---

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

               Friday, May 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 89

                            Headlines

AXA S.A.: Armenian Insurance Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
CALIFORNIA: Oceanside Police Officers Sue City in Pay Dispute
CARNIVAL CORP: Reaches $6.25M Settlement for Fla. Workers' Suit
CON ALMA: Eric Sena Named in N.Mex. Title-Insurance Lawsuit
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006

COOPER TIRE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Retiree Benefits Plan Changes
CORONET FOODS: Attorney Defends Firm in W.Va. Salmonella Suits
CRAY INC: Wash. Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
DYNEX CAPITAL: Continues to Face Pa. Delinquent Taxpayers' Suit
DYNEX CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Lawsuit

HOLLINGER INT'L: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Canadian Courts
HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to Circulation Pact
HUMANA INC: Appeal of Fla. Suit Settlement Could Delay Payments
INTEL CORP: Faces Consolidated Federal Antitrust Lawsuit in Del.

INTERPOOL INC: N.J. Court Mulls Approval for Securities Pact
LOUISIANA: District Judges Recused From Hearing Flood Suit
MON CHONG: Recalls Dried Vegetables Due to Undeclared Sulfites
NETFLIX INC: Calif. Judge Approves Subscribers' Suit Settlement
NEW YORK: Day Laborers File Federal Suit V. Mamaroneck Village

PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Calif. Labor Code Suits, One Case Dismissed
PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Nev.
SALOMON SMITH: GPM Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
SUNRISE HOMES: Homebuyer Files RESPA Violations Suit in E.D. La.

TASER INT'L: N.D. Tex. Court Dismisses Product Liability Lawsuit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
U-HAUL INT'L: Pa. Judge Denies Class Status for Consumer Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Debt Collectors' Immunity Under H.R. 3505 Opposed
UNITED STATES: FDA, NIOSH Alerts on Oxygen Regulator Fire Risks

UNITED STATES: NERA Study Shows Drop in Shareholder Settlements
VICRAC CORP: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit in Del. Over VBSA Offer
VIBRAC CORP: Tex. Court Grants Final OK to Securities Suit Pact

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SEE's Settlement Liability Stays at $512.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon Reserves US$49Mil for Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Expects $88M Insurance Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Inc. Deals With 560 Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Claims Drop to 77,000 in 4Q05

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records Liability at $2.7M in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Dismisses 2 Moscow CableCom Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Posts Liability at $2.22B in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Claims Reach 67,800 in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Urge Court to Deny Grace Request

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 18,500 New Claims in 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LECO Battles Claims With 33,987 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Posts US$534.1Mil Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Confronts 1,112 Lawsuits in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Battles 112T Pending Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell, Subsidiaries Face Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Earns $204M Net Income Despite Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Allocates $3Mil Annually for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Steel Corp. Claims Drop From 500 to 480
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Reserves US$8.7Mil for Remediation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Court Alters Asbestos Compensation Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nichias, Unit to Pay JPY30M in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro, Units Face 2,900 New Claims in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Govt, 2 Firms Hit in Compensation Issues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Urge Canada to Stop Asbestos Exports

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Notes Drop in Claims from Masks in 1Q06
ASBESTOS ALERT: Cleveland-Cliffs Units Face 2 New Maritime Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: PA Court Reverses Beazer Ruling in Chenot Suit
ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Court Orders Peak Waste to Pay GBP8,250 Fine
ASBESTOS ALERT: WA Court Upholds Dismissal of Global Motorsport


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
ASTEA INT'L: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
ASTEA INT'L: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
ASTEA INT'L: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Pa.

MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Ill. Stock Suit
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Smith & Smith Sets Plaintiff Deadline
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lockridge Grindal Files Stock Suit in Fla.
PIXELPLUS CO: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

TNS INC: Kahn Gauthier Sets May 19, 2006 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Paskowitz & Associates Files Calif. Suit
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Wolf Haldenstein Files Calif. Stock Suit


                            *********


AXA S.A.: Armenian Insurance Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $17.5
million settlement in the matters, "Kyurkjian, et. al, v. AXA,
S.A., et al., Case No: 02-01750 and Ouzounian, et. al., v. AXA,
S.A., et al., Case No: 05-02596."

The case was brought on behalf of all beneficiaries, heirs of
beneficiaries, owners, heirs of owners, and all other persons
having Claims.  "Claims" means any and all claims or potential
claims of any nature, however they may be expressed, know or
unknown, direct or indirect, under, concerning, or in any way
arising out of or relating to the Life Insurance Policies, which
any of the Plaintiffs or any of the Settlement Class members may
have had, may now have, or may in the future have against any of
the Released AXA Parties or any combination of them, whether or
not such claims are or were time-barred under applicable law
(including, without limitation, any and all claims for payment
of death benefits, surrender values, cash values, endowments, or
any other form of payment under the Life Insurance Policies).

A "Life Insurance Policy" means a life insurance policy (which
may include savings components or annuities) that: (i) insured a
life of, or was purchased by, a person of Armenian descent or
ancestry and (ii) was issued at any time in the Turkish Ottoman
Empire through and until the later of (a) December 31, 1920 or
(b) such time as the Turkish Ottoman Empire ceased to exist, by
(1) The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,
(2) L'Union Compagnie D'Assurance Sur La Vie Humaine (whose
successors include, without limitation, L'Union des Assurance de
Paris-Vie, sued in the Actions as L'Union des Assurance de
Paris), (3) Caisse Paternelle, also known as "la Caisse
Paternelle cie anonyme d'assurance mutuelles generale sur la vie
humaine, en mutualite a primes fixes et contre les accidents sur
1es chemins de fer"; (4) la Confiance, (5) The Mutual Life
Insurance Company of New York, (6) Nordstern Lebenversicherungs
AG, or (7) any of their respective predecessors, successors, or
subsidiaries, provided that the successor or subsidiary
relationship with any of the six companies named herein was in
existence prior to 1923.

The hearing will take place at 10:00 AM on May 15, 2006, before
United States Judge Christina A. Snyder in Courtroom 5 of the
United States District Court, located at 312 N. Spring Street,
Los Angeles, California 90012.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 14,
2006.

For more details, contact Barry A. Fisher of Fleishman & Fisher
1875 Century, Pk. E, Ste. 2130, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
310-557-1077; Brian S. Kabateck of Kabateck Brown Kellner, 350
S. Grand Ave, 39th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-217-
5000, E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com; and Mark J. Geragos, Matthew
J. Geragos and Shelley Kaufman of Geragos & Geragos, 350 S.
Grand Ave., 39th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-3480, Phone: 213-
625-3900, E-mail: fileclerk@geragos.com, Web site:
http://www.armenianinsurancesettlement.com/.


CALIFORNIA: Oceanside Police Officers Sue City in Pay Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanside, California police officers initiated class action
against the city in San Diego Superior Court claiming that they
weren't paid for some police duties, such as writing arrest
reports, traveling to court appearances or maintaining their
firearms, The San Diego Union Tribune reports.

The suit, the latest in a string of legal disputes between
officers and the city, was filed in January, but, according to
City Attorney John Mullen, it wasn't served to the city until
March 28.

Represented by attorney Michael Anthony Jenkins officers are
alleging that they were never paid for time spent doing work
activities that are necessary parts of their jobs, such as shift
briefings, inspections and preparing or reviewing arrest
reports.

They also allege the city did not pay for time spent working
during meal breaks, walking to patrol vehicles or walking to
briefings.

Officers also say they were never reimbursed for costs
associated with cleaning or maintaining protective gear, uniform
or weapons, as well as parking or mileage for traveling to
court.

Though the suit does not specify a dollar amount in damages or
back wages, officers are seeking to recover all costs, unpaid
wages, as well as an equal amount in damages.

Mr. Mullen said his office plans to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was moved to federal court.  The suit alleges
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

For more details, Michael Anthony Jenkins of Castle, Petersen &
Krause, LLP, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250, Newport Beach, CA
92660, Phone: (949) 417-5600 and (866) 855-4CPK, Fax: (949) 417-
5610, Web site: http://www.cpk-law.net/.


CARNIVAL CORP: Reaches $6.25M Settlement for Fla. Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corp. agreed to pay $6.25 million to settle a class
action filed against it by seafaring workers who claim that the
Company failed to pay full wages, including overtime, the
Associated Press reports.

If approved by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, the settlement
would mean payouts of between $100 and $150 for nine named
lawsuit plaintiffs and other amounts for as many as 39,500
people who worked on Carnival ships beginning in November 2001.

The attorneys said the settlement also requires Miami-based
Carnival (NYSE: CCL) to provide additional disclosure in its
contracts regarding how tips are treated as overtime
compensation and to operate a grievance and arbitration
procedure for wage claims.

The suit, which was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, seeks as much as
millions of dollars in back pay, penalty wages and interest for
current and former crewmembers.  The suit alleges that the
crewmembers typically worked 12- and 14-hour days, but were not
paid for work in excess of 10 hours a day or 70 hours per week.
The six crewmembers from Nicaragua,
Romania, Bulgaria and India work onboard four Carnival Cruise
Lines ships as waiters, galley stewards and cabin attendants
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

Carnival has not issued a statement on the suit.  A spokesman
said the Company has no comment at this time.


CON ALMA: Eric Sena Named in N.Mex. Title-Insurance Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico Superintendent of Insurance Eric Serna, who recently
resigned as board president of Con Alma Health Foundation Inc.
following allegations of a conflict of interest between his dual
roles of president and insurance superintendent, faces a
purported class action in Santa Fe's 1st Judicial District
Court, The New Mexican reports.

According to a class action, title-insurance companies sought to
persuade Mr. Serna to set high title-insurance rates by giving
nearly $48,000 to the nonprofit foundation that he helped found.

Mr. Serna denied the charges and pointed out that he follows
state law in setting title-insurance rates.  He called the
lawsuit's allegations about the contributions to Con Alma
"laughable," and added, "That's ridiculous.  We have a
transparent process."

The lawsuit, filed on April 27, 2006, notes that the New Mexico
title-insurance industry gave $21,750 to Con Alma in 2003 and
$26,200 to the group in 2004.  Tax documents filed by Con Alma
do not list a specific person or business as a donor.

However, the lawsuit says the 2003 donation lists an address
occupied by LandAmerica Albuquerque Title Co., which is a
subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group Inc., the parent
Company of three companies named as defendants.

The suit alleges, "A primary purpose of these contributions was
to influence defendant Serna, in his capacity as superintendent
of insurance, to set unreasonably high rates for title
insurance, and to restrain competition as to the price and terms
of title insurance in New Mexico."

Robert Desiderio, Con Alma's executive director, told The New
Mexican that Con Alma in 2005 decided to stop accepting
donations from any person or business regulated by Mr. Serna.

He declined though to speculate on whether the title-insurance
industry had tried to influence Mr. Serna by donating to Con
Alma in the past.  "I think that the purpose was to make
charitable contributions to help with the health-care needs of
the people of the state of New Mexico," according to Mr.
Desiderio.

In 2001, Mr. Serna helped found Con Alma with money generated
from the sale of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico.  The
nonprofit foundation has given millions of dollars to New Mexico
health-care providers.

Attorney General Patricia Madrid has asked Con Alma's board of
directors to give her several documents, including a list of all
donations and donors since 2003 and the board's current
conflict-of-interest policy.

The state Public Regulation Commission this month placed Mr.
Serna on paid leave from his $91,495-a-year state post for 30
days while A.G. Madrid's office investigates a contract he
signed with Santa Fe-based Century Bank, a which has given Con
Alma $130,000 since 2002.

In 2003, Mr. Serna signed a contract with Century Bank to
oversee funds deposited by insurance companies doing business in
New Mexico.  The contract was amended last year to raise the
bank's fees higher than allowed by state regulation, but it was
changed again last month to comply with the regulation.

Charles and Barbara Murphy of Cedar Crest and Haydock Miller,
Jr. of Santa Fe, filed the suit on behalf of themselves and
thousands of other New Mexicans who bought title insurance.

Defendants in the lawsuit include the 10 largest title-insurance
companies operating in New Mexico, Mr. Serna, the state Public
Regulation Commission (PRC), and the PRC's Insurance Division.

Mr. Miller and the Murphys had to buy title-insurance policies
to refinance their mortgages and were forced to pay "excessive
and unreasonable prices" for their policies, according to suit.
It further alleges that defendants engaged in price fixing by
not allowing companies to compete for business.

The insurance superintendent sets uniform title-insurance rates
for all companies each year, which the lawsuit contends violates
the New Mexico Constitution.


CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of
New Mexico will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Laura Dichter, et al. v. BP America
Production Company f/k/a Amoco Production Company and
ConocoPhillips Company f/k/a Conoco, Inc., Case No. D-0101-CV-
200001620."

The case was brought on behalf of all members of the class of
owners of private royalty and overriding royalty that burden
leases or working interests of ConocoPhillips Co. in the San
Juan Basin who receive royalties for natural gas liquids
processed at the new Blanco Plant (Dichter/Cop Class).

The hearing will be held on May 12, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. in Santa
Fe County Courthouse, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

For more details, visit: http://www.dichter-cop-settlement.com/,
or contact The Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., Building 300, 460 St.,
Michael's Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, Phone: (505) 983-
6686, Fax: (505) 986-1367, E-mail: ccarter@gallegoslawfirm.net;
and Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Suite 5100, 1000 Louisiana, Houston,
Texas 77002-5096, Phone: (713) 653-7876, Fax: (713) 654-3392, E-
mail: rwojtczak@susmangodfrey.com or call 1-713-228-7000.


COOPER TIRE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Retiree Benefits Plan Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
A retiree and two spouses of former workers at Cooper Tire and
Rubber Co. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status over
changes made to the Company's retiree benefits program, The
Texarkana Gazette reports.

Filed on April 18, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, the suit charges that the Company
"began mandating undisclosed and improper premium contributions
from retirees in order for their medical coverage under the
Defendant's Plan(s) to remain in effect."  It was brought on
behalf of plaintiffs Earl R. Cates, Bobbie Grammer and Rita
Kirvin.

According to the suit, Mr. Cates worked at the Company for 34
years and retired in 1999.  Both Mrs. Grammer and Mrs. Kirvin's
spouses, now deceased, worked at the Company for about 20 years.

The suit charges that the burden of medical coverage shifted
from the Company to retirees and their spouses because of these
changes to the retiree benefits program, which took effect on
January 2004.

The Findlay, Ohio-based Company declined to discuss the case in
detail.  But, Roger Hendriksen, director of investor relations
and corporate communications for the Company did issue the
following statement: "We have received a copy of the complaint.
We have reviewed it, and we believe it to be frivolous and
unfounded. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation."

The suit argues that pension and retiree medical benefits are a
"form of deferred compensation for employees, particularly for
those who devote their careers to an employer that intends its
employees to form the reasonable expectation that promised
retirement benefits are an important component of their overall
program of compensation."

The suit, which covers about 600 eligible people, also alleges
that Company workers and retirees were never told about the
potential or possibility of changes to the premiums for medical
benefits.

In essence, it alleges that the Company unilaterally and without
appropriate disclosure imposed these substantial changes, first
notifying the plaintiffs and members of the changes in December
2003.

At the time the changes were to take effect, a Cooper Tire
spokesman said a previously announced cap for retirees' medical
benefits had been exceeded because of the rising cost of health
care, according to a Jan. 13, 2003, article in The Texarkana
Gazette.

"The cost of healthcare and prescription drugs has increased
dramatically since that cap was established and, in fact, has
now exceeded that cap. Cooper will not be contributing less for
healthcare; it simply has reached the maximum of its prior
commitment," according to a 2003 statement from Cooper Tire's
Patricia J. Brown.

Retirees argued at the time that the new premium charges would
be difficult to manage given the fixed incomes that many of them
and their spouses live on.

The suit is "Cates, et al. v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Company,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00940-JGC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge James G. Carr.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Theresa L. Groh and John C.
Murdock of Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, Phone: 513-345-
8291, Fax: 513-345-8294, E-mail: tgroh@mgsglaw.com and
jmurdock@mgsglaw.com.


CORONET FOODS: Attorney Defends Firm in W.Va. Salmonella Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Eric Anderson of the law firm Meyer, Darrah, Buckler,
Bebenek and Eck, attempts to stave off liability in several
lawsuits filed against Wheeling-based Coronet Foods, which filed
for bankruptcy 17 months ago and has since ceased operation,
claiming tomatoes supplied by the bankrupt Company to Sheetz
contained salmonella bacteria, the West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Anderson admits that representing a Company that has gone
bankrupt is difficult, but he is confident that the insurance
companies that covered Coronet will not have to pay settlements
on the coming wave of Sheetz litigation.  Seattle attorney
William Marler says 148 cases will soon be filed in West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Maryland.

