refuse to operate
500 of the older, S-fleet carriages because of the presence of
asbestos, ABC NewsOnline reports.

RailCorp assured the drivers that an evaluation determined the
carriages safe for rail staff and passengers.

Nick Lewocki from the Rail Union says the drivers have taken the
assurance in good faith, and will work as normal on the weekend.

"We'll accept that advice on face value and we will be talking
with the experts early next week to make sure that what's been
told to us is correct and the safety of our members and the
public is protected," Mr. Lewocki said.

The Rail Corporation New South Wales, or RailCorp, is a state
owned firm that operates as a passenger rail network throughout
NSW.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family to Sue Cape Asbestos for Kin's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of the late Jean Gill plans to sue Cape Asbestos for
her death due to asbestos exposure, in which the family claims
that Mrs. Gill was exposed to the carcinogen as a youngster
playing in a Hebden Bridge schoolyard near a Company factory,
Halifax Today reports.

However, Mrs. Gill's family could receive nothing as she was
exposed in the years before the owners knew of asbestos' full
threat.

The family's lawyer, Ryan O'Hara of John Pickering and Partners,
said, "I find cases like this particularly saddening. Cases such
as this are particularly difficult to prove."

Giant extractor fans from the Company's Acre Mill factory nearby
the schoolyard were pumping out deadly asbestos dust. The mill
has been responsible for dozens of deaths. The firm produced
filters for gas masks during World War Two, as well as
insulation.

More than 2,200 people worked in the factory at its height. But
years later the workers and their families were falling ill and
dying from asbestos-related diseases. The mill shut in 1970.

Mrs. Gill did not know she was ill until 2004. She was shocked
to discover she had been poisoned during innocent playground
games at Old Town Primary School.

Doctors suspected a thyroid problem and then blamed ovarian
cancer. They eventually discovered that she was dying from
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. The disease can take root
after just one month's exposure to the deadly material.

Mrs. Gill died at the age of 70 in January this year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tests Found No Hazard in Canadian Complexes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tests showed no traces of airborne asbestos at two Sydney public
housing complexes where a contractor discovered the substance in
an attic in one of the buildings, CBC News reports.

Sydney is a community and a former city located in Nova Scotia,
Canada.

As part of the testing, a consultant opened the attic in a
vacant unit and disturbed the insulation. After monitoring the
air for eight hours, he found no trace of asbestos in the air.
Tests on two other units yielded the same results.

Cape Breton Island Regional Housing Authority officials will
confer with tenants to discuss the test results.

More testing will be done over the next 10 days. As a
precaution, the Housing Authority will seal off the attic
hatches in all units and make them airtight.

The Department of Environment and Labor ordered work to stop on
the units over fears workers may have been exposed to dangerous
asbestos. It issued the order after workers complained about
asbestos in the buildings on Rose Terrace.

Gordie Gosse, a Nova Scotian Member of the Legislative Assembly,
had said the workers were told they were exposed to actinolite,
a dangerous form of asbestos, while drilling into the attics in
some of the housing units.

Mr. Gosse had said the Housing Authority has known about the
asbestos since last October but made no effort to inform the
tenants.

Once widely used in construction as insulation, asbestos has
been linked to cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Orders Building Tests in Canadian Town
----------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Health and Safety orders the town of Labrador City
in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador to do an
asbestos assessment and management plan on every building it
owns, The Aurora reports.

In a council meeting, town engineer Jeff Boland explained that
Occupational Health and Safety has directed the town to hire an
independent, qualified contractor to check town buildings for
asbestos. He explained All-Tech Environmental Services, a firm
with offices in Atlantic Canada, would be conducting the
assessment within the next two weeks.

Mr. Boland said an asbestos assessment has to be done to ensure
the town knows where all asbestos traces are located, so if the
town does any maintenance work on the asbestos areas, it will
have to follow a strict action plan.

According to Mr. Boland, the work, along with the management
plan, will cost the town a little more than $28,000 and the
assessment could take up to three weeks to complete.

Mr. Boland said that while asbestos is present in a number of
older buildings and while it is safe on a day-to-day basis, if
it is disturbed it can cause serious respiratory problems.

"It's a requirement under Occupational Health and Safety
Regulations that every employer is supposed to have asbestos
assessments of all its properties to determine how much asbestos
exists and where it exists," Mr. Boland said. "Along with the
assessment we also have to do a management plan that lays out
the proper procedure if the asbestos has to be disturbed."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCOR Raises Risk Reserves by EUR13M in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOR increased its reserves for asbestos-related risks by EUR13
million in 2005 and reduced its reserves for environmental risks
by EUR15 million after commutations based on old risks in
Europe, according to the Company's 6-K Securities and Exchange
Commission report.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company believes it has adequate
reserves to meet its commitments for environment and asbestos-
related risks, representing about 11 years of payments.

The Company reports that, as of December 31, 2005, the number of
asbestos-related claims notified under non-proportional and
facultative treaties was at 7,961 with the average cost per
claim at EUR14,689.

Like other reinsurance companies, the Company is exposed to
environmental and asbestos-related risks, particularly in the
US. Insurers are required under their contracts with the Company
to notify it of any claims or potential claims that they are
aware of.

However, the Company often receives notices from insurers of
potential claims related to environmental and asbestos risks
that are imprecise, as the primary insurer may not have fully
evaluated the risk at the time it notifies the Company of the
claim.

Due to the imprecise nature of these claims, the uncertainty
surrounding the extent of coverage under insurance policies and
whether or not particular claims are subject to an aggregate
limit, the number of occurrences involved in particular claims
and new theories of insured and insurer liability.

Like other reinsurers, the Company can only give a very relative
estimate of its potential exposure to environmental and asbestos
claims that may or may not have been reported.

Headquartered in La Defense, France, SCOR provides treaty and
facultative reinsurance through offices worldwide, each of which
specializes in the needs of a specific industry segment and the
local language. Most of SCOR's business comes from Europe and
North America and is divided into two distinct business
segments: Non Life and Life/Accident & Health.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Int'l. Corp. Claimants Drop to 2,642
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation, as of March 5, 2005, defends
against asbestos-related cases involving 2,642 claimants,
compared to 8,906 claimants as of November 20, 2005, according
to the Company's 10-Q SEC filing.

For the quarter ended March 5, 2006, there were four new
claimants, dismissals or settlements involving 6,268 claimants,
and no judgments.

The Company did not incur any net costs and expenses during the
quarter ended March 5, 2006 in connection with asbestos-related
claims.

As of August 28, 2005, the Company was a defendant in asbestos-
related cases involving 9,855 claimants, compared to 10,378
claimants as of May 29, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, September
30, 2005)

These asbestos cases against the Company generally seek
unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company and others.

Based in Pasadena, California, Ameron International Corp. makes
steel pipe, fiberglass-composite pipe, and reinforced concrete
pipe for a variety of industrial uses, including chemical and
petrochemical processing, water transmission, and sewage
collection.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Town Seals Contaminated Landfill
---------------------------------------------------------
The council of the Bega Valley Shire in New South Wales,
Australia completes the sealing procedures on a Merimbula town
landfill road after the discovery of asbestos cement pieces,
Bega District News reports.

