CAR_Public/060510.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 92

                            Headlines

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Misstating Graphic Cards Feature
BAWAG PSK: Refco Unit's Brokerage Client Files Lawsuit in N.Y.
CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed Over New Discount Prescription Drug Plan
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Provincial Gov't. Named in Suit Over Collapse
DAISY MANUFACTURING: Recalls Slingshots After Eye Injury Reports

DELL FINANCIAL: Client Files Racial Discrimination Suit in Fla.
EBAY INC: Calif. Court OKs Allocation Plan for PayPal Settlement
EBAY INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Billing Practices Suit
EBAY INC: Reaches Settlement for Consumer Litigation in N.Y.
EBAY INC: Reaches Settlement for "Shill Bidding" Suit in Calif.

EEL RIVER: Reaches Settlement with Workers in Ownership Issue
ENRON CORP: ERISA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 24, 2006
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Pending in Del. Court
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: No Trial Date Yet for Securities Lawsuit
LOEWEN GROUP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 29

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Mass. Court Dismisses FLSA Violations Suit
NORBOURG GROUP: Court Drops Plaintiff Lawyer in Investors' Suit
PEPSICO INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Benzene-Content of Twist Drink
PHILIP MORRIS: Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider $10B Verdict
PHILIPPINES: Appealing Award to Human Rights Violations Victims

REFCO INC: N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Now Includes Austrian Bank
ROMERO HARVESTING: Migrant Workers Sue Over Alleged Mistreatment
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Reaches Settlement for Stock Suits in Pa.
THAXTON GROUP: August Trial Set for Stock Fraud Suit Settlement
TRAVEL AGENCIES: Faces Federal Suit Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes

TRIARC COS: Del. Court Awards Plaintiffs $75T in Fees, Expenses
TRIARC COS: Fla. Court Mulls Final Approval for ADA Settlement
TROPICAL SPORTSWEAR: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 10
T ROWE: Briefs Seventh Circuit on High Court's Ruling in "Dabit"
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Recalls Metal Charms on Toxic Lead Hazard

WALGREENS CO: New Witness Delays Trial of Racial Bias Lawsuit
WARNER MUSIC: Named in 14 Music Download Price-Fixing Lawsuits
WEST BEND: Fined on Late Reporting of Coffeemaker Carafes Defect


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ASTEA INT'L: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
CHINA ENERGY: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Roy Jacobs Plans Amendment to Stock Suit

DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Pa. Stock Suit
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in La.
PXRE GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Curtis V. Trinko Files Calif. Stock Suit

VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Stull Stull Files Calif. Securities Suit

                           *********

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Misstating Graphic Cards Feature
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of individuals has filed a suit alleging that ATI
Technologies' graphic cards do not support High-bandwidth
Digital Content Protection (HDCP) as the Company claims,
LegitReviews reports.

The suit was filed by Stanley Batsalkin and Kenny Vargas on
behalf of themselves and others in a San Jose district court in
California.  Defendants are ATI Technologies, ATI Technologies
Systems, ATI Research Silicon Valley, ATI Research and 200 "John
Does," the report said.

The defendants are accused of breaching state consumer
protection statutes, express warranty statures, implied warranty
statutes, negligent misrepresentation common laws and unjust
enrichment common laws.  The demands of the plaintiffs are
unclear, however, they said they would not buy the graphics
cards if they knew HDCP was not supported, according to Xbit
Laboratories.


BAWAG PSK: Refco Unit's Brokerage Client Files Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of Refco Inc.'s biggest creditors, Global Management
Worldwide Ltd., filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
against Austrian bank Bawag PSK Group, according to Dow Jones.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, asks that
Global Management be made lead plaintiff representing "a class
of brokerage customers" of Refco's unregulated offshore unit,
Refco Capital Markets Ltd.  Allegations in the suit are similar
to those of Refco's shareholders and unsecured creditors
committee, the report said.

Refco is accused of using fraudulent transactions to hide
hundreds of millions in bad debt.

The suit is "Global Management Worldwide Limited v. Bawag P.S.K.
et al. (1:06-cv-03347-UA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Joshua J. Angel of Angel & Frankel, P.C., 460 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022-1906, Phone: (212) 752-8000;

     (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 371-6600, Fax: (212) 751-2540, E-mail:
         ipress@kmslaw.com;

     (3) Richard L. Stone of Kirby, McInerney & Squire, L.L.P.,
         830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, U.S., Phone: 212-
         371-6600; and

     (4) Mark A. Strauss of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 317-2300, Fax: 212-751-2540, E-mail:
         mstrauss@kmslaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed Over New Discount Prescription Drug Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
A San Diego woman is one of three plaintiffs in a class action
filed in a federal court in California alleging that Medicare
improperly enrolled millions of low-income and disabled people
into prescription drug plans, Union-Tribune reports.

The federal government's new discount prescription drug program
for seniors requires that qualified persons wanting to join the
plan enroll in the program known as Part D.  Convinced by
surveys that seniors enrolled in the plan are pleased with the
program, federal health care officials are working to sign 42.5
million people who are eligible.  In relation, about 6 million
elderly low-income and disabled Americans who received drug
coverage through Medicaid or Medi-Cal in California were
automatically switched to a Medicare drug plan Jan. 1.

The change, however, resulted to some enrollees qualifying as
"dual eligibles," under both Medicaid and Medicare benefits.
These seniors are asked for $1 to $5 co-payments each time they
refill a prescription under their new Medicare drug plans.  In
the case of Bobbie Beer, the San Diego woman who filed a suit
seeking class action, her expenses of between $1 and $3 under a
low-income subsidy turned into an at least $35 co-payment
charge.

Deadline to enroll in the plan without penalty of premium
increases is May 15.  The next application deadline is Nov. 15.
Anyone who signs up by that date will already face a 1% increase
in premiums for each month of the delay or 6% in total.  The
penalty lasts a lifetime.  Feedbacks about the new program among
seniors are varied, according to the report.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Provincial Gov't. Named in Suit Over Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of shareholders in the beleaguered Crocus Investment
Fund added the province of Manitoba in Canada as defendant in a
$150 million class action against the Company, the CBC News
reports.  The province has less than three weeks to file its
statement of defense.

