---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 84

                            Headlines

ALLIED IRISH: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $2.5M
APOLLO PRESENTATION: Recalls Carts Due to Equipment Fall Risk
AT&T CORP: CCR Files Court Brief in Calif. Domestic Spying Case
BAUSCH & LOMB: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Contact Lens Solution
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Iowa Woman Files Federal Suit Over Implants

BUZZ TELECOM: EEOC Wont Have to Pay Ind. Harassment Suit Costs
CALIFORNIA: ANA, Groups File Brief in UCL Lawsuit V. Pfizer Inc.
COLORADO: City Gets $100T Reimbursement for Faulty Body Armor
DALLAS COUNTY: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in N.D. Tex.
DOW CHEMICAL: Dioxin Contamination Suit Faces Possible Delay

EBAY INC: Settles Improper Billing Practices Lawsuit in Calif.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Canada Over Faulty Automobile Part
HEARTLAND HIGH-YIELD: Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 8, 2006
HOIST FITNESS: Recalls Hoist Benches for Finger Entrapment Risk
ILLINOIS: County Residents Sue Over Vinyl Chloride Contamination

ILLINOIS: Ill. Judge Expands Scope of Suit Over Confiscated Cash
INDIANA: Teachers Launch Lawsuit Over Inadequate School Funding
INFLIGHT NEWSPAPER: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Circulation Claims
INTEL CORP: Moves to Curtail Advanced Micro Devices Suit in Del.
ISRAEL: War Crimes Suit V. Ex-General Continues in D.C. Court

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Lawsuits for $7.5M
MESTEK INC: Shareholder Files Suit in Mass. Over Privatization
OHIO: Attorney in Steubenville Traffic Camera Suit Gets 20% Cut
SFBC INT'L: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuits in Fla., N.J.
UNITED STATES: Deal Reached in Workers' Suit Over Leftover Leave

VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Trial on Charter Amendment Suit Set June
WORLD HEALTH: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Accounting Irregularity

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Settles Claims for US$9M in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Posts $7M Receivables in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Posts US$1.5B Liabilities at 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Notes US$1.8Bil for NARCO Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Unit Posts 79,000 Pending Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Notes $382.6M Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Lummus Files for Ch. 11 Reorganization
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland and Japan Merge to Fight Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plan to Lift Mining Ban Opposed in India
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Deters FFIC From Estimation Process

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors' Claimants Respond to ASARCO Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creation of Dana Asbestos Committee Junked
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Ruling in CertainTeed Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alarm Raised in Philippine Water System
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota's Payout Scheme Marked With Doubts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NC Court Approves CSX's Move for New Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 89,164 Pending Claims in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exxon Mobil May Face 2nd-Hand Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Govt. Printing Office Bldg.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY City Fined $6.8T for Police Health Risks

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Man Seeks Information on Father's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Woman Seeks to Raise Awareness of Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MPs Warn of Health Hazards All Over Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Coroner Links Fitter's Death to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA Court Dismisses Claims v. Eaton Corp.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records US$185M Charge in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Records Liability at $1.7B in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp to Resolve Claims Pursuant to Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Faces 2,153 Open Claims in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waste Plant Proposal Raises Safety Concerns

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos in CA City Raises Health Concerns
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ex-Laborer Seeks More Than US$500T in Pabst Suit
ASBESTOS ALERT: OSHA Cites Four NY Firms for Handling Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: TOTAL SA Contends With 450 Claims in US Courts


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Suit in Wisc.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Stock Lawsuit in La.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Lawsuit in La.

PIXELPLUS CO: Ann D. White Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
PIXELPLUS CO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Berman DeValerio Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Charles J. Piven, PA Files Fraud Suit in Minn.
ST JUDE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Lawsuit in Minn.


                            *********


ALLIED IRISH: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $2.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Deborah A. Batts of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York will hold a hearing for the
proposed $2.5 million settlement in the matter "In re Allied
Irish Banks, PLC Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02 Civ.
1738 (DAB)."

The case was brought on behalf of persons and entities who
purchased or acquired the American Depositary Shares of Allied
Irish Banks, PLC (AIB ADSs) between February 6, 1999 and
February 6, 2002, inclusive.

The hearing will be on July 17, 2006 at the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Court house, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007-1312.

To see full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed
Settlement, Motion for Attorney's Fees and Final Settlement
Hearing and a Proof of Claim form, contact: Allied Irish Banks,
PLC Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration,
LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-
3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810; Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claims.

Deadline for filing proof of claim is Aug. 17, 2006.  Deadline
for filing request for exclusion and objection is June 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Allied Irish
Bank filed a motion to consolidate the suits and appoint lead
plaintiffs in 2002 (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2002).  The
suits were commenced in March 2002 against the Company and:       

     -- Allfirst Financial Corporation,       

     -- several current and former officers of Allfirst, and        

     -- Allfirst Bank.   

For more information, contact plaintiffs' lead counsel: Donald
J. Enright, Esq., Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000.


APOLLO PRESENTATION: Recalls Carts Due to Equipment Fall Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Apollo(R) Presentation Products, of Lincolnshire, Illinois
recalls 960 units of Apollo(R) steel wide-body carts.

The Company said these audio-visual carts were sold without a
safety belt which helps prevent heavy equipment from becoming
unstable and falling from the cart's upper shelf.  Equipment
falling on nearby consumers can cause serious injuries and
death.  Apollo is not aware of any incidents involving this
audio visual cart.

Apollo(R) item #VWBUL4 (Office Depot Model #177-446) is steel,
has a pyramid design, has three shelves, stands 44 inches high
and comes with a three-outlet electrical assembly, including a
cord-winding bracket.  The affected Model VWBUL44 Carts have a
model number tag on the underside of the top shelf that reads:
"SC: 18" and a date code "EF" date code of 07/26/05 or later.

The carts were manufactured in China and sold by Office Depot
catalog and Web site, from September 2005 through February 6,
2006 for between $200 and $240.

Consumers are advised to stop using these carts immediately.  
They do not need to return the carts to Office Depot stores.  
Owners are being sent a free kit, including a safety belt and
hardware needed for assembly.

Picture of the recalled carts:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06548.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Apollo Presentation Products, Phone: (800)
777-3750 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, Web
site: http://www.apolloavproducts.com.


AT&T CORP: CCR Files Court Brief in Calif. Domestic Spying Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is urging the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to
release documents that are said to detail how AT&T Corp. helped
the National Security Agency (NSA) conduct domestic
surveillance, according to a recently filed court brief.

This is the first time CCR filed court papers in the class
action against the Company, which the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) began in on January 31, 2006.  

The EFF is accusing the Company, which was recently acquired by
the new AT&T, Inc., formerly known as SBC Communications, of
violating the law and the privacy of its customers by
collaborating with the NSA in its massive and illegal program to
wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.

The EFF lawsuit alleges that the Company opened its key
telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by
the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to
the government the contents of its customers' communications as
well as detailed communications records about millions of its
customers, including the lawsuit's class members.

It also alleges that the Company gave the government unfettered
access to its over 300-terabyte "Daytona" database of caller
information, which is one of the largest databases in the world.
Moreover, by opening its network and databases to wholesale
surveillance by the NSA, the EFF alleges that the Company
violated the privacy of its customers and the people they call
and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy
laws.

In addition suit alleges that the Company continues to assist
the government in its secret surveillance of millions of
Americans.  EFF, on behalf of a nationwide class of AT&T
customers, is suing to stop this illegal conduct and hold the
Company responsible for its illegal collaboration in the
government's domestic spying program, which violates the law and
damaged the fundamental freedoms of the American public.

"The public record proves that President Bush authorized an
illegal and unconstitutional spying program, and we want to find
out whether American corporations are helping him," said CCR
Legal Director Bill Goodman.

Mark Klein, who worked as a Company technician for 22 years
recently released a statement describing the Company documents.
He explained it "appears the NSA is capable of conducting what
amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing
the Internet, whether that be people's e-mail, Web surfing or
any other data."  

The documents are currently under seal, with only the court and
affected parties allowed to review them, because the Company
argues that it contain trade secrets.

CCR is asking the court to follow standard procedures to release
the documents, in the interests of consumers, shareholders,
regulators, the American public and CCR, which is suing
President Bush for the illegal NSA domestic surveillance in a
separate case (CCR v. Bush).  

The CCR's brief explains that "openness has a positive effect"
on the function of judicial proceedings to determine the facts,
and argues that the Company documents can be redacted to protect
genuine trade secrets and then released to the public as soon as
possible.

"The public has a right to know whether companies are helping
the government listen to their phone calls and snoop in their
email.  We are simply asking that AT&T play by the same rules as
everyone else, with open court proceedings," said Shayana
Kadidal, one of the lead attorneys in CCR's case against NSA
domestic spying.

The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:
         cindy@eff.org; and

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant are, Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.

For more details, visit, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
(EFF Case) and http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp(CCR Case).   


BAUSCH & LOMB: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Contact Lens Solution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. faces a potential class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida over a
Sarasota woman's eye infection that was caused by its contact
lens solution, The Herald Tribune reports.

Filed on April 21, 2006, the suit was filed by Helen Hreen, who
claims that the contact lens solution caused her to develop an
eye infection that required medical treatment to prevent serious
damage.  Ms. Hreen's attorney Douglas Kreis told The Herald
Tribune, "She is in pain and it's going on and on and she has
concern it could be permanent in nature."

The suit, which follows similar suits filed in Miami and New
York, claims that Ms. Hreen used the Company's "ReNu with
MoistureLoc" contact lens solution, which caused her to develop
an eye infection requiring treatment with antibiotics and
steroids.  

According to the suit, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
Centers for Disease Control on April 10 warned contact lens
users about an outbreak of a rare but serious eye infection.  It
also noted that the Company recalled the ReNu with MoistureLoc
product in mid-April and that the Food and Drug Administration
issued a statement supporting the recall.

The suit alleges that the Company was negligent in the
production and distribution of the lens solution, that the
product did not meet the Company's usual standards and
misrepresented the safety of the product.

Though no health or safety officials acknowledged that the
Company's caused the infections, the FDA recently announced that
it was inspecting the Company's Greenville, South Carolina
plant, which made the recalled product.

The eye infection is known as Fusarium keratitis and is commonly
called fungal keratitis.  If it does not respond to treatment,
it can eventually require surgery, including a cornea
transplant.  

As of April 9, 12006, about 109 cases were reported nationwide,
according to the Centers for Disease Control.  Officials
interviewed 30 patients.  Of them, 28 cases involved contact
lens wearers, and 26 used Bausch & Lomb products.

The CDC said the infection surfaced in February among contact
lens wearers in Asia, and the Company voluntarily suspended
sales of its ReNu solutions in Hong Kong and Singapore.  

The agency noted that about half the U.S. cases were in Florida
with some of the first reports coming from the Miami area.

The suit is "Hreen v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Case No. 8:06-
cv-00735-JDW-TGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D.
Whittemore with referral to Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Representing the plaintiffs are, Douglass A. Kreis, Bryan
Frederick Aylstock, Joshua A. Jones, Neil Duane Overholtz and
Justin Graem Witkin of Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser, P.L.C., Ste.
58, 4400 Bayou Blvd., Pensacola, FL 32503, Phone: 850/916-7450
Ext. 36 and 850/916-7450, Fax: 850/934-4115 and 850/916-7449, E-
mail: dkreis@aws-law.com, baylstock@aws-law.com, noverholtz@aws-
law.com and jwitkin@aws-law.com.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Iowa Woman Files Federal Suit Over Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biomedical Tissue Services faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa alleging
that the Company illegally harvested bone and tissue implants
from people too old or sick to be qualified donors, The
Associated Press reports.

Filed by Jill Symonds, 44, of Rockwell, the suit is the first of
several that could be leveled in Iowa against, according to her
attorneys.  The complaint also names two funeral homes on the
East Coast, a mortician in New York and at least three companies
involved in distributing the body parts.

The suit alleges the bone and tissue implanted in Ms. Symonds in
2004 were harvested illegally from the funeral homes and
mortuaries and screened improperly for viruses, cancer, HIV and
diseases.

According to the suit, Ms. Symonds underwent spinal surgery at a
Mason City hospital.  Tests show she did not contract any
disease linked to the bone and tissue, but the nature of her
operation makes replacement impossible, according to her
attorney.

Jamie Cook of Waterloo told The Associated Press, "She's
terribly concerned about what's been placed in her."  He added
though, "She's more concerned that this not happen to anyone
else."

Ms. Symonds is the latest person nationwide to sue the Company
and its founder, former oral surgeon Michael Mastromarino of New
Jersey.  Mr. Mastromarino was indicted in New York for looting
bodies and selling parts without sterilizing or screening for
disease.

A Nebraska man filed a lawsuit against the Company last month.  
Class actions were also filed in New Jersey, Indiana, Florida
and Georgia on behalf of people who received material from the
Company.

The suit is "Symonds v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03020-MWB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa under Judge Mark W.
Bennett with referral to Judge Paul A. Zoss.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) James H. Cook of Dutton Braun Staack Hellman, 3151
         Brockway Road, P.O. Box 810, Waterloo, IA 50704, Phone:
         319-234-4471, Fax: 234-8029, E-mail: cookj@wloolaw.com;  
         and

     (2) Thomas L. Staack of Dutton Braun Staack Hellman
         Iversen, 3151 Brockway Road, P.O. Box 810, Waterloo, IA
         50704, Phone: 319-234-4471, Fax: 234-8029, E-mail:
         staackt@wloolaw.com.


BUZZ TELECOM: EEOC Wont Have to Pay Ind. Harassment Suit Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Magistrate Paul Cherry is refusing to punish
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for
pursuing sexual harassment claims against Buzz Telecom Corp., an
Indiana-based telemarketer, The NWITimes.com reports.

Several women who worked for the Company claimed in a 2003
lawsuit that their male supervisor intimidated and humiliated
them by asking for dates.  The government civil rights
organization promptly filed a class action on the women's
behalf.

Eventually four women settled the case out of court, but the
EEOC pursued the case on behalf of five other women.  Last year
though a jury issued a verdict in favor of the Company.

With that favorable ruling, the Company demanded that the EEOC
pay more than $14,000 in attorney fees and other related costs
of defending themselves against the harassment claims.

However, Judge Cherry recently ruled that he would not force the
EEOC to pay those costs.  He pointed out that although the EEOC
lost, its suit wasn't frivolous, unreasonable or without
foundation.

