CAR_Public/060509.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 9, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 91

                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Settles AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock Suit for $150M
AWB LTD: Shareholders to Sue Over Losses in Wake of Cole Inquiry
BRK BRANDS: Smoke, CO Alarms Cause Premature Low Battery Power
CENDANT CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. for $26M
DANAHER CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Plan to Buy Sybron's Stock

DILLARD'S INC: Continues to face ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio
ENTERPRISE LEASING: Settles Suit Over Vehicle Rental Surcharges
E.ON HANSE: German Court Suggests Complete Review of Gas Prices
EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Termination of Calls
EXEGENICS INC: Del. Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Litigation

GUAM: Parties in Tax Refund Lawsuit Fails to Reach Agreement
INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Acetaminophen on Labeling Error
KEMIRA OYJ: Customers Allege Collusion Among Chemical Suppliers
LOUD TECHNOLOGIES: Faces RICO Violations, Antitrust Suit in Fla.

OCONOMOWOC MEMORIAL: Wis. Judge Refuses to Certify Billing Suit
PC MALL: Faces Calif. Workers' Suit Over "Exempt" Classification
PUERTO RICO: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Subscribers' Lawsuit
QUANTUM CORP: DLT IV Tape Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 20
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Quitting $400M Settlement

SEMPRA ENERGY: Cal. Objects to Settlement of Market Rigging Suit
SOURCECORP INC: Faces Lawsuit in Del. Over Apollo Agreement
SOURCECORP INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in Texas
STOCKERYALE INC: N.H. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
TIRE RECOVERY: Facing Complaint Over Warehouse Fire in W.Va.

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuits
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Calif. Court Junks Suit Without Prejudice

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICA SERVICE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Public Pension Fund Intends to Expand Lawsuit
BAUSCH & LOMB: Lerach Coughlin Expands Stock Suit's Class Period
CHINA ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in Pa.

NEWPARK RESOURCES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in La.
PHH CORP: Baron & Budd Set May 16 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline
PIXELWORKS INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PXRE GROUP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
PXRE GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Catanzarite Law Files Calif. Stock Suit
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Charles J. Piven Files Calif. Stock Suit
XM SATELLITE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Lawsuit in D.C.
XM SATELLITE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.

                            *********


AT&T CORP: Settles AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock Suit for $150M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several class actions have been filed in the District Court
against AT&T subsidiary, AT&T Corp., asserting claims under the
federal securities laws in connection with the offering of AT&T
Wireless tracking stock in April 2000.

The plaintiffs have demanded damages in excess of $2,100 million
related to the offering of AT&T Wireless tracking stock.  In
April 2006, the parties agreed to settle the litigation for $150
million, pending approval by the trial court.

In connection with the split-off of AT&T Wireless, certain
provisions of the separation agreement between AT&T Wireless and
ATTC result in Cingular, due to its acquisition of AT&T
Wireless, being allocated 70% of any liabilities arising out of
these actions to the extent they relate to AT&T Wireless
tracking stock, with the remaining liability being allocated
equally between ATTC and Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.

Accordingly, the settlement, if approved by the court, would not
result in any additional expenses being accrued by Cingular or
ATTC.

The AT&T Wireless class action "In re AT&T Wireless  
Tracking Stock Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Docket No.
00-CV-8754 (MGC) and is assigned to the Honorable Miriam Goldman
Cedarbaum, U.S. District Judge.  The suit was filed on behalf of
investors who bought AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock during t April
26, 2000 through May 1, 2000 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 14,
2005).  

The complaint alleges that the defendants, AT&T Corporation
(NYSE:T) and C. Michael Armstrong, violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose certain material adverse
trends in AT&T's business in the Prospectus for the AT&T
Wireless Tracking Stock initial public offering.  

The class action lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses
resulting from defendants' alleged misrepresentations and
omissions concerning AT&T Corporation's business in the  
Prospectus.  

For more details, contact Christopher J. Gray of Law Office of  
Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 460 Park Ave., 21st Floor, New York,  
NY 10022, Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 937-3139, E-mail:  
newcases@cjgraylaw.com, Web site:  
http://www.gilardi.com/pdf/awes1not.pdf;or AT&T Wireless  
Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., P.O. Box 808061,
Petaluma, CA 94975-8061.


AWB LTD: Shareholders to Sue Over Losses in Wake of Cole Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian agribusiness firm AWB Ltd. is facing a potential
class action over allegations it issued misleading reports, ABC
Online reports.

A United Nations report last year found out that AWB paid
US$221.7 million in kickbacks to a trucking Company linked to
Saddam Hussein's deposed government.  Judge Terence Cole is
investigating the firm for payments it made in Iraq through the
United Nations' oil-for-food program (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 14, 2006).  The Cole Inquiry began public hearings in
January.

In relation, law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman is considering
filing a class action against AWB on behalf of shareholders who
lost money in the wake of an inquiry into the firm's business
deal with Saddam Hussein's government.  

Maurice Blackburn Cashman on the Net:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/


BRK BRANDS: Smoke, CO Alarms Cause Premature Low Battery Power
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRK Brands Inc., a subsidiary of First Alert Inc., of Aurora,
Illinois, is recalling about 145,890 of First Alert ONELINK
Battery-Powered Smoke and Combination Smoke/Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Alarms.  About 52,400 of the smoke alarms were sold to
consumers.

The Company said these alarms can drain the power from batteries
rapidly, causing premature low battery power.  Consumers will be
alerted to the low battery power and the need to replace the
battery by a chirping of the unit.  If the batteries on the
smoke/CO alarm are not replaced before the battery power
terminates, the alarm will not detect smoke in the event of a
possible fire and the presence of carbon monoxide.

CPSC and First Alert Inc./BRK Brands Inc. have received about
329 reports of premature low battery power in these alarms.
There have been no reports of injuries, incidents or alarms
failing to detect smoke or carbon monoxide.

The recall involves ONELINK battery-powered smoke and
combination smoke/CO alarms.  "First Alert" and "ONELINKT" are
printed on the front of the alarm.  The model number and date
code are printed on the back of the alarm.  Model number SA500
or SCO500 with a date code prior to March 3, 2006 are included
in this recall.

The smoke alarms were made in Mexico and sold at department,
home and hardware stores nationwide from June 2005 through March
2006 for between $45 and $75.

Consumers are advised to contact First Alert Inc./BRK Brands
Inc. to receive a replacement alarm.  Until a new alarm is
received, consumers should test the batteries in the alarm
weekly by pressing the "test" button.  If the alarm signals a
low battery alert, consumers should immediately replace the
batteries.  Consumers should not remove their alarms until they
have received a replacement alarm.

Picture of the recalled smoke alarm:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06151a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06151b.jpg

For more information, contact First Alert Inc./BRK Brands Inc.,
Phone: (800) 323-9005 between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, on the Net: http://www.firstalert.com


CENDANT CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. for $26M
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action "P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LLC, et al. v.
Cendant Corp., Walter A. Forbes, E. Kirk Shelton, Cosmo
Corigliano, Christopher Mc Leod and Ernst & Young, LLP, Civ. No.
98-4734 (WHW)," has been settled via two separate and distinct
proposed settlements.

Together, the two settlements will create a fund that totals
$26,000,000 in cash, plus interest.

One proposed settlement is with Cendant Corporation and includes
a payment for the Class of $22,000,000 in cash.  The other
proposed settlement is with Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y) and includes
a payment for the Class of $4,000,000 in cash.  

The proposed settlements resolve all claims, rights, causes of
action, suits, matters and issues, whether known or unknown,
whether asserted or unasserted arising out of or related to the
subject matter of this litigation or claims asserted by or on
behalf of plaintiffs or any class member, whether individual or
class-wide, against any one of the defendants.

If approved, the settlements will resolve all of the claims that
class members brought or could have brought in this litigation
completely.  