David Basil, the council's waste services manager, said the
asbestos cement was discovered when the road was graded late in
2005.

Mr. Basil said it appeared the asbestos cement was contained in
dumped concrete, which was used to form a road base. He said the
affected area, some 500 meters long, contained only 19 small
pieces of asbestos.

Mr. Basil said the public was banned from the old Pambula
landfill, so waste such as asbestos could be disposed of in an
environment that would not pose a public risk.

"We make every effort to keep landfills asbestos-free, but the
public also plays a critical role in ensuring the welfare of
others when it comes to disposing of contaminated waste," Mr.
Basil said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MA Judge Allows Courthouse Repairs to Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Judicial Court Justice John M. Greaney denied a request
for a temporary restraining order filed by Middlesex District
Attorney Martha Coakley and other officials to curb courthouse
construction that could disturb the building's asbestos, the
Associated Press reports.

Justice Greaney's ruling came hours after Middlesex Superior
Court Judge Bonnie McCleod rejected the order. However, she did
not rule on the merits of the suit.

Chris Milne, an attorney for the Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse
employees, said it was likely the case would go before the full
SJC. He had appealed the earlier decision immediately to the
SJC, and Justice Greaney heard arguments before ruling.

In a sworn statement, Ms. Coakley wrote that Chief Justice
Robert Mulligan said he would not schedule renovations to the
Courthouse until about 300 people who work in the building, as
well as 350 detainees at the jail, were moved elsewhere.

The moves are scheduled for the summer of 2007, but Ms. Coakley
said she had learned that Justice Mulligan had authorized
replacing cables in the elevator shafts.

Ms. Coakley also said that officials had learned that asbestos
removal from the building had already started. She also alleged
that people who work in the building already have a higher risk
of cancer because of exposure to asbestos fireproofing, and the
elevator work will only increase it.

A lawyer for people who work in the building said the repair
work could dislodge cancer-causing asbestos.

The 22-story building, built in 1969, houses Middlesex Superior
Court, Cambridge District Court, the district attorney's offices
and the jail.

In 2004, an occupational health specialist found potentially
hazardous asbestos in numerous locations after an inspection of
the building.

In January 2005, the Massachusetts trial attorneys association
voted to sue the state to force the relocation of judges, court
workers and detainees before renovations. No suit was filed,
however.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard to Complicate JPN Airport Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos within the abandoned Naha Airport in Okinawa, Japan
could complicate the structure's demolition process, JapanUpdate
reports.

Once remediation is complete, the building will be torn down and
the land returned to the Government. A budget of JPY1 billion
has been allocated to three firms, including the local Oshiro
Group.

The first demolition phase is for a specialized firm to remove
the asbestos. Workers clad in special security clothing and
protective masks will strip out the asbestos by the end of 2006.

The old building was replaced by a modern, three-story terminal
building a kilometer away on the Naha International Airport
grounds.

The old terminal served as the focal point for Okinawa's tourism
business for decades, bringing countless thousands of visitors
to Okinawa.

Asbestos, an insulating material that used to be common in
building construction, fills the building's walls, floors and
ceilings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Donates US$250,000 to Benefit Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. presents a check for US$250,000 to St. John's
Lutheran Hospital in Libby, Montana. This is Grace's eighth
donation to the hospital in keeping with its pledge to ensure
that the community has resources to help Libby residents
diagnosed with asbestos-related illness.

In 2000, Grace promised to provide St. John's with funding to
help it meet the needs of those in the Libby community with an
asbestos-related condition. To date, the Company has contributed
more than US$1.9 million to St. John's to support its work on
this issue.

Bill Patten, Chief Executive Officer at St. John's Lutheran
Hospital, said the funds are used to provide care and services
for patients with Asbestos-Related Disease.

"We use the funds to provide the state-of-the-art equipment
needed to screen, treat and care for Libby's residents," said
Mr. Patten.  "It's an unusual gift that helps our hospital keep
pace with fast-changing medical technology."

In addition to the hospital donations, Grace created a medical
expense program for current and former residents of Libby who
have asbestos-related conditions. The Libby Medical Program,
which has over 900 enrollees, is still taking applications. More
information about this program can be found at
http://www.libbymedicalprogram.com

W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products and
services to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of
plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a
wide-range of industrial applications; specialty chemicals,
additives and materials for commercial and residential
construction; and can sealants and coatings for food packaging.
For more information, visit Grace's Web site at
http://www.grace.com

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 105; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indirect Exposure Claims Increase in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canada deals with an increase of asbestos-related claims filed
by "bystanders," individuals who never worked with asbestos yet
are at risk of its illnesses, globeandmail.com reports.

They are falling ill now because they were exposed during the
1960s and 1970s, which were Canada's peak years of asbestos use,
as children and spouses of asbestos workers. Because certain
cancers have a decades-long latency period, the bystanders are
only now starting to be seen in significant numbers.

Inadequate financial compensation is being offered to bystanders
despite their greater losses. Although not exposed in workplaces
as employees, they are not eligible for redress under workers
compensation plans. Union efforts to include them have failed.

Their only choice is to sue the defunct firms responsible for
their exposure. However, there are so many other victims that
the settlements are typically less than CAD1,000 for each year
of lost life.

Jim Brophy, executive director of an occupational health clinic
in Sarnia, Ontario, contends that Canada is one of the few
developed countries that has no national registry of workers
with asbestos-related illnesses, which include mesothelioma,
lung cancer, and asbestosis.

There are bystander cases likely in Quebec, where asbestos has
been mined and statistics have shown higher than expected rates
of cancer in women, and in British Columbia and Alberta, where
the material was used in industries ranging from petrochemicals
to shipping.

In British Columbia, about 600 people were diagnosed with
mesothelioma from 1990 to 2003, but fewer than half received
workers' compensation. Medical researchers believe the vast
majority of those cancers stem from asbestos.

Dr. Paul Demers, an associate professor at the University of
British Columbia's school of occupational hygiene, said
bystanders might be in the uncompensated group.

Tight asbestos controls were not implemented until the early
1980s, so the bystander toll is expected to rise, perhaps for
another decade, before peaking.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota To Offer Payout to Amagasaki Locals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation, while not admitting full responsibility,
will provide a compensation program for residents who contracted
asbestos-related diseases while living near the Company's
Amagasaki factory.

The program, with amounts banking on the victim's age and family
structure, will provide "relief" money ranging from JPY25
million to JPY46 million to residents who developed asbestos-
related diseases or their bereaved families.

Officials said the Company would start the program by paying a
total of more than JPY3.2 billion to 88 people.

The announcement follows an agreement between Kubota and a group
representing asbestos victims. It means that residents will be
able to receive the same level of payments as employees of
Kubota who have suffered the same plight from working with
carcinogen.

Residents covered in the program are those people living or have
lived within a 1-kilometer radius of the factory, or those who
worked at offices or attended schools in that area, for a year
or more between 1954 and 1995, which was the period when the
plant used asbestos.