The suit alleges, among others, that the province "did not
properly enforce the Crocus Act," and that provincial officials
"deliberately ignored multiple warning signs regarding the
management of the Crocus Fund."  Crocus Investment stopped
trading in December 2004 amid allegations of over-inflated share
value.

Bernie Bellan, a spokesman for a group of Crocus investors, said
the inclusion of the province in the lawsuit is the final piece
of the puzzle.

Shareholders in the fund initially filed a $200 million lawsuit
against the fund itself, the Manitoba Securities Commission and
17 individuals, including former senior officers of the fund and
former members of Crocus's board of directors.  The claims have
not been proven in a court of law.

Representing the investors are David Klein (lead lawyer) of
David Klein, Klein Lyons, Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1, Phone: (604) 874-7171; Jay Prober; and
Norman Boudreau.


DAISY MANUFACTURING: Recalls Slingshots After Eye Injury Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy Manufacturing Company, of Rogers, Arkansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling
about 104,500 'The Natural' Slingshot.

The Company said if the slingshot band slips out of its frame
during use, the ball at the end of the tubing can strike the
user, resulting in serious facial injuries.

Daisy has received at least three reports of injuries: a 12-
year-old boy who was blinded in one eye; a 16-year-old boy who
has decreased vision; and an 11-year old boy who has three
broken teeth.

The two metal frame slingshots being recalled are the Daisy
Models ERG-100 and ERG-300, marketed under the name "The
Natural."  The model number is written on the packaging.  These
slingshots have an offset fork design, a sling made of bright
green tubing with a black leather ammunition pouch and small
balls inside the tubing where it connects to the frame.  Both
models have black plastic handles.  The smaller ERG-100 model
has the words "Powerline Daisy Mfg. Rogers, AR" on the handle
while the same words are found on the adjustable wrist brace of
the larger ERG-300 model.

This voluntary recall does not apply to Daisy's Powerline
Slingshots models F16, B52 and P51, which have yellow tubing.

The slingshots were manufactured in Taiwan and sold in discount
department and sporting goods stores nationwide from June 2004
through March 2006.  The ERG-100 model sold for about $9, while
the ERG-300 model sold for about $17.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the slingshots
and contact Daisy for free pickup.  A replacement with a
comparable slingshot model or a full refund will be given.

Picture of the recalled slingshots:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06153a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06153b.jpg

For more information, contact Daisy Manufacturing Company at
(800) 713-2479 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit Daisy's Web site at http://www.daisy.com


DELL FINANCIAL: Client Files Racial Discrimination Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Miami resident is the plaintiff in a class action against Dell
Financial Services alleging violations of Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, according to LegitReviews.

According to the complaint, Juan C. Arteaga applied for credit
to buy a computer.  He wire-transferred to Dell Financial
$4,063.54 in down payment for the item via a Bank of America
account.  His credit application was confirmed on Feb. 10, 2005.
But the day after, he reportedly received notice that his
application was being denied because Dell's verification
department "seems to think" that Mr. Arteaga can't speak
English.  He was allegedly refused because "a non-English
speaker can't personally guarantee an account for fear they may
not understand the terms and conditions of the lease."

The complaint claims Dell's refusal to provide him credit
because of his accent and ethnic background is a clear and
direct violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  It was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Case no. 06-21123).

Thomas K. Equels, managing shareholder of the Holtzman Equels --
http://www.heqlaw.com-- and attorney Benjamin R. Alvarez filed
the suit on behalf of Mr. Arteaga.


EBAY INC: Calif. Court OKs Allocation Plan for PayPal Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved the plan of allocation for the portion of the
settlement in a class action against eBay Inc.'s PayPal, Inc.
business, which remains undistributed.

In February 2002, PayPal was sued in California state court (No.
CV-805433) in a purported class action alleging that its
limiting access to customer accounts and failure to promptly
restore access to legitimate accounts violates California state
consumer protection laws and is an unfair business practice and
a breach of PayPal's User Agreement.

This action was re-filed with a different named plaintiff in
June 2002 (No. CV-808441), and a similar action was also filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in June 2002 (No. C-02-2777).

In March 2002, PayPal was sued in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (No. C-02-1227) in a
purported class action alleging that its limiting access to
customer accounts and failure to promptly restore access to
legitimate accounts violates federal and state consumer
protection and unfair business practice laws.

The two federal court actions were consolidated into a single
case, and the state court action was stayed pending developments
in the federal case.

In June 2004, the parties announced that they reached a proposed
settlement.  The settlement received approval from the federal
court on November 2, 2004, and the state court action was
dismissed with prejudice in March 2005.

In the settlement, PayPal does not acknowledge that any of the
allegations in the case are true.  Under the terms of the
settlement, certain PayPal account holders are eligible to
receive payment from a settlement fund of $9.25 million, less
administrative costs and the amount awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel by the court.

That sum is being distributed to class members who have
submitted timely claims in accordance with the settlement's plan
of allocation.  The plan of allocation for the portion of the
settlement fund that remains undistributed was approved by the
District Court in March 2006.  Substantially all of the cost
associated with the settlement was recognized in 2003.

The suit is "In Re Paypal Litigation, Case No. 5:02-cv-01227-
JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge
Patricia V. Trumbull.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patricia I. Avery, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax: 212-486-
         2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com;

     (2) A.J. De Bartolomeo, Eric H. Gibbs, Daniel C. Girard,
         Rosemary M. Rivas, Ann Saponara of Girard Gibbs & De
         Bartolomeo, 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San
         Francisco, CA 4108, Phone: 415-981-4800, Fax: 415 981-
         4846, E-mail: ajd@girardgibbs.com,
         girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com, rmr@girardgibbs.com; and

     (3) James A.N. Smith, The Davis Law Firm, 625 Market St
         12FL, San Francisco, Ca 94105-3314, Phone: (415)-278-
         1400, E-mail: jsmith@sfdavislaw.com.

