CAR_Public/060501.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 85

                            Headlines

724 SOLUTIONS: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Settlement
ALAMOSA DELAWARE: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Pact
BAUSCH & LOMB: Parker & Waichman Files Fungal Infection Lawsuit
BAUSCH & LOMB: Seeger Weiss Probes ReNu Related Blindness Claims
CALIFORNIA: Homeowners Reject Construction-Defect Suit Process

CANADA: Court OKs Suit Over Ville Marie Expressway Construction
CANADA: May Hearing Set for Saskatchewan Gov't Employees Suit
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Tex. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
CHEMTURA CORP: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
CHEMTURA CORP: Court Mulls Appeal for "Petrolia" Class Status

CHEMTURA CORP: Faces Indirect Purchasers' Suits in State Courts
CHEMTURA CORP: Faces Litigation Over Ga. Facility May 2004 Fire
CHEMTURA CORP: Faces Several Purchasers' Suits in Federal Courts
CHEMTURA CORP: Partially Settles Three Direct Purchasers' Suits
CHEMTURA CORP: Reaches Settlements for Canadian Antitrust Suits

CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Plastics Additives Lawsuit in E.D. Pa.
DOLE FOOD: Still Faces Banana Antitrust Litigation in S.D. Fla.
ENCANA CORP: Firm, Subsidiary Faces $30M Complaint in Calif.
ESTEE LAUDER: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Minn.
FLORIDA: County Sheriff Mascara Demands Opening of New Jail Pod

FLORIDA: Judge Bans Foster Kids' Stay in Unlicensed Facilities
INFORTE CORP: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Settlement
INGLES MARKETS: Settles Civil Complaint with SEC Without Pay
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Court Holds Hearing for Nuanes, Heller Suits
INTELSAT LTD: Conn. Court Mulls Judgment Motion for ERISA Suit

KPMG LLP: More Investors Accept Settlement of Tax Shelter Suit
ONVIA INC: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for Securities Settlement
OPENTV CORP: Continues to Face Del. Suit Over ACTV Acquisition
OPENTV CORP: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Settlement
ORANGE 21: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.

QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Various Cell Phone Injury Suits
RYAN'S RESTAURANT: Settles South Carolina Labor Lawsuit for $9M
SONY MUSIC: Rock Bands File Suit to Demand Share of Royalties
STEWART & STEVENSON: Investors Challenge Planned Sale to Armor
STORA ENSO: Faces Claims of Paper Price Manipulation in Finland

ST PAUL: Ear Surgery Patient Sues Over Tissue Screening Process
SWEDEN: Faces Suit Over Alleged Abuse of Children in Foster Care
TAG-IT PACIFIC: Discovery Stayed in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Prescription Drug Benefit to Poor
UTI WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Tex. Suit for 1991 Gulf War Chemicals

WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Parties Try to Settle Ill. Securities Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


724 SOLUTIONS: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held a fairness hearing last April 24, 2006 for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against 724 Solutions,
Inc.

The Company was named in several class actions filed in federal
court in the Southern District of New York between approximately
June 13, 2001 and June 28, 2001 (collectively the IPO Allocation
Litigation).  The IPO Allocation Litigation was filed on behalf
of purported classes of plaintiffs who acquired the Company's
common shares during certain periods.

These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single
action and an amended complaint was filed on or about April 19,
2002.  Similar actions have or since been filed against over 300
other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998
and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint in the IPO Allocation Litigation names as
defendants, in addition to the Company, some former directors
and officers of the Company (the Individual Defendants) and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of
securities (the Underwriter Defendants).

In general, the amended complaint alleges that the Underwriter
Defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange
         for which these customers agreed to pay the Underwriter
         Defendants extra commissions on transactions in other
         securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public
         offering to certain of the Underwriter Defendants'
         customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional common shares of the Company in
         the after-market at certain pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the
Individual Defendants failed to disclose these facts and that
the Company and the Individual Defendants were aware of or
disregarded, the Underwriter Defendants' conduct.  In October
2002, the Individual Defendants were dismissed from the IPO
Allocation Litigation without prejudice.

In July 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of the Company and of the Individual
Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful
in the amended complaint.

The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may
have against its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of
the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's
insurers.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval.  The Court granted the
preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to
certain modifications.

On August 31, 2005, the Court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  It also appointed the Notice Administrator
for the settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on
November 15, 2005.  The settlement fairness hearing was set for
April 24, 2006.

Following the hearing, if the Court determines that the
settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be
approved.  There can be no assurance that this proposed
settlement would be approved and implemented in its current
form, or at all.

If the proposed settlement is not consummated, the Company
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself and the
Individual Defendants against these claims.

However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and
because the IPO Litigation is at a preliminary stage, the
Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome IPO
Allocation Litigation.  No amount is accrued at December 31,
2005, as a loss is not considered probable and estimable.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


ALAMOSA DELAWARE: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held a fairness hearing last April 24, 2006 for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Alamosa
Delaware, Inc.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of purported
securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (in re Alamosa PCS Holdings
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Docket No. 01
Civ. 11235), arising out of its initial public offering (the
"IPO").  Various underwriters of the IPO also are named as
defendants in the actions.

The action against the Company is one of more than 300 related
class actions, which have been consolidated and are pending in
the same court.  The complainants seek to recover damages and
allege, among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the SEC for purposes of the IPO were false
and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         common stock in connection with the IPO, and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional Company
         shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

On February 19, 2003, the Court granted motions by the Company
and 115 other issuers to dismiss the claims under Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act, which had been asserted against them.  The
Court denied the motions by the Company and virtually all of the
other issuers to dismiss the claims asserted against them under
Section 11 of the Securities Act.

The Company maintains insurance coverage, which may mitigate its
exposure to loss in the event that this claim is not resolved in
the Company's favor.

On October 13, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in cases against six of the issuers (not
including the Company), and stated that the order of
certification gave "strong guidance, if not dispositive effect"
in the cases involving all other issuers.

The underwriter defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit to hear the appeal of the certification
on an interlocutory basis, and on June 30, 2005, the Second
Circuit granted their request.  The Second Circuit ordered the
appeal to be scheduled and briefed in the normal course.

The issuers in the IPO cases, including the Company, reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the claims
asserted by the plaintiffs against them.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the insurance
carriers for the issuers will pay the plaintiffs the difference
between $1 billion and all amounts, which the plaintiffs recover
from the underwriter defendants by way of settlement or
judgment.

Accordingly, the issuers will make no payment on behalf of
themselves under the proposed settlement.  The claims against
the issuers will be dismissed, and the issuers and their
officers and directors will receive releases from the
plaintiffs.

Also under the terms of the proposed settlement, the issuers
will also assign to plaintiffs certain claims which they may
have against the underwriters arising out of the issuers' IPOs,
and the issuers will also agree not to assert certain other
claims which they may have against the underwriters, without
plaintiffs' consent.

The proposed settlement is subject to agreement among the
parties on final settlement documents and the approval of the
court.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications were made and
notice of the proposed settlement was distributed.

Class members will have until March 24, 2006, to file objections
to or exclude themselves from the settlement.  Those who elect
to exclude themselves from the settlement may initiate their own
claims against the Company, and the Company is not able to
estimate or predict whether any class members, or how many, will
choose to do so.  The hearing on final approval of the proposed
settlement is scheduled for April 24, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Parker & Waichman Files Fungal Infection Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed suit on behalf of a woman diagnosed
with Fusarium keratitis after using ReNu with MoistureLoc
solution, manufactured by Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (BOL).  The suit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Docket No. 06 cv 1858).

On April 13, 2006, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. advised consumers to
switch to another lens care solution and asked all retailers to
remove ReNu with MoistureLoc from their shelves.

This action came after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued
public health warnings on April 10, 2006, concerning serious
fungal infections associated with contact lens solution use.

The CDC stated that it had interviewed 30 patients suspected of
having fungal keratitis.  Of those 30 patients, 28 wore soft
contact lenses and 26 used Bausch & Lomb ReNu contact lens
solution in the month prior to the fungal infection diagnosis.

In this case, the injured woman was diagnosed with Fusarium
keratitis in her left eye after using ReNu with MoistureLoc(TM).
As a result of this serious infection, vision in her left eye is
now significantly impaired.  Several invasive procedures may be
necessary to fully remove the infection from the eye, including
the possibility of a corneal transplant.  Parker & Waichman, LLP
has been retained by numerous individuals diagnosed with
Fusarium keratitis who underwent corneal transplants as a result
of damage to their corneas caused by the infection.

Fusarium keratitis is a severe infection of the cornea.  Risk
factors for infection usually include trauma (generally with
plant material), chronic ocular surface diseases,
immunodeficiencies, and, rarely, contact lens use.

An estimated 30 million persons in the United States wear soft
contact lenses.  The annual incidence of microbial keratitis is
estimated to be 4-21 per 10,000 soft contact lens users.
Fusarium keratitis is a condition more prevalent in warm
climates.  First-line treatment includes topical and oral
antifungal medications; patients who do not respond to these
treatments usually require surgical intervention, including
corneal transplantation.  These fungal infections are not
transmitted from person to person.

For more details, contact Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone: 1-800-
LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636), Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com.

Information about MoistureLoc can be accessed through
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/renu_contact_solution
or http://www.renulawsuit.com.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Seeger Weiss Probes ReNu Related Blindness Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeger Weiss LLP is investigating claims against Bausch & Lomb,
Inc. (NYSE:BOL) for eye-related injuries, including reports of
varying degrees of blindness.  ReNu with MoistureLoc, a popular
product of Bausch & Lomb, Inc., is used for daily cleaning and
disinfection of contact lenses.

Recently, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. halted shipments and asked
retailers in the U.S. to remove ReNu with MoistureLoc from
shelves after the product was linked to reports of Fusarium
keratitis.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administrtion (FDA), as of
April 9, 109 cases of suspected Fusarium keratitis were under
investigation in 17 states.

The Associated Press reported that the number of cases grew to
176 in 28 states.

Fusarium keratitis is a fungal eye infection that can scar the
cornea and lead to blindness if it is not properly treated or if
the individual does not respond to antifungal medications.
Users of ReNu with MoistureLoc are advised by the FDA to cease
using it immediately and to discard any remaining solution.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq., or David
R. Buchanan, Esq., Seeger Weiss, LLP, One William Street, New
York, New York 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700 or Toll Free: (877)
541-3273, E-Mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com or
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com, Web site: http://www.lawyerseek.com,
http://www.lawyerseek.com/Practice/Pharmaceutical-Injury-
C1/ReNu-with -MoistureLoc-P126/ or http://www.seegerweiss.com.


CALIFORNIA: Homeowners Reject Construction-Defect Suit Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
California State Secretary Bruce McPherson said that proponents
of a new homeowners rights initiative may begin collecting
petition signatures for their proposal.