                       Settlement Hearing

A hearing will be held on July 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Hon. William H. Walls, U.S.D.J., of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey or any other judge
sitting in his stead, at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 4D, at 50 Walnut Street,
Newark, New Jersey, for the purpose of separately considering:

     -- whether the Litigation should be certified as a class
        action on behalf of the class for purposes of the
        settlements only;

     -- whether an order and final judgment should be entered
        approving the Cendant Settlement as fair, reasonable and
        adequate;

        * dismissing with prejudice claims made on behalf of the
        class against Cendant and the individual defendants; and

        * barring all class members from prosecuting, pursuing,
        or litigating any of the released claims against any of
        the Cendant released parties;

     -- whether an order and final judgment should be entered
        approving the E&Y Settlement as fair, reasonable and
        adequate

        * dismissing with prejudice claims made on behalf of the
          class against E&Y; and

        * barring all class members from prosecuting, pursuing,
          or litigating any of the released claims against any
          of the E&Y released parties;

     -- whether the proposed plan of allocation should be
        approved as fair, reasonable and adequate;

     -- whether and in what amount to approve lead counsel's
        application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
        costs and expenses; and

     -- whether and in what amount to approve lead plaintiff's
        application for reimbursement of costs and expenses.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons and entities which
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of American Bankers
Insurance common stock from Jan. 27, 1998 through and including
Oct. 13, 1998.  

For more information, contact the Claims Administrator at:
ABI/Cendant Securities Litigation c/o Berdon Claims
Administration LLC, Post Office Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-
8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web site:
http://ww.berdonllp.com/claims

Deadline to file proof of claim is Aug. 24, 2006.  Deadline to
apply for exclusion from the class and file objection is June
30, 2006.

Objection must be mailed or delivered to:

     (1) Jill S. Abrams, Esq. of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
         Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016;       

     (2) Samuel Kadet, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6522;
         and

     (3) Bennett W. Lasko, Esq. of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
         71 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois  60606-4637.


DANAHER CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Plan to Buy Sybron's Stock
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danaher Corporation and Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc. reached
an agreement in principle to settle a class action filed by
Dolphin Limited Partnership I, L.P. and other parties, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County.

Danaher's tender offer to purchase any and all of Sybron's
outstanding common stock is scheduled to expire at 12:00
midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, on Monday, May 15, 2006, unless
otherwise extended.  The offer remains subject to customary
conditions, including tender of a majority of the outstanding
shares into the offer, and the absence of a material adverse
effect with respect to Sybron.

The settlement resolves allegations by the plaintiffs against
Danaher, Sybron and Sybron's directors, in connection with the
tender offer, and includes no admission of wrongdoing.  Under
the terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to reduce
the termination fees associated with the transaction to an
aggregate amount of $45 million in fees and expenses.

In addition, the parties have agreed that Sybron's shareholders
rights plan and certain other contractual restrictions will not
apply to tender offers by third parties who offer Sybron's
shareholders above $47 in cash, sign and deliver the same merger
agreement that Danaher signed and comply with certain other
conditions.  While the provisions of the agreement in principle
referred to in this paragraph are effective immediately, certain
other provisions of the settlement are, as is customary, subject
to court approval.

The full terms of the settlement in principle will be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission by Danaher on an
amendment to its Form TO and by Sybron on an amendment to its
Schedule 14D-9.

Danaher Corporation -- http://www.danaher.com-- manufactures  
Professional Instrumentation, Industrial Technologies, and Tools
and Components.


DILLARD'S INC: Continues to face ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dillard's Inc., the Mercantile Stores Pension Plan (the Plan)
and the Mercantile Stores Pension Committee (the Committee) were
named as defendants in a purported class action alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).

On July 29, 2002, a Class Action Complaint (followed on December
13, 2004 by a Second Amended Class Action Complaint) was filed
on behalf of a putative class of former Plan participants.

The complaint alleges that certain actions by the Plan and the
Committee violated the ERISA, as a result of amendments made to
the Plan that allegedly were either improper and/or ineffective
and as a result of certain payments made to certain
beneficiaries of the Plan that allegedly were improperly
calculated and/or discriminatory on account of age.

The Second Amended Complaint does not specify any liquidated
amount of damages sought and seeks recalculation of certain
benefits paid to putative class members.  No trial date has been
set.

The suit is "Clevenger v. Dillards Dept Stores, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00558-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Southern Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Carrie Atkins Barron of Freking & Betz, 215 East Ninth
         Street, Fifth Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
         5137211975, E-mail: cbarron@frekingandbetz.com;

     (2) William K. Carr of the Law Offices of William K. Carr,
         2222 E. Tennessee Avenue, Denver, CO 80209, Phone: 303-
         296-6383, E-mail: bill@pension-law.com; and

     (3) Steven Katz of Korein Tillery, LLC, 701 Market Street,
         Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 53101, Phone: 314-241-4844, E-
         mail: skatz@koreintillery.com; and

Representing the defendants are, Stephen Joseph Butler and Jack
Frederick Fuchs of Thompson Hine, LLP, 312 Walnut Street, 14th
Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4029, Phone: 513-352-6700, Fax: 513-
352-6741, E-mail: steve.butler@thompsonhine.com and
Jack.Fuchs@ThompsonHine.com.


ENTERPRISE LEASING: Settles Suit Over Vehicle Rental Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action filed over Enterprise Leasing Co.'s
vehicle rental surcharges have reached a tentative settlement,
according to St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The settlement is subject to final approval by St. Louis Circuit
Court Presiding Judge John J. Riley, on June 14, 2006.  The
settlement includes:

     -- an award to non-corporate customers of "a voucher good
        for 25 percent off the non-discounted rental rates for a
        future car rental in the state of Missouri"; and

     -- up to $975,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and
        $5,000 in class representative compensation.

The suit was filed four years ago by Doug and Dawn Gotthardt.  
Recent court records show Lynne Gebert replaced the Gotthardts
as class representative.  Class counsel John S. Steward said
Enterprise misrepresented its surcharge of 5 percent on each
rental, which the Company has been collecting since July 1997.  
The plaintiffs claimed Enterprise had violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act by failing to adequately disclose
the nature of the surcharge.

Enterprise plans to change the definition of its surcharge in
rental contracts to show that the funds are reimbursement for
property tax, sales tax and other vehicular fees and
assessments, according to the report.

Enterprise Leasing is a subsidiary of Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.  
Mr. Steward is joined as class counsel by Jeffrey J. Lowe of
700-401 Georgia St. W. Vancouver, British Columbia (Vancouver
Co.).


E.ON HANSE: German Court Suggests Complete Review of Gas Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The regional court in Hamburg Germany that is handling a class
action over gas prices against local utilities Company E.ON
Hanse has declared that examination of gas prices must be
comprehensive and not only apply to price increases.

The decision may force E.ON Hanse to allow more detailed access
to its price calculations, according to Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung.

Fifty-two customers of the north German gas supplier E.ON Hanse,
a subsidiary of energy giant E.ON, have filed a class action
with the Hamburg regional court against the firm for what they
claim are excessive price hikes, according to the Hamburg's
consumer association, the TurkishPress.com reports (Class Action
Reporter, April 7, 2005).   

In their suit, which the association is coordinating, the
customers contend that a 10-percent price hike last October and
a further increase of 2.8 percent with effect from February this
year were unjustified and were hoping to force E.ON Hanse to
publish its calculations.  The class action is believed to be
the first of its kind filed against an energy supplier in  
Germany.  

At the end of last year, a series of steep price hikes for
electricity and gas sparked fierce debate in Germany.  Utilities
had argued that runaway oil prices were to blame for the price
increases.  However, critics suggest that energy suppliers are
notching up their prices ahead of the creation of a new sector-
wide regulatory body this year.


EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Termination of Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evercom Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of SECURUS Technologies,
Inc., was named as defendants in a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
captioned, "Kirsten Salb v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al."

The Company and its wholly owned billing agent are alleged to
have violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and other common law duties because of the alleged incorrect
termination of inmate telephone calls.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, as well as compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, and may later seek
certification of a class of persons who receive inmate calls
from Miami County.

The Company moved for complete dismissal of all claims, and it
awaits the Court's decision.  