There is very little to be found at the Coronet Foods, Inc.,
plant these days - which is both good and bad for Pittsburgh
attorney Eric Anderson.

According to Mr. Anderson the Food and Drug Administration
checked the Coronet plant and found that there was nothing wrong
with the plant that could have caused salmonella to develop in
the tomatoes and it's just a matter of trying to track down
where the contamination started.

West Virginia Federal Bankruptcy Judge L. Edward Friend II
allowed more than 80 people, who claimed that they were sickened
by salmonella-tainted tomatoes, to sue Coronet Foods, Inc. and
Sheetz, the Company that supplied the tomatoes (Class Action
Reporter, June 3, 2005).


CRAY INC: Wash. Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington dismissed:

     -- the consolidated class action filed against Cray Inc.
        and certain of its present and former officers and
        directors, as well as

     -- the consolidated derivative litigation filed against the
        Company's present and former officers and directors.

The class action against the Company and five of its present and
former officers and directors initially filed in May 2005
alleged that the defendants had violated the securities laws by
knowingly making false or misleading statements to the public.

Judge Zilly, in a 49-page opinion, found that plaintiffs failed
to plead adequately that defendants intentionally or recklessly
made false statements (acted with scienter), and failed to plead
adequately that many of the statements made by defendants were
false.  Judge Zilly also ruled that plaintiffs failed to plead
adequately that plaintiffs' alleged losses were caused by some
of defendants' actions.  The Court gave the class action
plaintiffs 120 days to file an amended complaint should they
choose to do so.

Judge Zilly, in a separate 33-page decision, dismissed without
prejudice the derivative litigation initially filed in June
2005, finding that plaintiffs had failed to make a demand on the
Company's Board of Directors before filing the case and failed
to plead adequately why a demand would have been futile.  Judge
Zilly also dismissed with prejudice claims of breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on alleged insider
trading and in addition dismissed certain claims without
prejudice on the additional grounds that the plaintiffs did not
allege fraud and misrepresentation with the required specificity
and failed to plead recoverable damages.

Plaintiffs filed the consolidated securities class action
against Cray and certain of its current and former officers on
behalf of purchasers of its securities between October 23, 2002,
and May 12, 2005.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging federal securities
law violations in connection with the issuance of various
reports, press releases and in some cases, statements in
investor telephone conference calls.  Each complaint requested
certification of the class described therein and seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
relief.

On October 19, 2005, the Court ordered the consolidation of
these cases into a single action and ordered that an amended
complaint be filed by November 15, 2005.

The consolidated suit is "Limantour v. Cray Incorporated et al.,
case no. 2:05-cv-00943-TSZ," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, under
Judge Thomas S. Zilly.  Representing the Company is Lois Omenn
Rosenbaum, Stoel Rives, 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Ste 2600, Portland
OR 97204, Phone: 503-294-9293, Fax: 1-503-294-9113, Email:
lorosenbaum@stoel.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301
         5TH Ave, Ste 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-
         7292, Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

     (2) Elizabeth Ann Leland, Juli Farris Desper, Lynn Lincoln
         Sarko, Keller Rohrback, 1201 3RD AVE, STE 3200,
         SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax:  623-
         3384, E-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com,
         jdesper@KellerRohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

     (3) Christopher Ian Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens, 1700
         Seventh Ave., Ste 2200, Seattle, WA 98101-1332, Phone:
         206-682-5600, Email: cbrain@tousley.com

     (4) Tamara J Driscoll, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins (WA), 1700 Seventh Avenue, STE 2260, Seattle,
         WA 98101, Phone: 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-9978,
         Email: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com


DYNEX CAPITAL: Continues to Face Pa. Delinquent Taxpayers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, GLS Capital,
Inc. (GLS), together with the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania
(Allegheny County), are defendants in a purported class action
in the Court of Common Pleas, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs are two local businesses seeking status to represent,
as a class, delinquent taxpayers in Allegheny County whose
delinquent tax liens had been purchased by, and subsequently
assigned to, GLS.

This lawsuit relates to the purchase by GLS of delinquent
property tax receivables from Allegheny County in 1997, 1998,
and 1999, and subsequent collection of certain amounts related
to the property tax receivables purchased.

The suit was initially filed in 1997, and challenges GLS' right
to charge certain attorney fees, costs and expenses, and
interest in the collection of delinquent property tax
receivables owned by GLS.

During 2005, the Court held hearings in this matter, and has not
yet ruled on whether it will grant class action status in the
litigation.  Plaintiffs have not enumerated its damages in this
matter.


DYNEX CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Stephen J. Benedetti and Thomas H. Potts as defendants
in an amended class action filed against Dynex Capital, Inc.,
its subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp. by the Teamsters Local 445
Freight Division Pension Fund.  The court though refused to
dismissed the other defendants, namely, the Company and MERIT.

Filed on February 11, 2005, the lawsuit purports to be a class
action on behalf of purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization
financing bonds, which are collateralized by manufactured
housing loans.

The allegations include federal securities laws violations in
connection with the issuance in August 1999 by MERIT Securities
Corporation of the Company's MERIT Series 13 bonds. The suit
also alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentations in
connection with MERIT Series 13.

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 15, 2005 to which Teamsters filed a response with the
District Court on August 15, 2005.

In February 2006, based on a motion to dismiss filed by the
Company, the District Court dismissed Messrs. Benedetti and
Potts from the suit, but did not dismiss the claims against the
Company or MERIT.  The Company appealed the District Court's
decision not to dismiss the Company or MERIT.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund
et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897-HB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Harold Baer.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Joel P. Laitman, Christopher Lometti and Samuel P. Sporn,
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York,
NY 10038, Phone: 212-964-0046, Fax: 212-267-8137, E-mail:
chris@spornlaw.com.

Representing the Company are Monica Shelton Call, Eric Harrison
Feiler, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Terence James Rasmussen and Joseph
John Saltarelli of Hunton & Williams, LLP, (Richmond VA), 951
East Byrd Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: (804)-788-8632,
Fax: (804)-788-8218, E-mail: trasmussen@hunton.com or
jsaltarelli@hunton.com.


HOLLINGER INT'L: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Canadian Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hollinger International, Inc. is a defendant in several
purported Securities class actions pending in Saskatchewan,
Ontario, and Quebec, Canada courts.

On September 7, 2004, a group allegedly comprised of those who
purchased stock in one or more of the defendant corporations
initiated purported class actions by issuing Statements of Claim
in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada.

The Saskatchewan claim, issued in that province's Court of
Queen's Bench, and the Ontario claim, issued in that province's
Superior Court of Justice, are identical in all material
respects.

The defendants include the Company, certain former directors and
officers of the Company, Hollinger, Inc., The Ravelston
Corporation Limited (Ravelston) and certain affiliated entities,
Torys LLP, the Company's former legal counsel, and KPMG LLP.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, violation of the Saskatchewan Securities Act, 1988, S-
42.2, and breaches of obligations under the Canadian Business
Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C.-44 and seek unspecified
monetary damages.

On July 8, 2005, the Company and other defendants served motion
materials seeking orders dismissing or staying the Saskatchewan
claim on the basis that the Saskatchewan court has no
jurisdiction over the defendants or, alternatively, that
Saskatchewan is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the
matters in issue.  On September 6 and 7, 2005, the Saskatchewan
Court of Queen's Bench heard the motion.

On February 28, 2006, the court stayed the action until
September 15, 2007.  The claimants may apply to have the stay
lifted prior to that date if they are unable effectively to
pursue their claims by way of the Illinois or Ontario class
actions or in an SEC proceeding.

On February 3, 2005, substantially the same group of plaintiffs
as in the Saskatchewan and Ontario claims initiated a purported
class action by issuing a Statement of Claim in Quebec, Canada.

The Quebec claim, issued in that province's Superior Court, is
substantially similar to the Saskatchewan and Ontario claims and
the defendants are the same as in the other two proceedings.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, violation of the Ontario Securities Act and breaches of
obligations under the Canada Business Corporations Act and seek
unspecified money damages.


HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has yet to rule on Hollinger International, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the amended shareholder class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors, styled "In
re Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

In February and April 2004, three alleged stockholders of the
Company (Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth
Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund) initiated purported class actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
Black, certain former executive officers and certain former
directors of the Company, Hollinger Inc., The Ravelston
Corporation Limited (Ravelston) and certain affiliated entities
and KPMG LLP, the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm.

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  The consolidated action is entitled, "In re
Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended class
action complaint on November 19, 2004.

The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class
action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E.
Dean Carlson.

They are purporting to sue on behalf of an alleged class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of securities
of the Company between and including August 13, 1999 and
December 11, 2002.

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding: certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages, rescission, and an injunction against future
violations.

In January 2005, the defendants in "In re Hollinger
International Inc. Securities Litigation," including the
Company, filed motions to dismiss the second consolidated
amended class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The motions are pending.

The suit is "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge David H. Coar.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

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

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

     (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com;

     (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750;
         and

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


HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to Circulation Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division gave final
approval to the settlement of over overstated circulation
numbers at Hollinger International, Inc.'s flagship property,
the Chicago Sun-Times.

On October 5, 2004, the Company announced that circulation at
the Chicago Sun-Times had been overstated during the period
March 1997 to March 2004.  Following the announcement, the
Company commenced a settlement program targeting approximately
500 major repeat advertisers.

The Company participated in a court-approved mediation process
that culminated in a class settlement.  The Class Action
Settlement was given final approval by the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chancery Division, on January 17, 2006.

The terms of the Class Action Settlement call for payment by the
Chicago Sun-Times to advertisers of $7.6 million in cash and up
to $7.3 million in value-added benefits.

Additionally, the Chicago Sun-Times will pay cash incentive
payments of approximately $0.2 million, additional relief of
$50,000, and attorneys' fees of approximately $5.6 million.

The total cash to be paid out by the Chicago Sun-Times under the
Class Action Settlement (excluding defense costs and claims
administrator costs) is therefore approximately $13.4 million.
The cost of value-added benefits paid by the Chicago Sun-Times
will vary depending upon the return rate of claims forms.

In 2004 and early 2005, the Company made private settlements
with major advertisers and agreed to provide value added
advertising benefits, the cost of which will vary depending on
the extent the advertisers use these benefits and the nature of
the benefit chosen.

The Company is in settlement negotiations with the remaining
advertisers whose claims are not settled.  The aggregate
expenditures of these advertisers is equal to approximately 9.5%
of the total class expenditure for the relevant period.

The Company had previously reserved $27.0 million with regard to
this matter. It evaluates the adequacy of the reserve on a
regular basis and believes the remaining reserve to be adequate,
including amounts related to settlements referred to above, as
of December 31, 2005.


HUMANA INC: Appeal of Fla. Suit Settlement Could Delay Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Humana, Inc., disclosed that it will postpone its payment of $40
million to physicians and up to $18 million for plaintiffs'
attorneys until appeals are resolved regarding an agreement it
reached to settle a federal class action in Florida, entitled,
"In re Managed Care Litigation," according to MarketWatch.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Louisville, Kentucky-based health insurer stated that certain
objectors appealed an order by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The order, filed March 15, gave final approval to the terms of a
settlement agreement and dismissed all claims against Humana
with prejudice.

From 1999 to 2005, the Company was involved in several purported
class action lawsuits that were part of a wave of generally
similar actions targeting the health care payer industry and
particularly managed care companies.  These included a lawsuit
against the Company and originally nine of its competitors that
purported to be brought on behalf of physicians who treated its
members from January 1, 1990 onward. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 25, 2005).

On October 17, 2005, the Company and representatives of over
700,000 physicians and several state medical societies reached
an agreement to settle the lawsuit by payment of $40 million for
the physicians and an amount up to $18 million for the
plaintiffs' attorneys, subject to approval by the Court, (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 25, 2005).

The Settlement Agreement recognizes that the Company has
undertaken certain initiatives to facilitate relationships with
and payments to physicians and provides for additional
initiatives over its four-year term.  The Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement Agreement on October 19, 2005, and set a
Settlement Hearing for March 6, 2006, (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 25, 2005).

Four other defendants, Aetna Inc., Cigna Corporation, Health
Net, Inc. and The Prudential Insurance Company of America
previously entered into settlement agreements, which have been
approved by the Court. Wellpoint, Inc. (formerly WellPoint
Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) announced a settlement
agreement on July 11, 2005, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 25,
2005).

The Humana class action represents one of a number of suits
launched on behalf of physicians against the nation's largest
HMOs.  Doctors had accused the companies' HMO plans of delaying
reimbursements and systematically reducing payments below what
the doctors charged.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge Federico
Moreno.

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


INTEL CORP: Faces Consolidated Federal Antitrust Lawsuit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits accusing Intel Corp. of monopolizing the market
for microprocessors, which are used to power personal computers
(P.C.), were combined into one case in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, Bloomberg News reports.

Initially, the Company faced approximately 79 separate class
actions filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern
District of California, Southern District of California and the
District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas
and Tennessee state courts, (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2006).

The suits allege various consumer damages, including that
arising from paying higher prices for the Company's
microprocessors.  They also allege violations similar to a
complaint filed by Sunnyvale, California-based Advanced Micro
Devices (AMD) against the Company, (Class Action Reporter, March
7, 2006).

In June 2005, AMD filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company and its
Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of
the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions
Code, including providing secret and discriminatory discounts
and rebates and intentionally interfering with prospective
business advantages of AMD, (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2006).

AMD's complaint sought unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the
Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against the
Company's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees, (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2006).

In the now-consolidated suit, filed April 28, 2006, more than 50
P.C. buyers from New York to California are asking for class
action status, a jury trial and unspecified damages and
restitution.  They accuse the Santa Clara, California-based
Company of trying to "stifle and eliminate competition" so it
could "charge inflated prices."

The suit, captioned, "In re Intel Corp. Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-md-01717-JJF," is now before U.S. District Judge
Joseph Farnan Jr. On April 20, the judge stated that the suit by
AMD will be tried first, in 2008.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 263-0594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine
         St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, US, Phone:
         415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail:
         rick@saveri.com; and

     (3) Michael P. Lehmann of The Furth Firm, LLP, 225 Bush
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104,
         Sonoma County Office, 10300 Chalk Hill Road,
         Healdsburg, California 95448, Phone: (415) 433-2070,
         Fax: (415) 982-2076, E-mail: mplehmann@furth.com.

Representing the Company are:

     (i) David Mark Balabanian and Joy K. Fuyuno of Bingham
         McCutchen, LLP, Three Embarcadero Center, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-4067, US, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-
         mail: david.balabanian@bingham.com and
         joy.fuyuno@bingham.com; and

    (ii) Jef Feibelman of Burch Porter & Johnson, 130 N. Court
         Ave., Memphis, TN 38103, US, Phone: 901-524-5000, E-
         mail: jfeibelman@bpjlaw.com.


INTERPOOL INC: N.J. Court Mulls Approval for Securities Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to approve the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Interpool, Inc. and certain of its present
and former executive officers and directors as defendants.

In February and March 2004, several lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
relating to our reported Consolidated Financial Statements for
the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and the nine months
ended September 30, 2002, which we announced in March 2003 would
require restatement.

Each of the complaints purported to be a class action brought on
behalf of persons who purchased securities during a specified
period.

In April 2004, the lawsuits, which seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including legal
fees, were consolidated into a single action with lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel having been appointed.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
September 2004, which included allegations of purported
misstatements and omissions in public disclosures throughout an
expanded purported class period from March 31, 1999 through
December 26, 2003.

In November 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss was granted by the
District Court on August 18, 2005, dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety and with prejudice.

On September 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
of the dismissal order, thereby initiating a review of the
District Court's decision by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

In view of the costs and uncertainties described above and which
are inherent in the litigation process, the Company elected to
participate in the Third Circuit's mediation program through
which a settlement of this litigation was negotiated.

Following the conclusion of these negotiations, the Company
received a letter dated December 8, 2005 from the Director of
the Appellate Mediation Program for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, confirming the settlement terms for this
class action litigation, to which all parties have agreed, which
are:

      -- a cash payment on behalf of defendants in the total
         amount of $1.0 million, inclusive of all of the fees
         and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, and

      -- the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the
         other defendants on a class-wide basis.

The entire $1.0 million payment will be funded by the Company's
insurance carrier.  The agreed settlement terms have been
embodied in a formal settlement agreement that will be submitted
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
will be subject to approval by the District Court.  The Court of
Appeals has remanded the case to the District Court for
consideration of the settlement.

The suit is "Hurtado, et al v. Interpool, Inc et al., case no.
3:04-cv-00321-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

     (2) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com.