Kubota, citing the Company's "moral responsibility," has paid
JPY2 million to each affected resident in the area as condolence
money. However, it has paid up to JPY32 million to families of
employees who died of asbestos-related diseases in addition to
regular accident compensation insurance.

"The Company decided to introduce the compensation program out
of our corporate responsibility to ease the patients' and
others' financial and mental sufferings," Kubota executive
Toshihiro Fukuda said.

The Company's move to pay residents is quite rare because it
still has not confirmed a direct link between the diseases and
the Amagasaki plant, nor has a lawsuit been filed on the matter.

Headquartered in Osaka, Japan, Kubota Corp. makes tractors and
farm equipment such as rice transplanters and combine
harvesters. The Company was established in 1890.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Named in 2,600 Suits Since '01
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reunion Industries Inc. contends with about 2,600 separate
asbestos suits filed since January 1, 2001 by law firms in
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland, Alabama, and
West Virginia, according to the Company 10-K SEC report.

Since January 1, 2001, the Company faced about 2,400 asbestos-
related suits. (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2005)

The claims, which are filed against more than 100 defendants,
alleged that cranes from the Company's former crane
manufacturing location in Alliance, Ohio, were present in
various steel mills located in those states. Such cranes
allegedly contained asbestos to which plaintiffs were exposed
over a 40-year span.

Lawyers on behalf of the Company denied liability and asserted
all alternative defenses permitted under the various Courts'
Case Management Orders. Company counsel has successfully
resolved about 500 to 600 cases with no cost to the Company.

Since July 10, 2001, lawsuits, some involving multiple
plaintiffs, alleging personal injury or wrongful death from
asbestos exposure have been filed in several states, including
California, Oregon, Washington, New York and Mississippi,
against a large number of defendants, including Oneida Rostone
Corp., pre-merger Reunion's Plastics subsidiary and the
Company's Plastics segment.

In October 2001, Allen-Bradley Co., which is owned by Rockwell
Automation, a former owner of the Rostone business of ORC,
accepted Reunion Industries' tender of its defense and
indemnification in the first such suit filed. Allen-Bradley has
accepted and defended all 200 additional lawsuits that the
Company has tendered.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Reunion Industries Inc. makes
machined and fabricated industrial products such as fluid power
cylinders, gratings, and steel pressure vessels.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Court Junks 18 Out-of-State Claims v. 3M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Supreme Court dismisses the asbestos-related
claims of 18 out-of-state plaintiffs against 3M Co., the
Associated Press reports.

The Court stated a trial judge erred in ruling the cases would
be heard in Holmes County Circuit Court.

Presiding Justice Kay Cobb wrote, "Holmes County lacks the
required interest in the wholly out-of-state appellees' claims,
and it would be a waste of judicial resources if tried in
Mississippi."

Of the 18 out-of-state plaintiffs, 13 claimed exposure in
Illinois while others claimed exposure in Louisiana, Minnesota,
Missouri, Colorado and North Carolina.

Justice Cobb said if the plaintiffs were allowed to pursue their
claims in Mississippi, the trial judge would be forced to apply
not only Mississippi law, but also the laws of Colorado,
Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri and
Mississippi.

In 2000, more than 150 plaintiffs sued about 62 defendants in
Holmes County over asbestos exposure. Six of the plaintiffs were
to be tried jointly against the defendants against whom there
were claims. On Oct. 1, 2001, a jury awarded each plaintiff
US$25 million in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were
awarded.

The Mississippi Supreme Court threw out the jury award in 2005,
ruling that separate trials should have been conducted in each
case.

In a 19th case, Justice Cobb said Circuit Judge Jannie Lewis
must determine separately if that case can be heard in
Mississippi. Plaintiff Willie Kern claims exposure to asbestos
while working in Attala County and in Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Creditors Call For Committee Rejection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation urges the US Bankruptcy Court to reject the
formation of a committee to represent more than 50,000 holders
of asbestos-related personal injury claims, The Blade reports.

The Company's committee of unsecured creditors said the
Company's estimated asbestos claims are too low and the case is
too new for the Court to appoint an official panel to represent
the claim holders.

The creditors said creating a separate panel also would drain
the Company's resources. In bankruptcy, debtors pay the costs of
"official" committees, which have access to confidential
information.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp. manufactures automobile parts
including axles, brakes, and driveshafts, as well as engine,
filtration, fluid-system, sealing, and structural products. The
Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 3, 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. DuPont, Others Joined in WV Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Bradley and Donald McKown, both former employees of E.I.
du Pont de Nemours and Co. (which is doing business as DuPont
Washington Works), file joint asbestos-related lawsuits in
Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia, The West Virginia Record
reports.

The suit lists 87 defendants, including 13 from West Virginia.

Mr. Bradley, aged 69, worked as a carpenter for Du Pont and Mr.
McKown, aged 60, was a mechanic and supervisor. Both are
stricken with mesothelioma, a rare form of lung cancer allegedly
caused by asbestos exposure.

Mr. Bradley's wife, Shirley, and Mr. McKown's wife, Rebecca, are
suing for loss of consortium.

Charges are listed against sellers of asbestos, owners of sites
that contained asbestos, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. for an
alleged cover-up, Owens-Corning Corp. for developing the
asbestos product known as Kaylo, Pneumo Abex Corp. for
conspiracy and Du Pont.

West Virginia firms listed as defendants are: A&I Co., Columbia
Paint dba Columbia Paint Town, Cooper Industries, Flowserve US,
FMC, General Technologies, Harnischfeger Corp., Honeywell
International, Monongahela Power Co., Nitro Industrial
Coverings, National Services Industries, UB West Virginia, and
Vimasco Corp.

David Chervenick of Goldberg, Persky, and White in Pittsburgh,
PA represents Mr. Bradley and Mr. McKown.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Businessman Convicted for Exposing Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kung-Shou Ho, a Houston, Texas businessman, received a two-
month jail sentence and ordered to four months home detention
for subjecting immigrant workers to potentially high levels of
asbestos, chron.com reports.

The 53-year-old Mr. Ho was also ordered to pay a fine of
US$20,000. He was sentenced on one count of conspiracy to
violate asbestos regulations and one count of failure to notify
the government of his intent to strip the asbestos from the
building that formerly housed the Alief General Hospital, which
he purchased in 1997.

Mr. Ho was accused of permitting 10 or 11 Mexican farm workers
to strip the asbestos with neither training nor proper
protective clothing. He failed to tell the workers that they
were stripping asbestos and told them to keep working after a
city inspector ordered a halt to the work.

US District Judge Justin Quackenbush handed the decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Residents Seek Relocation After Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several families living in public housing complexes in Sydney in
Nova Scotia, Canada seek relocation until the Cape Breton
Regional Housing Authority removes asbestos-lined insulation
from their homes, The Chronicle Herald reports.

New Democratic Party MLA Dave Wilson said the Government should
consider moving residents for their peace of mind.

The NDP said a letter leaked to the party said the Housing
Authority's safety co-coordinator knew in October 2005 that
vermiculite insulation was found in some of the attics of the
public housing complexes.

Harold Dillon, a senior director with the Community Services
Department, said the deputy minister has asked two senior
members of the department to conduct an investigation.