The suit is styled, "EEOC v. US Bell Corp., et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00237-PRC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Paul R. Cherry.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Kenneth L. Bird and Jo Ann
Farnsworth of The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -
Ind/IN, 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-
4203, Phone: 317-226-7204, Fax: 317-226-5571, E-mail:
Kenneth.Bird@EEOC.gov and joann.farnsworth@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendants are, Steven A. Johnson and Michael
J. Rappa of Johnson & Rappa, LLC, 250 E. 90th Drive,
Merrillville, IN 46410, Phone: 219-769-0087, Fax: 219-769-0092,
E-mail: saj@JohnsonRappa.com and mjr@JohnsonRappa.com.


CALIFORNIA: ANA, Groups File Brief in UCL Lawsuit V. Pfizer Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) joined with two
other industry groups in filing a "friend of the court" brief in
an important lawsuit based on California's Unfair Competition
Law.

Dan Jaffe, ANA Executive Vice President, stated: "Marketers had
all hoped that Proposition 64, which was approved by California
voters in 2004, had resolved some of the most serious problems
with California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  Unfortunately,
a trial court's decision to certify a class action lawsuit will
seriously impair the ability of all marketers to communicate
with consumers in California.  We are very hopeful that the
appellate court will reverse the trial court's erroneous
construction of the amended UCL."

The brief was filed with the Court of Appeal of the State of
California in the case of Pfizer Inc., Petitioner v. Superior
Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County,
Respondent, Steve Galfano, Real Party in Interest, (Court of
Appeal Case No. B188106).  Joining ANA in the amicus brief were
the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the Coalition
for HealthCare Communication.

Mr. Jaffe stated: "Prior to Proposition 64, California's UCL
allowed any person to sue on behalf of the public at large for
false advertising, regardless of whether that person or anyone
else had suffered any injury as a result of the alleged false
advertising.  The UCL was a bonanza for frivolous lawsuits and
raised serious First Amendment and interstate commerce problems.
Proposition 64 amended the UCL so that lawsuits can be brought
in the name of a private citizen only if that person has
suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a
result of such unfair competition."

The original plaintiff, Steve Galfano, filed a statewide class
action lawsuit under the UCL alleging that Pfizer had made false
statements about Listerine mouthwash in commercials and product
labels.  On November 22, 2005, the trial court certified the
class action to cover "all persons who purchased Listerine in
California from June 2004 through January 7, 2005."

With respect to the UCL claims, the trial court held that the
injury and causation requirements of Proposition 64 applied only
to the plaintiff and not to other members of the class.  Pfizer
petitioned the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court's
class certification and interpretation of the amended UCL.

The industry brief states: "The UCL, as construed by the trial
court, allows an action to be maintained on behalf of class
members who - for lack of injury, loss, or proximate causation -
could not otherwise maintain an individual action in their own
name.  So construed, the UCL violates the First Amendment and
the California Constitution by upsetting the balance between the
competing interests of free speech and the regulation of false
and misleading speech, and thereby chilling the speech of
California advertisers.  Furthermore, because California
advertisers are typically national advertisers, the trial
court's constitutionally infirm construction of the UCL also
places an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce."

Mr. Jaffe stated: "An improperly certified class is not simply a
trivial procedural error.  It can become the decisive point of a
lawsuit, leading to settlements that are completely divorced
from the merits of the original claim.  In California, a state
with more than 35 million people, a certified class of
'hypothetically injured' claimants is potentially staggering in
scope and can have a very real chilling effect on marketers.  We
sincerely hope that the appellate court will reverse the trial
court's decision and rescind the certification of the class
action."

For more details, contact Dan Jaffe of The Association of
National Advertisers, Phone: (202) 296-1883, Web site:
http://www.ana.net.


COLORADO: City Gets $100T Reimbursement for Faulty Body Armor
-------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Pueblo, Colorado will be reimbursed up to $100,000
for faulty body armor that it bought for city police officers.

The city was a part of a class action against Japanese Company
Toyobo Co., which manufactured the bulletproof vests made from
Zylon that turned out to be defective, according to assistant
city attorney Tom Florczak.

The city bought 130 vests five years ago and wasn't notified
about the problems until two years later in 2003 when a
California officer was shot and killed while wearing one of the
vests.  Pueblo police officers now wear vests made by a
different Company.

For more details, contact Thomas J. Florczak, 503 N. Main St.,
Ste. 127, Pueblo, CO 81003, Phone: (719) 545-4412, Fax: (719)
545-4301, E-mail: tflorczak@jaggerlaw.com.


DALLAS COUNTY: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in N.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas County Community College District faces a federal
civil rights suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas over allegations that for years it exhibited a
systematic bias against minorities when promoting employees, The
Dallas Morning News reports.

The case, filed in July 2005, stems from the experience Paul
Forte Jr. and James M. Hawkins Jr., both assistant directors of
the community college district's human resources department, who
were passed over for a promotion.  

However, the suit, which seeks class action status, also lists
29 other current or former community college employees, who
claim that they experienced similar discrimination.  

James Jones, the plaintiffs' attorney told The Dallas Morning
News, "Because the district doesn't have clear procedures,
people are able to select others for promotion based entirely on
cronyism and subjective criteria, to the detriment of minority
employees."  

He pointed out, "People making the selections aren't forced to
follow any objective criteria, so they can select whoever they
want."  He adds, "There are lots of instances where nobody knew
a position was even available until after a promotion was
announced."

Responding to the allegations, Robert Young, the community
college district's legal counsel, dismissed the suit as
baseless.  He told The Dallas Morning News, "I don't think the
claims have merit.  This district has a very good record of not
only hiring but also promoting minorities, and has had that
record for some time."

The plaintiffs are asking the court to require the district to
allocate significant funding and trained staff to write and
implement a written, published promotion policy, and to
advertise all promotion opportunities to provide for a
competitive process.

The suit is "Forte, et al. v. Dallas Community College District,
Case No. 3:05-cv-01417," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
     (1) Nyanza Shaw of The Law Offices of Manuel H. Miller,
         5530 Corbin Ave., Suite 210, Tarzana, CA 91356, US,
         Phone: 818/401-0066, E-mail: miller4law@msn.com; and

     (2) James A. Jones of Gillespie Rozen Watsky Motley &
         Jones, 3402 Oak Grove Ave., Suite 200, Dallas, TX
         75204, Phone: 214/720-2009, Fax: 214/720-2291, E-mail:
         jaj@grwlawfirm.com.

Representing the defendant is Michael R. Buchanan of Strasburger
& Price - Dallas, 901 Main St., Suite 4300, Dallas, TX 75202,
Phone: 214/651-4300, Fax: 214/651-4330, E-mail:
mike.buchanan@strasburger.com.


DOW CHEMICAL: Dioxin Contamination Suit Faces Possible Delay
------------------------------------------------------------
Despite parties submitting written arguments to the Michigan
Court of Appeals, class action proceedings against Dow Chemical
Co. over dioxin contamination in the Tittabawassee River basin
could be delayed, The Lansing State Journal Reports.

The Company recently asked the Michigan Court of Appeals to
reverse the ruling of Saginaw County Chief Circuit Judge Leopold
P. Borrello saying that residents claiming property damage
because of historic dioxin releases from Dow Chemical Co. could
proceed with a class action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
17, 2005).  About 2,000 property owners are involved in the
suit.

The Company, which wants the cases to proceed individually, was
to turn in a final reply April 24, but it has asked the court
for an extension to May 8.  Kathy Henry along with her husband
filed that lawsuit in March 2003.

Headquartered in Midland, Michigan, Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW) is
a leader in the production of plastics, chemicals, hydrocarbons,
and herbicides and pesticides.


EBAY INC: Settles Improper Billing Practices Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. settled a class action pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, which alleges
that the Company engaged in improper billing practices, The
MarketWatch reports.

Upon the court's approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and release the Company from all
claims.  For its part the online auction service agreed to make
a $250,000 payment primarily directed to charity.

Robert Cerreta of West Palm Beach, Florida, and Nancy Spaulding
of North Ridgeville, Ohio filed the suit, alleging conversion,
negligence and violations of unfair competition laws.  They
brought it on behalf of other eBay users affected by the
situation.

Initially filed in July 2004, the suit claimed that the Company
engaged in improper billing practices as the result of problems
with the rollout of new billing software in the second and third
quarters of 2004.  It also accused the Company of acknowledging
the existence of billing glitches and then later denying that
customers were hurt at all.

An amended complaint was filed in January 2005, dropping one
plaintiff, changing the capacity of the other plaintiff to that
of representative plaintiff, and adding seven additional eBay
users as plaintiffs.  The amended complaint expanded its claim
to include numerous alleged improper billing practices from
September 2003 until the present.  

In February 2005, the Company filed a motion to strike and a
demurrer seeking to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2005, the
court sustained portions of the demurrer, but granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, dropping the
last original plaintiff and again adding new plaintiffs.   The
Company filed a motion to strike and a demurrer regarding the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint.  

In July 2005, the court again sustained a portion of the
demurrer and again granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint.  In
December 2005, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint,
dropping several plaintiffs.  

In January 2006, the parties reached tentative agreement on the
terms of a settlement, though the settlement has not been
finalized.

The suit is "Cerreta v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. 1-04-CV-022708,"
filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey L. Fazio of Fazio &
Micheletti, LLP, 1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 350, San
Mateo, CA 94403, Phone: 925.469.2424, Fax:  925.369.0344, E-
mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Grant P. Fondo, Michael G.
Rhodes, Melina K. Patterson, and Arron P. Arnzen of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650-843-5000, Fax: 650-849-7400, E-
mail: paloalto@cooley.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Canada Over Faulty Automobile Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada Ltd., a subsidiary of General Motors
Corp., faces a purported class action in Canada for producing
vehicles from 1995 to 2003 with an allegedly defective part that
caused engines to overheat and seize.

The suit may include as many as 400,000 GM car owners in Canada,
and with each owner claiming C$3,000 ($2,647) in damages, the
claims may total C$1.2 billion, according to Colin Stevenson,
partner at Toronto-based Stevensons, LLP.  The suit was filed in
Ontario Superior Court in Toronto.

According to the statement of claim, the Company used nylon or
other plastics in a gasket that seals the cylinder head and
engine block to the intake manifold, a part that channels an
air-fuel mixture to the engine.  The seal degrades prematurely,
causing coolant to leak into the engine, it said.

In press statement, Mr. Stevenson said, "In some cases the
engines overheat and seize completely.  The vehicles often need
complete engine replacements at considerable expense to the
owners."

The Company introduced a new gasket in 2004, according to Mr.
Stevenson.  The Company though vehemently refuses to acknowledge
that the earlier product was defective, he said.

Responding to the allegations, Stew Low, the Company's Canadian
spokesman, told Bloomberg in a telephone interview that GM
considers complaints after a car's warranty period on a case-by-
case basis.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, who also include Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky, are seeking class action status on behalf of car owners
across Canada.  

The suit cites 23 Company models as having the defective gasket,
including the Buick Park Avenue, which was manufactured from
1995 to 1998 and from 2000 to 2003; the Chevrolet Monte Carlo,
made from 1998 to 2003; and the Oldsmobile Alero, produced from
1999 to 2003.

The case is Between Kenneth Stewart and General Motors of Canada
Ltd., Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto), 06-CV-
310082.

For more details, contact Colin Stevenson of Stevensons, LLP,
Phone: 416-599-7900, Fax: 416-599-7910, E-mail:
cstevenson@stevensonlaw.net; and Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky,
LLP, Phone: 416-595-2117, Fax: 416-204-2889, E-mail:
kbaert@koskieminsky.com.


HEARTLAND HIGH-YIELD: Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 8, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $8.25 million
settlement by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, in the matter:
"Joseph White v. Heartland High-Yield, et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-
01388-JPS."  

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Heartland High-
Yield Municipal Bond Fund and/or shares of the Heartland Short
Duration High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (collectively the High-
Yield Funds) either directly or dividend re-investment during
the period from and including May 1, 1998 through and including
May 1998 through and including October 16, 2000.

The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Courtroom 425 of
the U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 517 East Wisconsin
Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, at 10:00 a.m., on June 8,
2006, before the Hon. J.P. Stadtmueller.

Any objections to the settlement must be made by May 25, 2006.  
Deadline for submitting a proof of claim as well as exclusion
from the class is on May 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Heartland PwC Securitities Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11754-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;and C. Oliver Burt, III  
and Jay W. Eng of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
Esperante Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900, West Palm Beach,
FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400 and (800) 516-9926, E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com.


HOIST FITNESS: Recalls Hoist Benches for Finger Entrapment Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hoist Fitness Systems Inc., also doing business as Body Gear, of
San Diego, California, voluntarily recalls 48,000 units of hoist
exercise benches.

The Company said the bench's front frame assembly with the
footrest could fail to lock into place allowing users who grab
the bench to position themselves to get their fingers entrapped
between the front and back frame assemblies.  This poses
laceration and amputation hazards.

Hoist Fitness received two reports of injury, one consisting of
a hand laceration and the other consisting of a partially
amputated finger.

The recalled exercise benches are free-standing and typically
used for free weight workouts.  They have white, gray, or black
steel bases, with a black vinyl bench seat and backrest.  The
Hoist "5 Position Fold-Up Bench," "Folding Flat Bench," and
"Folding Ab-Crunch Bench" are included in this recall.

Although the bench names and model numbers do not appear on the
benches, the serial number is located on a white sticker behind
the seat of the bench.  Only benches with certain serial numbers
are included in this recall.

Name of Product                                Model Number
Hoist "5 Position Fold-Up Bench"               HF-140
                                               HF-142
BodyGear by Hoist "5 Position Fold-Up Bench"   BG-141
                                               BG-143  
Hoist "Folding Flat Bench"                     HF-4163
Hoist "Folding Ab-Crunch Bench"                HF-4262

The benches were manufactured in China and sold at specialty
dealer stores and large sporting goods retailers nationwide from
February 2004 through January 2006 for between $100 and $300.

Consumers are advised to contact Hoist Fitness to see if their
bench's serial number is included in this recall.  If it is,
they are advised to stop using the recalled exercise bench and
arrange to receive a free repair kit.  Consumers who own the
Hoist "Folding Flat Bench" may contact Hoist Fitness to return
the bench for a full refund.