Representing the Company are David J. Brown, Mikayla Shawn
Connell, David S. Harris, Stephanie Jane Johnson, Molly Moriarty
Lane, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, One Market, Spear Street
Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-442-1222, Fax: 415-
442-1010, E-mail: djbrown@morganlewis.com,
msconnell@morganlewis.com, dsharris@morganlewis.com,
sjjohnson@morganlewis.com and mlane@morganlewis.com.

For more details, visit:
http://www.settlement4onlinepayments.com/.


EBAY INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Billing Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action against
eBay Inc., alleging that the Company engaged in improper billing
practices as the result of problems with the rollout of a new
billing software system in the second and third quarters of
2004.

The suit was filed by two eBay users filed on July 2004 in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
(No. 104CV022708).  It sought damages and injunctive relief.

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

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

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

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

In April 2006, the court approved a settlement agreement entered
into by the parties.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and release eBay from
all claims, and eBay agreed to make a $250,000 payment primarily
directed to charity.  The estimated settlement was accrued in
the Company's consolidated income statement for the three months
ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Cerreta v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. 1-04-CV-022708,"
filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California.
Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey L. Fazio of Fazio &
Micheletti, LLP, 1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 350, San
Mateo, CA 94403, Phone: 925-469-2424, Fax: 925-369-0344, E-mail:
jlf@fazmiclaw.com.

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


EBAY INC: Reaches Settlement for Consumer Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action against eBay Inc.,
PayPal, Inc. and an eBay seller, which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The suit
alleges that certain disclosures regarding PayPal's Buyer
Protection Policy, users' charge back rights, and the effects of
users' choice of funding mechanism are deceptive and/or
misleading.

In March 2005, eBay, PayPal, and an eBay seller were sued in
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings (No.
6125/05) in a purported class action.  The complaint alleged
misrepresentation on the part of eBay and PayPal, breach of
contract and deceptive trade practices by PayPal, and that
PayPal and eBay have jointly violated the civil RICO statute (18
U.S.C. Section 1961(4)).

In April 2005, eBay and PayPal removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court
(No. 05-CV-01720) repeating the allegations of the initial
complaint but dropping the civil RICO allegations.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and
punitive damages.

Following several mediation sessions, the parties reached a
tentative settlement in December 2005 and executed a Memorandum
of Understanding in March 2006.

The parties are engaged in the process of finalizing the
settlement documentation.  The court must approve the terms of
the settlement in order for it to become final.  The estimated
settlement was accrued in the Company's consolidated income
statement for the year ended December 31, 2005.

The suit is "Steele, et al. v. Paypal, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01720-ILG-VVP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge I. Leo Glasser.
Representing the plaintiffs is Marina Trubitsky, Marina
Trubitsky & Associates, PLLC, 11 Broadway, Ste. 861, New York,
NY 10004, Phone: 212-732-7707, E-mail: dtcassociates@yahoo.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Benjamin Chapman, Angela Dunning, Laura C. Pierri, Lori
         R.E. Ploeger and Michael G. Rhodes of Cooley Godward
         LLP, 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Phone:
         858-550-6000; and

     (2) Amy W. Schulman of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S.
         LLP, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020-
         1104, Phone: (212) 835-6108, Fax: 212-835-6001, E-mail:
         amy.schulman@piperrudnick.com.


EBAY INC: Reaches Settlement for "Shill Bidding" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action against eBay Inc. in
a purported class action in California state court alleging that
certain bidding features of the Company's site constitute "shill
bidding" for the purpose of artificially inflating bids placed
by buyers on the site.

The suit was filed on February 2005 in Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara (No. 105CV035930).

The complaint alleges violations of California's Auction Act,
California's Consumer Remedies Act, and unfair competition.  It
seeks injunctive relief, damages, and a constructive trust.

In April 2005, the Company filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss
the complaint, and a hearing on the demurrer was held in
February 2006.

In March 2006, the parties reached tentative agreement on the
terms of a settlement.  The court must approve the terms of the
settlement in order for it to become final.  The estimated
settlement was accrued in the Company's consolidated income
statement for the year ended December 31, 2005.


EEL RIVER: Reaches Settlement with Workers in Ownership Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action filed against Rio
Dell, California-based Eel River Sawmill by workers demanding
their ownership right in the Company, The Times-Standard
reports.  The terms of the deal, however, are being kept
confidential until the agreement is brought for approval before
retired Trinity County Judge John Letton in June.

The suit was filed in 2002 by sawmill workers Clifford Crowl and
Thomas Swain, who alleged the Company's deceased founder
deceived them when he promised the workers -- who participated
in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan -- majority ownership before
he died in 1999.   But the mills were sold to a group of
investors in 2002.  Eel River Forest Products is now defunct
after federal timber sales were nearly eliminated in the 1990s.

Although, the stock is now essentially worthless, plaintiffs
want damages based on the value of the stock before the alleged
wrongdoing.  The suit named as defendants Company President
Dennis Scott and the McLean Foundation, which were set up by
founder Mel McLean.

Claims of breach of contract, breach of promise and professional
negligence have been tossed out in the case.  According to the
report, lawyers for the Company had asked Judge Letton to cut
out the class action element of the suit, and in a separate
motion, to dismiss the entire suit (Class Action Reporter, March
31, 2006).  They argue that the federal government regulates
Employee Stock Ownership Plans, giving the federal court
jurisdiction.

The suit was originally filed by Eureka attorney William
Bertain.  Plaintiff's lawyer is San Francisco firm Cotchett,
Pitre, Simon and McCarthy (http://www.cpsmlaw.com/). Eel River
Sawmill's lawyer is Patrick W. Emery of Abbey, Weitzenberg,
Warren & Emery, 100 Stony Point Road, Suite 200, P.O. Box 1566
Santa Rosa, California 95402-1566 (Sonoma Co.), Phone: 707-542-
5050; Fax: 707-542-2589.


ENRON CORP: ERISA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed partial settlement in
the matter: "In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No.
H-01-3913."