Mr. Dillon said air-quality tests have found no asbestos in the
air. He said tests will be done on the insulation in the attics,
and once those results are known, a plan will be put in place.

Mr. Dillon said the department understands the insulation may
have been added to the homes during renovations by the local
housing authority in either 1979 or 1980.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victims to Name Japan Govt. in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In late May, Japan's central Government could face a class
action lawsuit to be filed by lawyers supporting asbestos
disease sufferers from Osaka Prefecture, The Daily Yomiuri
reports.

Headed by Akio Shibahara, the lawyer's group said eight people,
including asbestos sufferers and family members of deceased
asbestos sufferers in the area have joined the legal action as
plaintiffs.

Spinning and weaving industries that used asbestos once thrived
in the Osaka Prefecture cities of Sennan and Hannan. At their
peak in the 1960s and 1970s, more than 200 factories were
operating in the cities.

In November 2005, the group and several doctors conducted health
consultations in the cities and found more than 60 percent of 83
people suffered from asbestos-related diseases, such as
asbestosis.

The group decided in January to take legal action against the
government because it believes state relief measures are
inadequate. The government provides financial aid only to those
who suffer from mesothelioma and asbestos-caused lung cancers.

The group has helped asbestos sufferers to apply for financial
assistance from the Government under a new law that went into
effect in March and to claim workers compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aborigines to Begin 10 Test Cases v. Hardie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Baryulgil Aboriginal Community in New South
Wales, Australia will initiate 10 test cases against James
Hardie Industries NV seeking compensation for asbestos-related
physical and psychological injuries, The Australian reports.

The move follows a 60-year controversy, in which the community
was ravaged by asbestos after all its 200 members were exposed.

In 1984, a federal parliamentary select committee heard evidence
that Hardie knowingly exposed its Baryulgil workers to dangerous
levels of asbestos without adequate protection, and had not met
legal health requirements by 1976 when it sold the mine.

In 2004, Hardie quietly excluded the Baryulgil people from an
AUD1.5 billion asbestos compensation deal, and only included
them after The Australian revealed they would be the only
Australians left out.

The test cases will be the first seeking civil damages for non-
miners. Most of the 10 plaintiffs are miners' children who were
exposed to asbestos by playing at the mine, the school play pit
made out of asbestos tailings, or other sites around the town
filled with the deadly fiber.

The plaintiffs, now in the age range of 30 to 50 years old,
display the symptoms of disease after the incubation period of
30 to 40 years.

Apart from physical damage, the plaintiffs would seek payout for
the psychological trauma of seeing relatives in the close-knit
community die from asbestos disease, and the fear of contracting
such illnesses themselves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: One Claim v. Champion Parts Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Parts Inc. discloses that one asbestos-related case
against it remains open, less than 4% of the cases filed,
according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.

The Company revealed that only three asbestos-related cases
remain open, less than 10% of the cases filed. (Class Action
Reporter, April 22, 2005)

In 2004 and certain prior years, the Company defended against
suits for personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos-
containing products.

The Company put its insurance carriers on notice and its
attorneys have denied the allegations in the complaints. The
Company's insurance carriers have agreed to defend the Company
under a reservation of rights.

Headquartered in Hope, Arkansas, Champion Parts Inc.'s main
products are remanufactured replacement fuel systems, air
conditioning compressors, and constant velocity drive
assemblies. The Company also remanufactures replacement
electrical and mechanical parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experimental Removal Proposal Stirs Debate
---------------------------------------------------------------
An untried asbestos removal method to be used during the
demolition of World War II-era structures at Fort Chaffee,
Arkansas sparks public outcry and litigation in other cities,
Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

However, the US Environmental Protection Agency asserts that the
remote location will limit potential exposure and it insists
that ample safety precautions are in place.

In April, the EPA will supervise the demolition of the two
buildings and will compare the experimental method with
conventional techniques of asbestos removal.

Conventional removal methods call for pipes and other asbestos-
containing material to be sealed in plastic before a pressure
machine is used to prevent fibers from escaping. The
conventional method will be used in one of two buildings at Fort
Chaffee's abandoned hospital complex.

In the experimental method that will be used on another building
in the complex, water will be continuously sprayed on the
building as the demolition takes place. The water, which
contains a substance similar to dishwashing soap, is supposed to
keep fibers from being released into the air.

Critics, including the EPA's asbestos experts, have said that
once the asbestos dries, wind can stir up the fibers, exposing
people close to and far from the removal site.

In 2005, the Washington-based group Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice sued the city of St. Louis and its airport authority on
behalf of a citizens group to stop them from using the
experimental asbestos-removal method.

According to the published reports, the suit contends that the
city and the airport authority illegally tore down more than 300
buildings using the experimental method.

Jim Hecker, the Group's environmental enforcement director said
the agency is caving in to pressures to relax asbestos removal
standards, even as Congress debates legislation to provide
compensation for asbestos victims.

David Eppler, an EPA enforcement officer working on the Fort
Chaffee project, said the EPA picked a remote site that was not
near neighborhoods or schools so there was "no hint of any
risk."

Mr. Eppler further stated aside from their remote locale, the
buildings at Fort Chaffee were also chosen because they were
identical, which will make it easier to compare the two removal
methods.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Levels Detected in Kubota Site in '75
---------------------------------------------------------------
An epidemiology survey reveals that the asbestos concentration
within a few kilometers of Kubota Corporation's former Kanzaki
factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, exceeded the Government
standard of 10 asbestos fibers per liter of air in 1975, The
Daily Yomiuri reports.

Highly toxic blue asbestos was used at the factory from 1957 to
1975. Since 1973, researchers analyzed data, including wind
velocity and direction near the factory.

Professor Norio Kurumatani of Nara Medical University and Shinji
Kumagai, chief researcher of the Division of Life and Hygiene of
the Osaka Prefectural Institute of Public Health, conducted the
survey at the Kansai Occupational Safety and Health Center's
request.

In 1975, 120,000 residents out of 540,000 lived in the affected
area ranging about 1.5 kilometers north-northeast to more than
four kilometers south-southwest of the factory.

On report stated that one out of every 1,000 people could be
expected to develop cancer if they breathed air with an asbestos
concentration level equal to the maximum under the Air Pollution
Law over an 80-year period.

Mr. Kurumatani and Mr. Kumagai said the polluted area was wider
and had affected more residents than they had expected. They
also said people who lived in the area should be informed of the
risk and should be given medical care.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSR to Receive AUD103M Payout From Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSR Ltd. will receive an AUD103.3 million settlement from 48
insurers in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe, in
asbestos-related litigation spanning more than a decade, The Age
reports.

The Company will receive the amount before June 10 under the
settlement, which, after legal costs, will amount to AUD93
million to add to its profits.

In 1995, CSR launched the litigation in New Jersey to seek
indemnity, damages and relief to cover its liabilities for US
victims of the asbestos products it used to manufacture.

CSR claimed it was covered by the insurance policies it took out
decades ago. The insurance companies disagreed and refused to
pay up.

Chief executive Alec Brennan said CSR would continue the action
against parties yet to settle, including the Company's main
insurer ACE Insurance Ltd and its affiliates.