Pictures of the recalled exercise benches:
     
     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149a.jpg

     (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149b.jpg

     (3) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149c.jpg

     (4) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149d.jpg

     (5) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149e.jpg

     (6) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149f.jpg

Consumer Contact: Hoist Fitness Systems Inc., Phone: (866) 849-
4797 anytime, Web site: http://www.hoistfitness.comor  
http://www.bodygearfitness.com,E-mail:  
benchrecall@hoistfitness.com or benchrecall@bodygearfitness.com.


ILLINOIS: County Residents Sue Over Vinyl Chloride Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
The DuPage County Forest Preserve (DCFP) and BFI Waste Systems
of North America Inc. face a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging
that wells serving several dozen families were contaminated by
vinyl chloride that leaked from a now-closed DuPage County
landfill, The Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit was filed against the DCFP as owners of the landfill
and BFI, a unit of Scottsdale, Arizona-based Allied Waste
Industries, as the landfill's operator.  It seeks compensation
for the cost of a new water supply and property damage due to
the contamination.  In addition, the suit also seeks punitive
damages.

Plaintiffs in the suit are, Tyanna and Jeff Cannata of West
Chicago, who are claiming that ground water beneath their home,
which they use for drinking, cooking and bathing, is
contaminated by the carcinogen vinyl chloride.  

The couple is asking the court to treat their case as a class
action on behalf of at least 80 other families that they believe
are affected by the contamination.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
those who breathe vinyl chloride have an increased risk of
cancers of the liver, brain, lungs and blood.

The effects of drinking high levels of vinyl chloride are
unknown, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it's
unsafe for drinking water to contain more than two parts per
billion of the contaminant.

Shawn Collins, an attorney for the Cannatas, told The Associated
Press that the same chemicals found in the drinking water are
found in the landfill and not anywhere else in the area.  The
groundwater moves in a direction from the landfill toward the
homes affected by the contamination, according to him.

"In order to create groundwater contamination of the scope that
has been found you have to have a massive amount of toxic waste
dumped," Mr. Collins said.

The landfill, which opened in 1975 and shut down 24 years later,
is now covered with dirt and planted with grass, though it is
closed to the public.  It was closed down in March 1999 after it
reached capacity, according to Bill Weidner, a spokesman for the
DuPage County Forest Preserve.  He added that it was filled with
household and not industrial refuse.

The suit is "Cannata, et al. v. Forest Preserve District of
DuPage County, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02196," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge William J. Hibbler.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Shawn Michael Collins of The Collins Law Firm, 1770
         North Park Street, Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563,
         Phone: (630) 527-1595, E-mail: smc@collinslaw.com; and

     (2) Norman Benjamin Berger of Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes &
         Casey, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350, Chicago,
         IL 60604, Phone: (312) 341-9400, E-mail:
         nberger@vblhc.com.


ILLINOIS: Ill. Judge Expands Scope of Suit Over Confiscated Cash
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo expanded the scope of a class
action that accuses the Chicago Police Department of failing to
return money confiscated from people who were arrested, The
Chicago Tribune reports.

The judge essentially granted a motion filed by lawyers who
brought the lawsuit in 2004 challenging the department's
requirement on how it notified people who were arrested that
police officers that confiscate money are required to approve
its return personally.

Originally, the lawsuit sought to obtain refunds totaling $3
million that was confiscated from more than 20,000 people whose
money was inventoried and not returned between Feb. 12, 2002,
and Dec. 15, 2004.  Judge Castillo's recent ruling expands the
case back to Feb. 22, 1999.

"Using the city's numbers, which we think are low, there were
about 20,000 in the previous class," according to Tom Peters,
one of the attorneys who filed suit.  He told The Chicago
Tribune, "We believe there will be more like 45,000 to 60,000
claims now and from $7 million to $9 million in funds."

Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department,
countered though that Mr. Peters' figures were an estimate and
that without further research the city had no idea what the
numbers would be.

When the lawsuit was filed, a police official said money taken
from people, who were arrested, which is not forfeited by court
order is placed into bank accounts that do not earn interest,
because calculating interest on the money would "be an
accounting nightmare."

Records produced by the city in the lawsuit show the money is
kept in two accounts at the JPMorgan Chase Bank.  The records
show more than $1.1 million was deposited in the accounts last
February.

Police confiscate millions of dollars annually.  Recent figures
supplied by the department even indicated that from Feb. 12,
2002, through Dec. 15, 2004, $24 million was confiscated.

Nearly $15 million was forfeited after court action.  About $5.7
million was returned to owners by various means, including by
court order or when authorities declined to seek forfeiture.

The lawsuit attacks the department's policy, since changed,
according to department officials, which required investigating
officers who confiscated the money to approve its return
personally.

Initially, the case was brought on behalf of two men who tried
unsuccessfully to get their money back.  One of those men was
Elton Gates, who unsuccessfully tried to get back $113 that was
confiscated from him after he was charged with slugging a police
officer.  

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation, but the
officer he hit was never at the station when Mr. Gates showed up
to try to get his approval for the return of the money.

The suit is, "Gates, et al. v. Towery, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02155," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Thomas M. Peters of Law Offices of Thomas
Peters, 407 South Dearborn, #1675, Chicago, IL 60605, Phone:
(312) 697-0022, E-mail: tompeters9@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Brian L. Crowe of Shefsky &
Froelich, Ltd., 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: (312) 527-4000, E-mail: bcrowe@shefskylaw.com.


INDIANA: Teachers Launch Lawsuit Over Inadequate School Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in Marion Superior Court
against the state for allegedly violating its own constitution
by failing to provide enough money for all children to have a
fair chance to learn, The Associated Press reports.

Filed on behalf of nine children and their families from eight
school districts, the suit claims that the state is not
adequately funding schools so they can meet academic standards
and performance mandates placed on them.  The families involved
were willing to be original plaintiffs in the case.

An attorney representing the state's largest teachers union in
the lawsuit told The Associated Press that it does not seek a
specified amount of increased funding.  But Michael Weisman of
Boston said current spending is clearly not enough for all
students to reach their full potential, and the state should be
ordered to determine how much money it would take and then
provide it.

The suit claims that the constitution "imposes a duty on the
state to provide an education that prepares all of Indiana's
children -- rich or poor, white, black or Hispanic, with or
without special needs and with or without English proficiency --
to function in a complex and rapidly changing society" and
compete successfully for productive employment and advancement
through higher education.

"We have too many children who are being unsuccessful in
school," according to Mr. Weisman, who said he was involved in a
successful lawsuit that led to more money being spent on
Massachusetts' schools.  He adds, "We have an achievement gap
that is extraordinarily high, has persisted, and must be
corrected."

The teachers association cited wide disparities in ISTEP test
scores among classes of students as proof of the achievement
gap.

The suit seeks to represent tens of thousands of students in
public schools, including those living in poverty, minority
students, those with disabilities and those just beginning to
learn English.

ISTA President Judy Briganti told The Associated Press it was
one of her happiest and saddest days.  "The happiest comes from
the fact that we're taking action on something that is a basic
right of every child in this state and moreover in America,"
according to her.  "The saddest thing is that I have to stand
before you today and tell you we are not giving even shakes to
all our students so they can have equal access to quality
education."

Mr. Weisman told The Associated Press that the lawsuit was not
aimed at funding disparities between districts, but enforcement
of the constitution on behalf of all public school children.

For more details, contact Michael D. Weisman of Weisman &
McIntyre, A Professional Corporation, 99 Summer Street, 20th
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-
720-2727, Fax: 617-720-0330, Web site: http://www.wmtrial.com.


INFLIGHT NEWSPAPER: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Circulation Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inflight Newspaper, Inc. along with several other organizations
was named as a defendant in a putative class action pending in
the U.S. District for the Eastern District of New York that
takes aim at a once-long-standing industry practice among
magazine publishers of paying third-party distributors to
distribute bulk copies of their magazines for free or at heavily
discounted rates, while counting the free copies as "sponsored"
sales, The CantonRep.com reports.

The so-called check-swapping arrangements, wherein a distributor
pays for the magazines but is fully reimbursed, were standard
practice at the Long Island-based Company. It was also the focus
of federal probes, because some magazines claimed circulation
tied to the free distribution as paid circulation.  

The suit names as defendants the Company and its former chief
executive, Remy Lehner.  In addition the suit also names as
defendants, Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), Bedford
Communications and its founder Edward Brown as well as its
former circulation director, John Jay Annis.

The civil case seeks to connect the dots from the allegedly
falsified circulation practices of one magazine already named in
the federal probe, Manhattan-based Laptop magazine, which is
owned by Bedford, to the claimed damage done to Laptop
advertiser Teletype Co. Inc., a Boston-based software developer
and lead plaintiff.

The suit seeks class action status, according to Teletype's
attorney, Richard Dubi, who called check-swapping "extremely
pervasive and industrywide."

The civil suit claims that Bedford paid the Company "to accept
delivery of tens of thousands of copies of Laptop magazine each
month in return for paperwork showing that Inflight had
`accepted' the copies for distribution."  It further claims that
the "paid" copies were "actually given away free to readers or
destroyed and never delivered to readers."

The suit draws ABC into the alleged scheme by saying the
auditing organization "would direct publishers how to paper over
the check-swaps with falsified paperwork that ABC would accept
so as to permit the undistributed magazines to be included as
paid circulation."  It also claims that members of ABC's board
of directors "are employed by publishers and have been
personally responsible for overseeing check-swapping
agreement(s) between their respective publishers and Inflight."

The suit is "Teletype Co., Inc. v. Bedford Communications, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01707-SLT-SMG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Sandra L. Townes with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.  
Representing the plaintiffs is James S. Notis of Gardy, & Notis,
LLP, 440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632,
Phone: 201-567-7377, Fax: 201-567-7337, E-mail:
jnotis@gardylaw.com.


INTEL CORP: Moves to Curtail Advanced Micro Devices Suit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cooper, an attorney for Intel Corp. said that the Company
would move to cut all non-U.S. activities out of an antitrust
lawsuit brought against it by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD),
MarketWatch reports.

At a recent hearing before Judge Joseph James Farnan, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the attorney
said that the Company plans to file a motion to dismiss all
parts of the lawsuit that stem from its activities overseas.

He explains to Judge Farnan, who will preside over the duel
between the competing makers of microprocessors, "It's a huge
area of the complaint that should be dismissed."

In the suit, the Company is accused illegal competitive
practices around the world, one that has been joined by dozens
of customers.  

Charles Diamond, an attorney for AMD, vehemently argues that his
client properly invoked U.S. antitrust laws to challenge conduct
by a U.S. corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California,
directing a global program.

Judge Farnan though reminded the lawyers that motions to dismiss
claims at an early stage of a lawsuit are typically granted only
when there are no disputes over the facts.  The case is expected
to go to trial sometime in 2008.

Asked if the judge was signaling that the Company would have
tough going getting rid of the non-U.S. component of the massive
lawsuit at the early stage of the case, AMD's lawyer said, "that
was his unmistakable message."

The sparring over whether AMD's antitrust lawsuit should have
global reach or not took place at a planning session with the
judge.

The Company argues that manufacturing and sales overseas are
outside the reach of legal restrictions on monopoly practices
that apply to U.S. activity.  "The antitrust laws were not
intended to reach foreign conduct, and with AMD, we're largely
dealing with foreign conduct," Mr. Cooper told MarketWatch in an
interview after the hearing.

Mr. Diamond though countered, "We think they're wrong on the
law."  In outlining his client's case, Mr. Diamond pointed to a
probe by Japanese trade authorities in 2004, which concluded
Intel had paid big customers not to buy from its rival.  "Intel
pays people not to deal with AMD," he said. "We know that's the
case in Japan."

After hearing each side's arguments, Judge Farnan told the
Company to file its motion to dismiss by May 7.

AMD's case will be tried in tandem with a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of consumers and other claimed victims of the
Company's alleged monopolistic practices.

However, it is AMD that has the most to gain or lose from the
lawsuit, which takes aim at practices that it says have kept it
from gaining market share in spite of producing a superior
microprocessor.  

Mr. Diamond told MarketWatch that AMD would prove at trial that
the Company has used its market power to coerce customers to
spurn his client's microprocessors.  "Intel can, and we believe
has on a regular basis threatened customers," the lawyer said.

Doing business with AMD can mean delayed deliveries, price hikes
on other Intel products and other forms of punishment from the
Company, Mr. Diamond said.

Mr. Cooper though countered that the customers that are the
focus of the lawsuit are major multinational corporations that,
he said, are able to take care of themselves.  "Intel couldn't
bully these customers if it tried. And it didn't try," the
lawyer said.

What the Company calls "discounts," according to Mr. Diamond
though, are a disguised threat of price retribution against
customers who buy from AMD.

The Company says though there isn't any evidence in the market
for computer microprocessors of the wrongs that antitrust laws
were meant to guard against.  "Consumers have benefited from
falling prices, dramatically falling prices and stunning
advancements" driven by Intel's desire to compete, the Company's
lawyer said.

AMD's lawyer, however, pointed out that the smaller Company is
the last survivor of cutthroat competition in the microprocessor
market.  "AMD now is the last man standing.  There are no other
competitors of consequence and there can't be," according to Mr.
Diamond.

For more details, contact Robert Cooper of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Phone: (213) 229-7179, E-mail:
RCooper@gibsondunn.com, Web site: http://www.gibsondunn.com/;
and Charles Diamond of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 1999 Avenue of
the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035, Phone: (310)
246-6789, Fax: (310) 246-6779, E-Mail: cdiamond@omm.com.


ISRAEL: War Crimes Suit V. Ex-General Continues in D.C. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and the Council
for the National Interest held a press briefing on April 25 to
mark the 10th anniversary of the Israeli attack on the United
Nations compound in Qana, Lebanon.  The briefing was at Capitol
Building HC-7, Washington, D.C.

A class action over the killings is still pending in a D.C.
federal court.  Defendant in the suit is the former Chief of
Staff of Israel's military, General Moshe Ya'alon.  He was
charged in a U.S. federal court with war crimes and crimes
against humanity, The Free Speech Radio News reports (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).

The suit was filed on behalf of the sole survivor of a 10-member
family, among others. According to the complaint, as head of
Israeli army Intelligence, Gen. Ya'alon participated in the
decision to shell the clearly marked U.N. compound at Qana and
commanded responsibility for the attack.