The suit is "Kirsten Salb v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-20290," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Judd Gordon Rosen of Goldberg Law Firm, 1101 Brickell
         Avenue, Suite 899, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-374-
         4200;

     (2) Lance August Harke and Howard Mitchell Bushman of Harke
         & Clasby, LLP, 155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600,
         Miami, Florida 33130, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-536-
         8220, Fax: 305-536-8229, Web site:
         http://www.harkeclasby.com;and

     (3) Justin Graem Witkin and Robert Jason Richards of
         Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser, P.L.C., Phone: 850-916-7450
         and 877-810-4808, Fax: 850-916-7449, Web site:
         http://www.aws-law.com.

Representing the defendants are, Glen H. Waldman and Eleanor
Trotman Barnett of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP,
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500, Miami, Florida 33131-
5340, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-374-7580, Fax: 305-374-7593,
Web site: http://www.bilzin.com.


EXEGENICS INC: Del. Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the class action filed
against eXegenics, Inc. (as a nominal defendant) and certain of
its former directors:

     (1) Joseph M. Davie,

     (2) Robert J. Easton,

     (3) Ronald L. Goode and

     (4) Walter Lovenberg.

On May 15, 2003, The M&B Weiss Family Limited Partnership of
1996 filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
purportedly as a class action on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of the Company, against the Company, as a
nominal defendant, and former directors (collectively referred
to as the Individual Defendants), and purportedly as a
derivative action on behalf of the Company against the
Individual Defendants (the Weiss Litigation), (Class Action
Reporter, May 24, 2005).  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants have mismanaged the Company, have made unwarranted
and wasteful loans and payments to certain directors and third
parties, have disseminated a materially false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the 2003 annual meeting of
the Company's stockholders, and have breached their fiduciary
duties to act in the best interests of its Company and its
stockholders.  The plaintiffs are seeking an award of costs and
attorneys' fees and expenses, (Class Action Reporter, May 24,
2005).

The defendants in the Weiss litigation filed a joint motion with
the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim and for failure to make the statutorily
required demand on the Company to assert the subject claims. On
April 12, 2005 the judge, in a ruling from the bench, dismissed
the matter with prejudice, (Class Action Reporter, May 24,
2005).  


GUAM: Parties in Tax Refund Lawsuit Fails to Reach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation of a class action filed by taxpayers against the
government of Guam has failed to result to a unanimous
agreement, according to Guam Pacific Daily News.  Only two of
three taxpayer groups who sued the government over tax refunds
under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) agreed on a settlement
in April, the report said.  The proposed agreement remains
confidential.

Settlement talks that ensued after class actions were filed
against the government by Julie Babauta Santos, Charmaine
Torres, and Mary Grace Simpao with Christina Naputi in 2004
originally contemplated a $60 million payment of the $120
million owed to taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to 1998.  
It was entered into by Attorney General Douglas Moylan and then-
acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan.  But Gov. Felix Camacho did not
approve of the settlement.  He increased the settlement to $90
million, specifying this will come from 15% of the money set
aside for tax refunds each year.  

Earlier this year, District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez granted
Gov. Camacho's request for global mediation.  Negotiations
resulted to a deal with lawyers representing Ms. Santos and Ms.
Torres.  But lawyers representing Ms. Naputi and Ms. Simpao
disagreed, and have asked the court to move forward with the
lawsuit and select a lead counsel.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike
Philips, and James Canto.


INTELLIGROUP INC: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligroup, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint for a consolidated class action pending against it in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On or about October 12, 2004, the first of six class action
lawsuits was filed, purportedly on behalf of plaintiffs who
purchased the Company's securities, against the Company and
former officers Arjun Valluri, Nicholas Visco, Edward Carr and
David Distel.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Mr.
Distel and Mr. Carr from the Shareholder Class Action, failing
to name either of them as a defendant in the amended
consolidated complaint filed on or about October 10, 2005.

The suit generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws, including allegations that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition and that the Defendants materially
overstated financial results by engaging in improper accounting
practices.  The Class Period alleged is May 1, 2001 through
September 24, 2004.

The suit seeks relief in the form of unspecified compensatory
damages and reasonable costs, expenses and legal fees.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on or about November
30, 2005.  Thereafter in about February 2006, the lead plaintiff
filed its second consolidated amended complaint.  On or about
March 27, 2006, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

The first identified complaint is "Lydia Garcia, et al. v.
Intelligroup Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-4980," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Plaintiff
firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
         info@bermanesq.com;

     (2) Charles J. Piven of World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410-332-0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway
         Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ, 07102-5003y C, Phone:
         973.623.3000;

     (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;

     (8) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.  


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Acetaminophen on Labeling Error
-------------------------------------------------------------
IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Miami, Florida is recalling
Goldline brand Extra Strength Genapap 500 mg. (Acetaminophen)
caplets and tablets and extra strength Genebs 500 mg.
(Acetaminophen) caplets and tablets.

The product lots are being recalled due to a labeling error.  
Specifically, the product label should indicate that usage
should not exceed 8 tablets or caplets in a 24-hour period.  The
erroneous label indicates not to exceed 12 tablets or caplets in
a 24-hour period.  In the event the maximum dosage of 8 tablets
or caplets in a 24-hour period is exceeded, there may be an
increased risk of acetaminophen toxicity to the liver, which may
cause adverse health effects.  There have been no reports of
serious illness or injury relating to this labeling matter.

Consumers who purchased Extra Strength Genapap 500 mg. caplets
and tablets or extra strength Genebs 500mg caplets or with the
lot numbers listed below are advised to cease usage and return
the product to the location of purchase.

Wholesalers and retailers are advised to cease distribution and
examine their inventory immediately.  Return all lots indicated
below to the IVAX Distribution Center at:

     IVAX Distribution Center
     100 Precision Drive
     Walton, KY 41094
     Attn: RECALLED RETURNS

This recall includes the following product and lot numbers;

Product Name        NDC   Strength  Lot  Expiration Packaging

Extra-Strength 0182-2152-01 500mg 5H018D 11/2008m 100 count
Genapap Caplets                                    bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1457-01 500mg 5L020B 11/2008  100 count
Genapap Tablets                                    bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-10 500mg 5J006A 09/2008  1000 count
Genebs Tablets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-10 500mg 5F001 09/2008   1000 count
Genebs Tablets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-10 500mg 5H007 08/2007   1000 count
Genebs Tablets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-10 500mg 5H007B 08/2008  1000 count
Genebs Tablets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-10 500mg 5L014 11/2008  1000 count
Genebs Tablets                                    bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-01 500mg 5L018 11/2008   100 count
Genebs Tablets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1453-01 500mg 5L019  11/2008  100 count
Genebs Tablets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5B003 02/2007   100 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5F002 06/2007   100 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5F004A 06/2007  100 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5H003A 08/2008   100 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5H005 08/2008    100 count
Genebs Caplets                                      bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5H015 08/2008    100 count
Genebs Caplets                                      bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5H016 08/2008    100 count
Genebs Caplets                                       bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5H018B 11/2008   100 count
Genebs Caplets                                       bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5M024 12/2008    100 count
Genebs Caplets                                       bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 5M030A 12/2008   100 count
Genebs Caplets                                       bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 6A014 01/2009    100 count
Genebs Caplets                                       bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-01 500mg 6B022B 02/2009   100 count
Genebs Caplets                                      bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5B016 02/2007   1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                      bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5F004 06/2007   1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5F010 06/2007   1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5F010C 06/2007  1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg  5H003 08/2007  1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5H018A 11/2008  1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5L009B 12/2008  1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5M008A 12/2008  1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

Extra-Strength 0182-1832-10 500mg 5M030 12/2008   1000 count
Genebs Caplets                                     bottles

All affected inventory is currently on hold.  The U.S. Food and
Drug Administratiion has been apprised of this action.

The tablets/caplets themselves meet product specification,
however as stated above the product labeling is incorrect and
should indicate not to exceed 8 tablets or caplets in a 24-hour
period.

IVAX Pharmaceuticals method of distribution is through direct
accounts, which includes wholesalers and retail pharmacies.  
These products are sold over the counter and have been
distributed nationwide and in Puerto Rico.