The settlement affects these classes:

      -- Northern Trust Class:  All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Enron Corp.
         Savings Plan (401K), and/or the Enron Corp. Employee
         Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and any and all
         predecessors and successors to such plans (the Plans)
         during the period January 1, 1995 through December 2,
         2001.

      -- Administrative Committee Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans during the
         period January 1, 1995 through June 7, 2002.

      -- Enron Corp. Class: All persons who were participants or
         beneficiaries in the Plans or the Enron Corp. Cash
         Balance Plan during the period January 21, 1998 through
         December 2, 2001.

      -- Arthur Andersen Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans or the Enron
         Corp. Cash Balance Plan during the period January 1,
         1995 through December 20, 2005.

      -- Arthur Andersen Worldwide Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans, the Enron
         Corp. Cash Balance Plan, and such Plans themselves, and
         all recipients of any "phantom stock" that employees of
         Enron received as compensation during the period
         January 1, 1995 through December 20, 2005.

The proposed partial settlement will provide $37.5 million (plus
interest, less attorneys' fees and costs) to pay claims to all
persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the Plans
during the period from January 1, 1995 through December 2, 2001
(Class Period).  The partial settlement resolves claims against
The Northern Trust Company (Northern Trust), which allegedly
breached its fiduciary duties by violating the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The court will hold the fairness hearing on July 24, 2006, at
1:30 p.m., at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX.

Any objections to the settlement must be submitted by June 29,
2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Lynn Lincoln Sarko and Britt L. Tinglum of Keller
         Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
         Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 206-224-7552 and 206-
         224-7572, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com and
         btinglum@kellerrohrback.com, Web site:
         http://www.kellerrohrback.com;

     (2) Steve W. Berman and Clyde A. Platt of Hagens Berman
         Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
         Seattle, Washington 98101, (King Co.), Phone: 206-623-
         7292, (206) 268-9324 and (206) 268-9320, Fax: 206-623-
         0594, Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com;and

     (3) In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Independent
         Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91116, Seattle, WA
         98111-9216, Phone: 1-866-560-4043, Web sites:
         http://www.enronerisa.comand
         http://www.erisafraud.com.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Pending in Del. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County has yet to rule on the securities class action
filed against one of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s
subsidiaries, Seragen, Inc.

The suit, "Sergio M. Oliver, et al. v. Boston University, et
al., C.A. No. 16570NC," also names as defendants Boston
University and others, including Seragen, its subsidiary Seragen
Technology, Inc. and former officers and directors of Seragen.

The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Company aided and
abetted purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the Seragen
related defendants in connection with the acquisition of Seragen
by the Company and made certain misrepresentations in related
proxy materials and seeks compensatory and punitive damages of
an unspecified amount.

On July 25, 2000, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss.  Seragen, the Company, Seragen
Technology, Inc. and the Company's acquisition subsidiary,
Knight Acquisition Corporation, were dismissed from the action.

Claims of breach of fiduciary duty remain against the remaining
defendants, including the former officers and directors of
Seragen.  The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification took place on February 26, 2001.  The court
certified a class consisting of shareholders as of the date of
the acquisition and on the date of an earlier business unit sale
by Seragen.

On January 20, 2005, the Delaware Chancery Court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its
entirety.  Trial was scheduled for February 7, 2005.

Prior to trial, several of the Seragen director-defendants
reached a settlement with the plaintiffs.  The trial in this
action then went forward as to the remaining defendants and
concluded on February 18, 2005.  The timing of a decision by the
Court and the outcome are unknown.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: No Trial Date Yet for Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to set a trial date for the consolidated securities
class action against Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Beginning in August 2004, several purported stockholder class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers.

The actions were brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during several time periods, the longest
of which runs from July 28, 2003 through August 2, 2004.

The complaints generally allege that the Company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission by
making false and misleading statements, or concealing
information about the Company's business, forecasts and
financial performance, in particular statements and information
related to drug development issues and AVINZA inventory levels.

These lawsuits have been consolidated and lead plaintiffs
appointed.  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
March 2005.

On September 27, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, with leave for plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint alleging again claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act against the Company, David Robinson,
and Paul Maier.

The amended complaint asserts an expanded Class Period of March
19, 2001 through May 20, 2005 and includes allegations arising
from the Company's announcement on May 20, 2005 that it would
restate certain financial results.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint in January 2006.  No trial date has been set.

The suit is "In re Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1620," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Dana
M. Sabraw with referral to Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk B. Hulett of Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, 550 West
         C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         338-1133, Fax: (619) 338-1139;

     (2) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087, (Delaware
         Co.), Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, Web site:
         http://www.sbclasslaw.com;and

     (3) Ramzi Abadou of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         California 92101-4297, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-
         1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site:
         http://www.lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is William F. Sullivan of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 3579 Valley Centre Drive, San
Diego, California 92130, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 858-720-2525
and (858) 720-2500, Fax: 858-847-3525.


LOEWEN GROUP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 29
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing for proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re Loewen Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 98-CV-6740."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired The Loewen Group, Inc.,
publicly-traded common stock, preferred stock, call options, or
Monthly Insured Preferred Securities on the open market from
March 5, 1997 through January 14, 1999, inclusive, and were
injured thereby you could receive a payment from a class action
settlement.

The settlement resolves class action litigation over whether
Loewen Group and certain of its former officers and directors
intentionally or recklessly misled investors about Loewen
Group's financial status.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing at 10:00 a.m., on June
29, 2006, at the U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claims is on October 24,
2006.  Any objections to the settlement must be filed by June 8,
2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sherrie R. Savett of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215)
         875-3000;

     (2) Chet B. Waldman of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600;

     (3) Karin E. Fisch of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 889-3700; and

     (4) In re Loewen Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
         Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, L.L.P., P.O. Box 710,
         Philadelphia, PA 19105-0710, Phone:  1-800-768-8450,
         Fax: 1-215-665-0613, Web site:
         http://hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/loe/.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Mass. Court Dismisses FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts granted
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported
class action against it, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).  The matter is now moving forward as an
arbitration proceeding.

In May 2005, a former employee of the Boston, Massachusetts
Morton's steakhouse filed a nationwide class action complaint in
federal court in the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts, alleging that the sharing of tips with other
restaurant employees violates FLSA.