As of September 30, 2005, CSR had a provision of AUD315.8
million for future asbestos claims. At that time, it had
resolved 1,804 claims in Australia and about 129,000 claims in
the US, including resolution of about 103,000 claims in mass
settlements in West Virginia, Texas, Mississippi and Ohio.

CSR's name was associated with the West Australian town of
Wittenoom, which mined blue asbestos for the Company from the
1940s until the 1960s.

However, unlike James Hardie Industries NV, which has suffered a
major public campaign over its recent handling of asbestos
liabilities, CSR has managed to escape asbestos controversy in
recent years by continuing to pay out its liabilities as they
arise.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Locals Denounce Removal of Asbestos Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Families and campaigners in Norfolk, United Kingdom condemn the
withdrawal of the drug Alimta, which can prolong the lives of
asbestos exposure patients, Norwich Evening News reports.

The NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) said
Alimta, which has been licensed for use, was not cost effective.

The drug, together with Cisplatin, is the only treatment for
patients suffering from mesothelioma, a cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos fibers.

The news has angered Eileen Wharton whose husband, Brian
Wharton, is suffering from an asbestos-related illness.

Mr. Wharton, 66 years old, worked as an electrician with the
former Norwich Electrical in the 1950s and 1960s when he came
into contact with asbestos. Three years ago he was diagnosed
with pleural plaques, a benign scarring of the lung lining.

Solicitor Kim Daniels said, "Alimta has been used successfully
to delay the progress of mesothelioma for the past few months.
There has been a campaign to make sure it's available for
mesothelioma victims."

Some patients have been given Alimta since its launch 18 months
ago. However, many health authorities have banned it before a
decision by Nice.

An 18-week course of treatment costs the NHS GBP8,000, and the
annual cost to treat all UK patients would be GBP4 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Courthouse Closes Due to High Hazard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Monterey County Courthouse in Salinas, California closes due
to high overnight asbestos readings, the Monterey Herald
reports.

Court safety officer Bob Kennedy said the decision was made to
"err on the side of safety" and close the entire building after
"slightly elevated" levels of the carcinogen were detected in
the building's basement and first floor.

Monterey County has been forced to close the building on
numerous occasions while the north wing is being renovated.
Crews are adding several courtrooms and removing asbestos.

All operations in the wing, which holds seven of the facility's
10 courtrooms, stopped. Clerks sat at tables outside updating
the public on the status of cases.

Dozens of hearings were either relocated to other courtrooms or,
in most of the cases, rescheduled for another date.

A known carcinogen, asbestos was commonly used for fireproofing
when the building was built in the 1930s.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Confirms Known Hazard at MA Work Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts State Department of Environmental spokesman said
that test results from the DEP confirmed the presence of
asbestos at a site owned by Margot Xarras, a developer's wife,
SentinelandEnterprise.com reports.

DEP spokesman Edmund Coletta said, "There were three samples
that we had taken. All three tested positive for asbestos in the
30 to 35-percent range."

The DEP took samples of transite pipe found at the site on Lock
Drive. Mr. Coletta explained that 30 to 35 percent is a normal
amount of asbestos to find in transite.

James Xarras, Mrs. Xarras' husband, hired an asbestos removal
contractor, who began removing the transite from the site, Mr.
Coletta said.

Mr. Coletta added that they partially filled about 42 bags of
debris and took the bags away.

In an interview, Planning Board Chairman John Souza said the
material is not dangerous, unless it is crushed up and gets
airborne.

Michael D. Piermarini, the chairman of the city's Conservation
Commission, learned of the test results from the DEP. He
originally contacted the DEP, after he spotted what he thought
was asbestos at the site.

The DEP has ordered Mr. Xarras to perform a total of 54 tests
and procedures to check for other issues with the land, such as
whether there has been any solid waste buried there, according
to Mr. Coletta.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Moves to Grant AIG Settlement Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
AIG Member Companies issued certain insurance policies insuring
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation. These policies are at
issue in a products coverage action and a premises coverage
action KACC instituted against certain insurers in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco in 2000.

The insurance coverage at issue in the Products Coverage Action
spans the period from 1959 to 1985 and involves more than 300
insurance policies. In the Products Coverage Action, KACC seeks
a declaratory judgment that the Insurers are obligated to cover
the asbestos-related bodily injury products liability claims
that have been asserted against KACC. The Products Coverage
Action also seeks damages for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against several of
the Insurers. If successful, the Products Coverage Action would
establish KACC's rights, and the Insurers obligations, with
respect to the Asbestos Products Claims and would allow KACC to
recover its costs from the Insurers in connection with the
defense and settlement of the Asbestos Products Claims.

In general, a product claim is a claim for injury resulting from
a product KACC manufactured or sold, while a premises claim is a
claim for injury resulting from exposure to an allegedly
hazardous product or condition at a facility KACC owned and
operated.

The AIG Parties issued certain other policies, which are not at
issue in the Coverage Actions.

KACC and the AIG Parties have reached a settlement that resolves
all claims against the AIG Parties with respect to the Subject
Policies, including coverage for Channeled Personal Injury
Claims, as well as other present and future liabilities, and all
Tort Claims against the AIG Parties with respect to the Other
AIG Parties Policies.

The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

(a) The AIG Member Companies will pay 37.5% of trust expenses
and the liquidation values of Asbestos Personal Injury Claims
liquidated by the PI Asbestos Trust and Silica Personal Injury
Claims liquidated by the PI Silica Trust, subject to (i) certain
quarterly caps and associated rollover provisions, and (ii) an
aggregate cap of US$567,885,590. The AIG Member Companies will
pay the Settlement Amount to the Funding Vehicle Trust.

(b) The AIG Parties have specifically contracted to receive all
of the benefits of being designated as Settling Insurance
Companies in the Plan, including, but not limited to, the PI
Channeling Injunctions.

(c) KACC Parties agree to release all of their rights under the
Subject Policies and certain other rights under the Other AIG
Parties Policies and to dismiss each of the AIG Member Companies
from the Coverage Actions.

(d) The Settlement Agreement covers all claims that might be
covered by the Subject Policies. KACC will sell the Subject
Policies back to the AIG Member Companies, and the AIG Member
Companies will buy back the Subject Policies, free and clear of
all liens, claims or interests, with the AIG Member Companies'
payment of the Settlement Amount constituting the consideration
for the buy-back.

(e) If any claim is brought against any of the AIG Parties that
is subject to a PI Channeling Injunction, the Funding Vehicle
Trust will exercise its reasonable best efforts to establish
that those claims are enjoined as to the AIG Parties by the PI
Channeling Injunction.

(f) The AIG Parties will not seek reimbursement of any payments
that the AIG Member Companies are obligated to make under the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the AIG Settlement Agreement is available
for free at http://bankrupt.com/misc/kaiser_AIGsettlement.pdf

The effect of the Settlement Agreement is to:

(a) Eliminate KACC's continuing costs of prosecuting the
Coverage Actions against the AIG Member Companies;

(b) Eliminate uncertainty regarding future payments by the AIG
Member Companies; and

(c) Secure the payment over time of a substantial aggregate
amount from the AIG Member Companies without further delay and
cost to KACC.