The initiative:

     -- Repeals Senate Bill 800, which currently establishes
        residential construction standards and requires certain
        procedures before commencement of residential
        construction-defect lawsuits;

     -- Specifies certain rights of homeowners regarding
        purchase or remodeling of their home;

     -- Prohibits binding arbitration or mediation clauses in
        homeowner purchase contracts or warranties;

     -- Requires builders and cities to maintain all residential
        blueprints for 10 years after construction; violators
        may be fined or sued;

     -- Prohibits use of building materials involved in class
        action lawsuits; and

     -- Authorizes payment of compensation for emotional
        distress, attorney's fees and litigation costs, in
        certain circumstances.

Summary of estimate by legislative analyst and director of
finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
unknown, but potential reduction in state and local government
revenues from impact on building industry.

The Secretary of State said in a statement the proponents for
this measure, Theodore A. Pinnock and Jennifer Watson, must
collect 373,816 signatures of registered voters, equal to five
percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2002
gubernatorial election, in order to qualify.  The 150-day
deadline to circulate petitions for this measure is September
15, 2006.

The initiative proponents can be reached in care of Pinnock &
Wakefield, A.P.C. at 3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA
92103.  No phone number was provided.


CANADA: Court OKs Suit Over Ville Marie Expressway Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court authorized a class action that could
be worth $100 million, in connection with construction noise and
dust from work done in the Ville Marie Expressway, CBC News
reports.  The court gave permission for the case to go to trial
against the Quebec government and two construction companies.

The construction, which covers at least 10,000 residents in
Westmount and Montreal between Guy and the Turcot Yards who
lived within 520 meters of the expressway, took place between
1998 and 2000.

Plaintiffs are claiming $10,000 in damages each, making the suit
worth $100 million.


CANADA: May Hearing Set for Saskatchewan Gov't Employees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The province of Saskatchewan plans to appeal the certification
of a multi-million dollar class action over pension funds filed
by a group of retirement government employees, CBC News reports.
The parties will argue on the matter before an appeal court
judge on May 24, according to the report.

In March, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Catherine Dawson
granted class action status to the suit.  The certification
opens up the suit to up to about 10,000 current and former
employees of the provincial government and surviving spouse, who
alleged the government failed to contribute its share to an
employee pension plan.

Plaintiffs are retirees belonging to the Public Service
Superannuation Plan.  They say the government was supposed to
contribute to their pension plan on a 50:50 basis.  But they
said that the government contributed in only about $3 million to
their plan while employees contributed around $102 million
between 1927 and 1978.

Alfred Zimmerman, Ronald Morgan and Francis Charles May are
spearheading the suit.  Mr. Zimmerman of Fort Qu'Appelle retired
in the late 1980s.  One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs is
Gord J. Kuski Gordon, Q.C. Managing Partner of McDougall Gauley,
700 Royal Bank Building, 2010-11th Avenue Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 0J3 (Regina Jud. Centre), Phone: 306-757-1641, Fax: 306-359-
0785.


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Tex. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has
yet to rule on Central Freight Lines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

In June and July 2004, three stockholder class actions were
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas and generally allege that false and
misleading statements were made in the initial public offering
registration statement and prospectus, during the period
surrounding the initial public offering and up to the press
release dated June 16, 2004.

The suits were subsequently consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas under the caption, "In
re: Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation."

The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was
named lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on May 9,
2005.

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint generally
alleges that false and misleading statements were made in our
initial public offering registration statement and prospectus,
during the period surrounding the initial public offering and up
to March 17, 2005.

On July 8, 2005, the Company responded to the complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss.  On August 23, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to this motion to dismiss, and on
September 12, 2005, the Company filed a response in which it
again requested dismissal of the complaint.  At present, this
motion is still pending and no hearing date has been set.

The suit is, "In re Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-177," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Waco) under Judge Walter S. Smith.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Klein of Smith Robertson Elliott Glen Klein &
         Bell, LLP, 221 West 6th Street, Suite 1100, Austin, TX
         78701, Phone: (512) 225-5808; and

     (2) Michelle N. Peterson and Michael K. Yarnoff of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.

Representing the Company are:

     (1) John L. Malesovas of Malesovas & Martin, L.L.P., P.O.
         Box 1709, Waco, TX 76703-1709, Phone: (254) 753-1777;
         and

     (2) Nicole M. Healy, Kent W. Easter, Randolph Gaw and Lloyd
         Winawer of Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill
         Road, Palo Alto, CA 84306, Phone: (415) 493-9300.


CHEMTURA CORP: Conn. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of Connecticut has yet to
rule on Chemtura Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
former officers and directors (the Crompton Individual
Defendants), and certain former directors of the Company's
predecessor Witco Corp.

Filed on July 20, 2004, the suit was brought by plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or
acquirers of the Company's stock between October 1998 and
October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
Company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the
Company to issue false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial
results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-
fixing conspiracy.

The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger
pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained
misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the Company and the
Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Crompton Individual
Defendants.

The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they
allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the
Crompton-Witco merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on September 17, 2004, which is now fully
briefed and pending.  The former directors of Witco Corp. filed
a motion to dismiss in February 2005, which is pending.

On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the Company and
the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the
related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss by the Company and Crompton
Individual Defendants.

The suit is "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Ellen Bree Burns.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Nancy A. Kulesa, Jeffrey S.
Nobel and Andrew M. Schatz of Schatz & Nobel, One Corporate
Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone:
860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail: nancy@snlaw.net,
jnobel@snlaw.net and firm@snlaw.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bradford S. Babbitt of Robinson & Cole, 280 Trumbull
         St., Hartford, CT 06103-3597, Phone: 860-275-8209, Fax:
         860-275-8299, E-mail: bbabbitt@rc.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Frackman of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 7 Times
         Square, New York, NY 10033, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax:
         212-326-2061, E-mail: afrackman@omm.com; and

     (3) Thomas D. Goldberg of Day, Berry & Howard, One
         Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
         977-7383, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
         tdgoldberg@dbh.com.


CHEMTURA CORP: Court Mulls Appeal for "Petrolia" Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the Court of Common Pleas of Butler
County's ruling that denies class certification for the toxic
tort class action against Chemtura Corp. and other entities that
conduct or conducted business near the Company's Petrolia,
Pennsylvania facility.

In April 2004, the suit was filed against the Company and other
defendants claiming damages allegedly arising from alleged
contamination in and around the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site,
(Class Action Reporter, June 7, 2005).

In addition to seeking property damage, damages for personal
injury, punitive damages and other compensatory damages,
plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to cleanup up the alleged
contamination, response costs and medical monitoring.  They have
not yet set out in their pleadings a claim for a specific amount
of damages, (Class Action Reporter, June 7, 2005).

On October 18, 2005, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision.


CHEMTURA CORP: Faces Indirect Purchasers' Suits in State Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp., certain of its subsidiaries, including Uniroyal
Chemical Company, Inc., and other companies remain defendants in
certain state court antitrust class actions by indirect
purchaser involving the sale of rubber chemicals, Ethylene
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM), nitrile rubber, plastic
additives and urethanes.

Rubber Chemicals

With respect to rubber chemicals, the Company, certain of its
subsidiaries and other companies remain defendants in seven
pending putative indirect purchaser class action lawsuits filed
during the period from October 2002 through January 2006 in
state courts:

      -- Four of the outstanding seven lawsuits were filed in
         California, Florida, Tennessee and West Virginia, from
         October 2002 through February 2003, and the putative
         class in each lawsuit comprises all persons within each
         of the applicable states who purchased tires other than
         for resale that were manufactured using rubber
         processing chemicals sold by the defendants since
         1994.  The complaints principally allege that the
         defendants agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
         the price of rubber processing chemicals used as part
         of the tire manufacturing process in violation the laws
         of these states and that this caused injury to
         individuals who paid more to purchase tires as a result
         of such alleged anticompetitive activities. The
         plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of
         an unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees and
         costs.  A previously pending putative indirect
         purchaser action filed in Minnesota was dismissed by
         the court on August 29, 2005.  The plaintiff in this
         case has filed a notice of appeal of the court's
         decision.

      -- The fifth lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts on March
         17, 2004 and amended on April 21, 2004, and the
         putative class comprises all natural persons within
         Massachusetts who purchased for non-commercial purposes
         any product containing rubber chemicals sold by the
         defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or
         any co-conspirator, from January 1, 1994 through
         December 31, 2001 and who are residents of
         Massachusetts. The complaint principally alleges that
         the defendants agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and
         maintain the price of rubber chemicals distributed or
         sold in Massachusetts and throughout the United States
         in violation of the laws of that state and that the
         plaintiff and the alleged class were injured. The
         plaintiff seeks, among other things, double or treble
         damages of an unspecified amount, interest and
         attorneys' fees and costs.

      -- The remaining two lawsuits, one filed in Florida on May
         25, 2004, as thereafter amended, and the other filed in
         Pennsylvania on February 14, 2005, as thereafter
         amended, are multi-product lawsuits and are described
         under the heading "Multi-Product Lawsuit" below.

The Company and its defendant subsidiaries have filed motions to
dismiss on substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds or
answers with respect to all of the pending lawsuits. Certain
motions to dismiss remain pending, and other motions to dismiss
have been denied by the applicable court, which are being, or
will be, appealed by the Company and its defendant
subsidiaries.  A previously pending indirect purchaser action,
filed in Tennessee on February 17, 2005, has been voluntarily
dismissed.

EPDM

With respect to EPDM, the Company, its subsidiary Uniroyal, and
other companies are defendants in fifteen pending putative
indirect purchaser class action lawsuits filed during the period
of October 2003 through February 2005 in state courts:

      -- Nine of the outstanding fifteen lawsuits were filed in
         California, North Carolina, Florida, New York, Iowa,
         New Mexico, Vermont, Nebraska and Kansas, respectively,
         from October 2003 through February 2005, and the
         putative class of each action comprises all persons or
         entities in each of the applicable states who purchased
         indirectly EPDM at any time from the defendants or any
         predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates
         thereof from at least January 1, 1994. The complaints
         principally allege that the defendants conspired to
         fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain the price of EPDM
         and allocate markets and customers in the United
         States, including foregoing states, respectively, in
         violation of the laws of those states and that this
         caused injury to purchasers who had paid more to
         purchase indirectly EPDM as a result of such alleged
         anticompetitive activities. The plaintiffs seek, among
         other things, single or treble damages of an
         unspecified amount, costs (including attorneys' fees),
         and disgorgement of profits. The Company and its
         defendant subsidiaries have filed motions to dismiss on
         substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds or
         answers with respect to most of the foregoing actions.

      -- The tenth lawsuit was filed in Tennessee on December
         22, 2004, and the putative class comprises all persons
         or business entities in Tennessee, 24 other states and
         the District of Columbia that purchased indirectly EPDM
         manufactured, sold or distributed by the defendants,
         other than for resale, from January 1994 to December
         2002. The complaint principally alleges that the
         defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize, and
         maintain the price of EPDM and allocate markets and
         customers in the United States, including the foregoing
         states, respectively, in violation of the laws of those
         states and that this caused injury to purchasers who
         paid more to purchase indirectly EPDM as a result of
         such alleged anticompetitive activities.  The
         plaintiffs seek, among other things, single or treble
         damages of an unspecified amount, costs (including
         attorneys' fees), and disgorgement of profits.