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Matthew M. Oliver of Lowenstein Sandler, 65 Livingston
         Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, E-mail:
         moliver@lowenstein.com.

    (ii) David A. Kotler of Dechert, LLP, Princeton Pike,
         Corporate Center, P.O. BOX 5218, Princeton, NJ 08543,
         Phone: 609-620-3200, E-mail: david.kotler@dechert.com.


LOUISIANA: District Judges Recused From Hearing Flood Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
All 16 state district judges in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
disqualified themselves from hearing a lawsuit filed by a
property owner who blames parish government for post-Hurricane
Katrina flooding, claiming the parish president evacuated
drainage pump operators before Katrina and that is what caused
most of the damage, the Times Picayune reports.

According to Glenn Cater, an attorney for plaintiffs Chicago
Property Interests and Zoe Aldige, said every 24th Judicial
District judge either has ties to Parish President Aaron
Broussard, or has friends or family who experienced flood losses
from the Aug. 29 hurricane.

Though Mr. Cater said his clients would have been comfortable
with Judge Robert Murphy, who was assigned to the case,
attorneys for the parish preferred that the state Supreme Court
assign a substitute judge from another jurisdiction.

According to Parish Attorney Tom Wilkinson four sets of
plaintiffs lodged cases in the 24th District Court related to
Parish President Aaron Broussard 's decision to evacuate
drainage pump operators before Katrina, a move the plaintiffs
blame for much of the flooding that devastated neighborhoods.

Three of those -- one filed by Chicago Property Interests and
Zoe Aldige; another by attorney and plaintiff Darleen Jacobs
Levy; and the third by attorney and plaintiff Bridgette
Kaczmarek -- are class actions.

The fourth, filed by plaintiff Lloyd Loga, is not a class action
but involves numerous plaintiffs.

A fifth plaintiff, Maurice de la Houssaye, filed a class action
in the district court alleging that the parish was negligent in
failing to close the Geisenheimer Canal gate at the 17th Street
Canal before Katrina.

A.J. Rebennack, who represents plaintiffs preparing to file
another case, said the parish filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuits.  He said the parish is arguing that evacuating public
employees lies within the discretion of the parish president,
who is therefore immune to subsequent challenges in court.

Mr. Wilkinson would not comment on the cases while the
appointment of a substitute judge is pending.

High court spokeswoman Valerie Willard said substitute
appointment has not been made.

For more details, contact A.J. Rebennack, 3232 Edenborn Avenue,
Metairie, Louisiana 70002, Phone: 504-586-0361 or 504-888-LAWS,
Fax: 504-522-5161, E-Mail: arebennack@rcaluda.com, Web site:
http://www.rcaluda.com.


MON CHONG: Recalls Dried Vegetables Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mon Chong Loong Trading Corp. of Maspeth, New York is recalling
all of its Oriental King Brand Dried Vegetable, because it
contains undeclared sulfites.  The Company said that people who
have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life-threatening reactions if they consume these products.

The Oriental King Brand Dried Vegetable is packaged in uncoded,
sealed plastic 4 oz. bags, with labeling in Chinese and English.
Produced in China, the product was distributed in the New York
metropolitan area through retail Stores.  No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by food laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in the product, which were not
declared on the label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of
sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe
reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in
certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.  Analysis of the Oriental King
Brand Dried Vegetable revealed it contained 122 milligrams per
serving.

Consumers who have purchased Oriental King Brand Dried Vegetable
are advised to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company at
718-417-1668.


NETFLIX INC: Calif. Judge Approves Subscribers' Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon Jr. approved a
class-action settlement against DVD rental service Netflix,
Inc., MarketWatch reports.

The judge required the Company to offer a free month of DVDs to
5.5 million current and former subscribers, resolving a case
that prompted the online rental service to acknowledge it
sometimes delays shipments to its less profitable customers.

Under Judge Mellon's final order, the Company must pay $1.3
million to Adam Gutride and Seth Safier - the San Francisco
attorneys who filed the suit in 2004 - and another $60,000 to
lawyers whose objections to an earlier agreement helped shape
the final settlement.  The Company expects to begin sending out
notices of the final settlement this month.

The settlement had been delayed since March when Judge Mellon
balked at a proposal that would have guaranteed payments
totaling $2.5 million to a handful of lawyers, (Class Action
Reporter, March 27, 2006).


NEW YORK: Day Laborers File Federal Suit V. Mamaroneck Village
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Mamaroneck faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York for allegedly
harassing day laborers and violating their freedoms of speech
and assembly, The Journal News reports.

The suit was filed by a legal team from the Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund as well as by an international law
firm, Dewey Ballantine.  It was specifically brought on behalf
of six unnamed day laborers.

Following months of controversy over day laborers in Mount
Kisco, Brewster, Yonkers and Mamaroneck, this lawsuit is the
next chapter in the long and ever-changing debate over the
rights of the mostly Hispanic, immigrant worker population of
the Lower Hudson Valley.

"They are Mamaroneck residents and they have been treated like
much less," according to attorney Sandra Del Valle, an associate
counsel for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, a Manhattan-
based Latino advocacy organization that successfully represented
day laborers in a recent battle in Farmingville, Long Island,
and in Freehold, in upstate New York.

The suit charges Mamaroneck village with deliberately deterring
the day laborers from soliciting work by closing the hiring site
at Columbus Park and targeting them for harassment by conducting
police surveillance of the area.

Mayor Phil Trifiletti told The Journal News that he was not
concerned about the lawsuit, calling it "outrageous."  In
describing the case, he said, "It's misguided, misdirected and
misinformed."

The mayor, who in January voted against closing the site and has
since been a supporter of police efforts in and around the
former hiring site also said, "Everything we've been doing in
the village is for an orderly and safe environment for the
workers and residents. ... We will continue to enforce the laws
of the village."

The lawsuit contends that village police officers followed
groups of Latino men around on foot, on bicycles and in patrol
cars.

In one instance, the suit alleges, a police officer held a day
laborer in a contractor's truck for two hours without giving a
reason for detaining him.  In another instance, according to the
suit, an officer asked a day laborer, "Why don't you go back to
your own country?"

The police have threatened laborers with fines if they simply
stand on the sidewalks, lawyers for the day laborers said.  "You
don't have to be a citizen to have constitutional rights," Ms.
Delvalle said.

Hispanic advocates from across Westchester County criticized the
village Board of Trustees for shutting down the village's
official hiring site before discussing an alternative plan.

For years laborers gathered in Mamaroneck's Columbus Park to
seek jobs from contractors who would drive by.  Their ranks
swelled into the hundreds some days, prompting complaints from
some residents and from the developer of a new condominium
complex being built near the park.

Complaints about workers' behavior included assertions that they
were urinating and defecating in public, fighting, drinking,
blocking sidewalks, littering, smoking marijuana and sleeping in
the park overnight.

In addition, many of the laborers are in the United States
illegally, and some residents said the village should not be
helping them to get work.

In August 2004, village police officers began patrolling the
park daily to discourage out-of-town laborers, and the daily
number dropped from 200 to about 30.

Finally, on February 1, 2006, the village shut down its hiring
site pending the opening of sites in neighboring communities.

Officials from the villages of Mamaroneck, Larchmont and the
unincorporated section of the town of Mamaroneck met privately
with members of the local clergy in an attempt to find a proper
site.  The county's Board of Legislators also hosted meetings
with several municipal officials to come up with a plan.

The suit is "John Does Nos. 1 through 6, et al v. Village of
Mamaroneck, et al., Case No. 7:06-cv-03243-CM," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Colleen McMahon.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Candace D. Banks and Janis M. Meyer of Dewey Ballantine
         LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212)-259-7166, Fax: (212)-259-6333, E-mail:
         cbanks@dbllp.com and lpmco@dbllp.com;

     (2) Sandra Del Valle and Foster Maer of Puerto Rican
         Defense & Education Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 14th
         Floor, New York, NY 10013, Phone: (212) 219-3360; and

     (3) Alan H. Levine of Law Office of Alan H. Levine, 99
         Hudson Street, 14th Flr., New York, NY 10013, Phone:
         (212) 739-7506, Fax: (212) 431-4276, E-mail:
         alev@att.net.

For more details, visit http://www.prldef.org/Press/press.htm.


PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
set a tentative May 2006 hearing for PETCO Animal Supplies,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action
filed against it, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.

On April 18, 2005, the Company and certain of its officers was
named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The named plaintiff purports to represent a class of purchasers
of stock during the period November 18, 2004 to April 14, 2005,
and alleges that during such period the defendants
misrepresented the Company's financial position and that the
plaintiff and the purported class of purchasers during that
period were damaged by paying artificially and falsely inflated
prices for the Company's stock. The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

Over the next several weeks, three additional purported class
actions were filed in the same court alleging essentially the
same claims against the Company and its officers and adding its
Chairman as a defendant.

These cases were consolidated, and in October 2005 a
consolidated complaint was filed extending the class period from
August 18, 2004 to August 25, 2005, adding additional but
similar causes of action, and naming additional defendants,
including our President and Chief Operating Officer, several of
our Senior Vice Presidents, several former and current members
of our Board of Directors, and two former stockholders.

In January 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the ground that it failed to state
facts sufficient to state a claim under the securities laws.  A
hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 2006.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et al. v. PETCO
Animal Supplies, Inc., et al.," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

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

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

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

     (6) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (8) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (9) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

    (10) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100;

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

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


PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Calif. Labor Code Suits, One Case Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. is a defendant in two purported
class actions in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles alleging violations of the
California Labor Code.  One of these cases though was
voluntarily dismissed.

One of these suits was filed on June 27, 2005, and named as
plaintiffs, Wayne Boyd, Anthony Castro, Gilbert Hernandez, and
Daniel Lepkosky.  It purports to represent all current and
former hourly, non-exempt employees of our California stores
from June 27, 2001 to the present.

These plaintiffs allege that during this period they were not
paid all wages, were not paid overtime, were not authorized and
permitted to take rest breaks as required by law, were not
provided meal breaks as required by law, were not paid
"reporting time" pay, and were not paid all wages upon
separation from employment.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages in the form of
unpaid wages, penalties and other relief.

On March 2, 2006, Plaintiff Gilbert Hernandez requested that his
claims against the Company be dismissed. This request is subject
to court approval.

The other suit was filed on September 19, 2005, and named as
plaintiff, Natalie Wade, who purports to represent a class of
current and former Company employees who she alleges were not
paid all wages earned, were not provided meal breaks, were not
authorized and permitted to take rest breaks, and were not
provided with itemized wage statements as required by law.

This complaint also seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  A first amended complaint was filed on or about
November 16, 2005. This amendment neither added nor altered any
of the causes of action asserted but appears to have been made
in an effort to cure a failure to comply with certain
administrative requirements.

In February 2006, Ms. Wade voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit
against the Company in exchange for the Company's agreement not
to seek costs incurred in defending against the lawsuit.


PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Nev.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Gaming International Corporation and two of its
officers are defendants in several purported class actions
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Commencing on November 28, 2005, four similar purported class
action complaints were filed.  Each were alleging that during a
"class period" beginning in early 2005 and ending on October 19,
2005, the Company misled investors concerning the prospective
application of SFAS 153 to its financial statements for the
third quarter of 2005.

The actions seek unspecified money damages under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The first identified complaint is "John Pardo, et al. v. Mikohn
Gaming Corporation (d/b/a Progressive Gaming International
Corporation), et al., Case No. 05-CV-01410," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada. Plaintiff firms in
this or similar case:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 1800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronandbudd.com;

     (2) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
         617.542.8300;

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

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

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

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

     (8) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867.


SALOMON SMITH: GPM Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Southern New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "Norman v. Salomon Smith Barney / Salomon Smith Barney
GPM Account Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-04391-GEL."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or legal
beneficiaries or participants in any persons, who maintained a
Guided Portfolio Management (GPM) account with Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc. during the period from January 3, 1998 through
August 15, 2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch in
the U.S. District Courthouse for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007 on May 12, 2006, at 3:00
p.m.

Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
April 21, 2006.  Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on
July 14, 2006.

For more details, contact Thomas A. Doyle of Sauders & Doyle,
Suite 1720, 20 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 551-0051, Fax: (312) 551-4467; Steven Jeffrey Toll of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (DC), 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202)
408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com; Thomas
Earl Patton of Tighe, Patton & Babbin, 1747 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W. Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 293-8740, E-
mail: tpatton@tighepatton.com; and Salomon Smith Barney GPM
Account Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administrator, LLC, P.O.
Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax:
(516) 931-0810.


SUNRISE HOMES: Homebuyer Files RESPA Violations Suit in E.D. La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Homes, Sun Construction LLC and Title Closing Group Inc.
and its owner, the law firm Berrigan & English, LLC, faces a
purported class action Louisiana Federal Court from a buyer who
alleges that he was forced to buy title insurance from one of
the defendants giving kickbacks to the homebuilder, The New
Orleans City Business reports.

Matt Pecoraro, who bought his $149,081 Slidell, Louisiana home
on March 3, 2005 from one of the defendants, filed the suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
A trial date could be set this month for his case, which is
seeking class action status.

The lawsuit centers on a 1974 federal statute known as the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), which allows the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to protect consumers
by outlawing kickbacks and inflationary referral fees.

Transactions protected under RESPA include federally related
mortgage loans for residential property, including refinances
and other transactions.

Mr. Pecoraro, who bought his home in The Trace subdivision,
alleges a RESPA violation occurred when Sunrise forced him to
buy title insurance from Title Closing.  He specifically claims
that Sunrise would not sell the house to him without him using
Title Closing.

Jeremy Friedman, Mr. Pecoraro's attorney explains, "If you want
to buy a home from Sunrise Homes or Sun Construction, you got to
use Title Closing Group."

However, David Loeb, legal representative for the defendants
counters that Mr. Pecoraro's claim is not true.  "Neither
Sunrise nor Title Closing Group required Mr. Pecoraro to buy
title insurance. Period," he said.

In addition, Mr. Pecoraro's suit also claims that he was
required to pay "excessive" closing fees.  Mr. Pecoraro's
attorneys did not provide The New Orleans City Business with the
amount that their client paid or details of the alleged
kickbacks to Sunrise.  That evidence, according to them, will be
presented in court.

A review of HUD documents obtained by The New Orleans City
Business shows Mr. Pecoraro paid Title Closing $500 for abstract
and title work and another $125 in notary fees.  Mr. Friedman
also told The New Orleans City Business that his client could
have paid lower rates with another title agency if given the
chance to shop around.

Mr. Loeb again counters that Mr. Pecoraro's own decisions added
to his closing costs, such as choosing to take out two mortgage
loans rather than one, which increased the documentation fees.

But, Mr. Friedman pointed out that RESPA suits that involve
"required use," which means a homebuyer is forced to use certain
title agents or other real estate businesses, are rare.  The
reason is many people don't know about RESPA or they do not have
to do business with whomever the builder or others want them to,
he said.

Local officials say it is common in Louisiana for homebuilders,
title agencies and lenders to have relationships with one
another.  But relationships that involve various paybacks,
including meals, can be illegal under RESPA.

"Most builders have a preferred closing attorney.  It's more
efficient that way, both from a time and cost perspective,"
according to Mr. Loeb.  "That does not mean there's money
changing hands."

Also representing Mr. Pecoraro is Brian Katz, an attorney with
New Orleans law firm Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar.  He, along
with Mr. Friedman, are working on another RESPA case in
Louisiana involving the mortgage Company Countrywide in a
lawsuit filed in Baton Rouge after the Pecoraro case was filed.

The court will have to authorize the Pecoraro lawsuit to become
a class action, since according to Mr. Friedman, more than 100
people who closed on a Sunrise home in 2005 or later could
potentially be part of the lawsuit.

The civil lawsuit seeks the defendants to pay each class member
"the amount equal to three times of all charges made for such
title insurance."

However, Mr. Loeb scoffs at the case becoming a class action,
since according to him, there are only 60 potential claimants,
which is not enough to justify class action status.  The
defendants consider the allegations defamatory and expect to
file sanction proceedings, he said.

The suit is "Pecoraro v. Sun Construction, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00193-MLCF-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Martin L.C.
Feldman with referral Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.
Representing the plaintiffs is Brian David Katz of Herman,
Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP, (New Orleans), 201 St. Charles
Avenue, Suite 4310, New Orleans, LA 70170, US, Phone: (504) 581-
4892, Fax: (504) 561-6024, E-mail: bkatz@hhkc.com.

Representing the defendants is David Charles Loeb of Couhig
Partners, LLP, 1100 Poydras, Suite 1150, New Orleans, LA 70163,
Phone: 504-588-1288, E-mail: dloeb@couhigpartners.com.