IVAX is notifying the direct account customers/distributors and
direct ship customers who have purchased these products and lots
via first class mail recall notification.

Contact for Consumers: Phone: 1-866-262-1243.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product
should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program, HF-410,
FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, Phone: 1-800-
FDA-1088, Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178, on the Net:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch


KEMIRA OYJ: Customers Allege Collusion Among Chemical Suppliers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kemira Chemicals, Inc. continues to face class actions in U.S.
and Canada filed by customers alleging they suffered damages
resulting from a cartel among hydrogen peroxide and persalts
suppliers.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. has received a grand jury subpoena
seeking documents in connection with an investigation by the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division relating
to the hydrogen peroxide business in the U.S.

Kemira Oyj and Kemira Chemicals, Inc. have recently been named
in class action filed in U.S. federal and state courts by direct
and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and persalts.  In
these civil actions it is alleged that the U.S. plaintiffs
suffered damages resulting from a cartel among hydrogen peroxide
and persalts suppliers.

The existence of the European Commission's investigation is
relied upon in support of the allegations, but Kemira Oyj and
Kemira Chemicals, Inc. have not been informed of any allegation
that relates specifically to the U.S. market.  Class actions
have also been initiated in Canada against Kemira Oyj, Kemira
Chemicals, Inc. and Kemira Chemicals Canada, Inc. alleging
plaintiffs suffered damages resulting from a cartel among
hydrogen peroxide and persalts suppliers.  Kemira Oyj, Kemira
Chemicals Inc. and Kemira Chemicals Canada, Inc. have not been
informed of any allegation that relates specifically to the
Canadian market.

The group has extensive international operations and is involved
in a number of legal proceedings incidental to those operations.  
The most material proceedings currently pending include an
arbitration case relating to sale of U.S. pigments companies in
2000 and the statement of objections from EU Commission received
at the end of January 2005 relating to hydrogen peroxide and its
downstream products.

Kemira Oyj was informed 3 May, 2006 that the European Commission
has set a fine of EUR33 million for antitrust activity in the
Company's hydrogen peroxide business.  The Company said
provisions it made are adequate to cover for the fine set by the
Commission.  The Group does not expect the outcome of any such
legal proceedings currently pending to have materially adverse
effect upon the Group's consolidated future result of operations
taking into account provisions.

Kemira -- http://www.kemira.com-- is a chemicals Group with  
four business areas: pulp and paper chemicals, water treatment
chemicals, industrial chemicals and paints.


LOUD TECHNOLOGIES: Faces RICO Violations, Antitrust Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUD Technologies Inc. and its subsidiary, St. Louis Music
Company, were named as party-defendants in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, entitled, "Ace Pro Sound and v. Albertson,
et al."

The lawsuit, filed by Ace Pro Sound and Recordings and served
upon the Company on or about November 29, 2005, alleges
individual and class action claims against the Company, as well
as other, unrelated defendants.

The claims include civil conspiracy, tortuous interference,
violation of Florida's state and the Federal Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act as well as
Section 1 and Section 2 Sherman Act antitrust claims.

Management believes these claims are completely without merit,
so the Company filed a motion to dismiss this case and intends
to fight these claims.

The suit is "Ace Pro Sound and v. Albertson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-23098," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Representing
the plaintiffs is Michael Laurence Feinstein, 888 E. Las Olas
Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone: 954-767-
9662.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dianne O. Fischer, Andrew Paul Gold and Michael David
         Ehrenstein of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L.,
         Miami Center - 17th Floor, 201 South Biscayne
         Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade Co.),
         Phone: (305) 379-9000 and 305-358-3500, Fax: (305) 379-
         3428 or (305) 351-3801, Web site: http://www.kpkb.com;


     (2) Douglas Elias Ede of Salas Ede Peterson & Lage, 6333
         Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL 33143, Phone: 305-663-
         0000; and

     (3) Margaret M. Zwisler, Eric J. McCarthy, Charles R.
         Price, Jason D. Cruise of Lantham & Watkins, LLP, 555
         11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, District of
         Columbia 20004-1304, Phone: 202-637-2200, Telecopier:
         202-637-2201, Web Site: http://www.lw.com.


OCONOMOWOC MEMORIAL: Wis. Judge Refuses to Certify Billing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waukesha County Circuit Judge Patrick Haughney denied class
action status to a suit challenging the way Oconomowoc Memorial
Health Care (OMH) and its parent Company, ProHealth Care Inc.
bills patients, the Greater Milwaukee Today reports.

Malinda and Robert Laughlin sued the companies last year
alleging it charged them rates that were different than what the
hospital would have charged insured patients.  On May 3, Judge
Haughney said there was nothing illegal about a hospital
charging insured patients lower rates, noting that the state
Legislature created a law permitting health insurers an
opportunity to negotiate "volume discounts" with health care
providers.  The judge also said the matter should be decided in
a trial rather than dismissed in a summary judgment.

Judge Haughney also said the Laughlins had no standing to pursue
a deceptive trade claim over the billing because the couple
chose the hospital for the procedures for reasons other than its
rates.

John G. Jacobs of Chicago represented the plaintiffs.  ProHealth
and Oconomowoc Memorial's attorney is S. Edward Sarskas.


PC MALL: Faces Calif. Workers' Suit Over "Exempt" Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------
PC Mall, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County entitled,
"Nicole Atkins, et al. v. PC Mall, Inc., et al."

The potential class consists of all of our current and former
account executives in California.  The suit, filed on February
3, 2006, alleges that the Company improperly classified members
of the putative class as "exempt" employees in violation of
California's wage and hour and unfair business practice laws and
seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'
fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief.


PUERTO RICO: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Subscribers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico has yet to rule on
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.'s (PRTC) motion to dismiss
as purported class action filed against it.

On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight
business service subscribers filed a class action with the Court
of First Instance of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) and the Puerto Rico
Class Action Act of 1971.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Company's charges for touchtone
service are not based on cost, and therefore violate the Act.  
Thus, they requested that the Court:

      -- issue an order certifying the case as a class action,

      -- designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class,

      -- find that the charges are illegal, and

      -- order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On November 1, 2004 PRTC, whose common stock is all held by
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc., filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment requesting the dismissal of plaintiff's claim
due to plaintiff's failure to follow the procedure to dispute
charges, established by Law 33.  

Law 33 establishes that a telecommunication services user has a
twenty days period from the receipt of the telecommunications
service Company invoice to object to charges in the same.  PRTC
argues that since admittedly plaintiffs failed to comply with
said procedure their claims are time barred.  Said motion is
still under the consideration of the Court.

On May 10, 2005 the Court issued an Order certifying the case as
a class action.  PRTC sought reconsideration of that decision
and an argumentative hearing was held on June 20, 2005 to
discuss the merits of PRTC's position.

On June 22, 2005 the Court issued an Order confirming its
previous decision.  In consequence, a certiorari writ was filed
on June 22, 2005.

On September 19, 2005 the P.R. Appeals Court denied the same.  
PRTC sought reconsideration of that decision on October 4. 2005.  
Said reconsideration request was denied on October 11, 2005,
therefore PRTC filed a Certiorari Writ with the P.R. Supreme
Court on November 10, 2005.  The same was denied on January 18,
2006.

On January 11, 2006, the PRTC filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging
lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the enactment of
Law No. 138 of November 4, 2005.  This new law grants the TRB
exclusive primary jurisdiction to entertain class actions
related to telecommunication services.

The hearing scheduled for January 24, 2006 was rescheduled for
May 16, 2006 in response to plaintiff's request for time to
oppose PRTC's Motion to Dismiss.  The court granted the
plaintiffs until March 24, 2006 to submit their opposition.

In addition it granted PRTC until April 24, 2006 to submit its
reply.  On March 24, 2006 plaintiffs filed a request for sixty
additional days to submit their opposition.

On March 29, 2006 PRTC opposed this request and asked the Court
to rule on the jurisdictional matter brought forth by PRTC.  In
consequence, the Motion to Dismiss is pending.