The suit follows a complaint filed against Avi Dichter, Israel's
former intelligence chief, for his role in the decision to drop
a one-ton bomb on a crowded residential neighborhood in Gaza
City in July of 2002.  Fifteen Palestinians were killed and
hundreds more injured in that attack.

Brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the suit
against Mr. Dichter sought unspecified damages for what it calls
a "targeted assassination" in which the Israeli Air Force
dropped a 2,205-pound bomb on an apartment building in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory.  

The suit is "Belhas et al v. Ya'alon (1:05-cv-02167-PLF)," filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, under Judge Paul L. Friedman.  Representing the
plaintiffs is James R. Klimaski of Klimaski & Associates,
PC, 1819 L. Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036-3830,
Phone: (202) 296-5600, Fax: (202) 296-5601, E-mail:
klimaski@klimaskilaw.com.


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Lawsuits for $7.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidmetal Technologies reached agreements in principle to
settle the Company's previously disclosed consolidated
securities class action and shareholder derivative actions.

If approved by the courts, the agreements would settle the
consolidated class action:

     -- "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.,
        et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
        Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division;  

     -- the consolidated shareholder derivative actions
        "Brian Clair, Derivatively on behalf of Liquidmetal
        Technologies, Inc. v. John Kang, et al. and Joseph
        Durgin, Derivatively on behalf of Liquidmetal
        Technologies, Inc. v. John Kang, et al.," pending in
        the Superior Court of Orange County, California; and

     -- the shareholder derivative action "Robert Story
        v. John Kang, et al.," pending in the U.S. District
        Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
        Division, respectively.

The consolidated class action arose from a number of lawsuits
filed in 2004 under the federal securities laws against the
Company and certain of its former and current directors and
officers.  The derivative actions also arose from lawsuits
originally filed in 2004 and were based upon the same facts and
circumstances underlying the class action.

As part of the agreements, the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance carriers will contribute a total
of $7.5 million to settle all of the actions: $7,025,000 for the
consolidated class action and $475,000 for the two derivative
actions.  The funds paid to settle the consolidated class action
will be principally paid into an escrow account within a
specified period of time after the federal court grants
preliminary approval of the settlement.  

The funds will be disbursed to certain purchasers of the
Company's securities according to a distribution plan to be
devised and approved by the federal court.  In addition, the
Company will commit to maintaining or implementing various
corporate governance measures in connection with the settlement
of the derivative actions.

Taking into account the insurance contribution, the net cost of
the settlement to the Company should be approximately $500,000,
which is the insurance deductible the Company paid over several
quarters ending in the third quarter of 2005, and which the
Company previously recorded as a charge.

Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.liquidmetal.com--
is a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of products made from
amorphous alloys.  Amorphous alloys are unique materials that
are characterized by a random atomic structure, in contrast to
the crystalline atomic structure possessed by ordinary metals
and alloys.  


MESTEK INC: Shareholder Files Suit in Mass. Over Privatization
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mestek, Inc. faces a purported class action in Massachusetts'
Hampden Superior Court alleging that the Company's plans to go
private this summer are unfair and designed to enrich the its
top two stockholders, The Republican reports.

The suit was filed by Company shareholder Alan Kahn, who along
with his three lawyers are seeking to have the suit designated a
class action on behalf of the public shareholders the Company.  
It was filed against the Company's directors, rather than
against the Company itself.

The Company has more than 8.7 million shares outstanding, with
5.9 million - or 67.6 percent - controlled by John E. Reed, the
Company's chairman and chief executive officer, and his son,
Stewart B. Reed, a director and consultant for the Company.

Earlier this month, the Company unveiled a plan to cease being
publicly traded and to go private.  The plan will go before
shareholders at a July 25 meeting.

The plan, developed by a special committee of directors
appointed by Mr. Reed, would cash out shareholders with fewer
than 2,000 shares at $15.24 per share, a 21 percent premium over
the closing price of the stock the last trading day before the
plan was announced.

Shareholders with more than 2,000 shares would continue to own
the stock, but it would undergo a 1-for-2000 reverse stock split
and be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, trading only
on the "over the counter" market.

The suit charges that the Company would pay the cost of buying
out the small shareholders, with the result that the Reeds would
control a greater percentage of the Company's shares without
expending any of their own money.

In addition, the suit also charges that the remaining
shareholders would suffer, since it would be more difficult to
trade their shares, resulting in a "liquidity discount" on the
prices they could get.

According to the suit, most going-private transactions, unlike
the Company plan, "management and the majority shareholder
obtain outside financing to fund a single price per share to be
paid to all shareholders."

James S. Notis, one of Mr. Kahn attorneys, told The Republican
that suit charges that the board of directors did not fulfill
its fiduciary duty, is "treating one group of shareholders one
way and another group another way, and they're doing all this to
benefit the Reeds, for the Reeds' own personal goals."

For more details, James S. Notis of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701.


OHIO: Attorney in Steubenville Traffic Camera Suit Gets 20% Cut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David E. Henderson of the Court of Common Pleas of
Jefferson County, Ohio, awarded Steubenville attorney Gary M.
Stern up to 20 percent of the final settlement of class action
over speed camera tickets, The Newspaper.com reports.

Mr. Stern filed his suit against the city and camera
manufacturer Traffipax Inc. on behalf of his wife, who received
one of the $85 tickets issued by a traffic camera.  The attorney
argued that the cameras are illegal and unconstitutional
because, for one, under the ordinance, motorists don't have the
right to appeal, (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2006).   

The lawsuit also said the city does not follow the terms of its
own ordinance which requires a 14-day notice before installing
the cameras, (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2006).  

About 3,000 people had paid speed camera fines that the court
deemed unlawful.  Unless the city wins a reversal of the case on
appeal, each ticket recipient will be given the option of
accepting a refund check from the city for $68, or not taking
part in the settlement.

"Of course, anyone who wants to opt out of the class action and
seek their own remedy may do so, but the fee for hiring your own
private attorney -- even for only one hour of work -- would
likely exceed the amount of the ticket itself," Mr. Stern
explained.

The award represents the amount of time, legal fees, and other
expenses Mr. Stern accumulated in fighting the city.  

The suit is, "April Stern v. The City of Steubenville,  
Ohio and Traffipax, Inc., Case No. 05 CV 524," filed in the  
Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, under Judge  
David E. Henderson.  Representing the Plaintiff is Gary M. Stern
of Stern, Stern & Stern Co., LPA, 108 South Fourth St.,
Steubenville, OH 43952, Phone: (740) 284-1211, Web site:  
http://www.sternlawyer.com/complaint.htm.


SFBC INT'L: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuits in Fla., N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SFBC International, Inc. is a defendant in several purported
securities class actions pending in federal courts in Florida
and New Jersey.

Beginning in December 2005, a number of class action were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The suits allege that the defendants misrepresented the
Company's business conditions, prospects and financial results
and failed to disclose the Company's allegedly improper and
reckless business practices, such as improper recruiting
practices and mismanagement of clinical trials.

The class action complaints purport to have been brought by one
of two proposed classes - those who purchased SFBC common stock
from August 4, 2003 through December 15, 2005 or from February
17, 2004 through December 15, 2005.

The actions in the Southern District of Florida were
consolidated and a motion to transfer them to the District of
New Jersey was filed.  A motion to consolidate the actions in
the District of New Jersey is pending.


UNITED STATES: Deal Reached in Workers' Suit Over Leftover Leave
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys are close to settling an eight-year, $7.5 million
class action over compensation for unused annual leave, which
was field against 17 federal agencies on behalf of thousands of
former civil servants, The GovExec.com reports.

When federal employees leave the civil service, they are
compensated for unused annual leave.  The money is paid out in a
lump sum based on what their pay would have been if they worked
through the remainder of their vacation days.

However, between April 7, 1993, and Sept. 7, 1999, a number of
federal agencies calculated these lump-sum payments without
taking yearly pay raises into account.

For example, if an employee retired with 500 hours of unused
vacation days on Dec. 31, 1995, and a pay increase of 4 percent
took effect on Jan. 7, many of those hours should have been
converted using the bumped-up salary.

Attorney Ira Lechner of Katz & Ranzman, P.C., sought to fix
miscalculations when he filed the lawsuit back in 1998.  The
settlement will benefit about 150,000 former federal employees,
90,000 of whom are retirees.

Former members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) stand to
benefit the most from this payout, because they had higher
salaries and were allowed to accumulate more annual leave than
General Schedule employees.

Ira Lechner told The GovExec.com that some former SES employees
will receive thousands of dollars from the settlement, while
others will collect as little as $35.

Also at issue is how these agencies handled Sunday hours.  Some
lump-sum payments did not calculate Sunday work as premium pay,
a mistake the settlement also seeks to remedy.

The Justice Department and Office of Personnel Management are
handling the case on behalf of the 17 agencies: Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing
and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State,
Transportation, and Treasury departments, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, General Services Administration, NASA, Social
Security Administration and U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM).  

The settlement is not final though since Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales still has to approve it as does the presiding
judge, Loren Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

"The long and the short of it is that no one who is affected by
this case has to do anything at this time," according to Ira
Lechner.  "There is plenty of time to file a claim."

Federal retirees who qualify for the back pay will receive
notices in the mail with instructions on how to file a claim.
The information also can be found on the Web at
http://www.mylumpsumpayment.com.  

People who left the civil service for reasons other than
retirement will not receive a notice to file a claim instead
they will have to take action on their own.

For more details, Ira M. Lechner of Katz & Ranzman, P.C., Suite
250, 5028 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20016-4135,
Phone: (202) 659-4656, Fax: (202) 237-2487.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Trial on Charter Amendment Suit Set June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery declined to hold a hearing on the
plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction in the suit
filed against Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.  

The suit is a purported class action litigation seeking to
enjoin the Company's 2006 annual meeting and to invalidate the
authorization of shares of Class C common stock and a charter
amendment to be voted on at the meeting.

Instead, the court will hold a trial on the plaintiff's claims
in June 2006, after the annual meeting is held.  The Company
agreed not to implement the authorization of the Class C stock
or the charter amendment, if approved, prior to the court's
decision.  The Company previously stated that it had no current
plans to issue shares of Class C stock.

The Company's annual meeting of stockholders will be held as
scheduled on May 11, 2006.  It filed various documents with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) related to its annual
meeting, including its definitive proxy statement and a copy of
the complaint.

The Company's proxy materials with respect to the annual meeting
and the complaint is filed at http://www.sec.gov,
http://www.ir.vishay.com. They may also be requested from:  
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., 63 Lincoln Highway, Malvern, PA
19355, Attention: Investor Relations.

Headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Vishay Intertechnology -
- http://www.vishay.com-- a Fortune 1,000 Company listed on the  
NYSE (VSH), is one of the world's largest manufacturers of
discrete semiconductors (diodes, rectifiers, transistors, and
optoelectronics and selected ICs) and passive electronic
components (resistors, capacitors, inductors, sensors, and
transducers).  Vishay has operations in 17 countries, and
employs more than 26,000 people.  


WORLD HEALTH: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Accounting Irregularity
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed against World Health Alternatives in federal court
accuses a co-founder of the Company, Richard E. McDonald, of
enriching himself at the expense of shareholders, Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reports.

Mr. McDonald resigned from the medical staffing firm last year
as the Company disclosed significant accounting discrepancies.  
Mr. McDonald's personal brokerage account was afterwards found
to be valued at $40 million with $22 million in World Health
stocks.  His Company sought bankruptcy protection in February.  

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, claims Mr. McDonald was able to defraud
shareholders through the leeway provided by his position as both
chief executive officer and accounting officer.  

According to the report, the suit alleges that, among others,
Mr. McDonald manipulated the Company's books by:

     -- hiding the fact that the Company wasn't paying federal
        tax payroll taxes by creating a bogus loan of up to $3.6
        million from himself to the Company;

     -- inflating revenues: recording a non-existent $1 million
        contract for a reality TV show involving World Health
        employees on the job, and including the first few days
        of revenue a subsidiary received in the next quarter in
        the prior quarter's results; and

     -- manipulating the number of World Health shares
        outstanding by editing the official list of shareholders
        kept by the Company's transfer agent, Manhattan Transfer
        Registrar Co.

Daszkal Bolton, World Health's former auditing firm, failed to
verify the shareholder list, the suit claims.  It, and Manhattan
Transfer were also named as defendants in the suit, which is an
amended version of class action filed against the Company, its
directors and other parties in the wake of last August's
disclosures.

The lawsuit indicates the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the
matter.

The suit is "Lasner v. World Health Alternatives, Inc. et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas M. Hardiman.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins
         58 South Service Road
         Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: (631) 367-7100
         E-mail: Malba@lerachlaw.com

     (2) Daniel E. Bacine
         Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
         2001 Market Street
         3300 Two Commerce Square
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 963-0600
         Fax: (215) 963-0838
         E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) John R. Bielema, Jr.
         Powell Goldstein LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
         Suite 1400
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         U.S.
         Phone: (404) 572-6999
         E-mail: jbielema@pogolaw.com

     (2) Michael P. Carey
         Powell Goldstein LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
         Suite 1400
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         U.S.
         Phone: (404) 572-6600
         E-mail: mcarey@pogolaw.com


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Settles Claims for US$9M in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc. posted a net asbestos settlement of US$9
million for the 2006-1st quarter, according to a Company press
release. For the same period last year, the Company also settled
US$9 million for net asbestos settlement.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company posted US$391 million asbestos
settlement.

PPG Industries reported 2006-1st quarter net income of US$184
million, or US$1.11 a share, including after-tax charges of
US$23 million, or US$0.14 cents a share, for business
restructuring.

The Company reported US$6 million, or US$0.03 a share, to
reflect the net increase in the current value of the Company's
obligation under its asbestos settlement agreement reported in
May 2002. Sales were US$2.6 billion.

In the 2005-1st quarter, PPG reported net income of US$95
million, or US$0.55 a share, including after-tax charges of
US$91 million, or US$0.52 a share, for a legal settlement;

The Company reported US$5 million, or US$0.03 a share, to
reflect the net increase in the value of the Company's
obligation under its asbestos settlement agreement. Sales were
US$2.5 billion.