      -- The five remaining lawsuits, filed in Massachusetts,
         Florida, California, New York and Pennsylvania,
         respectively, between May 2004 and February 2005, as
         thereafter amended, are multi-product lawsuits and are
         described under the heading "Multi-Product Lawsuits"
         below.

The Company and its defendant subsidiaries have filed motions to
dismiss on substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds with
respect to eight of the pending non-multi-product lawsuits and
intends to file motions to dismiss the remaining two non-multi-
product lawsuits.

Plastic Additives

With respect to plastic additives, the Company and other
companies are defendants in two pending putative indirect
purchaser class action lawsuits.  The two outstanding lawsuits
were filed in California and Nebraska, respectively, and the
putative class of each action comprises all persons or entities
in each of the applicable states, who purchased indirectly
plastic additives at any time from any of the defendants, other
than for resale, during various periods, each commencing on
January 1, 1990.

Each of the foregoing lawsuits principally alleges that the
defendants and co-conspirators agreed to fix, raise, stabilize
and maintain the price of plastic additives in violation of the
laws of jurisdictions named in the complaints, as applicable,
and that this caused injury to purchasers who paid more to
purchase plastic additives as a result of such alleged
anticompetitive activities.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of an
unspecified amount, costs (including attorneys' fees) and/or
injunctive relief preventing the defendants from continuing the
unlawful activities alleged in the complaint. The Company has
filed motions to dismiss the remaining two cases, one of which
as been denied by the applicable court.

Nitrile Rubber

With respect to nitrile rubber, the Company, its subsidiary
Uniroyal, and other companies are defendants in fifteen pending
putative indirect purchaser class action lawsuits filed during
the period of March 2004 through February 2005 in state courts:

      -- Six of the outstanding fifteen lawsuits were filed in
         California from March 2004 to August 2004.  The
         putative classes in these actions comprise all persons
         or entities in California who purchased indirectly
         nitrile rubber from any of the defendants at various
         times from January 1, 1994.  The complaints principally
         allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
         stabilize and maintain the price of nitrile rubber and
         allocate markets and customers in the United States and
         California in violation of the laws of that state and
         that this caused injury to purchasers who paid more to
         purchase, indirectly, nitrile rubber as a result of
         such alleged anticompetitive activities. The plaintiffs
         in these actions seek, among other things, treble
         damages of an unspecified amount, costs (including
         attorneys' fees), and disgorgement of profits. By
         agreement, plaintiffs in the six California actions
         will file a consolidated amended complaint. The
         lawsuits filed in California have been stayed until a
         complaint consolidating the lawsuits has been filed.

      -- One of the outstanding lawsuits was filed in Tennessee
         on December 22, 2004.  The putative class comprises all
         individuals and entities in 23 states and the District
         of Columbia who purchased indirectly nitrile rubber
         from the defendants or any of their co-conspirators,
         parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries and
         affiliates from January 1, 1994 to the present.  The
         complaint principally alleges that the defendants
         conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
         price of nitrile rubber and allocate markets and
         customers in Tennessee and the other named
         jurisdictions in violation of the Tennessee Trade
         Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection
         Act of 1977, as well as the common law of the other
         named jurisdictions, and that this caused injury to
         purchasers in the foregoing states who paid more to
         purchase, indirectly, nitrile rubber as a result of
         such alleged anticompetitive activities. The plaintiffs
         seek, among other things, treble damages of unspecified
         amounts and costs (including attorneys' fees).

      -- Three of the outstanding lawsuits were filed in
         Vermont, Arizona, and Nebraska, respectively, from
         January 2005 through February 2005, and the putative
         class of each action comprises all persons or entities
         in each of the applicable states who purchased
         indirectly nitrile rubber manufactured, sold or
         distributed by the defendants, other than for resale,
         during January 1, 1995 through June 30, 2003.  The
         complaints principally allege that the defendants
         conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
         price of nitrile rubber in violation of the laws of
         these states.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
         damages of unspecified amounts and costs (including
         attorneys' fees).

      -- The five remaining lawsuits, filed in Massachusetts,
         Florida, California, New York and Pennsylvania,
         respectively, between May 2004 and February 2005, as
         thereafter amended, are multi-product lawsuits and are
         described under the heading "Multi-Product Lawsuits"
         below.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss on substantive and
personal jurisdictional grounds with respect to three of the
pending non-multi-product lawsuits described above.

Urethanes

With respect to the Company's urethanes business, the Company,
its subsidiary Uniroyal, and other companies are defendants in
eighteen pending putative indirect purchaser class action
lawsuits in six states:

      -- Eleven of the outstanding eighteen lawsuits were filed
         in California from March through June 2004.  The
         putative class in the California actions comprises all
         persons or entities in California who purchased
         indirectly urethanes from any of the defendants at any
         time during various periods with the earliest
         commencing on January 1, 1990.  By agreement,
         plaintiffs in the California actions will file a
         consolidated amended complaint.

      -- One of the lawsuits was filed in Tennessee on April 28,
         2004.  The putative class comprises all natural persons
         who purchased indirectly urethanes during the period
         from January 1, 1994 to April 2004.

      -- One of the lawsuits was filed in Florida on October 28,
         2005.  The putative class is comprised of all
         individuals or entities in any of 21 states or the
         District of Columbia who indirectly purchased urethanes
         manufactured or sold by the defendants at any time
         during the period from January 1, 1999 through December
         31, 2004.

      --  The five remaining lawsuits, filed in Massachusetts,
         Florida, California, New York and Pennsylvania,
         respectively, between May 2004 and February 2005, as
         thereafter amended, are multi-product lawsuits and are
         described under the heading "Multi-Product Lawsuits"
         below.

The foregoing lawsuits principally allege that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the price of
urethanes and allocate markets and customers in violation of the
laws of the applicable jurisdictions, and that this caused
injury to purchasers who paid more to purchase, indirectly,
urethanes as a result of such alleged anticompetitive
activities. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble
damages of an unspecified amount, costs (including attorneys'
fees), and/or disgorgement of profits.

Multi-Product Lawsuits

The Company, its subsidiary Uniroyal, and other companies are
defendants in five pending putative indirect purchaser class
action lawsuits in five states that each involve multiple
products:

      -- One of the outstanding multi-product lawsuits was filed
         in Florida on May 25, 2004, as thereafter amended, and
         the putative class comprises all natural persons who,
         within Florida, 19 other states and the District of
         Columbia, purchased for non-commercial purposes any
         product containing rubber and urethane products
         (defined to include rubber chemicals, EPDM, nitrile
         rubber and urethanes) manufactured or sold by any of
         the defendants, and which were the subject of price-
         fixing by any of the defendants or any co-conspirator,
         at any time from January 1, 1994 through December 31,
         2004.  The complaint principally alleges that the
         defendants agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
         the price of rubber chemicals distributed or sold in
         Florida, 19 other states and the District of Columbia
         in violation of the laws of these states and the
         District of Columbia, and that the plaintiff and the
         alleged class were injured. The plaintiff seeks, among
         other things, damages of an unspecified amount,
         interest and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 16,
         2005, the Company filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit,
         which remain pending.

      -- The second multi-product lawsuit was filed in
         Pennsylvania on February 14, 2005, as thereafter
         amended, and the putative class comprises all natural
         persons who, within Pennsylvania, purchased for non-
         commercial purposes any product containing rubber and
         urethane products (defined to include rubber chemicals,
         EPDM, nitrile rubber, urethanes) manufactured or sold
         by any of the defendants, and which were the subject of
         price-fixing by any of the defendants or any co-
         conspirator, at any time from January 1, 1994 through
         December 31, 2004.  The complaint principally alleges
         that the defendants agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and
         maintain the price of rubber chemicals distributed or
         sold in the applicable state and throughout the United
         States in violation of the laws of that state, and that
         the plaintiff and the alleged class were injured.  The
         plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages of an
         unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees and
         costs.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this
         action in June 2005, which remains pending.

      -- The remaining three outstanding multi-product lawsuits
         were filed between February 2005 and February 2006, as
         thereafter amended, in Massachusetts, California and
         New York, respectively, and the putative class
         comprises all natural persons who, within the
         applicable state, purchased for non-commercial
         purposes any product containing rubber and urethane
         products (defined to include EPDM, nitrile rubber,
         urethanes) manufactured or sold by any of the
         defendants, and which were the subject of price-fixing
         by any of the defendants or any co-conspirator, at any
         time from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2004.
         Each of the complaints principally alleges that the
         defendants agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
         the price of rubber chemicals distributed or sold in
         the applicable state and throughout the United States
         in violation of the laws of that state, and that the
         plaintiff and the alleged class were injured.  The
         plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks, among other things,
         damages of an unspecified amount, interest and
         attorneys' fees and costs.


CHEMTURA CORP: Faces Litigation Over Ga. Facility May 2004 Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. is working to settle litigation filed in
connection with the fire at its Conyers, Georgia warehouse on
May 25,2004.

Five class actions were initially filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and employees in three counties in
Georgia pertaining to the fire, including the Davis case in
Rockdale County, the Burtts and Hill cases in Fulton County and
the Chapman and Brown cases in Gwinnett County.  These suits
seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
suffered as a result of the fire.

The Company established a claims settlement process within one
day of the fire to resolve all legitimate economic and personal
injury claims raised by residents and businesses in Rockdale
County, Georgia.

While attorneys for certain plaintiffs attempted to stop this
process, the Rockdale Superior Court ordered that the claims
process continue in the interests of the citizens of that
county.

At the time of the fire, the Company maintained, and continues
to maintain, property and general liability insurance.  The
Company believes that its general liability policies will
adequately cover any third party claims and legal and processing
fees in excess of the amounts that were recorded through
December 31, 2005.

Despite attempts at settling the cases, the Company still faces
a federal suit over the May 2004 fire.  On March 29, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed an alleged class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Martin
case, seeking recovery of damages allegedly caused by the 2004
fire.  In addition, the Martin plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment to void, as a matter of law, all settlements executed
to date.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Martin case on
jurisdictional grounds.  The plaintiffs in the state class
action lawsuits described above each filed motions to
voluntarily dismiss their respective cases in order to include
their claims with the Martin federal court action.

The applicable state courts have granted the plaintiffs' motions
to dismiss the Burtts and Hill cases.  The motions to
voluntarily dismiss the Chapman and Brown cases remain pending
and are subject to opposition by the Company.

The Company has successfully opposed the dismissal of the Davis
case and the Georgia Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs'
appeal of that outcome.  The plaintiffs in the Davis case
subsequently filed an additional motion to voluntarily dismiss
the case, which the Court denied.


CHEMTURA CORP: Faces Several Purchasers' Suits in Federal Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp., individually or together with its subsidiary
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., and other companies, continues
to be or has become a defendant in certain direct and indirect
purchaser lawsuits filed in federal courts during the period
from May 2004 through January 2006 involving the sale of rubber
chemicals, Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM),
polychloroprene, nitrile rubber, plastic additives and urethanes
and urethane chemicals.