Thus, the Debtors ask the Court to:

-- Approve the Settlement Agreement;

-- Authorize the sale of the Subject Policies to the AIG Member
Companies free and clear of liens, claims, interests and other
encumbrances; and

-- Enjoin all Claims against the AIG Parties relating to or
attributable to the Subject Policies, including, but not limited
to, any Claims in the nature or sounding in tort, contract,
warranty or any other theory of law, equity or admiralty.

(Kaiser Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 94; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser States Insurance Settlement Updates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel D. Maddox, vice president and controller of Kaiser
Aluminum Corporation, notes that the Company previously
disclosed that it had entered into certain conditional
settlement agreements with insurers under which the insurers
agreed (in aggregate) to pay about US$442,000,000 in respect of
substantially all coverage under certain policies having a
combined face value of about US$539,000,000.

The Company has obtained Bankruptcy Court approval in respect to
all those conditional agreements except for one agreement
pursuant to which certain insurers agreed (in aggregate) to pay
about US$67,000,000 in respect of substantially all coverage
under certain policies having a combined face value of about
US$80,000,000. Bankruptcy Court approval for this additional
conditional settlement is still pending, Mr. Maddox says.

Kaiser recently entered into another conditional insurance
settlement agreement with an insurer, subject to Bankruptcy
Court approval. Under this conditional settlement, the insurer
agreed to pay a stipulated percentage (37.5%) of the costs and
liquidation values of asbestos-related and silica-related
personal injury claims liquidated by the applicable trust that
will be set up under the Company's plan of reorganization. The
maximum total payable pursuant under the conditional settlement
agreement is US$567,900,000, which amount is the average
combined face value of the policies.

For the full-face amount of the policies to be collected, Mr.
Maddox relates that the total liability would have to exceed the
Average of US$1,115,000,000 liability amount reflected in the
Company's December 31, 2005 balance sheet.

According to Mr. Maddox, Kaiser continues to believe that
ultimate collection of the average US$965,000,000 of personal
injury-related insurance receivables in total is probable.

Additional policies with other insurers remain the subject of
ongoing coverage litigation and it is possible that there will
be additional settlements. The aggregate face value of the
policies still subject to ongoing coverage litigation is in
excess of US$300,000,000.

Mr. Maddox discloses that the Company has not provided any
accounting recognition for the conditional agreements in the
acCompanying financial statements given:

(1) The conditional nature of the settlements;

(2) The fact that, if the Kaiser Aluminum Amended Plan does not
become effective, the Company's interests with respect to the
insurance policies covered by the agreements are not impaired in
any way; and

(3) The Company believes that collection of the average
US$965,500,000 amount of Personal injury-related insurance
recovery receivable is probable even if the conditional
agreements are ultimately approved.

(Kaiser Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 94; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS ALERT: TX Court Dismisses Tort Claims v. Verizon Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed asbestos-related tort
claims against Verizon California Inc., in which Diana Douglas
filed the claims in behalf of her mother Carolyn Harton for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

The Panel, consisting of Justices Tim Taft, Laura Carter Higley,
and Jane Bland, heard Case No. 01-05-00707-CV on March 2, 2006.

In 2003, Ms. Douglas sued Verizon Communications Inc. alleging
tort claims related to Mrs. Harton's death from asbestos
exposure.

Mrs. Harton allegedly was exposed to "second-hand" asbestos from
her husband who worked for Verizon California. Ms. Douglas
further alleged that her mother was also exposed to the fiber by
doing her husband's laundry and riding in his car.

Verizon Communications Inc. responded with a special appearance,
which the trial court in Texas did not immediately consider.
Verizon Communications also responded with a motion to transfer
venue and an original answer. Verizon California filed a special
appearance and brief and also moved for a new trial.

On July 5, 2005, the trial court heard Verizon California's
special appearance, as well as its motion for new trial. The
court denied the special appearance but granted the new trial.
Ms. Douglas appealed.

The trial court erred in denying Verizon California's special
appearance.

The Court concluded that Verizon California did not generally
appear in the case by violating the due order of pleadings rule,
and the record does not satisfy the requirements of due process
and the Texas long-arm statute so as to confer personal
jurisdiction on the trial court.

Christine D. Roseveare, P. Michael Jung, Mark S. Scudder,
Strasburger & Price, LLP, Dallas, TX, represented Verizon
California Inc.

Joseph Michael Gourrier, Rola S. Hart, Lou Thompson Black, Brent
Coon & Associates, Houston, TX, represented Diana Douglas.


COMPANY PROFILE
Verizon Communications Inc.
140 West St.
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-395-2121
Fax: 212-869-3265
Toll Free: 800-621-9900
http://www.verizon.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$75,112.0
1-Year Sales Growth:              5.4%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$7,397.0
1-Year Net Income Growth:         (5.5%)
2004 Employees:                   210,000
1-Year Employee Growth:           3.4%

Description:
Verizon Communications Inc. operates as a telecommunications
services provider. Verizon California. Subsidiary Verizon
California, Inc. provides telecommunication services in
California, Nevada and Arizona.


ASBESTOS ALERT: HB Fuller Records US$0.6Mil for Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HB Fuller Co., as of March 4, 2006, records US$0.4 million for
probable liabilities and US$0.2 million for insurance recoveries
related to asbestos claims, according to the Company's 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The Company or its subsidiaries co-defend against multi-
plaintiff suits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
asbestos-containing products made by the Company more than 20
years ago.

In many cases, in which the Company is dismissed without
payment, plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by the Company or
its subsidiaries.

In 2005, the Company and a number of its insurers entered into a
cost-sharing agreement that provides for the allocation of
defense costs, settlements and judgments among the parties in
certain asbestos-related lawsuits.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to fund a share of
settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the
responsible insurer is insolvent. The cost-sharing agreement
applies only to the asbestos litigation involving the Company
that is not covered by the third-party indemnification
arrangements.

In 2004, the Company and a group of other defendants, including
the third party obligated to indemnify the Company against
certain asbestos-related claims, entered into negotiations with
a group of plaintiffs to settle certain asbestos-related suits.

During the third quarter of 2004, the Company agreed to
contribute about US$3.5 million towards the settlement to be
paid in these cases in exchange for a full release of claims by
the plaintiffs. Of this amount, the Company's insurers have
agreed to pay about US$1.2 million.

On December 1, 2005, US$3.1 million was paid out of this trust
under the settlement. As of March 4, 2006, the amount the
Company and its insurers have remaining to pay out of trust is
up to US$0.4 million. The Company's remaining portion of this is
up to US$0.3 million.