Pittsburgh, PA-based PPG Industries Inc. makes coatings (paints
and stains) and sealants. The Company also manufactures glass
and chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities
in more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than
350 paint retail centers in the US.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Posts $7M Receivables in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation divulges that its asbestos-related insurance
receivables amounted to US$7,023,000 for the quarters ended
April 2, 2006 and January 1, 2006, according to a Company press
release.

The Rogers, CT-based Company stated that net sales in the 2006-
1st quarter were an all-time quarterly record of US$103 million,
up 17 percent compared to the US$88 million sold in the 2005-1st
quarter and well above the Company's March 2, 2006 guidance of
US$96 to US$99 million.

Diluted earnings per share for the 2006-1st quarter were also an
all-time quarterly record of US$0.74, more than double the
US$0.30 earned in the 2005-1st quarter, and well above the
Company's guidance of US$0.60 to US$0.64.

Net income for the quarter was US$12.6 million, which includes
US$0.5 million of equity-based incentive compensation expense to
comply with the new share based compensation rules.

Rogers Corp.'s products include printed circuit board laminates
and polyester-based industrial laminates, which are used in
digital cellular communications, mobile radios, and direct
broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Posts US$1.5B Liabilities at 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. records its asbestos-related
liabilities at US$1,558,000,000 and US$1,549,000,000 as of the
quarters ending March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005,
respectively, according to a Company news release.

Insurance recoveries for asbestos related liabilities stands at
US$1,191,000,000 and US$1,302,000,000 as of the quarters ending
March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively.

In the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company issued 35
insurance receipts for asbestos related liabilities as opposed
to 9 receipts in the three months ended March 31, 2005.

The Company recorded 2006-1st quarter sales of US$7.2 billion,
up 12 percent over the prior year. Earnings per share were
US$0.52, a 24 percent increase versus from 2005.

Cash flow from operations was US$239 million and free cash flow
(cash flow from operations less capital expenditures) was US$117
million.

"Honeywell is off to a terrific start in what we expect to be
another great year," said Honeywell Chairman and CEO Dave Cote.

"The quarter's highlights include strong organic growth, margin
expansion and better than expected earnings. Our first-quarter
performance builds on the Company's growing track record of
strong operational execution and financial results. Honeywell's
businesses are well positioned in attractive industries, and we
remain confident in our outlook for 25 to 30 percent earnings
growth in 2006."

Headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey, Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety and landing
systems. The Company also operates through its Automation and
Control, Specialty Materials, and Transportation Systems
segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Notes US$1.8Bil for NARCO Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. estimates a settlement of pending
and future asbestos claims of US$1.8 billion, for former
subsidiary North American Refractories Co., as of March 31, 2006
and December 31, 2006, according to the Company's 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims are expected to be made by the end of 2007. About US$90
million of payments due pursuant to these settlements is due
only upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

As of both March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, the Company's
consolidated financial statements reflect an insurance
receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of
pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$1.1
billion.

Under Honeywell's ownership from 1979 to 1986, NARCO produced
refractory products, which were sold to the steel industry in
the East and Midwest. Less than 2 percent of NARCO's products
contained asbestos.

When the Company sold NARCO in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims. On January 4, 2002,
NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.

Headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey, Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products such as turbofan and turboprop engines and flight
safety and landing systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Unit Posts 79,000 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction products
subsidiary has about 79,000 pending asbestos-related claims at
March 31, 2006, in which about 30 percent of such claims are on
the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in some
jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment,
according to the Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange
Commission report.

The pending claims also include claims filed in jurisdictions
such as Texas, Virginia and Mississippi that historically
allowed for consolidated filings.

In these jurisdictions, plaintiffs were permitted to file
complaints against a pre-determined master list of defendants,
regardless of whether they have claims against each individual
defendant. Many of these plaintiffs may not actually have claims
against Honeywell.

Based on state rules and prior experience in these
jurisdictions, the Company expects that many of these claims
will ultimately be dismissed.

Honeywell currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims of which US$268 million and
US$377 million are reflected as receivables in the Company's
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2006 and December 31,
2005, respectively.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake pads that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. There is a group of
existing and potential claimants consisting largely of
individuals that allege to have performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through March 31, 2006, the Company has resolved about
79,000 Bendix related asbestos claims including trials covering
122 plaintiffs, which resulted in 116 favorable verdicts.

Trials covering six individuals resulted in adverse verdicts;
however, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, a third
is on appeal, and the remaining three claims were settled.

Headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey, Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products such as turbofan and turboprop engines and flight
safety and landing systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Notes $382.6M Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc., for the 2006-1st quarter,
divulges that its long-term asbestos receivable stands at
US$382.6 million, compared to US$384 million in the 2005-4th
quarter, according to a Company press release.

For the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's long-term portion of
asbestos liability stands at US$670.2 million, compared to
US$673 million in the 2005-4th quarter.

The Company reported 2006-1st quarter net income per diluted
share of US$0.40 in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles. Net income per diluted share was US$0.43
excluding the impact of operational consolidation expenses.

The Company had estimated net income per diluted share of
US$0.37-US$0.41 on a GAAP basis and US$0.39-US$0.43 on an
adjusted basis.

Sales for the quarter were a record US$2.552 billion, up 9
percent from the prior year and up 11.8 percent excluding the
impact of foreign exchange.

GAAP net income for the quarter was US$84.1 million, down 32.7
percent from US$124.9 million in the 2005-1st quarter. Adjusted
net income was down 8.8 percent, including stock option
expensing and excluding operational consolidation expenses and a
benefit from 2005 tax items of US$36.4 million.

GAAP net income per diluted share was down 29.8 percent.
Adjusted net income per diluted share was down 4.4 percent,
including stock option expensing and excluding operational
consolidation expenses and tax items.

Headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey, American Standard Cos.
Inc. makes air-conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. Deriving over half of sales, the
Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and
commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand
names.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Lummus Files for Ch. 11 Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd. subsidiary, ABB Lummus Global Inc., filed for Chapter
11 protection in the US Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington,
Delaware, presenting a reorganization plan designed to cap
asbestos-related claims, Reuters reports.

ABB said that, in September 2005, 96 percent of claimants to the
reorganization plan voted in favor of it, adding that it
expected the proceedings to close in the second half of the
year.

The Company earlier announced that the reorganization plan of
its US unit Combustion Engineering Inc. has been finalized.

ABB has committed US$1.43 billion to a trust fund for asbestos
claims against CE. (Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006)

Earlier this month, an ABB spokesman said ABB had made
provisions for the Lummus plan in the double-digit million
region, much smaller than for CE.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd. made asbestos-
lined industrial boilers. Uncertainty over the extent of
potential claim payments at one stage had sent ABB's shares
tumbling more than 60 percent in one day.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland and Japan Merge to Fight Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scotland and Japan join forces in the fight against asbestos,
the leading cause of workplace cancer, Sunday Mail reports.

Monika Ikeda, of the Occupational Safety and Health Center in
Yokohama, Japan, said, " There is a lot we can learn from the
steps Scotland has taken to deal with this problem."

The merging of anti-asbestos campaigners in Scotland with those
in Japan follows concern over an alarming increase in the number
of victims in both countries.

Trade union activists in Japan are adopting a 40-recommendation
report prepared by the Scottish Convention of Local Authorities
in the hope that their own Government will adopt it.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plan to Lift Mining Ban Opposed in India
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental campaigner Gopal Krishna warns that plans by the
Indian Government to lift an asbestos mining ban will worsen the
"asbestos time bomb" facing the country, Hazards Magazine
reports.

Mr. Krishna, coordinator of the Ban Asbestos Network of India,
said, "The reality is that the country's most powerful
parliamentarians bless the asbestos industry. With asbestos
firms being owned by politicians or the state itself, the
Government seems to be following a classic ostrich policy."

Mr. Krishna condemned a "virtually blasphemous" statement to the
Indian parliament on February 27, 2006 by the Minister of State
for Environment Namo Narain Meena.

According to Mr. Krishna, "The rationale to support the
continued use of this killer fiber, used in over 3,000 products,
is glaringly hollow. It continues to devastate workers and
consumers, but the extent of the tragedy remains largely
uncovered in India."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Deters FFIC From Estimation Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC does not propose for Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
or any other party-in-interest, other than itself, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Asbestos Subsidiary
Debtors and the Future Claims Representative, to participate in
the asbestos liability estimation proceeding.

If that is the case, then FFIC cannot be bound by findings made
in the estimation proceeding, Veronica Martinsen Bates, Esq., at
Hermes Sargent Bates, in Dallas, Texas, asserts.

FFIC does not oppose the concept and recognizes the utility of
an estimation proceeding solely for plan confirmation purposes.
However, Ms. Bates asserts that without FFIC's participation,
the Debtors should be allowed to use the results of the
estimation proceeding as a sword against FFIC in any insurance
coverage litigation.

Accordingly, the FFIC asks the Court to include in any case
management order governing any estimation proceedings
appropriate protective "insurance neutrality" terms to the
effect that any estimation of Derivative Asbestos Claims is not
binding on FFIC for any insurance coverage, and may not used
against FFIC for indemnification coverages.

In the alternative, FFIC asks the Court to provide it with the
right to fully and meaningfully participate in any estimation
proceeding.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 20; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors' Claimants Respond to ASARCO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol E. Jendrzey, Esq., at Cox Smith Matthews Inc., in San
Antonio, Texas, relates that in May 2002, asbestos judgment
creditors represented by Martin Berks and Roger Lucas filed a
motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama.

The Motion to Enforce arose out of a personal injury action
styled Clarence Ervin Alverson, et al. v. William H. Beasley, et
al., involving multiple plaintiffs who contracted asbestos-
related diseases while employed at the CAPCO Plant in St. Clair
County, Alabama.

When Lac d'Amiante du Quebec, Ltd., one of the defendants,
failed to comply with the Settlement, an Order of Judgment was
entered against LAQ and Asarco, Inc.  When LAQ and Asarco, Inc.,
failed to comply with the Order of Judgment, a Final Judgment
was entered on May 21, 2002.

In October 2004, an Order of Judgment was entered in the post-
judgment proceeding to discover assets against the Defendants,
including Asarco, Inc.

Thus, the Berks & Lucas Claimants hold direct claims against
Asarco, Inc., Ms. Jendrzey asserts.

Accordingly, the Berks & Lucas Claimants want to ensure that if
the Court finds that ASARCO LLC is not the alter ego of the
various debtor subsidiaries, that finding does not prejudice
their direct claims against Asarco, Inc., under the various
judgments and settlement agreements.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 20; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creation of Dana Asbestos Committee Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland denies the creation of a
creditors' committee for asbestos injury claimants, a move that
could have delayed the Chapter 11 restructuring of Dana
Corporation, The Blade reports.

Lawyers who said they represent more than 50,000 people with
asbestos injuries had claimed that the Company would be liable
for more than the US$200 million that Dana estimated for
asbestos liability.

However, the existing committee of unsecured creditors had
resisted the proposal of a separate committee, which could drain
Dana's resources and that the projected asbestos liabilities are
too low to justify an additional committee.

Debtors, like Dana, pay the costs of such committees, which have
access to confidential corporate information.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp.'s core products
include axles, brakes, and driveshafts, as well as engine,
filtration, fluid-system, sealing, and structural products. It
also supplies companies that make commercial and off-highway
vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reverses Ruling in CertainTeed Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed
the summary judgment ruling to an asbestos-related suit facing
CertainTeed Corporation, which was remanded to the San Francisco
County Superior Court for proceedings.

The Appeals Court ruled that the trial court's order conflicts
with the statewide statute governing summary judgment motions,
which requires 75 days notice and supporting evidence.

The Panel, comprised of Acting Presiding Justice Timothy A.
Reardon and Associate Justices Patricia K. Sepulveda and Maria
P. Rivera, heard Case No. A108301 on March 10, 2006.

On March 2002, Charles Edward Boyle allegedly died from
mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. Led by Frances Boyle, his
family sued CertainTeed Corp. and other defendants. Mr. Boyle's
family alleged that CertainTeed manufactured or distributed
asbestos.

On June 11, 2004, CertainTeed served and filed notice of its
intent to request expedited summary judgment. Hearing was set
for August 13, 2004, in 63 days, which the San Francisco County
Superior Court heard.

The Court found that the Boyle family produced no evidence of
exposure to asbestos or asbestos products made, distributed,
sold, or purchased by CertainTeed.  

The court entered judgment in CertainTeed's favor on August 26,
2004. The Boyle family unsuccessfully moved for a new trial, and
then appealed.

The Appeals Court, aside from reversing judgment, also remanded
the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Steven M. Harowitz, Stephen M. Tigerman, Marileni Mattis, and
Bryce C. Anderson represented the Boyle family.

Lisa L. Oberg, Camille K. Fong, Mabi H. Ellis, William F.
Sheehan, and Thomas J. Mikula represented CertainTeed Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alarm Raised in Philippine Water System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Roger Mercado of Southern Leyte in the Philippines
orders the Maasin Water District to replace its asbestos pipes,
saying these are carcinogenic, The Philippine Daily Inquirer
reports.

However, MWD Manager Gaudencio Alejandria said the Agency has no
funds to immediately replace the pipes. He said, "Unless it is
inhaled, asbestos is safe." He further stated that the pipes had
been there since the 1960s when galvanized iron pipes were still
unavailable.

Mr. Alejandria said that every time they had money to improve
the water system, they replaced the existing pipes with
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes. He wanted to replace the pipes
because they easily break.

Mr. Alejandria added they would replace the 5-km asbestos pipes
if money would be available.

Rep. Mercado said he was surprised when he learned that the MWD
still had asbestos pipes in the city's water system. He said he
could not understand why these pipes were not replaced when the
use of asbestos material had long been banned.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota's Payout Scheme Marked With Doubts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation's scheme to compensate asbestos victims near
its Kanzaki Plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture has raised more
than a few questions, The Asahi Shimbun reports.

Kubota has pledged to pay up to JPY46 million each to 88 lung
cancer or mesothelioma patients and their bereaved families.

Not only did the pledge come 10 months after Kubota admitted
that dozens of residents near its Kanzaki plant had asbestos-
related illnesses, the Company was not forced by a lawsuit.

In major pollution cases in the past, victims were forced to
endure years of court battles to establish a causal relationship
before they could receive redress.

On the other hand, Kubota claims it wants to accept its "social
responsibility," without actually admitting full responsibility
in causing the illnesses.