The plaintiffs have not stated the estimated amount of damages
they seek and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to state the estimated damages sought by the
plaintiffs.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint and compel
arbitration.  While the motion was pending, the plaintiff filed
a nationwide collective action demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association.  The demand for arbitration
alleges the same facts as the lawsuit filed in federal court.

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted and the matter is
moving forward as an arbitration proceeding.   On January 13,
2006, a second claimant, a former employee of the Portland and
Phoenix restaurants was added.  There are currently two named
claimants.

The suit is "Johnson v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:05-cv-11058-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf with referral
to Judge Marianne B. Bowler.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Shannon E. Liss-Riordan of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA
02109, Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax: 617-367-4820, E-mail:
sliss@prle.com.

Representing the defendants are, David J. Kerman and Heather L.
Stepler of Jackson Lewis, LLP, 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor, Boston,
MA 02327, Phone: 617-367-0025, Fax: 617-367-2155, E-mail:
kermand@jacksonlewis.com and steplerh@jacksonlewis.com.


NORBOURG GROUP: Court Drops Plaintiff Lawyer in Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Superior Court in Canada has disqualified Montreal lawyer Yves
Lauzon and his law firm in a class action on behalf of investors
against Norbourg group of companies and its founder Vincent
Lacroix, according to Montreal Gazette.

Previously, Jean St-Gelais, president of securities regulator
Autorite des marches financiers du Quebec, said Mr. Lauzon may
be in conflict of interest because he's trying to recoup $1.8
million he personally invested in the Company while heading a
class action against the investment firm on behalf of other
investors (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2006).  Mr. St-
Gelais added that Mr. Lauzon was also representing Eric Asselin,
the Company's former vice-president in charge of finances.

Mr. Lauzon is attempting through a Quebec Superior Court
judgment to have the AMF refund the $1.8 million check he wrote
the Company three days before it shut down.  He claims the AMF
didn't do enough to protect investors.


PEPSICO INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Benzene-Content of Twist Drink
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Howard Hewell and Howard Rubinstein filed a class action
in California against PepsiCo Inc. alleging its Pepsi Twist
Drink contain cancer-causing chemical benzene above America's
legal limit for drinking water, the Food Consumer reports.

It is understood that third party testing for benzene in Pepsi
Twist, which included exposing the drink to heat and light, took
place in recent weeks.

The action means benzene lawsuits have now been filed against
soft drinks firms in five different U.S. states. PepsiCo and
other soft drinks firms just recently agreed to pull more high-
calorie beverages out of U.S. schools.

Similar lawsuits were also filed in Boston, Florida and
Washington, D.C.  The lawsuits were filed against Talking Rain
Beverage, of Washington; Zone Beverages, of Georgia; and Polar
Beverages, of Massachusetts.  They were lodged in U.S. District
Court in Kansas City, Kansas (Class Action Reporter, May 3,
2006).


PHILIP MORRIS: Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider $10B Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court said it will not rehear a case that
threw out a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA in
December, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

In December, the court ruled 4-2 that the verdict handed down by
a Madison County court was invalid and ordered the lower court
to dismiss the case.  The court said Philip Morris did not
improperly mislead customers about the health effects of its
cigarettes.

In the December ruling, the court found that the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) allowed companies to characterize their
cigarettes as light and low tar.  As a result, Philip Morris
could not be held liable under state law even if the terms they
used could be found false or misleading, Justice Rita Garman
wrote.

But plaintiffs argued that the FTC had rescinded the order
allowing that type of advertising.  They urged the court to ask
the FTC for more guidance.

The State Supreme Court did not comment on why it refused to
reconsider the case, but Justices Charles Freeman and Thomas
Kilbride disagreed on the decision.  They said the rest of the
Court overlooked or misunderstood significant questions raised
by the plaintiffs in the class action involving 1.1 million
people who had bought light cigarettes in Illinois.  As with the
plaintiffs, they think the court should have asked the FTC for
more guidance.

Lawyers for smokers who filed the lawsuit requested a rehearing
after the court reversed the verdict against the unit of Altria
Group Inc. The $10.1 billion judgment was rendered by a trial
court judge in March 2003 (Class Action Reporter, April 3,
2006).

The suit was styled "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112," filed under Judge
Nicholas Byron.  Class counsel is Stephen Tillery of Korein
Tillery, Mail: 10 Executive Woods Court, Belleville, IL 62226,
Phone: (618) 277-1180, Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail:
contact@koreintillery.com.

Lawyers for the Company are:

     (1) James R. Thompson, George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M.
         Wagner, Julie A. Bauer and Stuart Altschuler of Winston
         & Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60601-
         9703, Phone: 312-558-5600

     (2) Michele Odorizzi, Joel D. Bertocchi, Michael K. Forde
         of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 190 South LaSalle
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603-3441, Phone: 312-782-0600

     (3) Larry Hepler, Beth A. Bauer of Burroughs, Hepler,
         Broom, Macdonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, 103 West
         Vandalia Street, Suite 300, Post Office Box 510,
         Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: 618-656-0184

     (4) Kevin M. Forde, Kevin M. Forde, Ltd., 111 West
         Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone:
         312-641-1441


PHILIPPINES: Appealing Award to Human Rights Violations Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
will appeal the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit to use the money illegally acquired by
deposed President Ferdinand Marcos to pay human-rights abuse
victims, the Manila Times reports.

The Appeals Court recently ruled that 9,500 Filipinos, most of
them living in the Philippines, can share among themselves $35
million in a New York brokerage account that Pres. Marcos opened
in 1972 with a $2 million deposit.  The PCGG has yet to receive
a copy of the ruling, but its U.S. lawyers had informed the
agency that it could still file an appeal with a strong chance
of winning because of technicalities that make the ruling
problematic.

The plaintiffs filed a class action against the Marcos estate in
1986, the year he was thrown out as president after ruling for
20 years.  Pres. Marcos and his family fled to Hawaii, where he
died in exile in 1989.