QUANTUM CORP: DLT IV Tape Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Franx Inc. v. Quantum, Corporation,
Case No. CGC-03-423301."

The proposed Settlement resolves a class action lawsuit against
Quantum Corp., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., Maxell Corporation of
America (collectively Maxell), Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and
Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. (collectively Fuji) (all are
collectively referred to as Defendants) about DLT IV tapes,
which are a type of magnetic tape storage used to backup data
for business and computer users.

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants agreed to keep Imation
Corporation from entering the market to sell DLT IV tapes,
causing the prices for those tapes to be higher than they should
have been.  Defendants deny the claims made in the lawsuit, deny
that anyone was harmed in relation to the claims, and have
asserted a number of defenses.

The Settlement will provide free DLT IV tapes to California
residents and businesses that purchased DLT IV tapes (excluding
Imation-certified Black Watch Digital Linear Tape IV brand) at
any time from August 5, 1999 to May 30, 2002 for home or office
use (i.e., not for resale) from within the State of California.

The hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 20, 2006 in
Department 304.  The court is located at the Civic Center
Courthouse, 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, California 94102-
4514.  

Deadline for exclusion for the settlement is on May 30, 2006.

For more details, contact DLT IV Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 1816, Faribault, MN 55021-1864, Phone: 1-866-216-0278, Web
site: http://www.tapedrivesettlement.com;and Aaron Darsky, Esq.  
or Robert C. Schubert, Esq. of Schubert & Reed, LLP, Three
Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:  
(415) 788-4220, Fax: (415) 788-0161, E-mail: adarsky@schubert-
reed.com and rak@katriellaw.com, Web site: http://www.schubert-
reed.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Quitting $400M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. shareholders have backed
out of the proposed $400 million class-action settlement with
the telephone carrier, CFO.com reports.

Seven parties that had previously filed individual suits against
the telecom Company chose to opt out of the settlement.  In
addition, some of the parties that have more recently requested
to be excluded from the deal have "asserted claims" against the
Company.

Earlier, two former Qwest Communications executives filed a
motion seeking to block a proposed $400 million settlement
between the telephone carrier and shareholders.  Former Chief
Executive Joseph Nacchio and ex-Chief Financial Officer, Robert
Woodruff, who were excluded from the settlement, told the judge
the proposal violated their contracts with Qwest.  According to
them, their contracts indemnified them if damages were awarded
against them (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 28, 2006).

Qwest Chief Executive Dick Notebaert said he prefers for all
investors to remain in the class-action settlement, but that
"assuming everything is approved on the proposed settlement, a
majority of the litigation is done."

Although the proposed settlement is for $400 million, the
Company already agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange
Commission $250 million to settle fraud allegations.  That puts
the combined settlements within $100 million of the current
reserve the Company set aside to cover litigation.  Qwest's
litigation reserve is reported to be nearly $750 million.

The next hearing on the proposed class-action settlement is
scheduled for May 19, in U.S. District Court in Denver, the News
reported.

Qwest shareholders filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado against Qwest and 12 current and former
officers and directors, including several large pension funds,
after the Company restated in 2002 $2.2 billion in revenue for
the previous two years.  Qwest stock dropped from a high of $64
per share to below $2 after the revelation.  A fifth
consolidated amended class action complaint names Arthur
Andersen LLP as defendant in the securities suit.  

Former Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio Nachio was indicted by a
federal grand jury in Denver in December on 42 counts of insider
trading, which he denied to have committed.  

The Colorado suit, "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm  
Int'l Inc., et al. (1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS)," is under Judge  
Robert E. Blackburn.  Representing the plaintiffs are:  

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

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite  
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,  
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net   

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,  
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San  
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:  
         support@milberg.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: Cal. Objects to Settlement of Market Rigging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed an objection to
clarify the terms of a proposed $377 million settlement of a
class action alleging the Company rigged natural gas markets,
the Union Tribune reports.

The attorney general expressed concern in an April filing with
the California Superior Court that the state's legal actions
against the Company on behalf of ratepayers might be in danger
if the settlement is interpreted to include public entities as
part of the settlement class.

The settlement class includes "all individuals and entities in
California who purchased gas and/or electric power for their own
use and not for resale or generation of electric power from
September 1996 to the date of the agreement," according to court
documents.

Lawyers representing plaintiffs in the settlement agreed with
Mr. Lockyer's argument in a motion filed in March.  They asked
Judge Ronald Prager to "clarify" that the settlement does not
interfere with federal or California public agencies prosecuting
claims against Sempra.  But Judge Prager denied the motion
saying "The motion effectively constitutes a request to alter
the terms of the settlement agreement, to render an advisory
opinion on the meaning of the agreement and its effect on
pending and or future litigation not subject to this action."

The Continental Forge litigation, consisting of class action and
individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
consolidated in San Diego Superior Court, allege that Sempra
Energy and the California Utilities, along with El Paso and
several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to control natural
gas and electricity markets and claim damages of $23 billion
after applicable trebling (Class Action Reporter, March 1,
2006).  

Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and
electric consumers served by the California investor-owned
utilities.  The settlement of Continental Forge would also
include the settlement of class action price reporting
litigation, consisting of antitrust and unfair competition
lawsuits coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging
that Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported
natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and
engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions.  

A second settlement agreement relates to class action brought by
the Nevada Attorney General in Nevada Clark County District
Court and involves virtually identical allegations to those in
the Continental Forge litigation.  

                      Settlement Terms

To settle the California and Nevada litigation, the Company
would make cash payments in installments aggregating $377
million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge
and California class action price reporting litigation and $30
million relates to the Nevada antitrust litigation.  Of the $377
million, $83 million would be paid within thirty days of final
approval of the settlement by the San Diego County Superior
Court, and an additional $83 million would be paid on the first
anniversary of that approval.   

Of the remaining amount, $27.3 million would be paid on the
closing date of the settlement and $26.3 million would be paid
on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the
seventh anniversary of the closing date.  At any time after the
first anniversary of the closing date, the Company would have
the option to prepay all or any portion of the remaining unpaid
settlement amounts at a discount rate of 7%, with any partial
prepayment applied to and reducing each remaining payment on an
equal and proportionate basis.

Additional consideration for the California settlement includes
an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the California
Utilities, subject to CPUC approval, re-gasified liquefied
natural gas from its liquefied natural gas terminal being
constructed in Baja California, Mexico at the California border
index price minus $0.02.  The volumes to be purchased and sold
would be up to 500 million cubic feet per day that Sempra Energy
subsidiaries currently have contractual rights to purchase and
that is not delivered or sold to Mexican entities.  

The California Utilities also would seek approval from the CPUC
to integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to
develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for
access to their combined intrastate transmission system and
SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system.  In addition,
Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce the price that it
charges for power and limit the places at which it would deliver
power under its contract with the Department of Water Resources
(DWR).

The California settlement is subject to the approval of the San
Diego Superior Court, which has preliminarily approved the
settlement, and authorized providing notice to the plaintiff
class.  The Los Angeles City Council has not yet voted to
approve the City of Los Angeles's participation in the
settlement and it may elect to continue pursuing its individual
case against Sempra Energy and the California Utilities.  

If the City of Los Angeles decides not to participate, the
Company may, at its option, either proceed with the settlement
of the class action and other individual cases or terminate the
entire agreement.  The California Attorney General, the DWR, the
California Energy Oversight Board, Edison, and Pacific Gas &  
Electric Company unsuccessfully challenged the proposed notice
to the class based on their concern that, among other things,
the releases in the settlement agreement may be sufficiently
broad to encompass other proceedings against Sempra Energy and
its subsidiaries to which they are parties.  

                     Final Approval Hearing

The final approval hearing for the Continental Forge settlement
is scheduled to occur on June 8, 2006.  The Nevada settlement is
subject to approval by the Nevada Clark County District Court,
which has not yet approved notice to the class or scheduled a
final approval hearing.  Both the California and Nevada
settlements must be approved for either settlement to take
effect, but the Company is permitted to waive this condition.  
The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the
California Public Utilities Commission, the DWR, or any other
governmental or regulatory agency to be effective.  