The complaints in the direct purchaser actions principally
allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for rubber chemicals, EPDM, polychloroprene,
nitrile rubber, plastic additives or urethanes and urethane
chemicals, as applicable, sold in the U.S. in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the
plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such
products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive activities.

With respect to the indirect purchaser class action relating to
plastic additives, the complaint principally alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
price of plastic additives and allocate markets and customers in
the named jurisdictions in violation of certain antitrust
statutes and consumer protection and unfair or deceptive
practices laws of the relevant jurisdictions, and that this
caused injury to purchasers in the foregoing states who paid
more to purchase indirectly plastics additives as a result of
such alleged anticompetitive activities.

With respect to the indirect purchaser class action relating to
rubber chemicals, the complaint principally alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
price of rubber chemicals and allocate markets in the named
jurisdictions in violation of the Tennessee Trade Practices
Act.

With respect to the complaints relating to the sale of
polychloroprene, although the Company does not sell or market
polychloroprene, the complaints allege that the Company and
producers of polychloroprene conspired to raise prices with
respect to polychloroprene and the other products included in
the complaint collectively in one conspiracy.

In each of the foregoing actions, the plaintiffs seek, among
other things, treble damages of unspecified amounts, costs
(including attorneys' fees) and injunctive relief preventing
further violations of the Sherman Act (with respect to the
direct purchaser actions) or the improper conduct alleged in the
complaint (with respect to the indirect purchaser class
actions).

With respect to rubber chemicals, the Company, Uniroyal and
other companies are defendants in three direct purchaser
lawsuits, including the consolidated rubber chemicals direct
purchaser lawsuit previously subject to the Global Settlement
Agreement, and one indirect purchaser lawsuit:

      -- The first direct purchaser lawsuit, as amended, was
         filed on March 15, 2005 in the United States District
         Court, Northern District of California, by plaintiffs
         on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
         persons and entities who purchased rubber chemicals in
         the United States directly from any of the defendants
         or from any present or former parent, subsidiary or
         affiliate thereof at any time during the period from
         May 1, 1995 to December 31, 2001.  The plaintiffs in
         this lawsuit consist of the plaintiffs that had been
         previously subject to the now partially terminated
         Global Settlement Agreement.  In December 2005, the
         Company and Uniroyal entered into settlement agreements
         with four plaintiffs in this lawsuit, as well as the
         plaintiffs in two previously pending direct purchaser
         lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania and Ohio by RBX
         Industries, Inc. and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
         respectively.  The purchases by these plaintiffs
         represent over half of the Company's relevant U.S.
         rubber chemicals sales during the periods covered by
         the lawsuits.  Pursuant to these settlement agreements,
         the Company paid an aggregate of $50.8 million in
         exchange for the plaintiffs' release of their claims
         against the Company. The settlement agreement with
         Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company also resolves Goodyear's
         federal direct purchaser lawsuit against the Company
         with respect to purchases of EPDM and polychloroprene,
         as described below, and the aggregate settlement amount
         of $50.8 million includes the settlement amount for
         such other lawsuit.

      -- The second lawsuit was filed on March 9, 2005, in the
         U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (now
         transferred to the Northern District of California), by
         Parker Hannifin Corporation and PolyOne Corporation
         with respect to purchases of rubber chemicals from one
         or more of the defendants.

      -- The third lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2005, in the
         U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
         by Caterpillar Inc., Carlisle Companies Incorporated
         and certain subsidiaries of Carlisle Companies
         Incorporated with respect to purchases of rubber
         chemicals from one or more of the defendants.

      -- The indirect purchaser lawsuit was filed on January 10,
         2006, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
         Tennessee, by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a
         class consisting of all persons and entities within 37
         states who indirectly purchased the defendants' rubber
         chemicals, other than for resale, from January 1, 1994
         to the present.

With respect to EPDM, the Company, Uniroyal and other companies
are defendants in four direct purchaser lawsuits, including the
consolidated EPDM direct purchaser lawsuit previously subject to
the Global Settlement Agreement:

      -- The first lawsuit, as amended, was filed on July 1,
         2004, in the U.S. District Court, District of
         Connecticut, by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
         a class consisting of all persons and entities who
         purchased EPDM in the U.S. directly from any of the
         defendants or from any predecessor, subsidiary or
         affiliate thereof at any time during the period from
         January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2001.

      -- The second lawsuit was filed on July 28, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
         (now transferred to the District of Connecticut), by
         RBX Industries, Inc.

      -- The third lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2005, in the
         U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York (now
         conditionally transferred to the District of
         Connecticut), by Carlisle Companies Incorporated and
         certain of its subsidiaries with respect to purchases
         of EPDM from one or more of the defendants.

      -- The Company, Uniroyal and other companies are also
         defendants in one multi-product lawsuit involving EPDM,
         which is described separately below.

With respect to nitrile rubber, the Company, Uniroyal and other
companies are defendants in a multi-product direct purchaser
lawsuit involving nitrile rubber, which is described separately
below.

With respect to plastic additives, the Company and other
companies are defendants in one direct purchaser lawsuit and one
indirect purchaser lawsuit:

      -- The first lawsuit was filed on December 28, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, by
         PolyOne Corporation with respect to purchases of
         plastic additives from one or more of the defendants.
         This action has been transferred to the Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania for coordination with the
         consolidated class action pending there with respect to
         those plaintiffs that have opted out of the Plastic
         Additives Settlement Agreement.

      -- The second lawsuit is a class action lawsuit, filed in
         August 2005, as thereafter amended, in the U.S.
         District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by
         plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class
         consisting of all persons and business entities within
         22 states and the District of Columbia that indirectly
         purchased products containing plastic additives
         manufactured, sold or distributed by the defendants,
         other than for resale, at any time from January 1, 1990
         to January 31, 2003.

With respect to urethanes, the Company, Uniroyal and other
companies are defendants in a consolidated direct purchaser
class action lawsuit filed on November 19, 2004, in the United
States District Court, District of Kansas, by plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased urethanes in the United States directly
from any of the defendants or from any present or former parent,
subsidiary or affiliate thereof at any time during the period
from January 1, 1998 to the present.

This action consolidates twenty-six direct purchaser class
action lawsuits previously described in the Company's prior
periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  On September 23, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which is being contested by the Company.

The remaining federal purchaser lawsuit is a multi-product
lawsuit.   The Company, Uniroyal and other companies are also
defendants in a direct purchaser lawsuit filed on November 16,
2004, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, by
Parker Hannifin Corporation and PolyOne Corporation with respect
to purchases of EPDM, nitrile rubber and polychloroprene from
one or more of the defendants.  This action has been transferred
to the District of Connecticut.

In December 2005, the Company and Uniroyal entered into a
settlement agreement with Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company with
respect to a previously pending single direct purchaser lawsuit
filed on May 7, 2004, as amended, in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Ohio (subsequently transferred to the
District of Connecticut), by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company with
respect to purchases of EPDM and polychloroprene.  This
settlement agreement also resolves the federal direct purchaser
lawsuit by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company against the Company
with respect to rubber chemicals, as described above.


CHEMTURA CORP: Partially Settles Three Direct Purchasers' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. reached a partial settlement for three
consolidated direct purchaser class actions that were filed in
the U.S. District Courts in the District of Connecticut, Western
District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of
California, over the sale of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM), nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals.

On January 11, 2005, the Company and plaintiff class
representatives entered into a Settlement Agreement (the Global
Settlement Agreement) that was intended to resolve, with respect
to the Company, the three consolidated direct purchaser class
actions.

The suits were filed against the Company, its subsidiary
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., now known as Chemtura USA
Corporation, and other companies, by plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and classes consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals,
respectively, in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants or any predecessor, parent, subsidiary or affiliates
thereof, at any time during various periods, with the earliest
commencing on January 1, 1995.

The complaints in the consolidated actions principally alleged
that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals,
as applicable, sold in the United States in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the
plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such
products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive
activities.

The Global Settlement Agreement provided that the Company would
pay a total of $97.0 million, consisting of $62.0 million with
respect to rubber chemicals, $30.0 million with respect to EPDM
and $5.0 million with respect to nitrile rubber, in exchange for
the final dismissal with prejudice of the foregoing three
lawsuits as to the Company and a complete release of all claims
against the Company set forth in the lawsuits.

In accordance with its rights under the Global Settlement
Agreement, the Company terminated those parts of the settlement
covering rubber chemicals and EPDM following the exercise of opt
out rights by certain potential members of the applicable
classes.

As a result of the Company's partial termination of the Global
Settlement Agreement, the consolidated direct purchaser class
actions relating to rubber chemicals and EPDM continue to
proceed in their respective federal district courts.  The
Company is negotiating settlements directly with a number of the
larger potential claimants in those actions.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved the nitrile rubber portion of the Global Settlement
Agreement.


CHEMTURA CORP: Reaches Settlements for Canadian Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp., certain of its subsidiaries, including Uniroyal
Chemical Company, Inc., settled certain Canadian antitrust class
actions involving the sale of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM), rubber chemicals and Polyester Polyols (previously
described as Urethanes and Urethane Chemicals).

EPDM.  The Company and the plaintiffs in three previously
disclosed Canadian class action lawsuits relating to EPDM have
entered into a settlement agreement, dated as of September 19,
2005 (the EPDM Settlement Agreement), that is intended to
resolve, with respect to the Company and its defendant
subsidiaries, the three lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of
the District of Quebec, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
and the Supreme Court of British Columbia, respectively.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of residents of Canada who
purchased, used or received EPDM or who purchased products
containing EPDM between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2002.

Each of the foregoing complaints principally alleged that the
Company conspired with other defendants to restrain unduly
competition in the sale of EPDM and to inflate artificially the
sale price of EPDM in violation of Canada's Competition Act, and
that this caused injury to purchasers who paid artificially
inflated prices for EPDM or products containing EPDM.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, authorization to
commence a class action, recovery of the additional revenues
generated by the artificial inflation of the price of EPDM,
exemplary and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The EPDM Settlement Agreement provides that the Company will pay
CDN$4.5 million (approximately $3.9 million) to the class
claimants in Canada covering all direct and indirect purchasers
of EPDM during the class period of January 1, 1997 to December
31, 2001 in exchange for the final dismissal with prejudice of
the lawsuit as to the Company and its subsidiary defendants and
a complete release of all claims against the Company and its
subsidiary defendants set forth in the lawsuits.

The EPDM Settlement Agreement, which has been approved by the
applicable courts, permits potential class members to opt out of
the class and the Company to recover a portion of the settlement
funds with respect to those potential class members that choose
to opt out of the settlement.