COMPANY PROFILE
H.B. Fuller Company
1200 Willow Lake Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55110-5101
Phone: 651-236-5900
Fax: 651-236-5165
Toll Free: 800-214-2523
http://www.hbfuller.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  November
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$1,512.2
1-Year Sales Growth:              7.3%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$61.6
1-Year Net Income Growth:         73.0%
2004 Employees:                   4,500
1-Year Employee Growth:           0.0%

Description:
H.B. Fuller Co., known for making adhesives, also makes
sealants, powder coatings for metals and liquid paints. Its
industrial and performance adhesives customers include firms in
the packaging, graphic arts, automotive, footwear, woodworking,
and non-woven textiles industries.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Arabian American Affiliate Settles 3 Texas Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian American Development Co.'s affiliate South Hampton
Resources Inc. settled three asbestos-related lawsuits filed
against it in Jefferson County, Texas, according to its 10-K SEC
report.

The first suit, which was filed on September 2001, alleged that
the plaintiff became ill from asbestos exposure while employed
by South Hampton from 1961 through 1975.

Due to the time period in which the claimant was allegedly
exposed, Arabian American was unable to locate insurance
coverage for this suit. The Company settled the suit with
structured payments completed in December of 2005.

The second Jefferson County suit, filed on May 29, 2003, alleged
that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products
while performing his duties as a welder, pipe fitter assistant,
laborer, floor hand and mud hand/derrick hand from 1950 through
1984.

Plaintiff claimed asbestos related disease, although a
pathologist did not confirm this. In his deposition, plaintiff
testified that he worked as a pipe fitter's assistant building a
plant for South Hampton in Vidor, Texas for about three months
in 1979. The suit was dropped with no settlement payment made.

Filed on June 6, 2002, the third Jefferson County suit alleged
that the plaintiff, while working on South Hampton's premises,
seriously injured his shoulder. The Greenwich Insurance Co.
accepted coverage, and this matter was settled with the
plaintiff in early 2005.


COMPANY PROFILE
Arabian American Development Co.
10830 N. Central Expwy., Ste. 175
Dallas, TX 75231
Phone: 214-692-7872
Fax: 214-692-7874

Description:
Arabian American Development Co. derives most of its income as
an independent refiner of specialty petrochemicals in Texas and
Mexico. The Company operates two refineries that primarily
produce high-octane gasoline blendstocks, heavy aromatic oils,
and solvents.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Const. Firms, Others Charged for Handling Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Construction firms Nova Partners Inc. and Skanska USA Building
Inc. and their project managers supervising the renovation of
the Monterey County Courthouse in Salinas, California face
charges for releasing asbestos into the building's HVAC system,
Herald Salinas Bureau reports.

A grand jury indicted the two Companies and their project
managers, Seth Henderson and Anthony Jones, charging eight
felonies and five misdemeanors.

The charges include improperly handling and disposing of
asbestos and recklessly releasing the hazardous material into
the building's environment that risked great bodily injury or
death.

If convicted, the companies face close to US$3 million in fines.
The two managers could face up to three years in prison.

Mr. Henderson filed a request to limit the public's access to
testimony in the case.

Edward Swanson, Mr. Henderson's attorney argued that the grand
jury transcript contains inaccurate testimony that would be
prejudicial to Mr. Henderson. The lawyer requested for the
transcript be sealed until the case is resolved.

A criminal grand jury indicted the Companies and their managers
March 6 after hearing testimony from 10 witnesses, including Ron
Lundquist, interim Monterey County public works director.

The secret hearing serves in the place of a preliminary hearing,
which is usually opened to the public. The transcript was sealed
until the defendants' arraignment. At the request of defense
attorneys, the transcript was sealed until April 12 to give
attorneys time to review its contents.

Prosecutors Brett Morris and Janill Richards of the state
Attorney General's Office declined comment on the latest motion,
noting that portions of it were filed under seal and citing the
judge's request that attorneys in the case not comment publicly
before the May 5 hearing.

Just days after the Courthouse was shut down early in April due
to the discovery of elevated levels of airborne asbestos, county
officials met with representatives of the Superior court and the
Sheriff's Office about the feasibility of transferring the court
and its employees to another location.

Maia Carroll, a spokeswoman for the county, said that the
discussions were prompted by disruptions to the court schedule,
and not because of safety concerns.

The courthouse has been undergoing renovation since 2004.
Construction crews work in the evening so court can continue
during the day, but the detection of asbestos has prompted
several court closures during the past year.

The Board of Supervisors recently approved a US$1.17 million
contract for additional asbestos abatement inside the north wing
of the Courthouse.


COMPANY PROFILE
Nova Partners Inc.
307 Town and Country Village
Palo Alto, California 94301
Tel: (650) 324 5324
Fax: (650) 324-5327
E-Mail: info@novapartners.com

Description:
The Company provides construction project management and real
estate development services.


COMPANY PROFILE
Skanska USA Building Inc.
1633 Littleton Rd.
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Phone: 973-656-6500
Fax: 973-334-6408
http://www.skanskausa.com/index.asp

Description:
Skanska USA Building Inc., a subsidiary of Sweden-based Skanska
AB, provides contracting and construction management services
for a large range of markets, including aviation,
pharmaceuticals, health care, education, high-tech, and sports
and entertainment.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Three Firms Settle US$29T for Improper Handling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said that three companies
paid a total of US$29,000 in fines for improper management of
asbestos-containing waste, in the conversion of the old Winona
Middle School property into apartments.

School property developer MetroPlains Development LLC paid
US$6,500 for failing to adequately survey the school for
asbestos before demolition and renovation, the MPCA said.

MPCA added that Key Construction Inc. and Bradburn Wrecking Co.
paid US$22,500 for failure to properly notify the MPCA of
demolition, failure to properly identify asbestos-containing
material before demolition and failure to properly manage
asbestos-containing waste disturbed during demolition.

Spokesman Michael Rafferty said the MPCA responded to complaints
about activities on the site and learned of the violations after
doing an inspection.

All three companies submitted plans to the agency on how they
will comply with state regulations in the future.


COMPANY PROFILE
MetroPlains Development, LLC
1600 University Avenue, Suite 212
St. Paul, MN 55104-3825
Office: 651-646-7848
Fax: 651-646-8947
http://www.metroplains.com/

Description:
The Company develops, acquires and manages housing and
commercial properties in the Midwest. Its experience is in
historic rehabilitation, new construction, adaptive reuse and
redevelopment for mixed income, rental and for-sale markets.


COMPANY PROFILE
Key Construction Inc.
741 West Second
Wichita, Kansas 67203
Tel: 316-263-9515
Fax: 316-263-1161
http://www.keyconstruction.com/

Description:
Key Construction Inc. is a general contractor. The Company was
established in 1978.


COMPANY PROFILE
Bradburn Wrecking Co.
3233 Southeast Blvd
Wichita, Kansas
Tel: (316) 686-1959

Description:
The Company is a demolition contractor.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GMH COMMUNITIES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT)
between October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006, inclusive (the
Class Period).  The class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, filed a securities fraud class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-01444-PBT)
against GMH Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT) and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of GMH's
securities between October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006,
inclusive (the Class Period).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint 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 in order to drive the price of its stock higher.

The higher stock price allowed the Company to make a secondary
offering in October 2005 on more favorable terms.  Defendants
portrayed the Company as a growing real estate investment trust
in a particular niche market, student and marketing housing and
military housing, paying high dividends.