TASER INT'L: N.D. Tex. Court Dismisses Product Liability Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort
Worth Division, entered a judgment ordering the dismissal with
prejudice of the product liability lawsuit filed by Kathi
Hammock, individually, and as next of friend of Brittani
Hammock, against electronic control device Company TASER
International, Inc.

Dismissal with prejudice prohibits the plaintiff from re-filing
this lawsuit in the future.  This is the fifteenth wrongful
death or injury lawsuit that has been dismissed or judgment
entered in favor of TASER International in the past 24 months.

"We feel vindicated that the U.S. District Court ordered the
dismissal of this product liability lawsuit," commented Douglas
Klint, Vice President and General Counsel for TASER
International.

"We will continue to relentlessly fight these lawsuits with
overwhelming medical and scientific evidence showing that the
TASER(r) device was not the cause of any injury or death,"
concluded Mr. Klint.

TASER International was named as defendant in 35 lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs alleged either wrongful death or personal
injury in situations in which the TASER device was used (or
present) by law enforcement officers or during training
exercises (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 28, 2005).

Three of the cases are firearms-related death cases and not
death allegedly caused by a Taser device. One case is a class
action -- presently believed to be a class of one.  One case has
been dismissed by summary judgment order, two cases have been
dismissed with prejudice, another case was dismissed without
prejudice but has been refiled, and the balance of the cases are
pending.

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiff is seeking monetary
damages from the Company. In one case the plaintiff is seeking
injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages.  Cases are
being submitted for the defense of each of these lawsuits to the
Company's insurance carriers as the Company maintained during
these periods and continue to maintain product liability
insurance coverage with varying limits and deductibles.

The suits are:

     (1) Del-Ostia, filed in March 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
         Wrongful death lawsuit - dismissed with prejudice

     (2) Alvarado, filed in April 2003 in the California
         Superior Court, wrongful death lawsuit  - now in
         discovery phase

     (3) City of Madera, filed in June 2003 in California
         Superior Court, wrongful death suit - dismissed by
         summary judgment

     (4) Borden, filed in September 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
         wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (5) Thompson, filed in September 2004, in Michigan Circuit
         Court, wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (6) Pierson, filed in November 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Central District of California,
         wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (7) Glowczenski, filed in October 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
         wrongful death suit - stayed

     (8) LeBlanc, filed in December 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Central District of California,
         wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (9) Elsholtz, filed in December 2004 in Texas District
         Court, wrongful death suit - discovery phase

    (10) Kerchoff, filed in June 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
         training injury suit - dismissed, then re-filed

    (11) Powers, filed in November 2003 in Arizona Superior
         Court, training injury suit - trial set for November
         2005

    (12) Cook, filed in August 2004 in the Nevada District
         Court, Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (13) Stevens, filed in October 2004 in the Ohio Court Common
         Pleas, training injury suit - discovery phase

    (14) Eckenroth, filed on November 2004 in the Arizona
         Superior Court, training injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (15) Lipa, filed on February 2005 in Michigan Circuit Court,
         Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (16) Dimiceli, filed on March 2005 in Florida Circuit
         Court, Training Injury suit - now dismissed

    (17) Cosby, filed in August 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District New York,
         Injury During Arrest - summary judgment motion being
         filed

    (18) Blair, filed March 2005 in the United States District
         Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Injury
         During Detention - summary judgment motion filed,
         awaiting ruling

    (19) Madrigal, filed in May 2005 in the Arizona Superior
         Court, Wrongful Death suit - Dismissed with Prejudice

    (20) Washington, filed in May 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of California,
         Wrongful Death suit - Discovery Phase

    (21) Clark, filed in May 2005 in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wrongful
         Death suit - Discovery Phase

    (22) Collins, filed May 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - discovery phase

    (23) Allen, filed in May 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - discovery phase

    (24) Sanders, filed in May 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of California,
         Wrongful Death - discovery

    (25) Fleming, filed in May 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
         Wrongful Death suit - discovery

    (26) Woolfolk, filed in June 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
         Wrongful Death suit - complaint served

    (27) J.J. & J.B., filed in July 2005 in Florida Circuit
         Court, 2 Training Injuries - Complaint Served

    (28) Lewis, filed in July 2005 in the United States District
         Court in Tallahassee, Florida, Injury During Arrest -
         Complaint Served

    (29) Village Of Dolton, filed in August 2005, in the United
         States District Court Northern District of IL, class
         action - complaint served

    (30) Lash, filed in August 2005 in the United States
         District Court Eastern District, Missouri, Injury
         During Arrest - Complaint Served

    (31) Howard, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (32) Wagner, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (33) Gerdon, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (34) Gallant, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior
         Court, Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (35) Nowell, filed in August 2005 in the United States
         District Court, Northern District, Texas, Wrongful
         Death suit -  Complaint Served


TENET HEALTHCARE: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed partial settlement
in the matter: "Tenet Healthcare Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:02-cv-08462."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet common stock, 5.375% notes
maturing 2006, 6.375% notes maturing 2011, or Tenet call
options, or who sold Tenet put options between January 11, 2000
and November 7, 2002.

The hearing will be held on May 15, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, U.S. Courthouse, 312 N. Spring
St., Los Angeles, California.

Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
April 17, 2006.  Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on
July 6, 2006.

For more details, contact Katrina Blumenkrants, Allyn Z. Lite,
Joseph J. DePalma and Bruce Daniel Greenberg of Lite Depalma
Greenberg and Rivas, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ
07102-5003, Phone: 973-623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com
and bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com; Gregory M. Castaldo and Richard S.
Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste. 400,
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706; and In re Tenet
Healthcare Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City
group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000#6385, Merrick,
NY 11566-9000.


U-HAUL INT'L: Pa. Judge Denies Class Status for Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond denied class certification
to a consumer lawsuit against U-Haul International, Inc.
alleging that the Company breaches its contracts to provide
trucks, Law.com reports.

Edward Ritti filed the proposed nationwide class action on
August 5, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  Sherrie R. Savett and Michael T.
Fantini of Berger & Montague represented Mr. Ritti in the case.

In his 29-page opinion in "Ritti v. U-Haul International Inc.,"
the judge noted that that the case cannot go forward as a class
action, since Mr. Ritti's claim hinges on the specific details
of his interactions with U-Haul, thereby rendering him incapable
of a "typical" representative of a nationwide class.

As the judge sees it, every member of Mr. Ritti's proposed class
would suffer from the same problem.  He further noted, "Each
class member will base his claim on a unique contract comprising
terms offered and accepted when the Class member met with, spoke
to, or electronically communicated with U-Haul."

The judge continues, "Moreover, the circumstances relating to
each purported breach necessarily differ and so trigger
different defenses. In these circumstances, I am compelled to
conclude that plaintiff is not typical of the purported class
and that common issues of law and fact do not predominate."

The ruling is a victory for the Company's defense team, which
includes: attorneys Robert C. Heim, Amy B. Ginensky and Lance
Rogers of Dechert's Philadelphia office, along with Dechert
attorneys Ronni E. Fuchs and Thomas Kane of the firm's
Princeton, N.J., office.

The Company is also currently seeking summary judgment in the
suit, but as a practical matter, the ruling on class
certification may prove to be fatal to the case.

Since Mr. Ritti's damages, standing alone, are surely small, the
case wouldn't meet the $75,000 threshold for federal diversity
jurisdiction.  To go forward, Mr. Ritti would be forced to re-
file in the Pennsylvania courts, most likely in small claims
court.

According to court papers, the Company had responded to Mr.
Ritti's complaint to the Better Business Bureau by refunding his
$5 reservation fee and offering a $170 reimbursement to Ritti
for his expenses.

However, Mr. Ritti rejected the offer and opted instead to
pursue the class action.  In it he alleged that when the Company
breaches its contract, it forces consumers to rent other trucks
"at prices much higher than the prices agreed upon with U-Haul."
He also alleged that despite its breach, U-Haul charged class
members a $5 reservation fee and a $50 cancellation fee.

Plaintiffs lawyers asked Judge Diamond to certify the suit on
behalf of a class of "all persons in the United States who
reserved rental trucks or trailers from U-Haul for specific
dates, received written confirmations of their agreements with
U-Haul, did not receive trucks or trailers from U-Haul on the
specific dates promised, and who were damaged thereby."

However, the judge found that the suit didn't meet the test for
class certification because Mr. Ritti can't serve as a typical
representative of the class and because the class itself would
not share common legal issues.

"The class action works as intended only if the representative's
claim is typical of those held by class members," Judge Diamond
wrote. "Similarly, unless the factual and legal commonalities of
the class predominate, the class action will deteriorate into an
unmanageable mass of individual claims and defenses."

Judge Diamond found that, according to Mr. Ritti's own
testimony, his breach of contract claim "is not typical of that
of the proposed class."  And due to "the manner in which U-
Haul's truck rental contracts are formed," Judge Diamond said,
"it is highly doubtful that any 'typical' breach of contract
claim exists."

Instead, Diamond said, "it is apparent that this proposed class
action is in actuality an agglomeration of individual breach of
contract claims whose merits must be litigated individually."

For its part, the Company's lawyers argued that Mr. Ritti was
not "typical" because his deposition testimony conflicted with
the theory of liability alleged in the suit -- that U-Haul has
breached "standard written contracts."

In his deposition, Mr. Ritti said that the Company made a series
of promises to him over the phone in addition to the e-mail
confirmation of his reservation that he considered to be a
contract.

Plaintiffs lawyers though insisted that the Company's written
confirmations are "standard, boilerplate, computer-generated
forms" and that they "contain the essential terms of the
parties' agreements."  As a result, they said, there was "no
need to inquire into any oral conversations that customers may
have had with U-Haul."

Judge Diamond, however, disagreed, pointing out "because Mr.
Ritti has testified that his reservation telephone call and the
e-mail confirmation together constitute his contract with U-
Haul, I agree that he cannot satisfy Rule 23's typicality
requirements."

U-Haul's e-mail confirmation to Mr. Ritti, according to Judge
Diamond, explicitly stated that: "U-Haul reserves the right to
substitute equipment of equal or greater size at no additional
charge to you."

In his deposition, Judge Diamond noted, Mr. Ritti explained that
because his Pottstown, Pennsylvania home was on "a one-way
street with parking on both sides," his rental truck could be no
longer than 14 to 16 feet.  "It was only in his telephone
conversation with U-Haul that Ritti was assured -- contrary to
what is provided in his purportedly complete written contract --
that a 14- to 16-foot truck would be provided on July 30th," the
judge wrote.

Mr. Ritti also testified that he considered the promise on the
issue of the size of the truck to be a "deal breaker," and that,
in his view, the written confirmation, together with his phone
conversation, "embodies the contract that I had with U-Haul."

On the basis of that testimony, Judge Diamond concluded that:
"Mr. Ritti himself has confirmed that his claim against U-Haul
differs significantly from those of the purported class."  In
addition the judge also concluded that it would be impossible to
certify the class, even with a different representative, because
determining the provisions of each class member's rental
contract will predominate over any common questions.

"It is apparent that if I were to certify the proposed class,
this case would become endlessly mired in disputes over the
terms of each class member's rental contract.  In that event,
individual legal issues would predominate -- the exact opposite
of what Rule 23 requires," Judge Diamond wrote.

Likewise, the judge concluded that if the case were tried as a
class action, the court would be forced to tackle issues
relating to each individual class member's damages, as well as
U-Haul's potential unique defense against each class member's
claim.

Finally, Judge Diamond concluded that a nationwide class action
treatment of Mr. Ritti's claim would force the court to take on
complicated questions involving differences among the contract
laws of various states.

The judge specifically noted, "Neither party has claimed that
the e-mail confirmation or the telephone conversation between
plaintiff and U-Haul contained a choice of law provision. I
would therefore be required to conduct a difficult choice of law
analysis -- involving a consideration of the place of
contracting, the place of negotiation of the contract, the place
of performance, the location of the subject matter of the
contract, and the domicile, residence, place of incorporation
and place of business of the parties -- for each class member."

He goes on to note, "Plainly, allowing this class action to
proceed will require countless choice-of-law determinations and
an unmanageable inquiry into the law governing the existence,
terms and breach of each contract, the availability of defenses
to any breach, and the resulting damages for a vast number of
the purported class members.  Accordingly, I conclude that
common issues do not predominate."

The suit is "Ritti v. U-Haul International, Inc., Case No. 2:05-
cv-04182-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Sherrie R. Savett and Michael
T. Fantini of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-5715,
E-mail: ssavett@bm.net.

Representing the defendants are, Robert C. Heim, Amy B.
Ginensky, Lance Rogers, Ronni E. Fuchs and Thomas Kane of the
Dechert, LLP, Phone: +1 215 994 4000 and +1 609 620 3200, Fax:
+1 215 994 2222 and +1 609 620 3259, Web site:
http://www.dechert.com/.


UNITED STATES: Debt Collectors' Immunity Under H.R. 3505 Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Citizen and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)
called on the U.S. Congress to block legislation that would
grant debt collectors, who pose as prosecutors a special,
blanket exemption from federal consumer protection law.

The exemption, sought by "check diversion" companies, was added
to the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act (H.R. 3505) and
is to be considered on May 4, 20004, by the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

In advance of the pending legislation, both Public Citizen and
NCLC showcased the stories of several victims of check diversion
companies in a recent telephone conference.

Check diversion companies are private, for-profit debt
collectors that enter into arrangements with local prosecutors
to collect on returned checks.  Using the letterhead of the
local district attorney's office, these companies send letters
threatening consumers with criminal prosecution and jail unless
they pay not only the check amount, but also excessive
collection fees, which are then split with the prosecutors'
office.

Most consumers targeted by check diversion schemes have
accidentally bounced checks, usually for small amounts. Under
state criminal laws, bouncing a check is not a crime unless the
person who wrote the check intended to defraud someone.

These companies ignore that requirement of criminal intent,
branding anyone who mistakenly writes a bad check as a criminal.
The fees collected are as high as $200, even on checks for $10
or less.

The companies claim that the fees cover the cost of financial
management classes for consumers, but once the fee is paid, the
companies do little to compel class attendance and some
companies rarely hold classes at all.

Public Citizen, through its Consumer Justice Project, has joined
in class action litigation in California and Indiana against
some of these private debt collectors, including the largest
such Company, California-based American Corrective Counseling
Services, Inc. (ACCS).

The suits are based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a
federal law that prohibits deception or abuse by debt
collectors.  The check restitution companies, armed with
expensive lobbyists, have asked Congress to exempt them from the
law.  ACCS, the largest of a handful of check diversion
companies in the United States, operates in 116 local
jurisdictions in 17 states.

"These private companies rent the name and authority of the
local government prosecutor and extract illegal collection fees
from consumers who have accidentally bounced checks, falsely
telling them they will go to jail unless they pay," said Deepak
Gupta, a staff attorney with Public Citizen. "These unscrupulous
debt collectors are the last ones Congress should exempt from
federal consumer protection standards."

A check diversion Company threatened Simona Pickett, a Middle
River, Maryland resident and employee at the U.S. Department of
Justice who participated in the telephone conference, when she
wrote a $21.66 check to a local supermarket that was returned.

Ms. Picket had recently changed her bank account, not knowing
that her overdraft protection was not also transferred.  She
received a letter from the "District Attorney Bad Check
Restitution Program" demanding the check amount plus $185 in
fees and ordering her to attend a diversion class.  Fearing jail
she paid the fees, and then was told she would not have to
attend the class.

A check diversion program pursued Lois Artz, a 70-year-old
retired bank employee in Petaluma, California, who also
participated in the press conference, when she wrote a $28 check
to a local store that did not clear.

Ms. Artz lives on a small, fixed income and cares full-time for
her terminally ill daughter.  She received a letter from the
"District Attorney Bad Check Restitution Program" demanding
about $200 to avoid criminal prosecution. Terrified of going to
jail, she called the program - actually the private Company ACCS
- and arranged a payment plan, for which ACCS charged an
additional $25 fee.  She was forced to pay for a doctor's visit
to obtain a note excusing her from attending the class and
worked on a 48-page home study book over a number of weekends.

Kristy Schwarm, a mother of six in Ukiah, California, wrote a
check to a local supermarket that did not clear.  Due to medical
and other expenses, she was unable to pay the check and
ultimately was forced into bankruptcy.

Kristy received a series of letters from the "District Attorney
Check Restitution/Prosecution Program" threatening arrest and
prosecution if she did not pay more than $130 in fees and attend
a diversion class.

Interestingly, she could avoid the diversion class and the $85
class fee if she paid $45 in other fees within 15 days of the
first letter.  This particular debt collector, District Attorney
Technical Services, Ltd., holds diversion classes only
intermittently and does not keep track of who attends.