In 1995, using a two-century-old U.S. law, a Honolulu jury
awarded the group $2 billion after finding Pres. Marcos
responsible for summary executions, disappearances and torture.

So far, none of the award has been distributed, as foreign banks
and the Philippine government are claiming ownership, thus tying
it up.  The original award is nearing $4 billion with interest.
The Philippine government claimed the money belonged to its
treasury, but the appeals court said it had no legal right to
that deposit.


REFCO INC: N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Now Includes Austrian Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended suit filed in federal court on May 5 included
Austria's fourth-largest bank as defendant in a class action
related to the collapse of financial services firm Refco Inc.,
Dow Jones reports.

The lawsuit by Refco shareholders now includes Bawag PSK Group,
which they said effectively "controlled" former Refco chief
executive officer, Phillip Bennett.  Mr. Bennett is accused of
engaging in fraudulent transactions to hide hundreds of millions
in bad debt.

The shareholders, led by RH Capital Associates and Pacific
Investment Management Co., said in the amended suit the
"control" Bawag exercises over the former CEO is evident in the
fact that the bank in 2004 was able to persuade a "Bennett-
controlled Refco affiliate" to pay Bawag about $1.4 billion in
return for giving up the bank's ownership stake in that
affiliate.

Bawag has denied wrongdoing.  The Austrian government is behind
it, planning to provide some EUR900 million to finance a
settlement the bank has offered.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, was consolidated in April (Class Action
Reporter, April 7, 2006).  It claimed the collapsed commodity
brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far more than
previously thought.  It also accuses Company executives, Company
auditors, and investment bankers of negligence.

This discovery of the bad debgs caused the stunning collapse of
the Company a mere two months after its August 10, 2005 initial
public offering of common stock, and only fourteen months after
its issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  The
Company filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a
result.

In February 2006, U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch appointed New
York law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and
Wilmington, Delaware-based Grant & Eisenhofer as counsel to the
lead plaintiffs.  RH Capital Associates LLC and Pimco were lead
plaintiffs in the class action.

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard
E. Lynch.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Max W. Berger (MB-5010), John P. Coffey  (JC-3832),
         John C. Browne (JB-0391) and Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203)
         of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP, 1285
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
         (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and

     (2) Stuart M. Grant (SG-8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454),
         Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, Christine M.
         Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,
         Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax: (646)
         722-8501 and (302) 622-7100.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78e
(New Refco Complaint).


ROMERO HARVESTING: Migrant Workers Sue Over Alleged Mistreatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Romero Harvesting is facing a class action filed in federal
court over allegations it mistreated "guest workers" employed on
its orange farm, the USA Today reports.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Francisco Fernandez Sanchez
from Zacattecas, Mexico who was promised work as an orange
picker in the U.S. for $11.05 an hour.  He left his town about a
year ago for Okeechobee, Florida.  But once there he was
reportedly faced with a flurry of unexpected costs.  His first
paycheck, after three weeks of 10-hour workdays, came to only
$120, a fraction of what he was promised and far below the $5.15
hourly minimum wage, according to the report.  He also alleged
his guest-worker visa and his passport were confiscated and held
by the Company.

The U.S. Labor Department says it is looking into complaints
against Romero while Congress deliberates on changes to U.S.
immigration policies.

Mr. Fernandez and 15 other guest workers employed by Romero are
represented by Greg Schell, a lawyer at the Migrant Farmworker
Justice Project, a legal advocacy group based in Florida (P.O.
Box 2110 Belle Glade, Florida).  Israel Perez, Jr. (P.O. Box
832482 Miami, Florida, Miami-Dade Co.) is representing the
Company.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Reaches Settlement for Stock Suits in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., Warren V. "Pete" Musser and 12
individuals who sued the Company and Mr. Musser or sought to
intervene in the actions described below reached a final
settlement of all claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, by:

      -- the named plaintiffs in "In re Safeguard Scientifics
         Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-3208
         (E.D.Pa.);"

      -- the named plaintiffs in "Mandell et al. v. Safeguard
         Scientifics, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-3286
         (E.D. Pa.);" and

      -- the individuals who unsuccessfully moved to intervene
         in the "In re Safeguard Scientifics Securities
         Litigation" case (collectively, the Plaintiffs).

Among other things, the Plaintiffs had alleged that, during the
period of December 1, 1999 through December 5, 2000, Safeguard
failed to timely disclose certain information regarding
allegedly manipulative margin trading by Safeguard's former
chief executive officer, Mr. Musser, and a loan and guarantee
extended by the Company to Mr. Musser.

On August 23, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the "In re Safeguard Scientifics Securities
Litigation" case.

On November 23, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the Company and Mr. Musser with respect to all claims
asserted in that case and dismissed that action in its entirety.

An appeal from the Court's rulings in that action has been
stayed pending the completion of mediation proceedings under the
auspices of the Mediation Program of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, which led to the settlement.

As a result of the settlement, plaintiffs, on their own personal
behalf, will release and dismiss with prejudice claims and
actions they may have against the Company and Mr. Musser,
including the appeal.

This is not a class action settlement.  Therefore, the only
Safeguard stock purchasers who are bound by it and will
participate in the Settlement are the plaintiffs.

No other Safeguard stock purchaser will receive any payment as
part of the Settlement.  The Settlement does not bar any claim
by any other shareholder.  The Court has approved the terms of
the settlement.

Once the "In re Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation" and
Mandell cases are dismissed pursuant to the settlement, there
will be no case pending to prevent the running and expiration of
the statute of limitations with respect to the claims in the
actions being dismissed in the settlement.  These actions will
be dismissed as of June 27, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:01-cv-03208-JCJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge J. Curtis Joyner.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Todd S. Collins of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust
         St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, Phone: 215-875-3000,
         Fax: 215-875-5715, E-mail: tcollins@bm.net; and

     (2) Allan H. Gordon of Kolsby Gordon Robin Shore & Bezar,
         One Liberty Place, 22nd Floor, 1650 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-851-9700, Fax: 215-
         851-9701, E-mail: ahg@kgrs.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael S. Doluisio of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 1717
         Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, Philadelphia, PA
         19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-2749, Fax: 215-994-2222, E-
         mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com; and

    (ii) H. Robert Fiebach of Cozen O'Connor, 1900 Market St.,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-4166, Fax: 215-
         665-2013.