SOURCECORP INC: Faces Lawsuit in Del. Over Apollo Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
SOURCECORP Inc., and members of its Board of Directors, as well
as Apollo Management, L.P. (Apollo) were named as defendants in
a putative class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, New Castle County, in response to the
Company's announced agreement to be acquired by affiliates of
Apollo

Filed on March 8, 2006, the suit asserts claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against members of the Company's board of
directors and alleges that, among other things, the
consideration to be paid to the stockholders of the Company in
the merger is unfair and inadequate and was not the result of a
full and fair sale process or adequate market check.

The suit also asserts a claim against Apollo for aiding and
abetting such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Among other
things, it seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against
the proposed merger (or rescission of the merger if it is
completed).


SOURCECORP INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCECORP Inc., its CEO and CFO were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities class action in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Initially, several putative securities class actions were filed
in response to the Company's press releases dated October 27,
2004, in which the Company disclosed that its financial
statements for certain prior periods should no longer be relied
upon, and also provided updated financial guidance.

The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, with the first
action being filed November 1, 2004.  

The Actions are putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of Federal Securities Laws, including
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The four Actions were transferred to a single judge in the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and consolidated
into a single action now styled, "In re Sourcecorp, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  A lead plaintiff was recently appointed
for the consolidated Action.  

In addition to the Company and its CEO and CFO, one of the
Company's subsidiaries and one of the former owners of that
subsidiary are named as defendants in the consolidated action.

The consolidated action is purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
between May 3, 2001, and October 27, 2004, and seeks unspecified
damages.

The first identified complaint is "Dr. Richard Bassin, et al. v.
SOURCECORP Incorporated, et al., Case No. 04-CV-2351," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.com;

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

     (3) 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;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (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) Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue,
         Suite 700, Dallas, TX, 75204, Phone: 214.744.3000, Fax:
         214.744.3015, E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com;

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

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


STOCKERYALE INC: N.H. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
yet to rule on StockerYale, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain other defendants.

Beginning in May 2005, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire against the Company and Mark Blodgett,
our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board, Lawrence Blodgett, a former director, Frances O'Brien,
former Chief Financial Officer, Richard Lindsay, former Chief
Financial Officer, and Ricardo Diaz, the Company's former Chief
Operating Officer, purportedly on behalf of some of the
Company's shareholders.

The complaints, which assert claims under the Exchange Act,
allege that some disclosures in Company press releases dated
April 19, 2004 and April 21, 2004 were materially false or
misleading.  They seek unspecified damages, as well as interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

The three complaints were consolidated into one action and
assigned to a single federal judge. The court also appointed a
group of lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel, who recently
filed a consolidated amended complaint to supersede the
previously filed complaints.

Mr. Lindsay is not named as a defendant in the amended
complaint; therefore, he is not a party to the currently pending
proceeding.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On January 31, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss all claims asserted against the Company in the
consolidated amended complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on
those motions.

The suit is "In re StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
Oo. 1:05-cv-00177-JM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire under Judge James R. Muirhead.   
Representing the plaintiffs is William L. Chapman and Jennifer
A. Eber of Orr & Reno PA, One Eagle Sq., P.O. Box 3550, Concord,
NH 03302-3550, Phone: 603-224-2381, E-mail: wlc@orr-reno.com or
jaeber@orr-reno.com.

Representing the Company is Douglas C. Doskocil of Goodwin
Procter, LLP, (MA), Exchange Place, 53 State St., Boston, MA
02109-2881, Phone: 617 570-1000, E-mail:
ddoskocil@goodwinprocter.com.


TIRE RECOVERY: Facing Complaint Over Warehouse Fire in W.Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Nitro, West Virginia filed a complaint against the
Company that stored an estimated 50,000 tires that burned in a
warehouse located in the city, The Charleston Gazette reports.

Stephen D. Gilliam filed a suit that could become a class action
against U.S. Tire Recovery, the owner of the tires; Chemvalley
Properties Inc., the owner of the warehouse; and certain firms
that also stored tires in the warehouse.  The suit was lodged in
Kanawha Circuit Court.  

The complaint claims the storage of so many tires in the Nitro
warehouse "was an abnormally and unreasonably dangerous
activity, due to the risk of toxic fumes and vapors it posed to
the residents of Nitro" if the tires caught fire.  It is seeking
unspecified punitive damages for "the lose of use and enjoyment
of property, loss of property value, inconvenience, and
emotional distress."

Mr. Gilliam's lawyer is W. Stuart Calwell, Jr. of The Calwell
Practice, PLLC, Law and Arts Center West, 500 Randolph Street,
P.O. Box 113, Charleston, West Virginia 25302 (Kanawha Co.),
Phone: 304-343-4323, Toll Free Phone: 1-800-876-5529, Fax: 304-
344-3684.


TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) was named
as a defendant in two class action petitions for damages filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
in September and October 2005 arising from hurricanes that
struck Louisiana in 2005.

The suits are styled:

      -- "Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
         Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed
         on September 13, 2005;

      -- "Villa, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., et
         al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04569-SSV-DEK," filed on October
         5, 2005.

The class plaintiffs, purporting to represent all persons,
businesses and entities in the State of Louisiana who have
suffered damage as a result of the winds and storm surge from
the hurricanes, allege that the operating activities of the two
sub-classes of defendants, which all oil and gas pipelines that
dredged pipeline canals or installed pipelines in the marshes of
south Louisiana (including the Company) and all oil and gas
exploration and production companies which drilled for oil and
gas or dredged canals in the marshes of south Louisiana, have
altered marshland ecology and caused marshland destruction which
otherwise would have averted all or almost all of the
destruction and loss of life caused by the hurricanes.

Plaintiffs request that the court allow the lawsuits to proceed
as class actions and seek legal and equitable relief in an
unspecified amount.

For more details, contact ("Barasich" Plaintiffs' Attorneys)
Richard Paul Bullock of Early, Ludwick & Sweeney, One Century
Tower, 11th Floor, 265 Church Street, P.O. Box 1866, New Haven,
CT 06508, US, Phone: 203-777-7799, E-mail: rbullock829@aol.com;
("Villa" Plaintiffs' Attorneys) Mary S. Johnson of Johnson,
Gray, McNamara, LLC, 69150 Highway 190 East Service Road,
Covington, LA 70433, Phone: 985-246-6544, E-mail:
msj@jgmclaw.com; and (Defendant's Attorney) Linda Sarradet
Akchin of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman,
LL, One American Place, P.O. Box 3513, 22nd Floor, Baton Rouge,
LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, E-mail:
linda.akchin@keanmiller.com.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Calif. Court Junks Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
dismissed, with leave to amend, claims against Wireless
Facilities, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in
the consolidated shareholder class action entitled, "In re
Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
04CV1589-JAH."

In August 2004, as a result of the Company's announcement on
August 4, 2004 that it intended to restate its financial
statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2000, 2001,
2002 and 2003, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in several
securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

These actions were filed on behalf of those who purchased, or
otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock between April 26,
2000 and August 4, 2004.  The suits generally allege that,
during that time period, defendants made false and misleading
statements to the investing public about the Company's business
and financial results, causing its stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels.

Based on these allegations, the lawsuits allege that Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages.  These actions have been consolidated
into a single action under the caption, "In re Wireless
Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
04CV1589-JAH."

The plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in January
2005 and did not name the Company a defendant in that complaint.
After the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss,
the plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint to add
the Company as a defendant.

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 1, 2005.  Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss this first amended complaint on April 14, 2005.

The plaintiffs then requested leave to amend their first amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint
on June 9, 2005, this time on behalf of those who purchased, or
otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock between May 5,
2003 and August 4, 2004.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this second amended
complaint on July 14, 2005.  The motion to dismiss was taken
under submission on October 20, 2005 and on March 8, 2006, the
Court granted the Company's motion.  However, the plaintiffs
were granted the right to amend their complaint within 45 days.  