Rubber Chemicals.  The Company has entered into a settlement
agreement, dated December 1, 2005 (the Rubber Chemicals
Settlement Agreement), that is intended to resolve, with respect
to the Company and its defendant subsidiaries, four Canadian
class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the
District of St. Francois in Quebec, the Superior Court of the
District of Montreal in Quebec, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and the Supreme Court of British Columbia between May
2004 and February 2005.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons and certain
entities that purchased rubber chemicals or products containing
rubber chemicals directly or indirectly from the defendants
during various periods commencing as early as January 1994.

Three of those complaints alleged that the Company conspired
with other defendants to restrain unduly competition in the sale
of rubber chemicals and to inflate artificially the sale price
of the rubber chemicals in violation of Canada's Competition
Act, and that this caused injury to purchasers who paid
artificially inflated prices for such rubber chemicals.

The fourth complaint alleged that the Company conspired with
other defendants to coordinate the timing and amounts of price
increases for certain rubber chemicals and to allocate customers
and sales volumes amongst themselves in violation of Canada's
Competition Act, and that this caused injury to purchasers who
paid artificially inflated prices for rubber chemicals or
products containing rubber chemicals.

The plaintiffs in each lawsuit sought, among other things,
recovery of the additional revenues generated by the artificial
inflation of the price of rubber chemicals, general and punitive
damages, attorney's fees and costs.

The Rubber Chemicals Settlement Agreement certifies the lawsuits
as class actions for purposes of the settlement and provides
that the Company will pay CDN$7.2 million (approximately $6.2
million) to the class claimants in Canada covering all persons
who purchased rubber chemicals products in Canada during the
class period of July 1, 1995 to December 31, 2001, in exchange
for the final dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuits as to the
Company and its defendant subsidiaries and a complete release of
all claims against the Company and its defendant subsidiaries
set forth in the lawsuits.

The Rubber Chemicals Settlement Agreement, which is subject to
approval by the courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia
and notice to class members, permits potential class members to
opt out of the class and the Company to recover a portion of the
settlement funds with respect to certain potential class members
that choose to opt out of the settlement.

Polyester Polyols.  The Company and the plaintiffs in two
Canadian class action lawsuits relating to polyester polyols
(which is a chemical used in the manufacture of polyurethanes)
or products that directly or indirectly contain or are derived
from polyester polyols (collectively, Polyester Polyols) have
entered into a settlement agreement, dated November 8, 2005 (the
Polyester Polyols Settlement Agreement), that is intended to
resolve, with respect to the Company and its defendant
subsidiaries, the lawsuits filed in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec, against the
Company, its subsidiaries Crompton Canada Corporation, Crompton
Co./Cie and Uniroyal, and other companies.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of proposed classes of persons
and entities in Canada who purchased Polyester Polyols during
the period from at least February 1998 to December 2002.  They
principally alleged that the Company conspired with other
defendants to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the price of and
to allocate markets and customers for the sale of Polyester
Polyols in Canada in violation of Canada's Competition Act, and
that this caused injury to purchasers who paid artificially
inflated prices for Polyester Polyols.  The plaintiffs sought,
among other things, general and punitive damages, interest and
costs.

The Polyester Polyols Settlement Agreement certifies the
lawsuits as class actions for purposes of the settlement and
provides that the Company will pay CDN$69,000 (approximately
$60,000) to the class claimants in Canada who purchased
Polyester Polyols in Canada during the class period of February
1, 1998 to December 31, 2002, in exchange for the final
dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuits as to the Company and
its defendant subsidiaries and a complete release of all claims
against the Company and its defendant subsidiaries set forth in
the lawsuits.

The Polyester Polyols Settlement Agreement, which is subject to
the approval of the courts in Ontario and Quebec identified
above and notice to class members, permits potential class
members to opt out of the class and the Company to recover a
portion of the settlement funds with respect to certain
potential class members that choose to opt out of the
settlement.


CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Plastics Additives Lawsuit in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. reached a settlement for a consolidated direct
purchaser class action that was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in relation to the sale
plastic additives.

On August 11, 2004, the Company and plaintiff class
representatives entered into a Settlement Agreement (the Plastic
Additives Settlement Agreement) that resolves the action against
the Company and other named defendants.

The suit was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased
plastic additives in the U.S. directly from any of the
defendants or from any predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or
affiliates thereof at any time during the period from January 1,
1990 through January 31, 2003.

The complaint in this action principally alleged that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for plastic additives sold in the U.S. in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs
who paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a
result of such alleged anticompetitive activities.

Under the Plastic Additives Settlement Agreement, the Company
paid $5.0 million to a settlement fund in exchange for the final
dismissal, with prejudice, of the lawsuit as to the Company, and
a complete release of all claims against the Company set forth
in the lawsuit.  The court granted final approval of the Plastic
Additives Settlement Agreement in January 2005.

The suit is "In Re: Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation (NO.
II), Case No. 2:05-md-01684-LDD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Legrome D. Davis.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph Barton of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595
         Market St., Ste. 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415-777-2230, E-mail: jbarton@gbcslaw.com;

     (2) Linda P. Nussbaum of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         150 East 52nd St., 30th Fl., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-838-7797, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com; and

     (3) Anthony J. Bolognese of Bolognese & Associates, LLC,
         One Penn Center, 1617 JFK Blvd., Ste. 650,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-814-6750, E-mail:
         abolognese@bolognese-law.com.

Representing the Company is Thomas J. McGarrigle, 2500 One
Liberty Pl., 1650 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301,
Phone: 215-851-8220, Fax: 215-851-1420, E-mail:
tmcgarrigle@reedsmith.com.


DOLE FOOD: Still Faces Banana Antitrust Litigation in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company, Inc. and three competitors are defendants in
a number of class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida over alleged violations of the
European Commission's (EC) antitrust laws in relation to the
sale of bananas.

The EC is investigating alleged violations of European Union
competition (antitrust) laws by banana and pineapple importers
and distributors operating within the European Economic Area
(EEA).  On June 2 and 3, 2005, the EC conducted a search of
certain of the Company's offices in Europe.

During this period the EC also conducted similar unannounced
searches of other companies' offices located in the European
Union.  The Company is cooperating with the EC and has responded
to the EC's information requests.

Following the public announcement of the EC searches, The
lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or
indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants and have now
been consolidated into two separate class action lawsuits:

     (1) one by direct purchasers (customers); and

     (2) another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased
         bananas from customers).

Both consolidated class action lawsuits allege that the
defendants conspired to artificially raise or maintain prices
and control or restrict output of bananas.  The Company believes
these lawsuits are without merit.


ENCANA CORP: Firm, Subsidiary Faces $30M Complaint in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
EnCana Corporation and its indirect wholly owned U.S. marketing
subsidiary, WD Energy Services Inc. (WD), are defendants in a
lawsuit filed by E. & J. Gallo Winery in the U.S. District Court
in California.

The Gallo lawsuit claims damages in excess of $30 million.
California law allows for the possibility that the amount of
damages assessed could be tripled.

As disclosed previously, in July 2003, WD concluded a settlement
with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of a
previously disclosed CFTC investigation whereby WD agreed to pay
a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $20 million without
admitting or denying the findings in the CFTC's order.

Along with other energy companies, EnCana Corporation and WD are
defendants in several other lawsuits relating to sales of
natural gas in California from 1999 to 2002, some of which are
class actions and some of which are brought by individual
parties on their own behalf.

As is customary, these lawsuits do not specify the precise
amount of damages claimed.  The Gallo and other California
lawsuits contain allegations that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy with unnamed competitors in the natural gas and
derivatives market in California in violation of U.S. and
California anti-trust and unfair competition laws.

In all but one of the class actions in the U.S. District Court
and in the Gallo action, decisions dealing with the issue of
whether the scope of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
exclusive jurisdiction over natural gas prices precludes the
plaintiffs from maintaining their claims are on appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Without admitting any liability in the lawsuits, in November
2005, WD has agreed to pay $20.5 million to settle the class
action lawsuits that were consolidated in San Diego Superior
Court, subject to final documentation and approval by the San
Diego Superior Court.  The individual parties who had brought
their own actions are not parties to this settlement.

For more details, contact EnCana Corporation or EnCana Corporate
Development, Sheila McIntosh, Vice-President, Investor
Relations, Phone: (403) 645-2194; Paul Gagne, Manager, Investor
Relations, Phone: (403) 645-4737; Ryder McRitchie, Manager,
Investor Relations, Phone: (403) 645-2007 or Alan Boras,
Manager, Media Relations, Phone: (403) 645-4747, Web site:
http://www.encana.com.


ESTEE LAUDER: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of
purchasers of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., common stock
between April 28, 2005, and October 25, 2005, inclusive.

Interested parties who wish to serve as lead plaintiff may move
the court no later than May 29, 2006.

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

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Estee Lauder's financial performance and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Estee Lauder is a global manufacturer of skin care, makeup,
fragrance and hair care products.

The complaint alleges that the Company's market share was
decreasing at the commencement of the class period, and, rather
than reverse this negative trend or fully disclose it,
defendants launched a largely successful campaign that employed
channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements to prop up reported revenues and earnings
and the Company's share price long enough for Company insiders
to sell millions of their personally held Estee Lauder shares to
unsuspecting investors at prices that were artificially inflated
by defendants' false and misleading statements.

On September 19, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company
would not meet its guidance for the first half of fiscal 2006,
causing the Company's stock to fall 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05
per share.

Estee Lauder shares, however, continued to trade at artificially
inflated levels until October 26, 2005, when defendants were
forced to disclose fiscal first-quarter 2006 earnings of only
$61.8 million, or $0.28 per share, down 38% from the prior
year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per share, on
essentially flat sales.

These results were well below analysts' revised consensus
earnings estimate of $0.32 per share on revenue of $1.54
billion.

Following this disclosure, the Company's share price fell to
$30.71.  By this time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the
class period, sold 3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common
stock to unwitting investors for proceeds of $88,077,150.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Estee Lauder stock during the class period.

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield of Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield, Phone: 800-465-1592 or 651-287-2100, Fax:
651-287-2103, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com, Web site:
http://www.rwblawfirm.com.


FLORIDA: County Sheriff Mascara Demands Opening of New Jail Pod
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara has asked a federal judge
for an injunction to force the St. Lucie County commissioners to
open another jail pod to reduce over crowding and give him
enough money to hire new deputies to run the new pod, the TCPalm
Local News reports.

In 2003, commissioners approved building two jail pods as part
of a $20 million jail expansion, but ultimately decided to
operate just one in October.  The commissioners have delayed
opening it while assessing whether it can reduce overcrowding in
other ways, such as by using a Global Positioning Satellite
monitoring.

In February, Florida attorney Bob Watson and Public Defender
Diamond Litty filed a state class action against the St. Lucie
County Board of Commissioners and Sheriff Mascara on behalf of
four St. Lucie County jail inmates, claiming conditions at the
county jail violated inmates' civil rights, (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006).

Currently, the jail, which should house only about 1,050
inmates, holds 1,301 inmates.  But with the addition of the
second pod, the jail could hold about 1,375 inmates, Sheriff's
Attorney Bruce Jolly, said in his motion for an injunction.  A
date for the judge to consider the sheriff's request has not
been set.  The question of whether to open the jail pod will
also be brought up in a special meeting on criminal justice
issues in May.