Unbeknownst to the market, the Company's strong earnings were
the result of accounting fraud.  As part of the Company's
closing of its books for fiscal year 2005, GMH's chief financial
officer wrote to the Audit Committee indicating that there were
problems with the "tone at the top" of the Company's management.

In response to the letter, the Audit Committee conducted an
investigation that indicated, among other things, material
weaknesses in internal controls, pressure by key executives on
the accounting function and the need for adjustments to the
financial statements in current and prior accounting periods.

In addition, the Company's issuance of $0.91 in 2005 dividends
exceeded the 110% of funds from operations per share limitation
under the loan covenants of its credit facility. The stock
dropped 23% on the news from a close of $16.83 on March 10 to
close at $12.90 on March 13.

On March 31, 2006, the Company announced the continued delay in
filing its 2005 annual report and that it expected to restate
previously reported financial results due to improper
capitalization of expenses and the improper timing of
recognition of revenue and expenses.

Since the initial disclosure of the audit committee
investigation, the Company has lost almost $224 million in
market capitalization, closing at $11.21 on April 3, 2006
following the March 31, 2006 disclosure.

For more details, contact M. Katie King of Chitwood Harley
Harnes, LLP, Atlanta, Phone: 888-873-3999, E-mail:
kking@chitwoodlaw.com, Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Cohen Milstein Files Stock Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Northfield Laboratories, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NFLD), between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006,
inclusive (the Class Period), in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The Complaint charges Northfield and its chairman and chief
executive officer, Steven A. Gould, with violations of federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges the Company issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the safety and
history of the Company's sole product, a blood substitute called
PolyHeme, which caused Northfield's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Northfield engages in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of hemoglobin-based
blood substitute products.  Its only product is a blood
substitute known as PolyHeme.

The complaint against Northfield alleges that the Company failed
to disclose that a significant portion of patients taking
PolyHeme in a clinical study suffered heart attacks within seven
days of taking PolyHeme -- as compared to zero heart attacks
from patients receiving real blood in the same study.

On February 22, 2006 the investing public, for the first time,
learned of the heart attacks, when the Wall Street Journal
reported that Northfield had "quietly shut down" and "didn't
publicly disclose the results" of a study of PolyHeme in which
10 of 81 patients who received the blood substitute suffered
heart attacks within 7 days, two of whom later died.

According to the Wall Street Journal, none of the 71 patients
who received real blood in the trial were found to have had a
heart attack. Citing internal Company documents, the Wall Street
Journal reported that Northfield had begun the trial, known as
Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution (ANH or aneurysm study) in the
late 1990s.

That same day, the Company responded to the Wall Street Journal
article by issuing a press release admitting that it had not
published the full data upon closing the study.

Shares of Northfield fell from $12.23 to close at $11.30 the
following day. The shares declined even further in the ensuing
weeks, closing on March 14, 2006 at $9.57.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or rsmits@cmht.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set May
---------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, scheduled a May 19, 2006 deadline for
interested parties to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased securities of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (AMEX:PRZ)
during the period August 27, 2002 through March 15, 2006 (the
Class Period).  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

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


PIXELPLUS CO: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit 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 American Depositary Shares of
Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: PXPL) between December 21, 2005
through April 11, 2006, including purchasers in the Company's
Initial Public Offering (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant Pixelplus and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


PIXELPLUS CO: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
American Depository Shares of Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq:PXPL)
between December 21, 2005 and April 11, 2006, inclusive, (the
Class Period). The lawsuit was filed against Pixelplus and
certain officers and directors (Defendants).

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of false
and misleading statements regarding its revenues.  The complaint
alleges that the Company violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

On April 11, 2006, Pixelplus announced that investors should no
longer rely on its financial statements for 2005, because the
Company improperly recognized sales to one of its affiliates and
failed to properly consolidate that affiliate's results.

Pixelplus announced that it would reduce its revenues for the
fourth quarter and fiscal 2005 by $3.6 million and $2.5 million
respectively.  In reaction to the news, shares of Pixelplus fell
more than 37%.

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.


SEA CONTAINERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Sea Containers Ltd. (NYSE:SCR-A) securities
between March 15, 2004 through March 24, 2006, inclusive (the
Class Period).

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning Sea
Containers' financial results and business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Sea Containers failed
to disclose, among other things, that:

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

     (2) the Company's reported earnings were materially
         overstated;

     (3) the Company's internal controls and procedures were
         deficient and its financial reports inherently
         unreliable; and

     (4) the Company overstated its gain on the sale of its
         interest in Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.  On March 24,
2006, however, Sea Containers stunned investors when it revealed
it would be restating its financial results for all of 2005 and
that it would delay filing its annual report with the SEC until
April.

In response, Sea Containers stock price dropped by approximately
38% from the March 24, 2006 opening price per share of $12 to a
closing price of $7.45 on March 24, 2006 on extremely heavy
trading.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. and Joshua
Weinstein, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-
mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com and Jweinstein@faruqilaw.com, Web
site: http://www.faruqilaw.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Sea Containers Ltd. (NYSE: SCR-A) from March 15, 2004 through
March 23, 2006, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

     (1) that the Company improperly recognized $10.3 million
         from the sale of its Orient-Express Hotels;

     (2) that as a result of this improper recognition, the
         defendants materially understated the Company's net
         loss figures throughout the Class Period;

     (3) that losses incurred from the sale of containers were
         in fact greater than first represented because during
         the Class Period the Company had overvalued long-lived
         assets pertaining to its ferry and container
         businesses;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         (GAAP);

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (6) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On March 24, 2006, prior to the opening of the market, Sea
Containers revealed that it must restate its financial results
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and would delay
filing its Form 10-K with the SEC.

Specifically, the Company reported that it would recognize a
non-cash pre-tax charge of approximately $500 million in the
fourth quarter 2005, a $343 million increase from the $157
million restructuring charge previously announced by the Company
on November 9, 2005.

Following this disclosure, shares of Sea Containers plunged
$4.61 per share, or 38.23 percent, to close, on March 24, 2006,
at $7.45 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; and http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


ST JUDE: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of St. Jude Medical, Inc. from
January 25, 2006 through April 4, 2006 (the Class Period).
Defendants include St. Jude and certain of its top officers and
directors.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and incomplete financial
information.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants made
misstatements and omitted information regarding the sales
success and prospects of a key St. Jude product, its implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems (ICD's).

The Complaint asserts that the Company pushed sales of ICD's
into the fourth quarter of 2005 so as to inflate the stock price
and achieve extraordinary personal benefits for top insiders,
such as CEO Daniel J. Starks, who sold an unusual number of
shares in the open market in the early months of 2006, and
received a substantial boost in his compensation for 2005's
performance, including a grant of 216,000 restricted shares
worth (at the time) approximately $10 million.

The fraud was revealed on April 4, 2006 when St. Jude shocked
the market by announcing that it would materially miss sales
projections made just weeks earlier, but never previously
updated or corrected.

The Company also announced that it was undertaking an intensive
customer review to determine the cause of its sales shortfall.
On this announcement, St. Jude stock fell to $36.25 on April 4,
2006 on trading volume of 51.6 million shares, off $5.05 from
the previous day's closing price of $41.30.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.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  * * *