THAXTON GROUP: August Trial Set for Stock Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina will
hold a fairness hearing on the proposed $9.350 million
settlement of The Thaxton Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Case No.: 8:04-2612-13).  The suit was filed on behalf of
persons and entities, which held a Thaxton subordinated note as
of October 17, 2003 or have been assigned any rights or related
claims.

The hearing will be on August 24, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the G.
Ross Anderson, Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 315
South McDuffie Street, 2nd Floor, Anderson, SC 29624.  Deadline
for filing request for exclusion is June 30, 2006.

Defendants in the case are Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.
(CBH), the accounting firm that offered advice to Thaxton's
management; and Moore & Van Allen, PLLC (MVA), the law firm that
represented Thaxton.

Headquartered in Lancaster, South Carolina, The Thaxton Group,
Inc., is a diversified consumer financial services Company.
The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on October 17, 2003
(Bankr. Del. Case No. 03-13183).

This proposed partial settlement will provide up to $9,350,000
in additional funds to Thaxton for the sole purpose of paying
claims of subordinated note holders or their assignees.  This is
a partial settlement that will resolve claims involving the two
settling defendants.  Litigation will continue as to the
remaining defendant, Finova Capital Corporation.

However, this remaining litigation against Finova is not being
pursued on a class-wide basis.  Only individuals expressly named
as plaintiffs in the litigation against Finova can recover any
benefits of the litigation.  The court has granted preliminary
approval of this settlement and the Settlement class but still
has to decide whether to grant final approval.

For more information, contact Thaxton Securities Litigation by
mail c/o Berdon Claims Administration, P.O. Box 8914, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 1-800-766-3330, 1-800-466-8660 (toll free)
Fax: 1-516-931-0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims,
http://www.ThaxtonClassAction.com


TRAVEL AGENCIES: Faces Federal Suit Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of San Antonio in Texas has filed a $10 million class
action against several online travel agencies for allegedly
underpaying hotel occupancy taxes, KSAT 12 reports.

The city is accusing Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Priceline.com,
Travelocity.com and others of not properly remitting tax charged
on retail room rates to the city.  San Antonio officials say the
lawsuit does not seek money from any local hotel, only the
online companies that book the rooms and collect the taxes.

The suit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, is the first to be filed in Texas.  Several
cities outside Texas have already filed similar suits.

The Dallas law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. --
http://www.baronandbudd.com-- has been hired to assist San
Antonio in the case.

Art Sackler, executive director of the Interactive Travel
Services Association -- http://www.interactivetravel.org--  
represents a number of the defendants.


TRIARC COS: Del. Court Awards Plaintiffs $75T in Fees, Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County entered an order awarding plaintiffs $75,000 in
fees and expenses for a consolidated class action against Triarc
Companies, Inc. and several other defendants.

In 1998, a number of class actions were filed on behalf of the
Company's stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.  Each of these actions
named as defendants: the Company, Messrs. Peltz and May and the
other then directors of the Company.

In 1999, certain plaintiffs in these actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company's
tender offer statement filed with the SEC in 1999, pursuant to
which the Company repurchased 3,805,015 shares of its Class A
Common Stock, failed to disclose material information.  The
amended complaint sought, among other relief, monetary damages
in an unspecified amount.

In 2000, the plaintiffs agreed to stay this action pending
determination of a related stockholder action that was
subsequently dismissed in October 2002 and is no longer being
appealed.

On October 24, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court
to dismiss the action as moot, but to retain jurisdiction for
the limited purpose of considering a subsequent application by
plaintiffs for legal fees and expenses.

On October 27, 2005, the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the
action as moot was granted.  On December 13, 2005, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking $250,000 in fees and $6,225 for
reimbursement of expenses.

On February 24, 2006, defendants filed papers in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion.  On March 29, 2006, the court entered an
order awarding plaintiffs $75,000 in fees and expenses.
Defendants have not decided whether to pursue an appeal from the
order.


TRIARC COS: Fla. Court Mulls Final Approval for ADA Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to give its final approval on a proposed settlement of a
class action against a subsidiary of Triarc Companies, Inc.  The
suit is "Access Now, Inc. and Christ Soter Tavantis, et al. v.
RTM Operating Company d/b/a Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case
No. 02-23374."

In November 2002, Access Now, Inc. and Edward Resnick, later
replaced by Christ Soter Tavantzis, on their own behalf and on
the behalf of all those similarly situated, brought an action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against RTM Operating Company (RTM), which became a subsidiary
of the Company following its acquisition of the RTM Restaurant
Group in July 2005.

The complaint alleges that the approximately 775 Arby's
restaurants owned by RTM and its affiliates failed to comply
with Title III alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).  It is requesting class certification
and injunctive relief requiring RTM and such affiliates to
comply with the ADA in all if its restaurants.  The complaint
does not seek monetary damages, but does seek attorneys' fees.

Without admitting liability, RTM entered into an agreement with
the plaintiffs on a class-wide basis, which is subject to court
approval.

The proposed agreement calls for the restaurants owned by RTM
and certain of its affiliates to be brought into ADA compliance
over an eight year period at a rate of approximately 100
restaurants per year.  It would also apply to restaurants
subsequently acquired by RTM and such affiliates.

Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG), a Company subsidiary,
estimates that it will spend approximately $1.0 million per year
of capital expenditures to bring the restaurants into compliance
under the proposed agreement and pay certain legal fees.

The proposed settlement was submitted to the court for approval
on August 13, 2004.  On April 7, 2005 the court held a fairness
hearing on the matter.

Prior to the fairness hearing, the parties jointly amended the
proposed settlement agreement to clarify certain provisions and
to add new provisions regarding policies, training programs and
invoicing requirements.

On January 30, 2006, the court granted in part the parties'
joint motion for leave to amend the proposed agreement, and
ordered the parties to provide notice to the plaintiff class
regarding the proposed amendments to the proposed agreement no
later than April 10, 2006.  The court has not yet ruled on the
proposed settlement.