A Kubota official said that the Company wants to "swiftly
alleviate sufferings of patients and their families without
being constrained by causal relations in individual cases."  

For now, the relief payments will cover mesothelioma and lung
cancer sufferers and only those who lived within 1 kilometer of
the Kanzaki plant.

The Company has established a joint panel of officials,
patients, families and their supporters to hear their opinions
to work out exactly how broad the scope of the compensation
program should be.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NC Court Approves CSX's Move for New Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina found no error in CSX
Transportation Inc.'s arguments in asbestos-related litigation
and granted the Company's motion for a new trial.

The Panel, which comprised Chief Judge John C. Martin, Judges
Linda M. McGee, and Judge Stanford L. Steelman, Jr., heard Case
No. COA05-488 on March 7, 2006.

Raymond Williams sued employer CSX for allegedly exposing him to
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, in which CSX also
failed to warn him about the dangers of exposure. He worked for
CSX and its predecessor railroad from 1962 until 1999.

Mr. Williams showed evidence that CSX knew as early as 1937 that
asbestos generated "toxic dusts." Evidence showed that CSX did
not conduct air sampling for asbestos hazards until after hiring
Mark Badders, CSX's first industrial hygienist in 1980.

CSX moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
The jury returned a verdict by which it found that CSX was
negligent, that such negligence caused injury to Mr. Williams,
and that he had been damaged in the amount of US$7,500,000.
CSX's motion for a new trial was denied, and the judgment was
entered on the verdict.

After the entry of the verdict, Mr. Williams died and his wife,
Shirley, was substituted as plaintiff-appellee. On appeal, CSX
brought forward 26 assignments of error in 11 arguments.

CSX argued that the trial court made numerous errors by allowing
cross-examination of witnesses, admitting non-expert testimony
regarding Mr. Williams' exposure and causation of his
mesothelioma, admitting evidence of foreseeability without a
proper foundation as to CSX's knowledge, denying CSX's requested
jury instructions, and denying CSX's post-trial motions.

The Appeals Court found no error in CSX's arguments.

H. Forest Horne, Jr. and E. Spencer Parris of Jones Martin
Parris & Tessener Law Offices PLLC represented Shirley T.
Williams and Raymond W. Williams.

Frank J. Gordon of Millberg, Gordon & Stewart PLLC and Randall
A. Jordan and Mary Helen Moses of Jordan & Moses represented CSX
Transportation Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 89,164 Pending Claims in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial products manufacturer Crane Co., as of March 31,
2006, defends against 89,164 pending asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's 8-K report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Of the pending claims, about 25,000 claims were pending in New
York, about 33,000 claims were pending in Mississippi, about
9,000 claims were pending in Texas and about 4,000 claims were
pending in Ohio.

As of December 31, 2005, the Stamford, CT-based Company faced
about 89,017 asbestos-related injury claims pending in various
state and federal courts. (Class Action Reporter, January 27,
2006)

Crane Co. reports that its current asbestos-related liabilities
stand at US$55,000,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006
and December 31, 2005, according to a Company press release.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability stands at
US$515,762,000 and US$526,830,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively.

For the 2006-1st quarter, the Company recorded US$222,833,000
for its asbestos-related insurance receivable. The Company
posted asbestos-related insurance receivable of US$224,600,000
for the 2005-4th quarter.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred, before
insurance and tax effects, for the Company in the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 totaled US$15.2 million
and US$7.2 million, respectively.

The Company's total pre-tax cash payments for settlement and
defense costs, net of payments from insurers and including
certain legal fees and expenses relating to the terminated MSA
in the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 totaled
US$9.3 million and US$10.8 million respectively.

Effective March 1, 2006, the Company entered into two agreements
with Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and certain affiliated
companies settling all outstanding claims under the Company's
primary policies with Hartford for a final payment of US$1.3
million and establishing a coverage-in-place arrangement for
asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with
Hartford, including a payment of US$2.6 million for claims
billed to Hartford through September 1, 2005.

The Company received these payments in March 2006 and April
2006, respectively.

Crane Co. makes industrial products, including fluid handling
equipment, engineered materials, merchandising systems, and
controls. The Company serves the power generation, general
aviation, commercial construction, food and beverage, and
chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exxon Mobil May Face 2nd-Hand Exposure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Anthony Olivo has the
right to sue Exxon Mobil Corp. for the death of his wife,
Eleanor, due to second-hand asbestos exposure, the Associated
Press reports.

Mr. Olivo worked as a steamfitter and welder from 1947 until he
retired in 1984. He was hired by independent contractors to work
at various New Jersey sites, among them Exxon Mobil's Paulsboro,
New Jersey refinery, where Mr. Olivo worked around asbestos-
laden pipe coverings and gaskets.

Mrs. Olivo never worked on the pipes, but she washed his work
clothes. The Court said Exxon Mobil, which owned the property,
should have known she was in danger.

Upholding a lower court's decision, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia
said, "Exxon Mobil owed a duty to spouses handling the workers'
unprotected work clothing based on the foreseeable risk of
exposure from asbestos borne home on contaminated clothing."

Mrs. Olivo died in 2001 of a rare form of cancer linked to
prolonged asbestos exposure. Mr. Olivo contracted a non-terminal
asbestos-related disease.

The Court said Exxon has been aware since 1937 that asbestos
exposure was associated with disease.

However, Exxon argued that it did not owe anything to Mrs. Olivo
because she had not been on its premises herself. The Company
also contended that it should not be held responsible for her
death because Mr. Olivo did not directly work for Exxon.

Mr. Olivo, 85 years old, sued more than 30 defendants, including
five owners of sites where he worked. Excluding Exxon Mobil, all
defendants have settled with him for undisclosed amounts.

Mr. Olivo's attorney, Joshua Spielberg, said the decision marks
the first time a state high court has ruled that plant owners
also have a duty to protect a worker's household members from
foreseeable harm. The decision also means Mrs. Olivo's wrongful
death case can be taken up again by a lower court. The damages
being sought have not been specified.

"As this ruling points out, industrial plant owners have know
for years that toxic substances can cause harm if brought home
with workers," Mr. Spielberg said. "This now sets a precedent
that other state courts can look at."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Govt. Printing Office Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safety inspectors of the U.S. Government Printing Office
building discovered asbestos, a known hazard, near an entrance
to the structure's tunnels, The Hill reports.

A GPO spokeswoman said the inspectors found the "asbestos-
containing materials" on a conveyor belt. Tests confirmed that
the substance was 10 percent asbestos.

Veronica Meter, a GPO spokeswoman, said that the tainted area
has been cleaned and is now safe and that the GPO has checked
continually since then for evidence of asbestos throughout the
building.

An anonymous source close to the discovery said the Architect of
the Capitol, the office that manages and maintains the tunnels,
instructed the tunnel crew to stay away from GPO property after
the asbestos was found, limiting access to equipment necessary
for tunnel functions.

An E-mail between Capitol Power Plant Director Mark Weiss and
Susan Adams, the executive officer for facility management,
indicated that "the asbestos procedures currently in place do
not comply with" the standards of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which supervises the GPO.

Workers should exit the tunnels into a "dirty room" to remove
contaminated clothing and equipment. Next, employees should
shower and enter a "clean room" with clean, untainted clothing,
according to OSHA requirements. OSHA requires that procedure
when an area is considered "regulated" or containing an "above
the standard" level of asbestos.

The Office of Compliance has recommended that the AoC implement
the OSHA procedure. Ms. Adams said in the e-mail that casual
inquiries at the AoC suggest that such procedures were not
followed. Six tunnels that house utility pipes run from the
Capitol Power Plant to the Capitol complex. Tunnels open into
well-traveled halls in office buildings and the Capitol and onto
major streets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY City Fined $6.8T for Police Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration imposed a
US$6,800 penalty on the Kentucky city of Georgetown for
environmental violations in the Georgetown Police Department,
Georgetown News-Graphic reports.

OSHA ordered all violations to be fixed by May 12, a date that
could be negotiated. The two violations mostly relate to the
presence of asbestos, inorganic arsenic, lead and cadmium found
within the GPD and the City's failure to properly notify
employees of potential problems.

Steve Sparrow, OSHA director of compliance, said the OSHA
inspected the building in January after the group received a
complaint from an unnamed employee. The investigation followed a
May 2001 report conducted by an environmental group that showed
soil samples taken from a lot located behind the police
department contained lead, arsenic and barium.

One of the OSHA violations lists the City as not complying with
requirements to notify employees about the GPD containing
harmful materials through such steps as posting signs and
developing and implementing a hazard communication program.

In the second citation, OSHA found that surfaces at the police
department were not free as practicable of inorganic arsenic,
lead and cadmium accumulations, noting that materials were found
in an air sample in the station's evidence room on a beam above
the training room ceiling.

The Bourbon Street building, which once housed a pencil factory,
was converted to the police department in 1996. The building
also houses the county's electrical inspection office.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Man Seeks Information on Father's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Richards, the son of Doncaster, UK-based Tony Richards
who died due to workplace asbestos exposure, appeals to his
father's former colleagues for information about his working
conditions.

The elder Mr. Richards died on September 19, 2003 at the age of
60 from the rare asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma. He
purportedly contracted the disease while working for J. Ibbotson
in Bentley Road, Doncaster, between 1958 and 1960. He joined the
firm as an apprentice painter and decorator at the age of 15.

The younger Mr. Richards said, "This terrible illness took my
dad away from us so quickly. It is such an aggressive disease
that causes so much pain and suffering. He suffered greatly in
the last months of his life and he left behind a family who
misses him terribly."

Anthony Richards' solicitor, Helen Ashton of Irwin Mitchell,
said, "As with so many cases of mesothelioma, Mr. Richards had
only a matter of months to live once he had been diagnosed and
this came as a terrible shock to his family who are still trying
to come to terms with his death. In order for them to obtain
some justice, it's vital that people who worked alongside him
come forward to assist us with our inquiries."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Woman Seeks to Raise Awareness of Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent, UK-based Avril Grant, at the funeral of her partner Les
Alford, says that she wanted to raise awareness of mesothelioma,
a rare form of asbestos-related cancer.

Mr. Alford's death occurred five years after Mrs. Grant's
husband, Chris Grant, died.

Mr. Alford inhaled asbestos fibers during his 30-year career as
a lorry driver and mechanic. Asbestos was used in brake and
clutch linings, and mechanics could face high asbestos exposures
when these were changed.

It was common to blow out dust from brake drums with a
compressed air line. The process, which was discovered by Ford
Motor Co. in 1970, created dust levels hundreds of times today's
legal exposure limit.

Mesothelioma, which may take between decades to develop, claims
over 1,800 people in the UK annually.

Asbestos victims' organizations in February lobbied the
government for more effective support, research and treatment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MPs Warn of Health Hazards All Over Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to two federal Members of Parliament, not only is
asbestos still present in households and buildings throughout
Vancouver and Canada, there is also little if anything being
done about it, 24 Hours reports.

According to Vancouver East MP Libby Davies, asbestos-containing
Zonolite was used in homes, schools and public buildings and was
even subsidized by the Federal Government up until 1984.

Asbestos is nearly impossible to detect as an airborne substance
and therefore is hard to recognize, but according to fellow New
Democrat MP Pat Martin, Zonolite is a golden-brown popcorn-like
substance that was used in attics for at least 20 years.
Zonolite is reportedly safe unless it has been disturbed.  

"People have a right to know where it exists and what can be
done to alleviate the situation," said Ms. Davies. "This is a
product that was commercially available at your local building
supply or home supply store."
  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Coroner Links Fitter's Death to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coroner Dr. Emma Carlyon associates the death of former carriage
fitter Derek Charles Lambert to asbestos exposure, This Is
Cornwall reports.

Mr. Lambert worked for British Rail, where he spent 48 years
working around the substance.

The Truro, UK inquest heard that Mr. Lambert was not given
safety equipment nor warned of the dangers of exposure. The
inquest heard told that several of his colleagues had asbestos
related illnesses and one had died of asbestos exposure.

The 82-year-old Mr. Lambert died on February 19, having
deteriorated over the previous six months. He had developed a
dry cough and was having trouble breathing.

In a statement, his widow Clarice said that Mr. Lambert had
worked in an environment where asbestos was used for fire
prevention and heat insulation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA Court Dismisses Claims v. Eaton Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit reversed a
prior court's judgment, sustained Eaton Corporation's exception
of prescription as to plaintiffs' asbestos-related claims, and
dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Eaton.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Felicia Toney Williams, James E.
Stewart, and D. Milton Moore III, handed down the ruling on Case
No. 40,313-CW on March 10, 2006.

Eaton appealed a judgment denying its exception of prescription
as to the claims of George T. Pickett, Thaud Kierbow, Wilbur
Shoemake, Jr. and Herman James.

The district court found that because Webster Parish, Louisiana
was a proper venue as to Eaton at the time plaintiffs sued,
their claims had not prescribed.

In August 1999, 19 plaintiffs, including Mr. Pickett, Mr.
Kierbow, Mr. Shoemake, Jr. and Mr. James, alleged asbestos
exposure while working at various job sites, including the
International Paper Co. site in Springhill, Louisiana.

Mr. Pickett, Mr. Kierbow, Mr. Shoemake, and Mr. James also
alleged asbestos exposure while working at the premises of
Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. located in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Plaintiffs' petition also alleged claims against suppliers of
asbestos products, including Asten Group Inc. Mr. Pickett and
Mr. Shoemake alleged occupational exposure to asbestos at the
Webster Parish premises of Cordant Technology and Arizona
Chemical Co.

On March 30, 2001, plaintiffs amended their petition to add
Eaton, successor in interest to Libbey, as a party defendant.
Eaton then filed a declinatory exception of improper venue
against Mr. Pickett, Mr. Kierbow, Mr. Shoemake and Mr. James.

In June 2004, Eaton filed an exception of prescription alleging
that the claims of Mr. Pickett, Mr. Kierbow, Mr. Shoemake and
Mr. James had prescribed because the original petition, filed
Webster Parish, did not interrupt prescription and Eaton was not
timely served with process.

The district court denied the exception, finding that Webster
Parish was a proper venue at the time plaintiffs sued. The
district court docketed the case for appeal.

Since Eaton was not served with process until March 2001, the
plaintiffs' claims against Eaton have prescribed. Thus, the
district court erred in denying Eaton's exception of
prescription.