"Criminal diversion is fine for real criminals, but the victims
of this diversion scheme are typically innocent," said Paul
Arons, a private consumer attorney from Friday Harbor,
Washington, who has brought several suits against ACCS.

"It is not against the law to make a mistake in balancing your
checkbook, yet those are the people these companies go after.
You shouldn't be threatened with jail and have to pay $170 in
fees just because you forgot to write down an ATM withdrawal."

Public Citizen Litigation Group's Consumer Justice Project
litigates individual and class action cases that offer a chance
to establish important precedents on behalf of consumers.

For more information on the check diversion class action
litigation, including the legislation under consideration and
victims' stories and contact information, visit
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/articles.cfm?ID=15268.


UNITED STATES: FDA, NIOSH Alerts on Oxygen Regulator Fire Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) notified healthcare
professionals that twelve incidents have been reported in which
regulators used with oxygen cylinders have burned or exploded,
in some cases injuring personnel.

Some of the incidents occurred during emergency medical use or
during routine equipment checks.  FDA and NIOSH believe that
improper use of gaskets/washers in these regulators was a major
factor in both the ignition and severity of the fires, although
there are likely other contributing factors.

FDA and NIOSH recommend that plastic crush gaskets never be
reused, as they may require additional torque to obtain the
necessary seal with each subsequent use.  This can deform the
gasket, increasing the likelihood that oxygen will leak around
the seal and ignite.


UNITED STATES: NERA Study Shows Drop in Shareholder Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Though the average class action settlement hit a record high in
2005, a recent study by the NERA Economic Consulting suggests
they've peaked and may even begin to drop, CFO.com reports.

Shareholder class action settlements hit a new peak in 2005.
Excluding the Enron and WorldCom settlements, the average
settlement value was $24.3 million, surpassing the previous high
of $23.7 million in 2002.  However, the NERA study noted that
settlements may be stabilizing and may fall in the next two
years.

The report, which was based on over 10 years of research on case
filings and settlements in shareholder class actions also noted,
"It appears that settlements have reached a plateau that began
in 2002 as opposed to being on a continually rising trend."

Median settlement values jumped to $7.0 million in 2005,
compared to $5.3 million in 2004.  NERA expects that average
settlements will not increase further in the next few years and
could decline because the high value of settlements between 2002
and 2005 were due to higher investor losses, not changes in the
litigation environment.

Additionally, while controlling for other factors, including
investor losses, the study found no statistically significant
change in settlement values since the passage of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act in 2002.

Investor losses, measured as what was lost over a class period
relative to an investment in the S&P 500, were the single
largest factor in settlement values.  The median investor losses
in 2005 totaled $332 million, which was only slightly higher
than the 2004 median of $329 million-an indication that investor
losses are stabilizing.

Furthermore, expected settlements will rise more slowly than
investor losses, according to projections by the report's
authors Ronald Miller, Todd Foster, and Elaine Buckberg.  On
average, a 1.1 percent increase in investor losses results in an
approximately 0.4 percent increase in the size of the expected
settlement.  As a result, as investor losses grow, the ratio of
settlement to investor losses declines.

Another measurement indicates a leveling off in settlements.
Last year witnessed 209 federal filings, a drop from 247 in 2004
and the lowest number of federal filings since 1997.

Interestingly, the dip isn't evenly distributed across the
board-the difference results mostly from a decline in filings in
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
possibly due to a decline in filings against high-tech companies
on the West Coast.  The decline is not necessarily a trend, but
it further suggests stabilization.

While a number of the top settlements are tentative or partial
settlements, the top ten shareholder class action settlements in
2005 and the first two months of 2006 are:

      -- Enron, $7.1 billion; WorldCom, $6.2 billion;

      -- Cendant, $3.5 billion;

      -- AOL Time Warner, $2.7 billion;

      -- Nortel Networks, $2.5 billion;

      -- Royal Ahold, $1.1 billion;

      -- McKessson HBOC, $960 million;

      -- Lucent Technologies, $517 million;

      -- BankAmerica Corp. and NationsBank Corp. $490 million;
         and

      -- Dynegy, $474 million.

For more details, visit http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?893and
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?894.


VICRAC CORP: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit in Del. Over VBSA Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vibrac Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action pending
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in New Castle County over
VBSA's Tender Proposal Offer.

On January 18, 2006, Richard Abrons, Myron Cohn and Martin Cohn
filed a lawsuit in their individual capacities and as a
purported class action on behalf of the Company's public
shareholders against Eric Mar‚e, Pierre A. PagŠs, Michel
Garaudet, Alec L. Poitevint, II, Jean No‰l Willk, Richard W.
Pickert and Virbac Corp., Virbac S.A. (VBSA) and Interlab S.A.S.

The lawsuit asserts claims against defendants VBSA, Interlab,
Messrs. Mar‚e, PagŠs and Garaudet for breach of fiduciary duty
of loyalty and unfair dealing, and defendants Messrs. Willk,
Poitevint, II and Pickert for breach of fiduciary duties of care
and good faith.

The plaintiffs seek certification of the purported class, a
preliminary and permanent injunction against the consummation of
the Tender Offer Proposal, an order declaring the Tender Offer
Proposal void and rescinding the Tender Offer Proposal, if it is
consummated, disgorgement of any profits or property received by
the defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct,
unspecified money damages plus interest thereon against all
defendants (jointly and severally), attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred in connection with the lawsuit, and such other and
further relief that the Delaware Court may deem just and proper.


VIBRAC CORP: Tex. Court Grants Final OK to Securities Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
granted final approval to a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Vibrac Corp.

On December 15, 2003, Martine Williams, a Virbac stockholder,
filed a putative securities class action lawsuit (the Securities
Class Action) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, (the Court) against
Virbac, VBSA, Thomas L. Bell (the Company's former President,
Chief Executive Officer, and member of the Company's Board of
Directors), Joseph A. Rougraff (the Company's former Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary), and Pascal
Boissy (the former Chairman of the Board of Directors) (Bell,
Rougraff, and Boissy collectively, the Individual Defendants).

The complaint asserted claims against the Company and the
Individual Defendants based on securities fraud under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Rule 10b-5),
and claims against VBSA and the Individual Defendants based on
"control person" liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On May 19, 2004, the "Williams v. Virbac, et al." lawsuit was
consolidated with a separate lawsuit filed by John Otley, which
contained virtually identical allegations to those claimed by
Martine Williams, and the Court appointed lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.  On September 10, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the Amended
Complaint).

On September 15, 2005, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement under which the Company caused to be paid $3,125,000
into a settlement fund (the Settlement Fund) to be distributed
to eligible persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Virbac
Common Stock from May 3, 2001 to November 12, 2003, inclusive
(the Class).

On October 4, 2005, the Court issued an Order certifying the
Class for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval
of the settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
the proposed plan of allocation.

On December 1, 2005, the Court entered an Order and Final
Judgment, which, among other things, found that notice had been
provided to the Class, granted final approval of the settlement
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the proposed plan
of allocation, awarded attorneys' fees of 30% of the Settlement
Fund and $63,719.10 in expenses to be paid from the Settlement
Fund, and dismissed the Securities Class Action with prejudice
as to Virbac and the Individual Defendants.  The Court retained
jurisdiction over the Securities Class Action for purposes of
administering the settlement.

Separately, the Company entered into an agreement with its
insurance carriers (the Insurers), which provides that the
Insurers will fund in full the settlement amount of $3,125,000
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The suit is "Williams v. Virbac Corporation, et al., Case No.
4:03-cv-01461," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Terry R. Means.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore Carl Anderson, III of Kilgore & Kilgore, 3109
         Carlisle, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214/969-
         9099, Fax: 214/292-8758, E-mail: tca@kilgorelaw.com;
         and

     (2) Roger F. Claxton of Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave.,
         Suite 700, LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone:
         214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
         claxtonhill@airmail.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Paul M. Alfieri and Joseph P. Armao of White & Case,
         1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         212/819-8561 and 212/819-8279, Fax: 212/254-8113, E-
         mail: palfieri@whitecase.com and jarmao@whitecase.com.

    (ii) Robert L. Carter of McGuireWoods - Chicago, 77 W.
         Wacker Dr., Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         312/558-1000.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SEE's Settlement Liability Stays at $512.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's asbestos settlement liability remains
at US$512.5 million for the 2006-1st quarter, according to a
Company press release.

The Saddle Brook, NJ-based Company's asbestos settlement
liability for the 2005-4th quarter was also at US$512.5 million.

The Company states that its effect of assumed issuance of
asbestos settlement shares for the 2006-1st quarter is at US$9
million, which is the same for the 2005-4th quarter.

Sealed Air Corp.'s main product segment, Food Packaging,
produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays
used by food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and
poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon Reserves US$49Mil for Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, at March 31, 2006, reserves about US$49
million in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims,
according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

As of March 31, 2006, about US$9 million of the reserves relates
to 117 open claims presented to subsidiary Exelon Generation Co.
LLC, while the remaining US$40 million of the reserve is for
estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims expected
to arise through 2030 based on actuarial assumptions and
analysis.

At December 31, 2006, the Company and Generation reserved about
US$50 million for asbestos-related injury claims at US$50
million, of which about US$9 million related to Generation's 120
open claims. The remaining US$41 million was for estimated
future claims expected to arise through 2030. (Class Action
Reporter, February 24, 2006)

In the 2005-2nd quarter, Generation engaged independent
actuaries to determine if, based on historical claims data and
other available information, a reasonable estimate of future
losses could be calculated associated with asbestos-related
personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently
owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Exelon Corp. distributes
electricity to more than 5 million customers in northern
Illinois, including Chicago, and in southeastern Pennsylvania,
including Philadelphia, through subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison
and PECO Energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Expects $88M Insurance Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Holdings Inc.'s insurance receivable for asbestos-
related liabilities, which are non-current for the quarters
ended March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, stood at US$88.8
million, according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.

Asbestos-related liabilities of subsidiary Armstrong World
Industries Inc., which are subject to compromise, stood at
US$3,190.6 million at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005.

An insurance asset in respect of asbestos claims in the amount
of US$98.6 million was recorded as of March 31, 2006 and
December 31, 2005. Of that amount, US$9.8 million has been
recorded as a current asset as of March 31, 2006 reflecting
management's estimate of the minimum insurance payments to be
received in the next 12 months.

Before December 6, 2000, AWI had been named a defendant in
asbestos-related cases. On December 6, 2000, AWI filed for
Chapter 11 relief of the US Bankruptcy Code to use the court-
supervised reorganization process to resolve its asbestos-
related liability.

On December 29, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to deny
confirmation of AWI's modified plan of reorganization.

At a conference before US District Court Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno on February 3, 2006, AWI and the court-authorized
representatives of AWI's creditors and claimants advised the
Court that they had agreed on a proposed schedule for a
confirmation hearing on a modified POR which would eliminate the
provisions regarding distribution of warrants to existing AHI
equity holders.

AWI filed the modified POR with the Court on February 21, 2006.
Under the modified POR, existing AHI equity holders would
receive no material distribution and their equity interests
would be cancelled.

Following the conference, Judge Robreno signed an order that
established such a schedule for a US District Court confirmation
hearing on the modified POR. The schedule calls for the
confirmation hearing to commence on May 23, 2006.

Based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Armstrong Holdings, Inc. is
the holding firm for Armstrong World Industries and its
Armstrong Floor Products unit. AWI makes flooring products,
acoustical ceilings, and suspended-ceiling systems for finishing
and refurbishing commercial, industrial, and residential
structures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Inc. Deals With 560 Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. battles over 560 asbestos-related lawsuits, with
about 8,350 claimants, pending in various state or federal
courts, according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.

As of the April 7, 2006 Class Action Reporter edition, the
Company has been named a defendant in over 550 suits with about
8,300 claimants.

Most of the suits allege personal injuries due to asbestos in
certain brakes and clutches previously made by the Company's
Stearns division.

The Company's Prager subsidiary has also been named as a
defendant in two pending multi-defendant suits, with about 3,600
claimants, relating to alleged personal injuries due to asbestos
in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager.

The Company has insurance coverage for its legal defense costs
related to the Prager suits and has indemnity coverage by
Invensys for both the Stearns and Prager suits. The Company has
further indemnity coverage on the Stearns suits from FMC Corp.,
the prior owner of the Stearns business.

In May 2005, the Company acquired Falk from Hamilton Sundstrand,
a division of United Technologies Corp., for US$301.3 million
(US$306.2 million purchase price including transaction related
expenses, net of cash acquired of US$4.9 million) and the
assumption of certain liabilities.

Falk defends against over 100 suits, with about 9,142 claimants,
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to asbestos in certain
clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk.

As of the April 7, 2006 Class Action Reporter edition, Falk
defended against over 50 asbestos-related suits. A total of
about 10,977 claimants comprise these suits.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending Falk in these lawsuits pursuant
to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to
date.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, RBS Global Inc. makes
power transmission components, drives, and conveying equipment
under the Rexnord name. The US accounts for 65 percent of the
Company's sales, while the European market accounts for about 25
percent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Claims Drop to 77,000 in 4Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation experienced a drop in active pending asbestos-
related product liability claims, from about 88,000 at September
30, 2005 to about 77,000 at December 31, 2005, according to the
Company's 10-K Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Of the 88,000 claims, about 10,000 were settled but awaiting
final documentation and payment.

At December 31, 2004, the Company defended against 116,000
asbestos-related claims.

The reduced number of active pending claims at December 31,
2005, was due to the effect of tort reform legislation or
medical criteria orders entered in various courts. During the
year, these factors resulted in a reduction of about 20,000
claims in Texas, 12,000 claims in Mississippi and 9,000 claims
in Ohio.

The Company had accrued US$98 million for indemnity and defense
costs for pending asbestos-related product liability claims at
December 31, 2005, compared to US$139 at December 31, 2004.

At December 31, 2005, the Company had recorded US$78 million as
an asset for probable recovery from our insurers for both the
pending and projected claims, compared to US$118 million
recorded at December 31, 2004, solely for pending claims.

On October 2005, the Company signed a settlement agreement with
one of its insurers providing for it to receive cash payments of
US$8 million in 2006 in exchange for the release of all rights
to coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims under the
settled insurance policies. The Company recorded a receivable
for this amount at December 31, 2005, of which US$2 million was
used to reduce receivables related to pending and unasserted
claims and the balance was recorded as deferred income available
for potential future liabilities.

Moreover, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its
insurers and others of US$15 million at December 31, 2005,
compared to US$26 million at December 31, 2004.

Through December 31, 2005, the Company had paid US$47 million to
claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance
carriers with respect to these claims. At December 31, 2005, the
Company had a net receivable of US$13 million that it expects to
recover from available insurance and surety bonds relating to
these claims.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp.'s manufactures car
parts, in which its core products include axles, brakes, and
driveshafts, as well as engine, filtration, fluid-system,
sealing, and structural products. Dana filed for bankruptcy
early in 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records Liability at $2.7M in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc. reports that its net asbestos-related assets and
liabilities for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and March
31, 2005 stood at US$2.7 million and US$13.2 million,
respectively, according to a Company press release.

For the 2006-1st quarter the Company reported net income at
US$14.7 million, or US$0.13 per diluted share, as compared to
US$4.9 million, or US$0.04 per diluted share, for the 2005-1st
quarter.

Net income from ongoing operations for the 2006-1st quarter was
US$26.4 million, or $0.24 per diluted share. Net sales in the
2006-1st quarter were US$527.3 million, an increase of 5% from
the same period last year.

"We are off to a strong start in 2006," said Craig A. Rogerson,
President and CEO.

"I am pleased with our results and our progress in sales,
earnings and cash flow growth, as well as the continued
strengthening of our balance sheet in spite of US$20 million of
higher raw material, utility and freight costs in the first
quarter as compared to the same quarter of 2005."

Hercules Inc.'s pulp and paper division supplies water-treatment
chemicals and services to the pulp and paper industry. Its
Aqualon subsidiary makes thickeners for water-based products.
Hercules' FiberVisions unit makes staple fibers used in
disposable diapers and automotive textiles, and its Pinova unit
makes resins for adhesives and terpene specialties for flavors
and fragrances. The Company is based in Wilmington, Delaware.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Dismisses 2 Moscow CableCom Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, in January 2006,
granted summary judgments for dismissal in two of Moscow
CableCom Corporation's asbestos-related lawsuits, particularly
the Mass and Fleckner suits, according to the Company's 10-K
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The Company dealt with the following suits:

-- Norman D. Mass and Lois Ravage Mass v. Amchem Products, Inc.
et al. (New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, Index
101931-04),

-- Loretta Brienza and Brent Brienza v. A.W. Chesterton Company
et al. (New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, Index
104076-04), and

-- Jay K. Fleckner v. Amchem Products, Inc. et al. (New York
State Supreme Court, County of New York, Index 113970-04).