Meanwhile, litigants in the suit have been given weeks by a
federal court to agree on whether the case should remain at the
federal level or return to state court, where it was originally
filed.

For more details, contact Bruce W. Jolly of Summer M. Barranco,
2455 E. Sunrise Blvd., Ste. 1216, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-
1908, Phone: (954) 462-3200, Fax: (954) 462-3861 and (954) 462-
3200.


FLORIDA: Judge Bans Foster Kids' Stay in Unlicensed Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Big Bend
Community Based Care Inc., agreed to Circuit Judge Janet Ferris'
decision not to put foster children up overnight in the
conference room of a Tallahassee office building, the
Tallahassee Democrat reports.

The decision was handed down at a case management conference
with lawyers who filed a class action on behalf of foster
children April 4.  The suit alleged that DCF and Big Bend did
not provide enough foster placements for children with special
needs.  Paolo Annino, co-director of the Children's Advocacy
Clinic at the Florida State University law school, cites reports
to the children's attorney regarding instances of foster kids
being kept in DCF offices overnight in some other cities.

DCF spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez said that at the meeting, Judge
Ferris directed that "there will be no more children in
conference rooms or unlicensed placement facilities."

"There was nothing to enjoin," DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi said.
"Nobody has to beat us up to do this; neither the DCF nor Big
Bend wants children to be sent to unlicensed facilities."

DCF admitted it rented a small cottage near the Jackson Bluff
Road offices for the temporary stay of some hard-to-place
children, but Ms. Suarez said there were no children staying at
the cottage or the conference room anymore.

For more details, contact Paolo Aninno, Suite A, 112 Orange
Ave., Daytona Beach, FL 32114-4310, Phone: (904) 252-3367, Fax:
(904) 254-3943.


INFORTE CORP: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held a fairness hearing last April 24, 2006 for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Inforte Corp. in
relation to the Company's initial public offering occurring in
February 2000.

Initially, the Company, Philip S. Bligh, its Chairman of the
Board; Stephen C.P. Mack, its current President and Chief
Executive Officer and a former President and Chief Operating
Officer; and Nick Padgett, the former Chief Financial Officer of
the Company were named as defendants in the class action, "Mary
C. Best v. Inforte Corp.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc.; Philip S. Bligh; Stephen C.P. Mack and Nick
Padgett, Case No. 01 CV 10836," which was filed on November 30,
2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Case).

The Case is among more than 300 putative class actions against
certain issuers, their officers and directors, and underwriters
with respect to such issuers' initial public offerings,
coordinated as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)" (collectively, the Multiple IPO
Litigation).

An amended class action complaint was filed in the Case on April
19, 2002.  The amended complaint in the Case alleges violations
of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
initial public offering occurring in February 2000 and seeks
certification of a class of purchasers of the Company stock,
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs.

The amended complaint does not allege any claims relating to any
alleged misrepresentations or omissions with respect to our
business.  The individual defendants (Messrs. Bligh, Mack and
Padgett) have been dismissed from the case without prejudice
pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and a tolling agreement.

The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's case.  On February
19, 2002, the Court granted this motion in part, denied it in
part and ordered that discovery in the case might commence.

The Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's purported
claim against the Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, but left in place the plaintiff's claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
MOU), along with most of the other defendant issuers in the
Multiple IPO Litigation, whereby such issuers and their officers
and directors (including the Company and Messrs. Bligh, Mack and
Padgett) will be dismissed with prejudice from the Multiple IPO
Litigation, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.

Under the terms of the MOU, neither the Company nor any of its
formerly named individual defendants admit any basis for
liability with respect to the claims in the Case.

The MOU provides that insurers for the Company and the other
defendant issuers participating in the settlement will pay
approximately $1 billion to settle the Multiple IPO Litigation,
except that no such payment will occur until claims against the
underwriters are resolved and such payment will be paid only if
the recovery against the underwriters for such claims is less
than $1 billion and then only to the extent of any shortfall.

Also, under the terms of the MOU, neither the Company nor any of
its named directors will pay any amount of the settlement.  The
MOU further provided that participating defendant issuers will
assign certain claims they may have against the defendant
underwriters in connection with the Multiple IPO Litigation.

The MOU is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including, among others, approval of the Court. In an order
dated February 15, 2005, the Court certified settlement classes
and class representatives and granted preliminary approval to
the settlement contemplated by the MOU with certain
modifications, including that the "bar order," or claims that
would be barred by the settlement, be modified consistent with
the Court's opinion.

Amended settlement documents were subsequently presented to the
Court and, on August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order
approving the form, substance and program of notice of the
settlement to class members and further set a hearing concerning
the fairness of the settlement on April 26, 2006.  Certain of
the underwriters that are defendants in the lawsuit appealed the
Court's ruling granting class certification.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


INGLES MARKETS: Settles Civil Complaint with SEC Without Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Ingles Markets, Incorporated (NASDAQ: IMKTA) reached a
settlement agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) resolving a civil complaint filed April 27, 2006 against
the Company in connection with the previously disclosed private
investigation regarding certain vendor contracts entered into in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and certain internal control
accounting issues.

The settlement does not require Ingles to pay a monetary
penalty.  Ingles settled the SEC's charges without admitting or
denying the SEC's allegations.

Under the settlement, Ingles consented to the entry of
injunctions against future violations of certain provisions of
Federal securities laws.

In February 2005, Ingles restated its financial statements for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and the first three quarters of
fiscal year 2004 in connection with the matters related to the
SEC investigation and settlement.

The settlement does not require additional restatement of the
Company's results.

Robert P. Ingle, chief executive officer, said, "We are very
pleased to finally put this matter behind us, without the
payment of a penalty, and are now able to completely focus our
efforts on the Company's future. We believe that this resolution
attests to our cooperation with the SEC, as well as our recent
efforts to improve our internal control environment."

Ingles Markets, Incorporated is a leading supermarket chain with
operations in six southeastern states.  Headquartered in
Asheville, North Carolina, the Company operates 197
supermarkets.

In conjunction with its supermarket operations, the Company also
operates 74 neighborhood shopping centers, all but 17 of which
contain an Ingles supermarket.

The Company's Class A Common Stock is traded on The NASDAQ Stock
Market's National Market under the symbol IMKTA.

For more information about the Company, visit Ingles' Web site
at http://www.ingles-markets.com.


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Court Holds Hearing for Nuanes, Heller Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals in California held a hearing on the various
matters pending in class actions against Insignia Financial
Group, Inc.

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of Davidson Diversified Real Estate III, L.P.,
(Partnership), commenced a purported class action entitled,
"Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et
al. (the Nuanes action)" in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo.

The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the
Partnership, Davidson Diversified Properties, Inc. (Managing
General Partner), and several of their affiliated partnerships
and corporate entities.

The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named
as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the
acquisition of interests in certain Managing General Partner
entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. (Insignia) and
entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past
tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited
partnership units; management of the partnerships by the
Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed
on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and
Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into
Apartment Investment and Management Company (AIMCO).

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.  In addition,
during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned, "Heller
v. Insignia Financial Group (the Heller action)" was filed
against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action.

On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint.  The Heller action was brought as a purported
derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and judicial dissolution.

On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion
to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this
order.

On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of
Settlement in the proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and
the Heller action.  On June 13, 2003, the court granted final
approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the
Nuanes and Heller actions.

On August 12, 2003, an objector (Objector) filed an appeal (the
Appeal) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the
settlement and entering judgment thereto.  On May 4, 2004, the
Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a
referee and its order, requiring the Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment
entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's
order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on
the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to
permit meaningful appellate review."

The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees.
With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both
of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial
court.

On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to
intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion
to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as
derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-
suit injunction in connection with settlement.

On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further
Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Defendants joined in that motion.

On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various
matters pending before it and has ordered additional briefing
from the parties and Objector.


INTELSAT LTD: Conn. Court Mulls Judgment Motion for ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in a
class action against Intelsat, Ltd., which alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Initially, two putative class action complaints that were filed
against the Company and Intelsat Global Service Corporation in
2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by
certain named plaintiffs who are Company retirees, spouses of
retirees or surviving spouses of deceased retirees were
consolidated into a single case.

The complaint, which was amended several times, arose out of a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization, referred to as the
IGO, prior to privatization regarding medical benefits for
retirees and their dependents.

The plaintiffs allege that Intelsat wrongfully modified health
plan terms to deny coverage to surviving spouses and dependents
of deceased Intelsat retirees, thereby breaching the fiduciary
duty obligations of ERISA, and the "contract" represented by the
IGO resolution.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation
and promissory estoppel.  They seek a declaratory ruling that
putative class members would be entitled to unchanged health
plan benefits in perpetuity, injunctive relief prohibiting any
changes to these benefits, a judgment in the amount of $112.5
million, compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1
billion, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss most of
the fraud claims, although in subsequent amendments plaintiffs
have restated them.  The court authorized very limited
discovery, which is underway, and we filed a motion for summary
judgment on January 31, 2006.

The plaintiffs' response was filed on February 27, 2006, and the
Company's reply was filed on March 21, 2006.  The plaintiffs
also filed a motion for partial summary judgment on March 23,
2006, seeking a ruling that the Company may not rely as a
defense upon the immunity of its predecessor IGO, and the
Company filed its opposition to the motion for partial summary
judgment on April 11, 2006.

The suit is "Morales, et al. v. Intelsat Global Service Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01044-JR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marni E. Byrum, 2009 North 14th Street, Suite 600,
         Arlington, VA 22201, Phone: (703) 525-3877, Fax: (703)
         525-2252, E-mail: mebyrum@aol.com; and

     (2) Lawrence P. Postol of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 815
         Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC
         20006-4004, Phone: (202) 463-2400, E-mail:
         lpostol@seyfarth.com.

Representing the defendant in Andrew Gendron of Venable, LLP,
Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201-2978, Phone:
(410) 244-7439, Fax: (410) 244-7742, E-mail:
agendron@venable.com.


KPMG LLP: More Investors Accept Settlement of Tax Shelter Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-five investors rejected a proposed settlement of a suit
over tax shelters filed against accounting firm KPMG LLP and law
firm Sidley Austin LLP, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Initially, 64 investors chose to opt out of the settlement,
papers filed in federal court showed, according to the report.
The number was equivalent to more than 20% of the investors
taking part in the class action.

KPMG was forced to revise a proposed settlement last month after
more than 60 investors chose not to join.  The original $195
settlement, which was initially reached in September, was slated
to go to court for final approval on Feb. 24, 2006, but U.S.
District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark, New Jersey
rescheduled the hearing to give time for revisions.  The initial
settlement covered four tax shelters offered by KPMG and was
intended to return fees that investors paid to accounting and
law firms for certain shelters that the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service deemed unacceptable.

The revised settlement is estimated at no more than $155
million, according to lawyers who read the proposal (Class
Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).

Case Background

The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which
helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to
be "abusive."  A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people,
including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG
tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown &
Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter
sales.