Jane H. Barney, Annette N. Peltier, Anderson O. Dotson, III,
represented Eaton Corp.

Jody E. Anderman, Jeffery R. Nicholson, represented Mr.
Shoemake, Mr. Kierbow, Mr. James, and Mr. Pickett. Sherri Ann
Saucer represented Mr. Pickett.

Forrest R. Wilkes, Joshua L. Rubenstein, Ronald D. Collins,
represented Asten Group Inc. Avery L. Griffin represented
International Paper Co. and Arizona Chemical Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records US$185M Charge in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc., in the 2006-1st quarter, recorded an asbestos-
related charge of US$185 million (pretax and after-tax)
including a mark-to-market charge of US$182 million reflecting
the increase in the Company's common stock from December 31,
2005 to March 31, 2006, according to a Company release.

The Company also recorded a US$3 million charge to adjust the
estimated fair value of certain other components of the proposed
asbestos settlement.

Beginning with the first quarter of 2003, the Company has
recorded total net charges of US$1,003 million to reflect the
estimated fair value of its asbestos liability.

Headquartered in Corning, New York, Corning Inc. makes fiber-
optic cable, which it invented more than 30 years ago. Once
known for its kitchenware and lab products, the Company now
provides optical fiber and cable products and communications
network equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Records Liability at $1.7B in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., for the quarters ended March 31, 2006 and
December 31, 2005, disclosed an asbestos-related liability of
US$1.7 billion, according to a Company press release.

For the quarters ended March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, the
Company notes asbestos-related insurance of US$500 million that
it expects to realize after one year.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and 61 of its US subsidiaries and
affiliates, including its primary US operating subsidiary W.R.
Grace & Co.-Conn., filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in
the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

On November 13, 2004, Grace filed a plan of reorganization, as
well as several associated documents, including a disclosure
statement, with the Bankruptcy Court. On January 13, 2005, Grace
filed an amended plan of reorganization and related documents to
address certain objections of creditors and other interested
parties.

The amended Plan is supported by committees representing general
unsecured creditors and equity holders, but is not supported by
committees representing asbestos personal injury claimants and
asbestos property damage claimants.

As part of determining the confirmability of the Plan, the
Bankruptcy Court had approved a process and timeline for the
estimation of asbestos-related property damage and personal
injury claims.

Most of Grace's non-core liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims,
tax matters and other obligations) are subject to compromise
under the Chapter 11 process.  

Based in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured
into two major units, each accounting for about half of sales.
Grace's Davison Chemicals makes silica-based products, chemical
catalysts, and refining catalysts that help produce refined
products from crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals makes
concrete and cement additives, packaging sealants, and
fireproofing chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp to Resolve Claims Pursuant to Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
To determine a consensual resolution of their Chapter 11 cases,
USG Corporation and the Debtors reached an agreement with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and
Dean M. Trafelet, as the Court-appointed legal representative
for future claimants, to resolve all asbestos personal injury
claims and cooperate in the confirmation of a plan of
reorganization filed on February 17, 2006.

The Asbestos Agreement provides that it will be implemented
through the Debtors' Plan.

Marla Rosoff Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, in
Wilmington, Delaware, counsel to the Asbestos PI Committee,
tells the Bankruptcy Court that a key feature of the Plan is the
establishment of an Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, into which
all asbestos-related personal injury claims will be channeled.
Among other things, the Debtors will pay $890,000,000 and issue
a $10,000,000 promissory note to the Trust on the Effective
Date.

Ms. Eskin relates that since the Petition Date, no party has
seriously disputed that the establishment of that trust would be
the cornerstone of any plan of reorganization.

Indeed, Ms. Eskin says, to obtain the benefit of a permanent
channeling injunction with respect to asbestos-related PI
claims, those claims should be channeled to a trust that meets
the requirements under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Asbestos Agreement also provides that the Debtors will use
their reasonable best efforts to have the Plan's effective Date
to occur on or before July 1, 2006.  Unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the parties, the Asbestos Agreement terminates if,
among other things, the Effective Date has not occurred on or
before August 1, 2006.

Pursuant to the Plan, the occurrence of the "Effective Date" is
subject to the condition precedent that, inter alia, "the
Asbestos Personal Injury Trustees [will] have been selected and
[will] have executed and delivered the Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust Agreement."

Ms. Eskin also relates that the Futures Representative and the
PI Committee have interviewed approximately 80 candidates to
serve as prospective trustees and directors in several cases, in
connection with the formation of asbestos personal injury
trusts. Ms. Eskin discloses that once the Trustees are selected,
they will commence taking the steps that they believe are
necessary to have the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust operational
and ready to receive, process and pay asbestos PI claims as soon
as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date.

Based on what has occurred in other asbestos-related Chapter 11
cases, the PI Committee and the Futures Representative expect
that the Trustees will retain separate counsel in connection
with carrying out their duties relating to the formation and
operation of the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and to make
whatever preparations may be necessary so that the Trustees are
in a position to have the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust
operational as soon as reasonably practicable.

As part of those preparations, the Trustees will be meeting with
the Debtors' representatives, the Futures Representative, the PI
Committee, and proposed members of the Trustee's Advisory
Committee.

In accordance with the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Agreement,
each of the Trustees will be entitled to receive a per annum
compensation, plus a per diem allowance for meetings or other
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust business performed.  The Trustees
are also required to consult with the Advisory Committee and the
Futures Representative on certain issues relating to the
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.  Each Advisory Committee member
will be entitled to compensation from the Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust in the form of a reasonable hourly rate set by the
Trustees for attendance at meetings or other conduct of Asbestos
PI Trust business.

The PI Committee and the Futures Representative want to have the
Trustees and the Advisory Committee commence establishing the
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and taking other steps necessary
to have the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust ready to be
functioning by the Plan Effective Date, so that the Asbestos
Personal Injury Trust will be in a position after the Effective
Date to receive, process and pay asbestos PI claims.

By this motion, the PI Committee and the Futures Representative
ask the Court to authorize the Debtors to:

(a) Reimburse the Trustees for the reasonable attorneys' fees
and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the
establishment of the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and other
actions as are necessary to have it operational by the Effective
Date;

(b) Reimburse the Advisory Committee members for reasonable out-
of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with those activities
and pay the members a reasonable hourly rate established by the
Trustees for meetings attended or other conduct of Asbestos
Personal Injury Trust business;

(c) Pay the Trustees for meetings attended at per diem to be
included in the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Agreement; and

(d) Pay the premiums for errors and omissions insurance to be
issued on the Trustees' behalf.

Ms. Eskin notes that the Trustees' fees and expenses will be of
no cost to the Debtors' estates since all reimbursable fees and
expenses will be offset against the $890,000,000 payment to be
made to the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust on the Effective
Date.

Ms. Eskin asserts that granting the request will place the
Debtors in a position to consummate the Plan shortly after its
confirmation.

(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 109; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Faces 2,153 Open Claims in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation reports of 2,153
unresolved asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2006 as opposed
to 1,919 unresolved claims at March 31, 2005, according to the
Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The Company recorded 2,121 unresolved claims as of December 31,
2005 and 2,120 unresolved claims as of June 30, 2005. (Class
Action Reporter February 24, 2006)

The Company faces a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos. The heaviest exposure for subsidiary BNSF Railway Co.
employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of
steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years
of 1950 and 1967.  

Accrued obligations for the Fort Worth, TX-based Company's
asserted and unasserted asbestos matters stood at US$322 million
for the 2006-1st quarter. Of this obligation, US$260 million is
related to unasserted claims while US$62 million is related to
asserted claims. At March 31, 2006, US$21 million was included
in current liabilities. The recorded liability was not
discounted.

In addition, defense and processing costs, which are recorded on
an as-reported basis, are not included in the recorded
liability. The Company is presently self-insured for asbestos-
related claims.

The Company cited that it is reasonably possible that future
costs to settle asbestos claims may range from about US$225
million to US$425 million. However, BNSF Railway believes that
the US$322 million recorded is the best estimate of the
Company's future obligation for the settlement of asbestos
claims.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corp., through subsidiary BNSF Railway Co., operates as a
railroad running through 28 states in the West, Midwest, and
Sunbelt regions of the US and in two Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waste Plant Proposal Raises Safety Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
The conversion of a building near Milton Ernest in the United
Kingdom into a transfer station for four types of asbestos plus
oils and waste from electronic equipment has sparked concerns
and fears among residents, Bedford Today reports.

The County Council has granted B&W Waste Management Services to
convert the building at the Twinwood Business Park, which is
part of the former defense facility of the Defence Evaluation
and Research Agency.

According to a County Council report, the firm wants to bring in
"securely bagged" asbestos waste and store it in skips before
transporting them to treatment plants or landfill.

Seven categories of waste, from electrical and electronic
equipment, are also due to be taken there, five of them
classified as hazardous, and kept in "leak-proof" containers.

Unwanted oil from garages and B&W's own vehicles will also be
accepted and pooled in a "fully bunded" 8,000-liter tank before
being transferred into tankers for treatment elsewhere.

The report stated that most of the opposition to the plan
centers of fears of Heavy Goods Vehicles traveling to and from
the site and passing through Milton Ernest or along Twinwood
Road in Clapham.

However, the report added that the problems are dealt with by an
existing heavy truck ban in Milton Ernest, which will be backed
by measures to stop vehicles leaving the site and heading
towards the village, or traveling towards it from there. It is
also intended to limit the use of Twinwood Road by HGVs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos in CA City Raises Health Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns regarding the presence of asbestos plague the city of
Folsom, California particularly the Empire Ranch area, The
Folsom Telegraph reports.

Investigations by the Department of Toxic Substances Control
between April 2004 and July 2005 discovered asbestos at the
sites of Empire Ranch Elementary School and the new high school.
Further tests revealed elevated asbestos levels in the several
parts of the Empire Ranch subdivision site.

Mark Malinowski, DTSC school unit chief, said the tests were
restricted to the proposed school boundaries themselves. He
explained that using the test results to predict what may exist
in surrounding areas is misguided because even the levels found
at the adjacent elementary and high school sites differed
greatly from each other.

Given that, a September 2004 board letter from the Sacramento
Metro Air Quality Management District implied the problem may be
in other parts of the City as well.

Mr. Malinowski said the DTSC developed conservative health
safety criteria, saying the department was "very aggressive
about requesting actions." In fact, that it has received
criticism in the past for requiring school districts to do
costly mitigations that some say could pay for books or
extracurricular programs.

To combat what was found at the school site, the cleanup plan
proposes to place geotextile fabrics, which resembles a tightly
woven cloth and is used to suppress dust, in playfields and
landscapes.

More measures would entail covering the fabric with 8 to 12
inches of clean soil, placing erosion control blankets over
sloped areas, and developing and operations and management plan
for further control.

Asbestos use remains widespread in the building industry, and
Marty said more forms are being found in California, primarily
in the foothills.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ex-Laborer Seeks More Than US$500T in Pabst Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie and Thurman Gamble seek damages in excess of US$500,000,
plus all costs, in a 10-count asbestos lawsuit filed by Mrs.
Gamble against 74 defendants including Pabst Brewing Co., The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In the suit filed on April 20, Mrs. Gamble worked for Pabst from
1978 to 1982 and claims that on June 9, 2004, she first became
aware that she had developed lung cancer and that her illness
was wrongfully caused.

Mrs. Gamble claims the defendants intentionally or with a
reckless disregard for her safety:

-- Included asbestos in their products, when the defendants knew
or should have known that the asbestos fibers would have a
toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon her health;

-- Included asbestos in their products when adequate
substitutions were available;

--- Failed to provide adequate warning to people working with
and around the products of the dangers of inhaling, ingesting or
otherwise absorbed fibers in them;

--- Failed to provide adequate instruction concerning the safe
methods of working with and around asbestos products; and

--- Failed to conduct tests on the asbestos-containing products,
manufactured, sold or delivered by the defendants in order to
determine the hazards to which workers might be exposed.

"Pabst Brewing Co., knew or should have known at least by 1930
that asbestos-containing products which it supplied and which
were used extensively throughout the facility, were a health
hazard to people who worked with and around them, and in the
alternative, had no positive proof that prolonged exposure to
asbestos was safe," the complaint states.

Randy Gori of Edwardsville, IL represents the Gamble couple.

Circuit Judge Dan Stack presides over the case.


COMPANY PROFILE
Pabst Brewing Company  
121 Interpark Blvd., Ste. 300
San Antonio, TX 78216-1852
Phone: 210-226-0231
Fax: 210-299-6807
Toll Free: 800-935-2337
http://www.pabst.com

Description:
Established in 1844, the Pabst Brewing Co. pays other brewers,
such as Miller and Lion Brewery, to brew the beers, while it
retains ownership of the brands (Pabst Blue Ribbon, Pearl, Lone
Star, Old Milwaukee, Old Style, Schlitz, and Colt 45) and
markets the products.


ASBESTOS ALERT: OSHA Cites Four NY Firms for Handling Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration asserts that
four New York firms should pay US$91,000 in fines for failing to
provide workers with respirators and other safeguards while
working in asbestos debris to fix a bowling alley's collapsed
roof, Business Today reports.

OSHA imposed fines on: Clarence Wall & Ceiling Inc. with 15
citations worth US$45,000, Contour Erection & Siding Systems
Inc. with 14 citations worth US$42,000, A-Tehebi Corp.'s
building owner with two citations worth US$1,500, and
Leisureland, Cambio Sales' operator with two citations worth
US$2,500.

OSHA stressed that the contaminated work environment had a crew
without training and protection, such as clothing, and that the
debris was not properly disposed of.

Half the roof was lying on 15 to 20 bowling alleys of the
Leisureland lanes and restaurant on Camp Road in Hamburg, New
York in November when assistant area director Mike Stratton
arrived from the OSHA office.

Workers from two contracting companies had been on the job for a
few days before Mr. Stratton came to inspect and found pieces of
asbestos.

Mr. Stratton said the companies, which have 15 days to contest
the citations, should have guarded against asbestos' dangers.


COMPANY PROFILE
Clarence Wall & Ceiling Inc.
9393 Main Street
Clarence, NY 14031
Tel: (716) 759-2944


COMPANY PROFILE
Contour Erection & Siding Systems Inc.
7254 Southwestern Blvd.             
Eden, New York 14057    
Tel: (716) 627-1140


COMPANY PROFILE
A Tehebi Corp.
5220 Camp Road
Hamburg, NY 14075
Tel: (716) 646-4608


ASBESTOS ALERT: TOTAL SA Contends With 450 Claims in US Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL SA contends with about 450 asbestos-related proceedings in
various US courts, according to a SEC report.
  