The reference complaint is "Cole v. Wireless Facilities, Case
No. 04-CV-1589," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge John A. Houston.
Plaintiff firms named in the complaint:

     (1) 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; and

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of
America Service Group, Inc. (ASGR) between September 24, 2003
and March 16, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

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 operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of ASG securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until June 5, 2006, in which to move for
Lead Plaintiff status in the case.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


BAUSCH & LOMB: Public Pension Fund Intends to Expand Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, was
retained by the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit (Detroit Police and Fire) to pursue a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of
Bausch & Lomb Inc. (BOL) between January 27, 2005 and May 3,
2006, inclusive (the Expanded Class Period).

This notice relates to prior notices that have been published
about the filing of class action lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Bausch & Lomb during
the period between January 27, 2005 and December 22, 2005.

As indicated in the prior notices, the deadline by which any
member of the Class may file a motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the pending lawsuits is May 12, 2006.  

The previously announced lawsuits assert claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of Bausch & Lomb investors based on
the Company's improper accounting for the financial results of
its Brazilian subsidiary.

Detroit Police and Fire intends to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to pursue claims on behalf of all purchasers of Bausch
& Lomb securities during the Expanded Class Period.  

In addition to the claims that are asserted in the previously
announced lawsuits, Detroit Police and Fire intends to file a
complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on the Company's misleading statements and
omissions about the safety of its ReNu contact lens cleaning
products.

Contrary to the Company's prior representations regarding the
safety of ReNu, it has been revealed that ReNu is linked to
microbial keratitis, an infection caused by the Fusarium fungus
that can cause blindness and require corneal transplants.  

More than 30 million Americans wear contact lenses, and Bausch &
Lomb's products are used by about one in four to clean them.
Unbeknownst to investors, health authorities in Hong Kong
informed Bausch & Lomb that some users of ReNu had caught eye
infections as early as June 2005.

The Hong Kong health authorities began investigating an eye
infection outbreak in July and August 2005 and contacted Bausch
& Lomb for information in the following months. Despite being
aware of these facts, the Company failed to warn the public and
continued to market and sell ReNu as a safe product.

The recent revelations about ReNu raised issues concerning the
accuracy of the Company's prior positive statements about its
products and business operations and caused massive losses for
purchasers of the Company's securities.

Detroit Police and Fire is a public pension fund with more than
$3.8 billion of net assets held in trust as of June 30, 2005 for
the benefit of the active and retired police officers and
firefighters of the City of Detroit, Michigan.

For more details, contact Gerald H. Silk or Jai Chandrasekhar of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, 38th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10019, Phone: (212) 554-
1400, Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/.  


BAUSCH & LOMB: Lerach Coughlin Expands Stock Suit's Class Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed an
amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bausch & Lomb,
Inc. (BOL) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 27, 2005 and April 10, 2006.

Interested parties move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff no later than May 12, 2006.  

The complaint charges Bausch & Lomb and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Bausch & Lomb engages in the development, manufacture,
and marketing of eye health products.

During the Class Period, defendants allegedly made positive but
false statements about, among other things, Bausch & Lomb's
results and business, while concealing material adverse
information about the true nature of the Company's revenues, the
lack of adequate internal controls and the underpayment of taxes
resulting in tens of millions of dollars in penalties, which
ultimately resulted in the restatement of the Company's
financials over a period of five years.

Additionally, the Company failed to disclose that, in November
2005, it was contacted by health authorities in Hong Kong that
the Company's contact lens solution was causing a rare eye
infection among users.

On December 22, 2005, after the markets closed, the Company
provided an update on an internal investigation related to its
Brazil subsidiary and announced that it would restate its
financial results for 2000 through the first half of 2005.

On this disclosure, Bausch & Lomb's stock price dropped to as
low as $71.54 per share, a 9% decline from the previous trading
day's close - the equivalent of a $374 million market
capitalization loss.

However, according to the complaint, prior to these revelations
of accounting fraud the Company's top officers and directors
illegally reaped over $29 million in insider trading proceeds.

Subsequently, on March 31, 2006, after the markets closed, the
Company announced that it was collaborating in a scientific
investigation with health authorities to determine the extent
and cause of an increase in a rare fungus infection among
contact lens wearers that first surfaced in certain parts of
Asia.

At that time, the Company stated that the eye infections were
"not related to a specific contact lens or lens-care product."

Then, on April 10, 2006, after the markets closed, the Company
announced that it was temporarily suspending U.S. shipments of
ReNu(R) with MoistureLoc(R) produced at its Greenville, S.C.,
manufacturing facility in order to facilitate the further
investigation of reports of fungal keratitis infections among
contact lens wearers in the United States.

Although it had evidence which suggested otherwise, the Company
declared that the "source of these infections has not been
determined."

Upon this shocking news, on the next trading day, shares of the
Company's stock plummeted, falling $8.41 per share, or almost
15%, to close at $49.03 per share, on extraordinary trading
volume.

Following these disclosures, on April 13, 2006, the Company
asked U.S. retailers to remove ReNu(R) with MoistureLoc(R) from
their shelves temporarily, and recommended that consumers switch
to another lens care solution for the time being, until the
investigation of reports of fungal keratitis infections among
contact lens wearers in the United States is concluded.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/bauschandlomb/.  


CHINA ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b- 5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from April 21, 2005 through February 15, 2006.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than June 30,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Discovery Laboratories, Inc.
(DSCO) between December 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006, inclusive.
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

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


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, against Newpark Resources (NR) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of purchasers of Newpark securities during
the period from February 28, 2005 to April 13, 2006, both dates
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Newpark is a Delaware corporation, which maintains its principal
office in Metairie, Louisiana.  The Company provides fluids
management, environmental, and oilfield services to the oil and
gas exploration and production industries.

The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants'
internal controls and accounting practices during the class
period were flawed and deficient.

As a result of these deficiencies, the Company was forced to
announce on April 17, 2006, the commencement of an internal
investigation by its Audit Committee into accounting
irregularities and other possible violation.

The irregularities involve "the processing and payment of
invoice by Soloco Texas, LP," a Company subsidiary. Furthermore,
the Company announced that it "has not yet been determined
whether all or a portion of these payments is recoverable."

As a result of the internal investigation, the Company placed
the Chairman and CEO of Newpark Environmental Water Services,
LLC, and an officer of Soloco Texas, LP on administrative leave.
In response to these revelations, on April 17, 2006, Newpark's
common stock fell $1.28 per share, losing over 17% of its value
in one day on extremely high volume of close to 5 million shares
traded, to close at $6.14 per share.

Interested parties have until June 20, 2006 to ask the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.

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, Web
site: http://www.pomlaw.com.  


PHH CORP: Baron & Budd Set May 16 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 16 deadline has been set to file for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the pending class action against PHH Corp. (PHH),
which was filed by Baron & Budd, P.C. on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between May 12, 2005 to March 1, 2006,
inclusive.


On March 17, 2006, the first complaint was filed against PHH
alleging violations of Federal securities laws.  The Complaint
alleges that defendants' Class Period statements, made in press
releases and SEC filings, were materially false and misleading
for the following reasons:

      -- the Company materially overstated its deferred tax
         assets, by tens of millions of dollars;
     
      -- the Company's reported net income was materially
         overstated;

      -- the Company's internal controls over financial
         reporting had fundamental weaknesses, were not
         effective and negatively affected the Company's ability
         to record, process, summarize and report financial
         data; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company's reported
         results were materially inflated and deceived
         investors.

On March 1, 2006, the Company issued a press release revealing
that the Company's reported results were overstated, for the
reasons discussed above, and that an ongoing accounting review
would prevent it from timely filing with the SEC its annual
report on Form 10-K.  The Company also announced that it had
replaced its Chief Financial Officer, defendant Neil J. Cashen.

In response to this announcement, the price of PHH common stock
sank from $28.73 per share on March 1, 2006 to $26 per share on
March 2, 2006, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. and Zan Smith
of Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: (800) 222-2766, E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com, Web site: http://www.baronandbudd.com and  
http://www.securitiesactions.com.