The settlement would compensation to former clients of KPMG and
Sidley Austin who participated in the tax shelters known as
Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former clients who
participated in a shelter called Short Option Strategy.

The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement
agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August.  Under
that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating
fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in
penalties.  However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face
criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms.

The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits
brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts
around the nation.  According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution
agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters
to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002.

The suit is "Simon et al v. KPMG LLP et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-
03189-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.  Representing
the plaintiffs are James E. Cecchi and Melissa E. Flax of
Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein, PC, 5
Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 994-1700,
Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com and
mflax@carellabyrne.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dennis J. Drasco of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC,
         103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone:
         (973) 403-9000, E-mail: ddrasco@lumlaw.com; and

     (2) Anthony J. Marchetta of Pitney Hardin, 200 Campus
         Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Phone: 973-966-8032,
         E-mail: amarchetta@pitneyhardin.com.


ONVIA INC: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for Securities Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held a fairness hearing last April 24, 2006 for the proposed
settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Onvia, Inc.

The Company is defendant the suit, which was filed in 2001.  A
final settlement agreement in this suit was negotiated and was
preliminarily approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in February 2005, and the Company
is awaiting final court approval.

If the final settlement is approved, the Company will be
released from any future liability under this lawsuit.  The
Company has $30 million directors' and officers' liability
policy that would cover any award up to $30 million, subject to
a $250,000 deductible.

The Company incurred approximately $129,000 for attorneys' fees
in defense of this suit as of December 31, 2005.  According to
the terms of the settlement agreement, defense fees incurred
after June 1, 2003 will be refunded if the final settlement is
approved.

Approximately $23,000 of the defense fees incurred to date was
incurred after June 1, 2003 and will be refunded to the Company
if the final settlement is approved.

In the event that the final settlement agreement is not approved
and the Company is found liable for damages, which it believes
is a remote possibility, the $129,000 in attorneys' fees already
incurred would be applied to its deductible.  The Company would
be liable for the balance of any additional fees and awards in
excess of those already paid up to our $250,000 deductible, and
any award in excess of our $30 million liability policy.  The
fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for April 24, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


OPENTV CORP: Continues to Face Del. Suit Over ACTV Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
OpenTV Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for the
County of New Castle relating to the acquisition of ACTV, Inc.

On November 18, 2002, a complaint was against ACTV, its
directors and Company, which generally alleges that the
directors of ACTV breached their fiduciary duties to the ACTV
shareholders in approving the ACTV merger agreement pursuant to
which the Company acquired ACTV on July 1, 2003, and that, in
approving the ACTV merger agreement, ACTV's directors failed to
take steps to maximize the value of ACTV to its shareholders.

The complaint further alleges that we aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties committed by ACTV's
directors on the theory that the merger could not occur without
our participation.  No proceedings on the merits have occurred
with respect to this action, and the case is dormant.


OPENTV CORP: N.Y. Court Holds Hearing for IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held a fairness hearing last April 24, 2006 for the proposed
settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
OpenTV Corp.

In July 2001, the first of a series of putative securities class
actions, "Brody v. OpenTV Corp., et al.," was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
certain investment banks which acted as underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering, the Company and various of
its officers and directors.

These lawsuits were consolidated and are captioned, "In re
OpenTV Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."
The complaints allege undisclosed and improper practices
concerning the allocation of our initial public offering shares,
in violation of the federal securities laws, and seek
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased OpenTV
Class A ordinary shares during the period from November 23, 1999
through December 6, 2000.

The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated
cases.  On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies, including Wink Communications as discussed in greater
detail below.  All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for
pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

Defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  Oral argument on the omnibus motion to
dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.  All claims against the
Company's officers and directors have been dismissed without
prejudice in this litigation pursuant to the parties'
stipulation approved by the Court on October 9, 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the omnibus motion to dismiss filed on behalf of
defendants, including the Company.  The Court's Order dismissed
all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants, including the Company,
have agreed to a stipulation of settlement, in which plaintiffs
will dismiss and release their claims in exchange for a
guaranteed recovery to be paid by the insurance carriers of the
issuer defendants and an assignment of certain claims.

The stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer-
defendants, including the Company, has been submitted to the
Court.  On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved
the settlement contingent on specified modifications.

On August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order confirming its
preliminary approval of the settlement.  A hearing on the
fairness of the settlement to the shareholder class is set for
April 24, 2006.

In November 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Wink Communications and two of its officers and
directors and certain investment banks which acted as
underwriters for Wink Communications' initial public offering.
We acquired Wink Communications in October 2002.

The lawsuit is now captioned, "In re Wink Communications, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The operative
amended complaint alleges undisclosed and improper practices
concerning the allocation of Wink Communications' initial public
offering shares in violation of the federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased
Wink Communications' common stock during the period from
August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

This action has been consolidated for pretrial purposes as "In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  On
February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss
filed by all defendants in the consolidated cases.

The Court denied the motions to dismiss the claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, granted the motion to dismiss the claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Wink Communications and one individual defendant, and
denied that motion against the other individual defendant.

As described above, a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants has been submitted to and
preliminarily approved by the Court.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


ORANGE 21: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for the consolidated class
action against Orange 21, Inc., its directors and certain of its
officers, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Initially two stockholder class actions were filed.  A
consolidated complaint was later filed on October 11, 2005,
which purported to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an
alleged class of persons who purchased our common stock pursuant
to the registration statement filed in connection with the
Company's public offering of stock on December 14, 2004.

The complaint alleged that the Company and its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose in the registration statement material information
about plans to make a change in its European operations, its
dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its
products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley,
Inc.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
court granted on March 29, 2006.  The court allowed plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint only with respect to their claim
about a European distribution change.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint dated April 7, 2006.  No discovery has been
conducted.


QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Various Cell Phone Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM, Inc. along with many other manufacturers of wireless
phones, wireless operators and industry-related organizations,
was named as a defendant in several purported class actions, and
several individually filed actions pending in Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and Louisiana, seeking monetary
damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones.

The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.


RYAN'S RESTAURANT: Settles South Carolina Labor Lawsuit for $9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan's Restaurant Group Inc. agreed to pay up to $9 million to
employees to settle a wage and overtime class action against
South Carolina-based Ryan's Family Steak Houses, AJC.com
reports.

The suit was filed in November, and was certified by a federal
judge in 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 18, 2003).  It
alleged that Ryan's paid its servers $2.13 an hour to perform
general cleanup and maintenance, forced hourly employees to work
"off the clock" and didn't pay employees for all hours worked.
The lawsuit may cover about 50,000 current and former employees
who worked for the Company between November 1999 and Aug. 2,
2005.

The settlement payout could range between $2 million and $9
million, depending on how many eligible class members in the
suit participate, according to Ryan's filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  The Company will pay between $3.5
million and $4.5 million in legal fees.

Ryan's Restaurant -- http://www.ryansinc.com-- operates 316
Company-owned restaurants and 22 franchise restaurants in 23
states.


SONY MUSIC: Rock Bands File Suit to Demand Share of Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Probstein & Weiner filed a
class action against Sony Music on behalf of rock bands The
Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick.

The suit alleges Sony Music is not paying its recording artists
50% of the net licensing revenue received by Sony Music in
connection with the master recordings licensed to Apple and
other third-party providers of digital downloads, as Sony Music
is contractually obligated to do.

Instead of paying its recording artists the approximate 30 cents
of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads (after
deducting payments to music publishers), the suit alleges that
Sony Music:

     -- wrongfully treats each download as a sale of a physical
        phonorecord (i.e. a CD or cassette tape);

     -- only paying on 85% of such "sales" (due to a fiction
        that there is breakage of product);

     -- deducting a 20% fee for container/packaging charges
        associated with the digital downloads (although there
        are none); and

     -- reducing its payments by a further 50% "audiofile"
        deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music
        recording artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per
        digital download.

According to the complaint, The Allman Brothers Band and Cheap
Trick and other members of this class action have been damaged
in the amount of millions of dollars through the loss of royalty
payments, which Sony Music has retained for its own benefit in
breach of the applicable contractual record royalty provisions.

"Sony Music is presently engaged in a widespread attempt to
underpay its recording artists; with the technological
advancements in the music industry, where many people download
songs to their iPods and other portable devices, it is essential
that artists receive the royalty income to which they are
entitled," said Brian Caplan, one the attorneys for The Allman
Brothers Band, Cheap Trick and the class in this action.

A 50-50 joint venture between Sony Corporation of America and
Bertelsmann, Sony BMG Music Entertainment --
http://www.sonymusic.com-- is the no. 2 record company in the
world behind Universal Music Group.


STEWART & STEVENSON: Investors Challenge Planned Sale to Armor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Stewart & Stevenson Services Inc. are suing the
Company and its directors for refusing a higher buyout offer for
the Company from Oshkosh Truck Corp., The Northwestern reports.

A proxy statement containing allegations in the suit has been
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
suit is seeking class action status.  Plaintiffs alleged the
Company and six of its directors failed in their financial
responsibilities for rejecting Oshkosh Truck's $35.50-per-share
offer over that of Armor Holdings Inc., which is just $35-per-
share.  The firm's agreement with Armor on Feb. 27 values the
business for about $1 billion.

Stewart Stevenson reportedly rejected Oshkosh Truck's offer
because of concerns the Truck purchase agreement would need
several months longer to receive federal anti-trust and
regulatory approvals.  The Company is now asking investors to
approve the merger.

"I would be nervous if I were a Stewart & Stevenson director,"
Carl M. Hennig Investments Inc. owner Tom Harenburg told the
Northwesterner.  "A proxy fight is a pretty vicious battle.  If
Stewart & Stevenson does not have that vote, you're going to see
that meeting postponed so they can go twist some arms and try to
get that vote."

Mr. Harenburg said Truck cannot make a revised offer for the
Company because the Armor-Stewart purchase agreement includes a
"standstill agreement" that prohibits any further offers.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Stewart & Stevenson Services --
http://www.ssss.com-- is primarily engaged in the design,
manufacture and service of sophisticated, multi-purpose medium
and light tactical vehicles for the military through its
operating subsidiary Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicles
Systems, LP.  TVS has been the provider of Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles to the U.S. Army since 1991.


STORA ENSO: Faces Claims of Paper Price Manipulation in Finland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finnish firm Stora Enso Corp. was named in a number of class
action filed in the U.S. coincident with European investigations
into the paper industry in U.S. and Europe.

In May 2004 Stora Enso was the subject of inspections carried
out by the European Commission and the Finnish Competition
Authority at locations in Europe and received subpoenas issued
by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of preliminary anti-
trust investigations into the paper industry in Europe and the
U.S.

Following the 2004 inspections, on April 5, 2006 Stora Enso
received from the Finnish Competition Authority a request for a
response concerning alleged price collaboration and exchange of
information between forest companies in connection with the
purchasing of timber in Finland from 1997 to 2004.  Stora Enso
said at its interim review for January to March 2006 it will
investigate the matter and intends to provide its response by
May 15, 2006 as requested.