In March and April 2004, wholly owned subsidiary JM Ney, now
known as Andersen Land Corp., was sued in the Mass and Brienza
matters in which it and more than 100 other parties were named
as defendants in an asbestos-related civil action for negligence
and product liability.

The plaintiffs claimed damages from being exposed to asbestos
and asbestos products purportedly made or supplied by the
defendants, including JM Ney's former dental division.

In October 2004, Andersen Land Corp. also received a summons in
which it and about 30 additional firms were named as defendants
in an asbestos-related civil action for negligence and product
liability filed in the Supreme Court of New York for the County
of New York.

In the suit, Mr. Fleckner claimed damages from being exposed to
asbestos products purportedly made or supplied by the
defendants, including JM Ney's former dental division.

The Company stated that it has insurance that potentially covers
the remaining Brienza claim and has notified its insurance
carriers to provide reimbursement of defense costs and
liability.

Headquartered in New York City, New York, Moscow CableCom Corp.,
which was formerly known as Andersen Group, has investments in
broadband communications in Moscow, Russia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Posts Liability at $2.22B in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., for the three months
ended March 31, 2006, records an asbestos-related liability at
US$2,224 million, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

As of March 31, 2006, the recorded US$2.6 billion net reserves
(US$2.2 billion and US$345 for asbestos and environmental,
respectively) is within an estimated range, unadjusted for
covariance, of US$1.9 billion to US$3.0 billion.

The Company reports that its asbestos-related paid loss and loss
adjustment expense development for the three months ended March
31, 2006 stood at US$182 million and US$69 million, gross and
net, respectively.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company reports
that its incurred loss and LAE development stood at US$3 million
and US$2 million, gross and net, respectively.

The Company is engaged in pending litigation in Connecticut
Superior Court against certain of its upper-layer reinsurers
under its Blanket Casualty Treaty. The BCT is a multi-layered
reinsurance program providing excess-of-loss coverage in various
amounts from the 1930s through the 1980s. The action seeks
damages for the reinsurer defendants' failure to pay certain
billings for asbestos and pollution claims.

The Company has recorded gross reinsurance recoveries of
asbestos and pollution losses under the BCT of US$586 million.
The Company has considered the risk of non-collection of these
recoveries in its allowance of US$342 million as of March 31,
2006 for all uncollectible reinsurance recoverables associated
with older, long-term casualty liabilities.

Headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut, The Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial
property/casualty insurance products, including homeowners,
auto, and workers' compensation. Established in 1810, the
Company sells its products through about 11,000 independent
agencies and more than 100,000 registered broker-dealers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Claims Reach 67,800 in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of March 31, 2006, faced about 67,800
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, in which
about 58,000 are pending in three jurisdictions, where
significant tort reform activities are underway, according to
the Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company noted about 67,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims. (Class Action
Reporter, February 24, 2006)

The Company stated that its involvement is limited because such
claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products,
made many years ago that contained encapsulated asbestos. The
nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the manner of use
lead the Company to believe that these products are highly
unlikely to cause harm.

In the 2006-1st quarter, of the about 2,425 claims resolved,
only 46 (1.9 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2005, of the about
38,000 claims resolved, only 295 (0.8 percent) resulted in any
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Before June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement.

In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the
Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This
led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance
coverage. Since then, secondary layer insurers have paid
asbestos-related litigation defense and settlement expenses
pursuant to a funding arrangement.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company has a receivable of US$3.5
million due to funding settlements before reimbursement by some
of the secondary layer insurers under this arrangement. At March
31, 2006, the Company has an estimated liability of US$37.8
million for future claims resolutions, with a related asset of
US$37.8 million to recognize the insurance proceeds receivable
by the Company for estimated losses related to claims that have
yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action
referred to below. At December 31, 2005, the comparable value of
the insurance receivable and accrued liability was US$41.0
million.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, BorgWarner Inc., which
was formerly known as BorgWarner Automotive, makes power train
products for automakers worldwide. The Company operates 43
manufacturing facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Urge Court to Deny Grace Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain claimants injured by exposure to tremolite asbestos from
W.R. Grace & Co.'s operations in and near Libby, Montana, ask
the US Bankruptcy Court to deny the Debtors' request for
discovery from Dr. Alan C. Whitehouse because it far exceeds the
discovery that was permitted by Federal District Court Judge
Donald Molloy in the criminal proceeding currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, captioned
as "U.S. v. W.R. Grace, CR-05-07-M-DWM."

The Libby Claimants assert that Grace deceptively seeks to
circumvent a Protective Order issued by Judge Molloy on November
23, 2005, by requesting discovery from Dr. Whitehouse.

Adam G. Landis, Esq., at Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, in Wilmington,
Delaware, tells Judge Fitzgerald that since the Protective Order
limits the use of "same documents" produced by Dr. Whitehouse in
the Criminal Proceeding for use in personal injury claims
estimation, Grace attempts to present its request as nothing
more than a cautionary request for equal access of the identical
Whitehouse Records.

In addition, Mr. Landis contends that a review of a draft
subpoena duces tecum to Dr. Whitehouse leaves no doubt that
Grace is seeking much more than the "same" Whitehouse Records
produced in the Criminal Proceeding.

Mr. Landis relates that the Draft Subpoena lists 15 separate
document requests before even reaching the request that Dr.
Whitehouse produce all those documents.

Mr. Landis notes that one must dig deeply into the hundred of
pages of the Motion's exhibits to find under the Draft Subpoena
that the requested documents include:

-- All medical records related to contention that "there
generally appears to be a distinct pattern" for "Libby tremolite
disease"; and

-- All medical records related to contention that a Libby
tremolite disease is highly progressive.

These two requests of the Draft Subpoena go to all records of
the Center for Asbestos Related Disease Clinic's 1,500 patients,
which is much greater than what has been produced or even
requested in the Criminal Proceeding.

Moreover, Mr. Landis says that Grace has not fairly informed the
Bankruptcy Court of the distinction between the "redacted
records" that the government has delivered to Grace in the
Criminal Proceeding and the "unredacted records" that Grace is
attempting to obtain through the Motion.

Mr. Landis points out that in the Criminal Proceeding, the
unredacted records delivered to Grace are those of the 46
patients that the government has listed as witnesses to be
called at a trial.

Mr. Landis states that the issue of what records Grace is
entitled to receive and in what form has been actively litigated
in the Criminal Proceeding, and is still sub judice.

On January 13, 2006, the government filed in the Criminal
Proceeding a supplemental witness disclosure of Dr. Whitehouse,
under which the government offered to make the medical charts on
the 550 patients in the database available to Grace in redacted
form, subject to the Protective Order. Grace then filed a
request for all 550 charts in unredacted form, including all
patient names and personal information. The District Court in
the Criminal Proceeding has not yet ruled on that request.

Currently, the Draft Subpoena seeks all 1,500 charts in
unredacted form. According to Mr. Landis, this is far beyond
what District Judge Molloy has permitted in the Criminal
Proceeding.

Mr. Landis tells Judge Fitzgerald that if Grace's intention is
simply to use in the PI Claims Estimation proceeding solely
those documents obtained in the Criminal Proceeding, Grace
should have directed the request to Judge Molloy in the first
instance, to find out whether he would have any objection to
Grace's use in other litigation of documents obtained in the
Criminal Proceeding. Upon obtaining Judge Molloy's consent, it
would appear that Grace might have no need for any relief from
the Bankruptcy Court at all. Instead, Grace has sought relief
from the Bankruptcy Court in the first instance, without
explaining that its request goes far beyond what Judge Molloy
has permitted.

Furthermore, Mr. Landis argues that the Motion is based on
deliberate mischaracterization of the Whitehouse Study. In
seeking to establish the need to review data underlying the
published, peer-reviewed study of Dr. Whitehouse, Grace offers
an opinion of its expert, Dr. Al Franzblau that is erroneous on
its face.

Specifically, Grace asserted that the loss of lung function in
patients in the Whitehouse study may be due to smoking. Mr.
Landis points out that Dr. Franzblau ignores the fact that those
patients with smoking disease were excluded from the Whitehouse
Study, as were patients with non-asbestos disease. All 123
patients had asbestos disease and no other lung disease.

Dr. Franzblau's statement is rife with misreadings and
statements contrary to the medical literature, Mr. Landis
maintains.

Moreover, Mr. Landis avers that the Debtors' discovery request
represents an improper attempt by Grace to make an end run
around the limitations on discovery imposed by Judge Molloy.
While the Criminal Proceeding remains pending, Grace should be
permitted discovery only as allowed by Judge Molloy.

To the extent the Bankruptcy Court considers the Debtors'
request, the Libby Claimants insist that the Bankruptcy Court
should honor the balance struck by Judge Molloy's Protective
Order, properly balancing Grace's need for discovery from Dr.
Whitehouse versus the Libby patients' right to privacy.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
objects to the Motion solely to the extent that the Protective
Order proposed by the Debtors inappropriately limits access to
the medical records to be produced by Dr. Whitehouse.

Specifically, the proposed Protective Order seeks to limit
access to the Medical Records to:

(a) Attorneys representing the Debtors, the Official Committee
of Equity Holders, the PI Committee, the Official Committee of
Property Damage Claimants, the Future Claimants' Representative,
and the Libby Claimants;

(b) Medical and scientific experts, whose review of material is
necessary for the presentation of the Parties' cases;

(c) Law clerks, investigative agents, paralegals, and
secretaries employed by the Parties' attorneys, whose review of
that material is required for the preparation and presentation
of the Parties' cases;

(d) The testifying witnesses or any representative they
designate; and

(e) The Debtors.

The PI Committee contends that the Protective Order does not
allow the attorneys and medical and scientific experts working
on the PI Committee's behalf to share their opinions with the PI
Committee members.

The PI Committee also states that the Libby Claimants'
assertions regarding Libby tremolite asbestos disease are
important issues for not only the asbestos PI estimation, but
for the ongoing attempts to negotiate a consensual plan of
reorganization.

As a result, it is very important that the PI Committee Members
should be able to access the Medical Records, Mark T. Hurford,
Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware, tells
Judge Fitzgerald. It is also essential that medical
professionals be permitted under the Protective Order to share
their opinions of the Libby tremolite asbestos disease based on
their review of Medical Records with the PI Committee Members.

Mr. Hurford asserts that restricting the professionals' ability
to consult with the PI Committee Members on the Libby tremolite
asbestos disease issue will complicate and impair the PI
Committee's ability to appropriately address that issue in
connection with the Debtors' bankruptcy cases.

Accordingly, the PI Committee asks the Bankruptcy Court to
include the PI Committee Members within the definition of
"Parties" authorized to access the medical records to be
produced by Dr. Whitehouse.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 106; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 18,500 New Claims in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., which does business as MetLife
Inc., received about 18,500 new asbestos-related claims for the
four quarters of 2005, according to a SEC regulatory filing.

The Company received about 12,100 asbestos-related claims in the
first nine months of 2005, compared to 19,500 in the same period
for 2004. The Company got a total of 23,900 claims in 2004.
(Class Action Reporter, November 18, 2005)

Most of the suits filed against the Company have been based on
allegations relating to research, publication and other
activities of one or more of its employees from the 1920s
through the 1950s. Such employees have alleged that Metropolitan
Life learned or should have learned of health risks posed by
asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.

Legal theories asserted against Metropolitan Life have included
negligence, intentional tort claims and conspiracy claims
concerning the health risks associated with asbestos.
Metropolitan Life's defenses, which are beyond denial of certain
factual allegations, to plaintiffs' claims include that:

(1) Metropolitan Life owed no duty to the plaintiffs - it had no
special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs;

(2) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate justifiable detrimental
reliance; and

(3) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate proximate causation.

For the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the
Company reported an average of 100,250 and 108,000 asbestos
injury claims, respectively.

The Company also settled claims for US$74.3 million and US$85.5
million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31,
2004, respectively.

The New York City, NY-based Company offers products like
insurance, retirement products, and prepaid legal plans. The
Company also provides property and casualty products and
reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LECO Battles Claims With 33,987 Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., at March 31, 2006, co-defends
against cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims
by about 33,987 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

At December 31, 2005, the Company faced claims with about 34,667
plaintiffs, a net decrease of 3,888 claims from December 31,
2004. (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006)

The claimants allege that exposure to asbestos contained in
welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse
pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other lung
cancers.

Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 20,419
of those claims were dismissed, 9 were tried to defense
verdicts, 4 were tried to plaintiff verdicts and 306 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

The Company has appealed or will appeal the four judgments based
on verdicts against the Company. On December 29, 2005, the New
York State Appellate Division affirmed 2 of the 4 judgments, and
later denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc.
manufactures arc-welding, cutting products, and welding
supplies, including arc-welding power sources, automated wire-
feeding systems, and consumable electrodes for arc welding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Posts US$534.1Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc.'s asbestos-related liabilities, in the 2006-
1st quarter, stands at US$534.1 million as opposed to US$554.7
million for the 2005-1st quarter, according to a Company SEC
disclosure.

The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities is
at US$155 million in the 2006-1st quarter as opposed to US$166
million in the 2005-1st quarter.

Asbestos-related cash payments for the 2006-1st quarter were
US$41 million compared with US$45.5 million in the 2005-1st
quarter. New claim filings for the 2006-1st quarter were 44
percent lower than the 2005-1st quarter.

As of March 31, 2006, the number of pending asbestos-related
lawsuits and claims was about 30,000, compared with about 32,000
at December 31, 2005.

The Company stated that a number of these cases have exposure
dates after the Company's 1958 exit from the business, for which
the Company takes the position that it has no liability or are
subject to dismissal because they were filed in improper forums.

Deferred amounts payable of about US$91 million at March 31,
2006, were unchanged from December 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc.'s glass
containers, which account for 90 percent of sales, include
bottles used to hold beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, and other
beverages. The Company also makes plastic healthcare packaging,
including prescription bottles, tamper-proof closures, and
plastic medical devices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Confronts 1,112 Lawsuits in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
AB Electrolux, as of March 31, 2006, posts a total of 1,112
pending asbestos-related cases representing about 8,250
plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 6-K SEC report.

About 6,870 of the plaintiffs relate to cases pending in the
state of Mississippi.

A total of 155 new cases with about 220 plaintiffs were filed
and 125 pending cases with about 360 plaintiffs were resolved
during the 2006-1st quarter.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company faced a total of 1,082
pending cases with about 8,400 plaintiffs. As of December 31,
2004, the Group had a total of 842 cases pending, representing
about 16,200 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, February 24,
2006)

Almost all of the Company's US cases refer to externally
supplied components used in industrial products manufactured by
discontinued operations prior to the early 1970s. Many of the
cases involve multiple plaintiffs who have made identical
allegations against many other defendants who are not part of
the Company.

Based in Stockholm, Sweden, AB Electrolux makes household
appliances like washing machines, stoves, refrigerators, and
freezers under the AEG, Electrolux, Eureka, Frigidaire, and
Zanussi names. Electrolux also makes vacuum cleaners, including
the Electrolux and Eureka brands.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Battles 112T Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, as of its February 12,
2002 bankruptcy filing date, confronts about 112,000 pending
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's 10-K SEC
report.

The Company defends against lawsuits, some of which involve
claims of multiple persons, in which the plaintiffs allege that
certain of their injuries were caused by exposure to asbestos
during their employment or association with the Company or
exposure to asbestos-containing products made or sold by the
Company. The suits generally relate to products the Company has
not sold for more than 20 years.

During March 2006, the Company reached a conditional settlement
agreement with certain insurers under which the insurers would
pay about US$67.0 million in respect of certain policies having
a combined face value of about US$80.0 million.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company has established a
US$1,115.0 million accrual for estimated asbestos, silica and
coal tar pitch volatile personal injury claims, before
consideration of insurance recoveries. Accordingly, as of
December 31, 2005, the Company has recorded an estimated
aggregate insurance recovery of US$965.5 million.

The Company has previously disclosed that it estimated that it
had about US$1.4 billion of remaining solvent asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

During the latter half of 2005, the Company entered into certain
conditional settlement agreements with insurers under which the
insurers agreed (in aggregate) to pay about US$375.0 million in
respect of substantially all coverage under certain policies
having a combined face value of about US$459.0 million.

The Court-approved settlements have several conditions,
including a legislative contingency and are only payable to the
trust being set up under the Company's plan of reorganization
upon emergence. One set of insurers paid about US$137.0 million
into a separate escrow account in November 2005.

If the Company does not emerge, the agreement is null and void
and the funds, along with any interest that has accumulated,
will be returned to the insurers.

Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California, Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum
Corp. Its main line of business is the production of fabricated
aluminum products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell, Subsidiaries Face Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial automation firm Rockwell Automation Inc. and its
subsidiaries co-defend against multi-plaintiff lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure that was used in certain
components of the Company's products years ago, according to the
Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

However, the complaints do not identify any Company products or
specify which of the claimants were exposed to asbestos in the
Company's products. Moreover, when the products appear to be
identified, they are from divested businesses, and the Company
is indemnified for most of the costs.

For claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell
products, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, in
substantial part due to the integrity of its products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and
the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many
claimants.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast
majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

On February 12, 2004, the Company sued in the Milwaukee County
Circuit Court to enforce the insurance policies against
Nationwide Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance, the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to its
former Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense
and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay the substantial
majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley
asbestos claims.

If either carrier becomes insolvent or the policy limits of
either carrier are exhausted, the Company's share of future
defense and indemnity costs may increase. However, coverage
under excess policies may be available to pay some or all of
theses costs.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Rockwell Automation Inc.
operates through two segments. Its control systems unit makes
industrial automation products. The power systems unit offers
power transmission products, bushings, clutches, motor brakes,
conveyor pulleys, couplings, bearings, and mechanical drives.
The Company also offers factory management software
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Earns $204M Net Income Despite Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd.'s net income for the 2006-1st quarter grew from US$199
million in the 2005-1st quarter, despite a US$89 million expense
in discontinued operations to account for the change in value of
ABB shares to cover asbestos liabilities, according to the
Company's 6-K SEC report.

ABB reported a 30 percent increase in earnings before interest
and taxes and strong top-line growth for the first three months
of 2006 compared to the same period in 2005.

"We've made a great start into 2006," said Fred Kindle, ABB
President and CEO. "We delivered strong profitable growth in the
first quarter thanks to our leading positions in fast-growing
markets and our sharp focus on improving operational
performance. The accounting treatment of the asbestos shares
dampened otherwise solid growth in net income."

On March 1, 2006, the US District Court for Delaware confirmed
ABB's Plan of Reorganization for US subsidiary Combustion
Engineering.

On March 31, 2006, the confirmation order and the Plan, which
stipulates the establishment of an independent trust to address
present and future asbestos claims, became final.

On April 20, 2006, ABB transferred assets, including about 30
million ABB shares, insurance receivables, and promissory notes,
into the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust. The Plan was made
effective on April 21, 2006.

On April 21, 2006, ABB also filed a separate asbestos-related
pre-packaged Plan of Reorganization for another US subsidiary,
ABB Lummus Global Inc., with a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In
September 2005, claimants against Lummus voted 96 percent in
favor of the plan.

The 30,298,913 ABB shares reserved to cover part of ABB's
asbestos liabilities were contributed to the Combustion
Engineering Asbestos Personal Injury Trust on April 20, 2006,
and will result in a reduction in the item Provisions and other
by about US$400 million, the fair value of the shares on the
date of contribution.

This amount will be offset by a corresponding increase in the
item Capital stock and additional paid-in capital.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd., which used to be
known as Asea Brown Boveri, operates through two divisions,
power technologies and automation technologies, and serves a
broad base of utility, industrial, and commercial customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Allocates $3Mil Annually for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Environnement SA notes that, during the five-year period
ended December 31, 2005, its average annual costs for asbestos,
silica, and hazardous substance claims have been about US$3
million net of reimbursements by insurance companies, according
to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Present and former indirect subsidiaries of Veolia Water North
America Operating Services Inc. co-defend against lawsuits in US
Courts in which the plaintiffs seek to recover for personal
injury and other damages.

In the suits, certain of Veolia Water's current subsidiaries
have retained all liability relating to and are sometimes
involved in the management of such suits. The purchasers of
Veolia Water's former subsidiaries in some instances benefit
from guarantees given by Veolia Water or by the Company in
respect of the suits' outcome.

These suits typically allege that the plaintiffs' injuries
resulted from the use of products manufactured or sold by Veolia
Water's present or former subsidiaries or their predecessors.

Reserves have been accrued by Veolia Water's present
subsidiaries for their estimated liability in these cases based
on the nexus between the claimed injuries and the products
manufactured or sold by Veolia Water's subsidiaries or their
predecessors, the extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by
the plaintiffs, the involvement of other defendants and the
settlement history in similar cases.

These reserves are accrued at the time such liabilities are
probable and reasonably estimable, and do not include reserves
for possible liabilities in respect of unasserted claims. To
date, several claims have been resolved either through
settlement or dismissal.

To date, none of these claims has been tried to a verdict.

Based in Paris, France, Veolia Environnement holds water
operations, as well as waste management, transportation, and
energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Steel Corp. Claims Drop From 500 to 480
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, at March 31, 2006, challenges
about 480 active asbestos-related cases involving about 6,400
plaintiffs, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

At December 31, 2005, US Steel defended against about 500 active
cases involving about 8,400 plaintiffs.

Many of these cases involve multiple defendants, typically from
fifty to more than one hundred. More than 6,000, or about 94
percent, of these claims are pending in jurisdictions, which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.

These claims against US Steel fall into three major groups:

(1) Claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws
by employees of the Great Lakes Fleet or Intercoastal Fleet,
former operations of US Steel;

(2) Claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed to
asbestos at US Steel facilities; and

(3) Claims made by industrial workers allegedly exposed to
products formerly manufactured by US Steel.

These asbestos cases allege respiratory and other diseases based
on alleged asbestos exposure. US Steel defends against cases in
which a total of about 150 plaintiffs allege that they are
suffering from mesothelioma.

Historically, about 89 percent of the cases against US Steel did
not specify any damage amount or stated that the damages sought
exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of the
court in which the case was filed. Jurisdictional amounts
generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

US Steel pursues grounds for its dismissal from pending cases
and litigates cases to verdict where it believes litigation is
appropriate. US Steel also makes efforts to settle appropriate
cases, especially mesothelioma cases, for reasonable and
frequently nominal amounts.

At December 31, 2003, US Steel had a total of about 14,800
active claims outstanding. In 2004, US Steel paid about US$14.6
million in settlements. These settlements and voluntary and
involuntary dismissals resulted in the disposition of about
5,300 claims. New case filings added 1,464 claims.

At December 31, 2004, US Steel had a total of about 11,000
active claims outstanding. During 2005, US Steel paid about
US$11 million in settlements. These settlements, along with
review of case docket information for certain states and
voluntary and involuntary dismissals, resulted in the
disposition of about 3,800 claims. New case filings added about
1,200 claims.

At December 31, 2005, US Steel had a total of about 8,400 active
claims outstanding.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States Steel Corp.
produces sheet and semi-finished steel, tubular and plate steel,
and tin products. The Company's customers are in the automotive,
construction, petrochemical, and steel service center
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Reserves US$8.7Mil for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners LP, as of March 31, 2006, records
US$3.5 million in current liabilities and US$5.2 million in
long-term liabilities to address remediation of tainted sites,
asbestos containing materials, management of hazardous waste
material disposal, and outstanding air quality measures for
certain of its liquids and natural gas assets, according to the
Company's 10-Q SEC report.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$4 million in
current liabilities and US$4.8 million in long-term liabilities.

As of December 31, 2004, the Company had recorded US$3.6 million
in current liabilities and US$5.3 million in long-term
liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006)

In April 2006, a natural gas release and fire near a valve site
on the Company's Midla natural gas transmission pipeline in
Concordia Parish, Louisiana, resulted in property and equipment
damage in the area. The Company tags its losses from this
incident to about US$1 million, which the Company will recognize
in the 2006-2nd quarter.

Based in Houston, Texas, Enbridge Energy Partners LP, which was
formerly known as Lakehead Pipe Line Partners, owns the 1,900-
mile US portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum
pipeline. Enbridge Energy Management LLC owns an 18 percent
stake in the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Court Alters Asbestos Compensation Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and trade unions state that asbestos disease-afflicted
workers, who cannot prove which of their employers caused their
illnesses, could receive lesser compensation as a result of a
House of Lords judgment, Reuters reports.

In three test case appeals, the House of Lords ruled that
employers of mesothelioma sufferers should be liable for a
share, rather than the whole, of the victims' total compensation
bills.

Formerly, a firm could be responsible for the whole payout bill,
regardless of whether the victim may have worked for other
companies where he was exposed to asbestos and where he may have
contracted his illness.

The ruling cited that employers should contribute to payouts
according to the extent to which they may have been responsible
for the victim's asbestos exposure.

The Law Lords upheld an appeal by steel maker Corus Group that
it should not be held totally liable for the GBP152,000 awarded
to Sylvia Barker, whose husband Vernon, died after inhaling
asbestos fiber.

Corus argued that Mr. Barker worked for other companies apart
from St. Gobain Pipelines, a Company taken over by Corus, where
he also had been exposed to asbestos and where he may have
contracted his illness.

Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the Trades Union
Congress, said in a statement, "The ruling means that some
mesothelioma victims and their families may only recoup a
fraction of the compensation they should have received because
by now some employers will have gone out of business."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nichias, Unit to Pay JPY30M in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of building materials maker Nichias Corporation said
that the Company and subsidiary, Tatsuta Kogyo Co., would pay up
to JPY30 million in compensation to asbestos victims affected by
living near its asbestos plants, The Asahi Shimbun reports.

The compensation will apply to people who developed asbestos-
related diseases or to family members of deceased victims. The
victims must have lived for at least a year and within 400
meters of the plants in Nara Prefecture before 1971.

The compensation will equal that for workers at both Companies
who developed asbestos-related illnesses. Five residents are
expected to be eligible for the compensation.

Nichias officials said the move was to fulfill the Company's
social and moral responsibility for handling asbestos.

As of March, 156 Nichias workers and 27 Tatsuta Kogyo workers
had died of asbestos-related diseases. Nichias is the second
Company after machinery maker Kubota Corporation to offer
compensation in such cases.

Headquartered in Anan, Japan, Nichias Corp. manufactures LEDs
and laser diodes. The Company also produces phosphors, coating
materials, transition material catalysts, organometallic
compounds, and fine chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro, Units Face 2,900 New Claims in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. and its subsidiaries face 2,900 new
asbestos-related claims filed against them in the 2006-1st
quarter, down 53 percent from the 2005-1st quarter, the
Associated Press reports.

The Company said the number of claims has dropped since the
second half of 2004.

Company President and CEO Ernie Schaub said EnPro would likely
have to take more charges later in 2006 for asbestos liability,
after the Company's remaining insurance coverage for such claims
is fully allocated.

The Charlotte, NC-based Company said 2006-1st quarter profit
rose 48 percent on higher sales.

The Company said net income grew to US$14.8 million, or US$0.69
a share, in the quarter from US$10 million, or US$0.47 a share.
First-quarter results in 2005 included a charge of US$0.11 a
share related to a loss reserve on engine orders.

According to Thomson Financial, analysts expected a first-
quarter profit of US$0.59 a share.

EnPro's revenue grew 7 percent to US$228.3 million, compared to
last year's first quarter, ahead of analysts' expectations of
US$219.8 million. The Company said sales were limited by lower
foreign-exchange rates, which reduced revenue by about 3
percent.

EnPro Industries Inc. makes engines, engineered products, and
sealing systems. The Company also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed
diesel and natural gas engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Govt, 2 Firms Hit in Compensation Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of asbestos-related diseases accuse the New Zealand
Government, James Hardie Industries NV, and Fletcher's of
dodging from their compensation responsibilities, NZ City
reports.

Lawyer Hazel Armstrong says Fletcher's and James Hardie were the
major importers and manufacturers of asbestos from the 1930s
until 1991. She is calling on the two companies to set up a fund
to compensate victims, as they have done in Australia.

About 150 New Zealanders are expected to die from asbestos
related diseases every year for the next 20 to 30 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Urge Canada to Stop Asbestos Exports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-asbestos campaigners in Australia marked International
Workers Memorial Day by staging protests outside the Canadian
Consulate in central Sydney and calling on Canada to curb the
manufacture and export of asbestos, The Sydney Morning Herald
reports.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Asbestos
Diseases Foundation of Australia said Canada's export of
asbestos sheeting to Southeast Asian countries was
irresponsible.

"Canada is one of the few countries left that still exports
asbestos," Bernie Banton, anti-asbestos campaigner, explained.

"Asbestos cannot be used in Canada but they're making millions
out of exporting it to third world countries and it's just
obscene and it needs to stop now."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Notes Drop in Claims from Masks in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of March 31, 2006, co-defends against numerous
asbestos/respirator mask lawsuits that purport to represent
about 40,200 individual claimants, a decrease from about 58,000
individuals claimants with actions pending at March 31, 2005,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q SEC report.

The vast majority of the suits and claims pending against the
Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator
products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants
for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts. Such hazards
were allegedly found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

The remaining claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company and by other defendants, or
occasionally at Company premises.

3M Company, as of December 31, 2005, the Company co-defended
against suits in various courts that purport to represent about
48,600 claimants. The Company had about 76,600 individual
claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2004. (Class
Action Reporter, April 7, 2006)

As of March 31, 2006, the Company had asbestos/respirator mask
liabilities of US$216 million as opposed to US$210 million in
the 2005-4th quarter.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company had asbestos/respirator mask
insurance receivables of US$455 million as opposed to US$447
million in the 2005-4th quarter.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Co. has six operating
segments: display and graphics; health care; safety, security,
and protection; electro and communications; transportation and
industrial; and consumer and office. Sales outside the US
account for nearly two-thirds of 3M's revenues.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Cleveland-Cliffs Units Face 2 New Maritime Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two new maritime asbestos-related cases against subsidiaries of
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. were brought in the 2006-1st quarter,
according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. or The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship
Co. have been named defendants in 485 actions brought from 1986
to date by former seamen or their administrators. Plaintiffs
claim damages under federal law for illnesses allegedly suffered
as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while
serving as crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or
managed by the Company's entities until the mid-1980s.

All these actions have been consolidated into multi-district
proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose
docket now includes a total of over 30,000 maritime cases filed
by seamen against ship owners and other defendants.

All of these cases have been administratively dismissed without
prejudice, but can be reinstated upon application by plaintiffs'
counsel.


COMPANY PROFILE
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
1100 Superior Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44114-2589
Phone: 216-694-5700
Fax: 216-694-4880
http://www.cleveland-cliffs.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$1,739.5
1-Year Sales Growth:              44.2%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$277.6
1-Year Net Income Growth:         (14.2%)
2005 Employees:                   4,085
1-Year Employee Growth:           8.2%

Description:
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. produces iron ore pellets, a key component
of steel making. The Company produces more than 35 million tons
of iron ore pellets annually. Mittal Steel USA accounts for more
than 40 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS ALERT: PA Court Reverses Beazer Ruling in Chenot Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a court ruling that
favored Beazer East Inc. in an asbestos-related suit filed by
Fred and Joanne Chenot. The Court remanded the case to the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.

Filed on March 13, 2006, Case No. 1893 WDA 2003 was heard by
Judges Joseph A. Hudock, Susan P. Gantman, and Zoran Popovich.

Mr. Chenot worked as a helper for contractor Philip Carey in
1951. Mr. Carey performed work for the Koppers Co., predecessor
to Beazer, at Koppers' Kobuta facility outside Pittsburgh, PA.
At the facility, Mr. Chenot removed asbestos-containing
insulation from the tanks and pipes and replaced it with
asbestos-containing insulation.

Mr. Chenot was diagnosed with mesothelioma on September 24,
1998. On August 4, 1999, he filed a complaint alleging damages
caused by his exposure to asbestos-containing products during
the course of his employment. Mr. Chenot died on January 12,
2000, during the pendency of his claim.

As to Beazer, Mrs. Chenot charged premises liability, alleging
Beazer breached its duty to Mr. Chenot as a business invitee to
maintain the Koppers premises in a reasonably safe condition or
to warn or protect Mr. Chenot against the latent hazardous
dangers of transportable respirable asbestos fibers arising from
the use of asbestos on its premises.

Beazer filed a motion for summary judgment on May 15, 2002, on
the grounds that Mrs. Chenot had failed to identify Koppers as a
manufacturer or supplier of asbestos-containing products. On
August 2, 2002, Mrs. Chenot opposed Beazer's motion for summary
judgment. She thoroughly argued her premises liability claim
against Koppers.

On January 3, 2003, the trial court granted Beazer's motion for
summary judgment. On January 17, 2003, Mrs. Chenot filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on January
21, 2003.

Since the Superior Court remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings, Mrs. Chenot and Beazer may argue the
defense if they so choose.


ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Court Orders Peak Waste to Pay GBP8,250 Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Derby Magistrates Court in the United Kingdom orders Peak
Waste Recycling Ltd. to pay GBP7,500 in fines and to pay costs
of GBP750 for environmental violations, Belper Today reports.

Peak Waste has pleaded guilty to two charges under the 1990
Environmental Protection Act for depositing waste with asbestos
and hypodermic needles and failing to prevent the escape of the
waste when it encroached on a public footpath.

Environment Agency spokesman Kiran Cassini told the Court that
on January 21, 2005 Peak Waste picked up one of its skips from 6
Arboretum Square, Derby. The skip was transported back to the
Company's licensed site at Wood Lane, Kniveton.

The skip was returned to 6 Arboretum Square, Derby and the
contents tipped on to ground in front of the address.

The incident was reported to Derby City Council, which contacted
the waste producer and requested the clean up of the site.

On March 16, 2005, Agency-appointed contractors cleared the
contaminated waste material from the public highway.

The court was told that Peak Waste had a limited role in this
incident. On receipt of the load it made contact with the waste
producer, which had given clear instructions to deposit the
waste back at the site.


COMPANY PROFILE
Peak Waste Recycling Ltd.
Wood Lane, Ashbourne
Derbyshire DE6 1JF
United Kingdom
Tel: 01335 342276
Tel: 01332 342276
Fax: 01335 343160
E-mail:  peakwaste@hotmail.com
http://www.peakwaste.co.uk/

Description:
Operating for over 25 years, Peak Waste Recycling Ltd. is a
privately owned waste management firm.


ASBESTOS ALERT: WA Court Upholds Dismissal of Global Motorsport
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the
dismissal of Global Motorsport Inc. in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Patricia E. Moore for the wrongful death of her
husband, Paul Moore.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Marlin J. Appelwick, William W.
Baker, and Ronald E. Cox, decided Case No. 55923-1-I on March
20, 2006.

Mrs. Moore sued Global Motorsport alleging that Mr. Moore died
of mesothelioma on August 19, 2000 after exposure to asbestos
sold by the Company.

Mr. Moore owned and operated motorcycle shops, beginning with
Seattle Assembly & Accessory in 1976. From 1986 to 2000, he
operated Rebel Motorcycle Mart in locations including Nevada,
Tacoma, Washington, and Puyallup, Washington.

About 1977, Global Motorsport started selling wholesale
motorcycle accessories and replacement parts, including
asbestos-containing brake, clutch, and gasket products.

Global Motorsport moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mrs.
Moore failed to submit evidence that it sold asbestos-containing
products to Mr. Moore. On February 18, 2005, the trial court
granted Global Motorsport's summary judgment motion for
dismissal.

Because the evidence did not prove that Mr. Moore was exposed to
asbestos supplied by Global Motorsport, the Appeals Court
affirmed the trial court's decision.

Zachary B. Herschensohn, Scott Allen Niebling, Brayton Purcell,
Portland, OR, represented Patricia E. Moore.

Ronald Clayton Gardner, Gardner Bond Trabolsi, Seattle, WA,
represented Global Motorsport Group Inc.


COMPANY PROFILE
Global Motorsport Group, Inc.
16100 Jacqueline Ct.
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Phone: 408-778-0500
Fax: 408-782-6603
http://www.customchrome.com

Description:
Global Motorsport Group Inc., through its Custom Chrome unit,
provides aftermarket parts and accessories for Harley-Davidson
motorcycles.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, on behalf
of all purchasers of America Service Group Inc. securities
between September 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
American Service's financial results and business prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the American Service
failed to disclose:

      -- the Company improperly recognized revenue from its
         subsidiary Secure Pharmacy Plus;

      -- that the Company's financial statements were not in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles (GAAP);

      -- that the Company failed to provide customers with
         proper credit for the return of pharmaceutical
         products; and

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

On March 15, 2006, however, the Company shocked investors when
it announced it would be restating its financial results for the
years ended December 31, 2001 through December 31, 2004, and for
the first six months of 2005.

Furthermore, the Company announced that it would issue customer
refunds of $3.6 million.  In response, American Service shares
fell $5.65 or approximately 29%, to close at $13.95 on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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


ASTEA INT'L: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP filed a securities fraud
class action on behalf of those investors who acquired the
securities of Astea International Inc. (ATEA), during May 11,
2005 to March 31, 2006. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
names as defendants Astea and certain of its top ranking
executives.

According to the complaint, the defendants materially overstated
and exaggerated Astea's financial health throughout the relevant
period.  In particular, it is alleged that the defendants failed
to accurately account for the Company's software development
costs under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
As a result, the complaint alleges, Astea overstated its
earnings by failing to comply with GAAP when recording its
expenses.

On March 31, 2006, the Company announced that it would have to
restate its financial results for the three quarters ended
September 30, 2005, in order to adjust for the improper
accounting.  On news of the restatement, the price of the
Company's stock plummeted from $16.50 to $11.73 per share, a
loss of nearly 30% in a single day, on exceptionally high
volume. During the relevant period, Astea stock traded as high
as $25.71 per share.

Interested parties may, no later than June 5, 2006, move the
court to appoint them as lead plaintiff, a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members.

For more details, contact Joseph Gentile, Sarraf Gentile LLP,
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, New York, New York 10018, Phone:
212-868-3610, E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com, Web site:
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/emailprcntct?id=B078DE91A9F55880or
http://www.sarrafgentile.com.


ASTEA INT'L: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Astea
International, Inc. between May 11, 2005 and March 31, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who acquired Astea's
shares through its acquisition of FieldCentrix.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts:

     (i) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
         controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
         Company's overall condition;

    (ii) that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
         true financial health of the Company; and

   (iii) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its future prospects and the
         intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

According to the complaint, the defendants materially overstated
and exaggerated Astea's financial condition throughout the class
period by failing to accurately account for the Company's
software development costs under Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).  As a result, Astea overstated its earnings
by failing to comply with GAAP when recording its expenses.

On March 31, 2006, the Company announced that it would have to
restate its financial results for the three quarters ended
September 30, 2005, in order to adjust for the improper
accounting.

On this news, the price of Astea stock plummeted from $16.50 to
$11.73 per share, a loss of nearly 30%.  During the class
period, Astea stock traded as high as $25.71 per share.

Interested parties may, no later than June 27, 2006, request to
be appointed as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


ASTEA INT'L: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP today filed a class action suit on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Astea International Inc.
(Nasdaq:ATEA) between May 11, 2005 and March 31, 2006, both
dates inclusive.

The action, entitled, Siqueira v. Astea International, Inc., et
al. Case No. 06-CV-1800-WY, is pending in the Us.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and names as
defendants the Company as well as certain senior officers and
directors.  A copy of the complaint can be obtained from the
court or can be viewed on Wechsler Harwood Web site at
http://www.whesq.com.

Astea, headquartered in Horsham, Pennsylvania, engages in the
development, marketing, and support of service management
software used in various industries, such as information
technology, medical, telecommunications, and other industries
with equipment sales and service requirements.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

     (1) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
         controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
         Company's overall condition;

     (2) that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
         true financial health of the Company;

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its future prospects and the
         intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

According to the complaint, the defendants materially overstated
and exaggerated Astea's financial health throughout the class
period by failing to accurately account for the Company's
software development costs under Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).

As a result, the complaint alleges that Astea overstated its
earnings by failing to comply with GAAP when recording its
expenses.

On March 31, 2006, the Company announced that it would have to
restate its financial results for the three quarters ended
September 30, 2005, in order to adjust for the improper
accounting. On news of the restatement, the price of Astea stock
plummeted from $16.50 to $11.73 per share, a loss of nearly 30%
in a single day, on exceptionally high volume.  During the class
period, Astea stock traded as high as $25.71 per share.

Interested parties may, not later than sixty (60) days from
April 28, 2006, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
class.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq., Wechsler
Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York
10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286), E-mail: jmn@whesq.com,
Web site: http://www.whesq.com.


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (DSCO) between
December 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit
was filed against Discovery Labs and Robert J. Capetola.

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

Specifically, it is alleged that Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding U.S.
regulatory approval of Surfaxin, which was expected in April
2006.

On April 25, 2006, the Company indicated that Surfaxin's
stability had not been achieved and that the NDA approval could
in fact be delayed significantly.

The Company admitted that although it had been testing the
"production validation batches" periodically for stability,
stability had never been achieved.  The market reacted
negatively to the news, sending the shares lower by 53% to $2.20
per share.

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


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing shareholders of Merge
Technologies, Inc., announces 24 days remain to request to be a
lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.  All persons and
institutions who purchased securities of Merge Technologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq:MRGE) between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006,
inclusive, may move the Court not later than May 22, 2006, to
serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.

The Complaint charges Merge and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

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

Merge (d.b.a. Merge Healthcare) is engaged in the development
and delivery of medical imaging and information management
software and services for the original equipment manufacturer
and the end user healthcare markets.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Merge were materially false and
misleading when made because the Company lacked effective
internal controls in its financial reporting such that it was
unable to properly analyze and/or estimate Merge Healthcare's
future financial and operational performance.

As a result of the Company's improper accounting practices,
defendants' Class Period statements concerning Merge
Healthcare's financial performance and prospects were materially
false and misleading.

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

This news shocked the market.  Shares of Merge fell $4.00 per
share, or 16.33%, to close at $20.50 per share on February 24,
2006.

Over the next three trading days, Merge shares continued falling
an additional 12%, to close at $18.12 by the end of trading on
March 1, 2006, as a result of this news.

On March 17, 2006, the Company's stock plummeted an additional
$2.12, or 11.8%, and closed at $15.85 as a result of additional
negative revelations concerning the Company's operations and
performance.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits,
and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 and
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Ill. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
of Northfield Laboratories Inc. (NFLD) that May 16, 2006 is the
deadline to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for
the class.

Pomerantz filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
against Northfield, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of the Company during the period from February 20, 2004 to
February 21, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

Northfield, a Delaware Corporation with principal offices in
Evanston, Illinois, engages in the research, development,
testing, manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a
hemoglobin-based blood substitute called PolyHeme for the
treatment of urgent life threatening blood loss in trauma and
resultant surgical settings.

The complaint alleges that in press releases, SEC Filings and on
the Company's website, Defendants represented that PolyHeme is a
human hemoglobin-based temporary oxygen-carrying red blood cell
substitute, which simultaneously restores lost blood volume and
hemoglobin levels and is designed for rapid, massive infusion.
PolyHeme requires no cross-matching and is compatible with all
blood types.

Beginning in 1998, Northfield started a Phase III elective
surgery trial with PolyHeme known as the Acute Normovolemic
Hemodilution clinical trial (the ANH clinical trial).  The study
was designed to assess whether the use of PolyHeme would allow
an increase in the volume of autologous blood collected during
ANH and therefore avoid transfusion of donated blood.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, Defendants failed to disclose
the full study results of the ANH clinical trial, which revealed
that ten of eighty-one patients who received PolyHeme
experienced myocardial infarction, two of whom died.

On February 22, 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an
article revealing that the Company failed to publish the results
of the ANH clinical trial, which resulted in two patient deaths.

The article reported that rather than publicly disclose the
trial's results, the Company quietly closed it down, claiming in
a SEC filing that the trial was taking too long to complete.

As a result of the article, shares of Northfield's common stock
fell from $12.23 per share on February 21, 2006, to $11.64 per
share on February 22, 2006, a drop of $0.59 per share, or 4.82%.
The stock has continued to fall, closing on March 29, 2006 at
$9.13 per share.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: 888-476-
6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Smith & Smith Sets Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, announces a May 19, 2006, deadline to move
to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of
Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq:NFLD) between February 20,
2004 and February 21, 2006, inclusive.  The shareholder lawsuit
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

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

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


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lockridge Grindal Files Stock Suit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. commenced a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf
of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities
of PainCare Holdings Inc. (PRZ) between August 27, 2002 and
March 15, 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 PainCare securities.

On March 15, 2006, the Company announced that as a result of on-
going discussions with the SEC concerning accounting
irregularities, it will restate all of its historical financial
statements for the years 2000-2004, and the quarters ended March
31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005.

On this news, PainCare's stock plunged to as low as $2.50 per
share on the first day of trading following the announcement.

According to the Complaint, the true facts, which were known or
recklessly disregarded by the defendants but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

     -- the Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded material
        adverse information about the Company's financial
        results and then existing business condition;

     -- as a result, the Company's projections and reported
        results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
        manipulated facts; and

      -- the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to the fact that PainCare failed to
         properly account for expenses and consistently
         overstated earnings.

The Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in these improper
accounting practices to bolster its stock price in order to
complete numerous acquisitions of related pain care companies
during the Class Period.

Interested parties may no later than May 19, 2006, request that
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite
2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail:
khriebel@locklaw.com.


PIXELPLUS CO: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Pixelplus Co., Ltd.
(PXPL) from December 21, 2005 through April 11, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

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

      -- that as a result of this improper accounting, the
         Company's revenues were materially overstated
         throughout the Class Period;

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

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than June 16, 2006.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


TNS INC: Kahn Gauthier Sets May 19, 2006 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") announces that shareholders of
TNS, Inc. (TNS) who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of TNS on or about September 16, 2005 pursuant
to the Company's Secondary Offering have until June 5, 2006 in
which to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities
fraud class action lawsuit currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  No class
has yet been certified in this action.

The complaint charges TNS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with a Secondary
Offering, TNS filed a Registration Statement in which defendants
negligently failed to disclose several "material changes" to
TNS' continuing operations, which were required to be disclosed.

As the result of TNS' subsequent report on October 20, 2005 that
it had missed its top-line revenue guidance, shares of TNS
common stock declined 25%.

Moreover, on February 22, 2006, TNS reported declining financial
results for the fourth quarter of 2005.  TNS common stock
declined 19% in response to this announcement.

For more contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext.
100 or 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Paskowitz & Associates Files Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Paskowitz & Associates filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation (NASDAQ: VTSS) between October 23, 2003 and April
26, 2006 inclusive.  Defendants include Vitesse and certain of
its top officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and omitted information regarding the timing of
stock option grants made to key executives.

On April 17, 2006, Louis Tomasetta (the Company's Chief
Executive Officer), Eugene Hovanec (the Company's Executive Vice
President) and Yatin Mody (the Company's Chief Financial
Officer) were placed on administrative leave while the Company
investigated the stock option transactions.

On April 26, 2006, Vitesse announced that its financial
statements for its fiscal years ending September 30, 2003,
September 20, 2004 and September 30, 2005 as well as the quarter
ending December 31, 2005 "should not be relied upon." On this
news, Vitesse shares dropped from $2.51 to $1.82.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by July 3, 2006.

Paskowitz & Associates has many years of successful experience
representing shareholders in securities fraud class actions. Our
firm will answer all questions, and provide information, at no
cost or obligation to you.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of Paskowitz
& Associates, Phone: 1-800-705-9529, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Wolf Haldenstein Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS) between
January 28, 2003 and April 26, 2006, inclusive, against
defendants Vitesse, certain of its officers and directors,
including Louis R. Tomasetta, Yatin Mody, Eugene F. Hovanec,
John Lewis, James A. Cole, Alex Daly, Moshe Gavrielov, and
Vincent Chan, and KPMG LLP, the Company's auditors, alleging
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (the "Class").  Mr.
Tomasetta, Mr. Mody, and Mr. Hovanec were placed on
administrative leave on April 18, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous, positive press releases, statements
and quarterly financial reports filed with the SEC that
described the Company's financial performance.  These statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among
others:

      -- that there were issues concerning the credits issued to
         or requested by customers (for returned products or
         otherwise) and the related accounting treatment;

      -- that the Company improperly applied payments received
         to the proper accounts receivable;

      -- that the Company's accounts receivable and revenues may
         have been misstated;

      -- that there was misuse of stock option grants, the
         timing of such grants, and other related accounting and
         documentation issues;

      -- that the Management Report on Internal Control over
         Financial Reporting as of September 30, 2005 could not
         be relied upon;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, defendants engaged
         in improper accounting practices.

On April 26, 2006, the Company revealed that the Board of
Directors retained special counsel to conduct an investigation
into a series of issues and further stated that its previously
reported financial statements for the three months ended
December 31, 2005 and the three years ended September 30, 2005,
and possibly earlier periods, should not be relied upon.

Following this news, shares of the Company's common stock fell
over 27% to close at $1.82 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume of almost 59 million shares traded.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth above, the market price of Vitesse
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment,
on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing
Vitesse securities.

Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the
truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or would not
have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

The case name is styled, "Neuman v. Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation, et al."  Interested parties may request that the
Court appoint them as lead plaintiff by July 3, 2006.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., Martin Restituyo, Esq., or Derek Behnke and Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735, E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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