PIXELWORKS INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC filed a securities class action on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: PXPL) between Dec.
21, 2005 and April 11, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

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

Pixelplus is a South Korea-based developer of Complementary
Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) image sensors for use primarily
in mobile camera phones.  In addition to mobile phones,
Pixelplus provides CMOS image sensors for use in personal
computer cameras and surveillance system applications.

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


PXRE GROUP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) between July 28, 2005
and February 16, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against
PXRE and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that:

      -- the Company concealed from investors the full impact of
         Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005;

      -- that the size of the true total costs, which is now
         estimated at between $758 million and $788 million,
         would cause the Company to lose key financial ratings
         from A.M. Best; and,

      -- that the Company concealed the true level of the costs
         in order to complete a $114 million secondary offering
         as well as raise more than $350 million from the
         offering of perpetual preferred shares.

On February 16, 2006, after the market closed, PXRE announced
that it would be increasing its estimates of the net pre-tax
impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by an amount
between $281 million and $311 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005 versus their prior estimates.

In reaction to the disclosure, A.M. Best lowered the Company's
financial strength rating to B++ from A-.  On February 17, 2006,
shares reacted negatively to the news falling $7.85 per share,
or nearly 66% to close at $4.05 per share.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than July 3, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
(888) 753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com.  


PXRE GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of PXRE securities
during the period from July 28, 2005 to February 16, 2006, both
dates inclusive.  The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

PXRE, based in Pembroke, Bermuda, is a world-wide provider of
catastrophe reinsurance products and services. The complaint
alleges the following:

      -- that the Company concealed from investors the full
         impact on its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and
         Wilma;

      -- that, in fact, the Company's cost of the three
         hurricanes had doubled to an estimated $758 million to
         $788 million;

      -- that the magnitude of the loss would cause the Company
         to loose key financial-strength and credit ratings;
     
      -- that the Company concealed the losses in order to
         complete a $114 million secondary offering and raise
         more than $350 million from an offering of perpetual
         preferred shares; and

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its loss estimates for the
         2005 hurricane season lacked in all reasonable basis.

The complaint further alleges that on February 16, 2006, after
the close of the market, PXRE shocked investors when it
announced that it would be increasing its estimates of the net
pre-tax impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by an
amount between $281 million to $311 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005.  By the end of the day, PXRE shares had
fallen $7.85 per share, or over 65%, on high trading volume, to
close at $4.05 per share.

Interested parties have until July 3, 2006 to ask the Court to
for appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.

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, Web
site: http://www.pomlaw.com.  


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Catanzarite Law Files Calif. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Catanzarite Law Corporation filed a class action on behalf
of all purchasers of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. securities
(VTSS) during the period from June 30, 2003 through April 26,
2006.  The class action is against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities law.

This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division and was assigned to the
Honorable Margaret M. Morrow, under case no. CV06-2641 MMM
(CTx).  

The Complaint alleges that the during the Class Period, the
Company violated federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading financial statements during the reporting periods for
the three months ended December 31, 2005 and the three years
ended September 30, 2005.

On April 18, 2006 the Company shocked the market when it
announced that it had appointed a Special Committee of
independent directors to conduct an internal investigation
relating to past stock option grants, the timing of such grants
and related accounting and documentation.

The Company also announced that it had put on "administrative
leave" the Company's founder and current CEO Louis R. Tomasetta,
the Company's CFO Yatin Mody, and the Company's Executive Vice
President Eugene Hovanec.  Following this announcement, Vitesse
stock fell 20%.

On April 26, 2006 the Company announced that as a result of the
ongoing internal investigation, the Company's "reported
financial statements for the three months ended December 31,
2005 and three years ended September 30, 2005 and possibly
earlier periods should not be relied upon."

The Company also announced for the first time, that "additional
issues have arisen concerning the Company's practices in
connection with credits issued to or requested by customers (for
returned products or otherwise) and the related accounting
treatment, as well as the application of payments received to
the proper accounts receivable."  As a result of this
announcement the Company's stock fell an additional 27%.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than July 3,
2006 to serve as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Jim Travis Tice, Esq. of Catanzarite
Law Corporation, 2331 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California
92801, Phone: (714) 520-5544, E-mail: jtice@catanzarite.com, Web
site: http://www.catanzarite.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Charles J. Piven Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Vitesse
Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS) between October 23, 2003 and
April 26, 2006, inclusive.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 3, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

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


XM SATELLITE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Lawsuit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., initiated a class
action, numbered 06-0802 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia before the Honorable Ellen S. Huvelle, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of XM Satellite Radio
Holdings, Inc. (XMSR) between July 28, 2005 and February 15,
2006, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants XM Satellite Radio
Holdings, Inc. and Hugh Panero, President, Chief Executive
Officer of XM and a director of XM.

The Complaint charges XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc and Hugh
Panero with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the Class Period.

As alleged in the Complaint, defendants made misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding XM's ability to reduce the costs of
its new subscribers as it reached its goal of 6 million
subscribers by yearend 2005.  

In reality and as known to or recklessly disregarded by
defendants, XM would be forced to spend extraordinarily large
sums of money in the fourth quarter of 2005, in order to stay on
track to achieve its stated goal of 6 million subscribers at
year end by reason of competitive factors known to defendants
since before the beginning of the Class Period.

Despite defendants' knowledge that XM would be making those huge
expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2005, defendants failed to
disclose to the market that XM's cost of subscriber acquisition
would rise to extraordinary levels, leading to huge increases in
XM's net losses, which was in complete reversal of the trends of
declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses defendants
were reporting and touting throughout the Class Period.

During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge
sales of their personal holdings in the forth quarter of 2005,
before any disclosure of the astronomical increase in XM's SAC
and CPGA, taking advantage of the artificial inflation of XM's
common stock.

Specifically, defendant Panero sold 413,334 shares on December
6, 2005 at prices ranging between $28.37 and $28.95 to reap
proceeds of $11,846,000, thus selling 99% of his holdings in XM.

On February 16, 2006 defendants issued a press release
announcing XM's results for the fourth quarter 2005 and year
2005 results.  They disclosed the shocking truth about the
skyrocketing level of XM's subscriber acquisition costs.  

The market reacted negatively.  With this disclosure XM's common
stock, on abnormally heavy trading volume fell 13% to close at
$21.96 on February 17, 2006.

Interested parties have no later than July 3, 2006 to move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. and Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The
Wanamaker Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com and debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


XM SATELLITE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (XMSR), between July 28,
2005, and February 15, 2006, inclusive, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

The Complaint charges XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., and its
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hugh Panero, with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during the Class Period.

As alleged in the Complaint, defendants made misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding XM's ability to reduce the costs of
its new subscribers as it reached its goal of 6 million
subscribers by yearend 2005.

In reality, and as known to or recklessly disregarded by
defendants, XM would be forced to spend extraordinarily large
sums of money in the fourth quarter of 2005, in order to stay on
track to achieve its stated goal of 6 million subscribers at
year end by reason of competitive factors known to defendants
since before the beginning of the Class Period.

Despite defendants' knowledge that XM would be making those huge
expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2005, defendants failed to
disclose to the market that XM's cost of subscriber acquisition
would rise to extraordinary levels, leading to huge increases in
XM's net losses, which was in complete reversal of the trends of
declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses defendants
were reporting and touting throughout the Class Period.

During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge
sales of their personal holdings in the fourth quarter of 2005,
taking advantage of the artificial inflation of XM's common
stock.

Specifically, defendant Panero sold 413,334 shares on December
6, 2005, at prices ranging between $28.37 and $28.95 to reap
proceeds of $11,846,000, thus selling 99% of his holdings in XM.

On February 16, 2006, defendants issued a press release
announcing XM's results for the fourth quarter 2005 and year
2005 results.  They disclosed the shocking truth about the
skyrocketing level of XM's subscriber acquisition costs.

The market reacted negatively.  With this disclosure, XM's
common stock, on abnormally heavy trading volume, fell 13% to
close at $21.96 on February 17, 2006.

Interested parties have no later than July 3, 2006, move the
court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

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