No provision has been made in Stora Enso's accounting for the
investigations and lawsuits.

Stora Enso -- http://www.storaenso.com-- manufactures and
distributes paper and board products worldwide.  It operates in
six segments: Publication Paper, Fine Paper, Merchants,
Packaging Boards, Wood Products, and Wood Supply.


ST PAUL: Ear Surgery Patient Sues Over Tissue Screening Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Vancouver woman is suing a hospital and other entities that
are supposedly responsible for ensuring the safeness of the
donor tissue she received during reconstructive eardrum surgery
in 1994, the Vancouver Sun reports.

Margaret Birrell filed the suit in the Supreme Court of B.C.
She is asking the court to certify the suit as class action, for
unspecified punitive damage award.  No date has yet been set for
the decision.  Ms. Birrell's lawyer is David Klein.  Defendants
in the suit are:

     -- St. Paul's Hospital,

     -- B.C. Ear Bank,

     -- Providence Health Care,

     -- Vancouver Coastal Health Authority,

     -- University of B.C.,

     -- Vancouver Hospital

The suit alleged the defendants were negligent in the operation
and supervision of the ear bank for failing to confirm the
transplanted materials from cadavers were properly screened and
sterilized and for failing to maintain accurate and complete
records.

Health Canada ordered three years ago to recall all unused
tissue and bone distributed by the B.C. Ear Bank and notify all
recipient institutions.  Last year, Ms. Birrell received a
letter from her surgeon advising her to test, as precautionary
measure, for diseases like HIV and hepatitis.  She found she did
not contract any disease at all, but is pursuing the suit.
There is KAI no reported case where a patient was infected of a
disease as a result of transplanted tissue from the B.C. Ear
Bank.

Also, in 2003, The Vancouver Sun reported that St. Paul's
Hospital officials acknowledged there were serious problems with
the record-keeping and day-to-day operations of the B.C. Ear
Bank.


SWEDEN: Faces Suit Over Alleged Abuse of Children in Foster Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Swedes claiming abuse while in foster care in the
1950s and 1960s filed a class action against Swedish
authorities, according to News24.com

The plaintiffs want millions of dollars in compensation for
their suffering for what Torbjoern Thunstroem, spokesperson of
the Stolen Childhood Association, claim "lack of supervision"
from the authority.  He cited cases of sexual abuse, rape and
physical beatings.

Thirty-two former foster children have signed the suit filed in
Stockholm's district court, according to Mr. Thunstroem.  They
want SEK1 million ($134,716) each per year they were in foster
care.  Mr. Thunstroem was himself placed in a foster family at
the age of 11.  He said some of the children were placed in
foster care merely because of their family's financial status.

The suit also includes cases after the 1950s and 1960s.
According to the report, the national board of health and
welfare, about 100,000 children were placed in institutional
care from 1950 to 1980.  Meanwhile, other suits are being
contemplated in the cities of Gothenburg and Malmoe.


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Discovery Stayed in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is stayed in a purported shareholder class action
against Tag-It Pacific, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, entitled: "Seth Huberman, et al.
v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352."

The suit, filed in October 2005, alleges claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The action is
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period from November 14,
2003 to August 12, 2005.

On January 23, 2006 the court heard competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth
Huberman as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff thereafter filed
an amended complaint on March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
a purported class period between November 13, 2003 and August
12, 2005.

It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion is scheduled to be heard on June 19,
2006.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform act,
discovery is stayed in the case.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  Plaintiff firms in this or
similar case:

     (1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

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

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

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

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.209.2468; and

     (6) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-
         mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Prescription Drug Benefit to Poor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned groups are suing the U.S. government for failing to
ensure poor people avail of Medicare's new prescription drug
benefit, reports say.

The California Alliance for Retired Americans and the Action
Alliance of Seniors Citizens of Greater Philadelphia filed the
suit in U.S. District Court in Northern California.  The suit
accuses the Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt of
failing to make sure that people eligible for the benefit signed
up for private insurance plans as Congress had required.  It
also claims that some poor beneficiaries did enroll but the
government failed to notify insurers as early as it should.  The
program started in January.

Plaintiffs are asking the federal judge to order those involved
in the case receive the full benefits of the Medicare Part D
program, and to certify the suit as class action.  Plaintiffs in
the case include two Californians and one person from Florida.

"We think hundreds of thousands of people's health may be
endangered," said one of the lawyers, Jeanne Finberg.

Center for Medicare Advocacy on the Net:
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Tex. Suit for 1991 Gulf War Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. is one of approximately 83 defendants named
in two class action lawsuits, which were originally filed on
September 19, 1995 and subsequently consolidated in the District
Court of Brazaria County, Texas (23rd Judicial District) where
it is alleged that various defendants sold chemicals that were
utilized in the 1991 Gulf War by the Iraqi army which caused
personal injuries to U.S. armed services personnel and their
families, including birth defects.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of the military personnel
who served in the 1991 Gulf War and their families and the
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $1 billion in damages.  To
date, the plaintiffs have not obtained class certification.

The Company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an
entity that sold the Company assets in 1993 is a defendant.  It
also believes it will prevail in this matter because the alleged
actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the
Company's purchase of the assets.

The Company further believes that it will ultimately prevail in
this matter since it never manufactured chemicals and the
plaintiffs were unable thus far to produce evidence that the
Company acted as a freight forwarder for cargo that included
chemicals used by the Iraqi army.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Parties Try to Settle Ill. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. is working to settle a consolidated
securities class action pending in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and captioned, "In re Whitehall
Jewellers, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1107."

On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint,
captioned, "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., Case No. 04 C 1107," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Company and certain of the its current and former
officers.

The complaint makes reference to the litigation filed by Capital
Factors and settled as disclosed in the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31,
2004 and to the Company's November 21, 2003 announcement that it
had discovered violations of Company policy by the its Executive
Vice President, Merchandising, with respect to Company
documentation regarding the age of certain store inventory.

The complaint further makes reference to the Company's December
22, 2003 announcement that it would restate results for certain
prior periods.  It alleges that the Company and its officers
made false and misleading statements and falsely accounted for
revenue and inventory during the putative class period of
November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On February 17, 2004, a putative class action complaint,
captioned, "Michael Radigan v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., Case
No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company and certain of
the Company's current and former officers.  The factual
allegations and claims of this complaint are similar to those
made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
complaint described above.

On February 19, 2004, a putative class action complaint,
captioned, "Milton Pfeiffer v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., Case
No. 04 C 1285," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company and certain of
the Company's current and former officers.  The factual
allegations and claims of this complaint are similar to those
made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
complaint described above.

On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107, consolidated the "Pfeiffer" and
"Radigan" complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the "Radigan" and "Pfeiffer" actions as
separate actions.

On April 14, 2004, the court designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.

On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint, captioned,
"Joshua Kaplan v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc., Case No. 04 C
3971," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers.  The factual allegations
and claims of this complaint are similar to those made in the
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund complaint described
above.

On June 14, 2004, lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund in Case No. 04C 1107 filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

On July 14, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters action consolidated the Kaplan complaint with the
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters action, and dismissed the Kaplan
action as a separate action.  On August 2, 2004, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On January 7, 2005, the motion to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part, with plaintiffs granted leave to file an
amended complaint by February 10, 2005.

On February 10, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint.  On March 2, 2005, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 30, 2005, the court denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss.  On July 28, 2005, Defendants filed their Answers to
the First Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On September 23, 2005, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification.  After conducting certain class certification and
merits discovery, the parties jointly moved for a stay of
discovery and stay of briefing on lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification during the resumption of mediation efforts.

By order dated January 24, 2006, the court granted the joint
motion.  By that same order, the court dismissed lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice and
with leave to re-file on or before February 23, 2006.

Lead plaintiff re-filed its motion for class certification on
February 23, 2006.  By order dated March 16, 2006, the court
dismissed Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification without
prejudice pursuant to pending settlement discussions.

By that same order, the court set a status hearing for April 24,
2006, at which time a revised discovery and briefing schedule on
lead plaintiff's motion for class certification will be set, if
appropriate.

While the settlement process is ongoing, the parties have
reached agreement in substance to settle all claims in the First
Amended Complaint, subject to a final, written agreement and
court approval.  The Company has not recorded any loss
contingency associated with a possible settlement as the Company
expects any settlement to be subject to an insurance claim.

The suit is "In re Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1107," filed in the U.S. District for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Leigh R. Lasky of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., 351 W.
         Hubbard, Suite 406, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312)
         634-0057, E-mail: lasky@laskyrifkind.com; and

     (2) Lesley Elizabeth Weaver of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, #2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, E-mail:
         lesleyw@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Howard Steven Suskin of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM
         Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E-
         mail: hsuskin@jenner.com.

    (ii) Walter C. Carlson and Colleen M. Kenney of Sidley
         Austin, LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL
         60603, Phone: (312) 853-7000, E-mail:
         wcarlson@sidley.com and ckenney@sidley.com.





                   New Securities Fraud Cases



COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Comverse Technology, Inc. between April
30, 2001 and April 16, 2006 inclusive.

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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Comverse securities.

Defendants include Comverse, Kobi Alexander, Zeev Bregman, David
Kreinberg and Itsik Danziger.

The complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and omitted information regarding the timing of
stock option grants made to key executives.  This scheme of
manipulating the dates of stock option grants resulted in the
overstatement of Comverse's net income, operating income and
retained earning between 2001 and the first three quarters of
2006.

On March 14, 2006, Comverse announced that financial
restatements might be required.  On April 17, 2006, Comverse
revealed that it would restate its financial statements for the
first three quarters of fiscal 2006, for the 2001-2005 fiscal
years and possibly previous periods as well.

As a result of these announcements, Comverse stock dropped from
$29.15 on March 13, 2006 to $23.31 on April 17, 2006, a decline
of over 20 per cent.

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

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. Abbey Spanier
Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East, 39th Street, New York, New
York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701, E-mail:
nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Popper Lodges 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. 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 can be obtained from the court or 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 Emily DeMuro, Investor Relations or
James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq., of Wolf Popper LLP, 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,
Jkelly@wolfpopper.com or edemuro@wolfpopper.com.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited (FFH) between March 24, 2004 and
March 22, 2006, inclusive.

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

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in this action.  Interested
parties may move the court no later than June 12, 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, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-
mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Fairfax
Financial Holdings, Ltd. between March 24, 2004 and March 22,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements in press releases and SEC filings.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose these facts:

     (1) defendants allowed Fairfax to enter into bogus
         reinsurance contracts with its captive subsidiaries,
         Odyssey Reinsurance Holdings Ltd. and Northbridge
         Financial;

     (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) Fairfax's 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 endorsed by
         defendants, or that the Company could achieve such
         guidance.

At the end of the class period, defendants 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.

Shares of Fairfax declined almost 30% in the days following
these disclosures.

Interested parties may, no later than June 12, 2006, request
that the court appoint them as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel toll-free at (800) 797-
5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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