These proceedings concern claims by third parties relating to:

-- Alleged exposure to asbestos on the Group's sites, or

-- Exposure to products containing asbestos and sold by former
subsidiaries of the Group in the United States.

Provisions have been made for these proceedings in an amount
that the Group deems sufficient.
  
In France, claims for occupational illness related to past
asbestos exposure have been filed against the Group, mostly for
periods before 1980. Given the latency period of asbestos-
related pathologies, a large number of claims for occupational
illness is likely to be filed in the years ahead.

As of December 31, 2005, 70 actions seeking asbestos-related
compensation were underway.

The Company provides EUR30 million for asbestos removal at
December 31, 2005 compared to EUR17 million at December 31,
2004.


COMPANY PROFILE
TOTAL S.A.   
2 place de la Coupole, La Defense 6
92400 Courbevoie, France
Phone: +33-1-47-44-58-53
Fax: +33-1-47-44-58-24
http://www.total.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$169,439.0
1-Year Sales Growth:              1.9%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$14,525.0
1-Year Net Income Growth:         11.6%
2004 Employees:                   111,401
1-Year Employee Growth:           0.6%

Description:
TOTAL explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural
gas. The Company, which refines and markets oil, also trades and
transports both crude and finished products. Operating in more
than 100 countries, the Company has reserves of 11.1 billion
barrels of oil equivalent.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities fraud lawsuit on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased the securities of
Comverse Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: CMVT) on the open market
during April 30, 2001 through April 16, 2006.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, against defendants Comverse, Kobi
Alexander (Chairman, CEO), and David Kreinberg (E.V.P., CFO),
and is seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint may be obtained from the court or viewed or
downloaded from
http://www.wolfpopper.com/publications/currentCases.cfm.

Interested parties may, no later than June 19, 2006, request
that the court appoint them as lead plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
recklessly or intentionally, instituted woefully deficient
internal controls surrounding the administration of the
Company's stock-based compensation plan, which enabled Company
employees to enrich themselves by knowingly and fraudulently
changing the stock option grant dates to dates on which the
Company's stock price was lower than the actual grant date (and
thus lower than fair market value on the actual grant date).

As a result of these manipulations, the Company was caused to
under report the corresponding compensation expense and over
report net income and retained earnings on its financial
statements.

When the truth of the stock option scheme was revealed to the
market beginning on March 13, 2006, through the end of the class
period on April 16, 2006, Comverse's stock price fell from
$29.15 to $22.94, a staggering 21% drop.

For more details, contact: Wolf Popper LLP at 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600 or (877) 370-7703,
Fax: (212) 486-2093 or (877) 370-7704, E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com, Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com,Emily  
DeMuro, Investor Relations, Phone: (212) 451-9610, E-mail:
edemuro@wolfpopper.com or James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq., E-mail:
Jkelly@wolfpopper.com,


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, between March 24, 2004 and
March 22, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Fairfax, V.
Prem Watsa (Chairman and CEO), Greg Taylor (CFO), Trevor
Ambridge (CFO) and M. Jane Williamson (Vice President).

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss's Web site at:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.

Interested parties may, no later than June 12, 2006, request to
be appointed as lead plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that Fairfax engaged in property and
casualty insurance and reinsurance, conducted on a direct basis
principally in Canada, the U.S., and the United Kingdom.

The complaint further alleges that Fairfax's class period
financial statements, disseminated in press releases and SEC
filings, were materially false and misleading for these primary
reasons:

     (1) defendants allowed and/or authorized the Company to
         enter into bogus reinsurance contracts with its captive
         subsidiaries, Odyssey Reinsurance Holdings Ltd. and
         Northbridge Financial Corp.  These transactions were
         nothing more than accounting machinations that
         artificially inflated the Company's reported financial
         performance;

     (2) defendants did not maintain adequate systems of
         internal operational or financial controls within
         Fairfax, such that the officers and directors of the
         Company could assure that its reported financial
         statements were true, accurate or reliable;

     (3) the Company's financial statements and reports were not
         prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and

     (4) defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that
         Fairfax was operating according to guidance sponsored
         and/or endorsed by defendants, or that the Company
         could achieve such guidance.

It was only at the end of the class period that investors
learned that the Company had engaged in inappropriate finite
risk insurance transactions.  

Defendants then revealed that V. Prem Watsa and others related
to the Company had received subpoenas from U.S. market
regulators concerning Fairfax's finite risk insurance business
and that market regulators are investigating these finite risk
insurance transactions to determine if they were improperly used
to artificially inflate the Company's earnings and profits.

These sudden and shocking disclosures had an immediate impact on
the price of Fairfax stock; shares of the Company declined
almost 30% in the days following these belated disclosures.

Defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true
operational and financial condition of Fairfax, and materially
misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were
adversely affecting the Company throughout the class period,
because:

     (i) it enabled defendants to artificially inflate the price
         of Fairfax securities by deceiving the investing public
         regarding Fairfax's business, operations, management;

    (ii) it enabled defendants to sell over $600 million in
         securities and over $150 million in Company debt; and

   (iii) it enabled defendants to reap substantial payments of
         unearned bonuses and salaries, and also afforded them
         the opportunity to liquidate their personally held
         Fairfax shares while in possession of material adverse,
         non-public information about the Company.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York,
NY, 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, Email:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.  


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Suit in Wisc.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Merge Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Merge
Healthcare, between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006,
inclusive, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.

The complaint charges Merge and certain executive officers of
Merge with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other
things, the complaint alleges that as a result of improper
accounting practices, the defendants issued materially false or
misleading statements concerning Merge's current and future
financial and operational performance, which caused Merge's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.

Merge, which does business as Merge Healthcare, engages in the
development and delivery of medical imaging and information
management software and services, for both original equipment
manufacturers and for the end-user health care market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on February 24, 2006,
Merge issued a press release that announced the Company was
delaying the release of its fourth-quarter 2005 financial
results, that the Company expected a substantial loss for the
quarter, and that it was reducing its revenue guidance for the
year.

Shares of Merge fell $4.00 per share, or 16.33%, and closed that
day at $20.50 per share.  Over the next three trading days,
Merge shares continued falling an additional 12%, to close at
$18.12 by the end of trading on March 1, 2006.

On March 17, 2006, defendants made further disclosures regarding
the Company's true financial position, and revealed that
accounting improprieties required Merge to delay the completion
and filing of its financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2005.

Specifically, the Company revealed that the "reason for the
delay relates to revenue recognition and tax accounting matters
relating to the merger of the Company and Cedara Software
Corporation in June 2005."

In addition, the Company announced that its management and Audit
Committee had determined that Merge's previously issued
financial statements for the quarters ended June 30, 2005, and
September 30, 2005, should no longer be relied upon, and that
the Company was in the process of investigating certain
anonymous complaints related to the accounting issues just
revealed.

As a result of these revelations, the Company's common stock
declined further, to close at $15.85.
The complaint also alleges that during the class period, with
the Company's stock trading at artificially inflated prices, the
Company's insiders sold 80,000 shares for gross proceeds of over
$2 million dollars.

Interested parties may, no later than May 22, 2006, move the
court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or 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.  


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Stock Lawsuit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Newpark Resources, Inc. between February 28, 2005
and April 16, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against
Newpark and certain officers and directors.

Interested parties who wish to view a copy of the complaint and
join the class action may e-mail at info@gsk-law.com and request
a copy of the complaint and a plaintiff certification.  Also,
they may move the court no later than June 20, 2006 to serve as
a lead plaintiff for the class.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants'
representations during the class period regarding the Company
were materially false and misleading because Newpark failed to
disclose irregularities with the processing and payment of
invoices by the Company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP.

On April 17, 2006, Newpark announced that it had launched an
investigation into the processing and payment of invoices at
Soloco Texas, LP, and that it had placed its CFO and its former
CEO on administrative leave pending the completion of the
investigation.

In reaction to the news, shares of Newpark fell dramatically,
falling by $1.28 per share, or approximately 17%, to close on
April 17, 2006 at $6.14 per share.

For more details, contact (888) 753-2796 to speak with an
advisor.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Lawsuit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) filed a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Newpark Resources, Inc.
(NYSE: NR) between February 28, 2005 and April 16, 2006.

The Complaint filed by KGS charges Newpark and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.  

Particularly, the complaint alleges that Newpark failed to
disclose irregularities with the processing and payment of
invoices by the Company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP.

On April 17, 2006, Newpark announced a Company investigation
into the processing and payment of invoices at Soloco Texas, LP,
and that Newpark's CFO and former CEO had been placed on
administrative leave pending the completion of the
investigation.

Following the disclosure of the invoice irregularities and
consequent investigation, shares of Newpark fell by more than 17
per cent.

For more details, contact: Lewis Kahn, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC,
Phone: Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 or 504-648-1850, E-
mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


PIXELPLUS CO: Ann D. White Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased the securities of Pixelplus Co., Ltd.
between December 21, 2005 and April 11, 2006, inclusive, against
Pixelplus and certain of its officers.

The action concerns allegations that defendants inflated
Pixelplus' revenues by recording as revenues sales to a
subsidiary.  These sales were improper as Pixelplus was required
to, but failed to consolidate the financial results of the
subsidiary with its own.

The truth emerged on April 11, 2006 when Pixelplus announced
that it improperly failed to consolidate the financial results
of this subsidiary in the financial results included in the
Prospectus for its Initial Public Offering at $8 per share on
December 21, 2005 and those announced on February 1, 2006.

It also revealed that recognition of these receivables was
improper due to collectibility "uncertainties".  The effect of
these revelations was to drive Pixelplus stock down by 37% on
April 12 to $4.58 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16,
2006 to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Ann D. White, Mandy Roth or Ronald
Lopit of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274,
E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com or mroth@awhitelaw.com.


PIXELPLUS CO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Pixelplus Co., Ltd.
(Nasdaq: PXPL) from December 21, 2005 through April 11, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Pixelplus and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

     (1) that the Company incorrectly accounted for sales to its
         consolidated subsidiary, Pixelplus Technology Inc.;

     (2) that as a result of this improper accounting, the
         Company's revenues were materially overstated
         throughout the class period;

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

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

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

Three and one-half months after going public, after the market
closed on April 11, 2006, Pixelplus shocked the market when it
announced that, in connection with the work completed to date on
its fiscal year-end 2005 audit, it had decided, pursuant to
discussions with its independent auditors, that PTI, a Taiwan
affiliate, should be recognized as a consolidated subsidiary
commencing fiscal year 2005.

Accordingly, Pixelplus' audited financial statements for the
fiscal year 2005 would consolidate PTI's results of operation.

As a result of the aforementioned accounting change, Pixelplus
announced that the Company's previously announced unaudited
financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 and
for the fiscal year 2005 would need to be corrected.

After absorbing this news, the market reacted swiftly and
negatively.  Shares of the Company's stock sank $2.72 per ADR,
or 37.3 percent, to close, on April 12, 2006, at $4.58 per ADR.

Interested parties may, not later than June 16, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


SEA CONTAINERS: Berman DeValerio Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed securities
fraud suit against Sea Containers Ltd. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint
seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired SCR securities from March
15, 2004 through and including March 23, 2006.

The lawsuit claims the Company and three individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

Sea Containers, Ltd. provides passenger and freight transport
and leases marine containers.  According to the plaintiff's
complaint, the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning SCL's financial results that inflated the
Company's stock price during the class period.

In particular, the defendants:

     (1) failed to timely record $500 million in impairments to
         the value of certain assets in SCL's ferry and
         container business segments;

     (2) overstated the Company's earnings during the class   
         period; and

     (3) overstated the gain on the sale of SCL's equity     
         interest in Orient Express Hotels Ltd.

The truth emerged March 24, 2006, when SCL disclosed that it
would shutter its ferry business, record a $500 million
impairment of certain assets and restate its 2005 interim
financial results.  SCL further disclosed that the substantial
write-down of its assets placed the Company in violation of its
debt covenants with certain lenders.  Lastly, SCL announced it
would restate its previously reported 2005 financial results.

The market reacted swiftly, sending the price of SCL's common
stock down by more than 38%, from a closing price of $12.06 per
share on March 23, 2006, to $7.45 per share at the close of
trading on March 24, 2006.

Deadline to apply as lead plaintiff is May 30, 2006.  To view
copy of the complaint:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/SeaContainers-Cplt.pdf.

For more information, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Joseph C.
Merschman, Esq. One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
(800) 516-9926, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com.  On the Net:
http://www.bermanesq.com/Securities/Signup1.asp?caseid=569.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Charles J. Piven, PA Files Fraud Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of St. Jude
Medical, Inc. (NYSE: STJ) between January 25, 2006 and April 4,
2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota against defendant St. Jude Medical, Inc. and one or
more of its senior 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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

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


ST JUDE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Lawsuit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota against St. Jude Medical, Inc. between
January 25, 2006 and April 4, 2006, inclusive.

Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran is investigating similar claims
at this time and welcomes inquiries from potential class members
concerning their rights and interests in this matter.

The lawsuit alleges that St. Jude violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements regarding
the sales success and prospects of a major St. Jude product, its
implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems (ICD).

Specifically, on January 25, 2006, St. Jude reported that fourth
quarter ICD product sales were $280 million, a 62% increase over
the comparable quarter of 2004 and that ICD product sales for
the full-year 2005 were $1.007 billion, representing a 72%
increase over 2004.

This complaint alleges this was the result of an effort by St.
Jude to push sales of ICDs into the fourth quarter of 2005 so as
to inflate the stock price and achieve extraordinary personal
benefits for top insiders.

On April 4, 2006, St. Jude shocked the market by announcing:

     (1) its financial and operating results were well below
         analysts' expectations and

     (2) sales of ICDs were declining. On this news, shares of
         St. Jude fell $5.05 per share, on extremely high
         volume, to close at $36.25 -- a drop of over 10%.

Interested parties who wish to be appointed as lead plaintiff
may request the court no later than June 9, 2006.

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's
Washington, DC office, Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail:
contact@ftllaw.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, Francisco
Eltanal, Jr., Janice Mendoza 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  * * *