For more details contact:

     (1) Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country Club Drive #1522,
         Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059, Fax 305-
         574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site:
         http://www.adaaccessnow.org;and

     (2) Rosen & Switkes, PL, Phone: 305-534-4757 and 954-653-
         0457, Fax: 305-538-5504 and 305-538-5504, E-mail:
         jentin@rosenandswitkes.com, Web site:
         http://www.rosenandswitkes.com/classactions/index.html.


TROPICAL SPORTSWEAR: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $8,000,000 settlement
in the matter: "Reina, et al., v. Tropical Sportswear
International Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:03-CV-1958-T-
23TGW."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stocks of Tropical
Sportswear International Corporation (TSI) common stock on the
open market between June 27, 2001 and January 14, 2004,
inclusive, including TSI common stock issued under or traceable
to the TSI prospectus dated May 23, 2002 filed in connection
with TSI's Secondary Public Offering, and were damaged thereby.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Thomas G. Wilson
in the Sam M. Gibbons, U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave.,
Tampa, Florida 33602, at 9:00 a.m., on July 10, 2006.

Deadline for submission of a proof of claim is on September 8,
2006.  Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement are
due on June 5, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Maya Saxena of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP,
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600, Roca
         Raton, Florida 33486, (Palm Beach Co.), Phone: 561-361-
         5000, Telecopier: 561-367-8400, E-mail:
         msaxena@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Jack Reise of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200,
         Boca Raton, Florida 33432, (Palm Beach Co.), Phone:
         561-750-3000 and 888-262-3131, Fax: 561-750-3364, E-
         mail: JReise@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.lerachlaw.com;and

     (3) Tropical Sportswear International Securities
         Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 1801, Faribault, MN 55021-1849,
         Phone: 1-800-549-1836, Web site:
         http://www.tropicalsportswearsettlement.com/.


T ROWE: Briefs Seventh Circuit on High Court's Ruling in "Dabit"
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. provided a briefing to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the effect of the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling in the Dabit case, which has issues
similar to that pending against the Company.

In September 2003, a purported class action (T.K. Parthasarathy,
et al., including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price International
Funds, Inc., et al.) was filed in the Circuit Court, Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, against T. Rowe
Price International and the T. Rowe Price International Funds
with respect to the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund.

The basic allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price
defendants did not make appropriate price adjustments to the
foreign securities owned by the T. Rowe Price International
Stock Fund prior to calculating the Fund's daily share prices,
thereby allegedly enabling market timing traders to trade the
Fund's shares in such a way as to disadvantage long-term
investors.  The plaintiffs sought monetary damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, which dismissed the case in May 2005.  The
Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which stayed the appeal pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's certiorari decision in a similar case (Kircher) from the
Seventh Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a significant and
favorable ruling in the appeal of an identical issue (Dabit)
from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 precludes
holders of securities from bringing covered securities fraud
class action claims under state law.

The Seventh Circuit asked for, and on April 4, 2006 the Company
provided, a briefing on the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling
in Dabit on the case against the T. Rowe Price defendants.


TWENTIETH CENTURY: Recalls Metal Charms on Toxic Lead Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, of Los Angeles,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection
Safety Commission is recalling about 730,000 metal charms
enclosed with certain DVDs.

The Company said the charms contain high levels of lead, which
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.  No injuries were reported involving the metal
charms.

The silver-colored metal charms were included as a free giveaway
in certain Shirley Temple movie DVDs in specially marked pink
boxes.  Some DVD boxes contain only charms.  Others contain
charm bracelets with charms.  The charms come in various shapes
including animals, hats, treble clefs, and lollipops.  The DVD
boxes are marked with "Bonus Charm Bracelet Inside," or "Bonus
Charm Inside."  Charms sold with these DVD titles are:

Curly Top
Heidi
Little Miss Broadway
Shirley Temple Collection Vol. 1 (with above three titles)
Baby Take a Bow
Bright Eyes
Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Shirley Temple Collection Vol. 2 (with above three titles)
Dimples
The Little Colonel
The Littlest Rebel
Shirley Temple Collection Vol. 3 (with above three titles)

The charms were manufactured in China and are sold in retail
stores that sell DVDs, by Web retailers, and direct mail from
August 2005 through April 2006 for about $15 for single DVDs and
about $30 for gift box collections of three DVDs.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the charms away from
children and contact the firm for information on how to return
the charms only, and to receive a free DVD.

Picture of recalled metal charms:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06156a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06156b.jpg

For more information, contact Fox Home Entertainment toll-free
at (877) 541-2229 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.dvdcharmrecall.com


WALGREENS CO: New Witness Delays Trial of Racial Bias Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet Berry of the Second Judicial District Court State of
Nevada Washoe County postponed a trial on allegations of racial
discrimination against drugstore chain Walgreen Co. in Reno
after a new witness surfaced, the Reno Gazette reports.

Lawyer Ian Silverberg, who represents the four men from Texas,
said they decided to postpone the trial so the defense could
look into the testimony of the new witness.

According to plaintiff lawyer Del Hardy, the lawsuit, which was
supposed to begin May 8, will most likely be continued until
September.

Bruce Johnson and three other African American men from Houston,
Texas ages 28 to 42, filed a lawsuit in June 2003 seeking $2.5
million each in damages from Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen
after they say they were discriminated against at a Walgreens
drugstore in downtown Reno where they stopped to develop film.

The men said in the lawsuit that after they complained about the
quality of a photograph processed at the store in February 2003,
the clerk shouted a racial slur, slammed a door and refused
service.

Michael Polzin, spokesman for the store, said the Company denies
the charges and is ready to go to trial.  The employee involved
in the lawsuit worked for the Reno Walgreens store from 2002
until March 2005. Mr. Polzin said he could not comment on
whether the employee faced any disciplinary action.

For more details, contact Reno Ian Silverberg of Hardy Law
Group, Phone: 775-322-7422.


WARNER MUSIC: Named in 14 Music Download Price-Fixing Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Warner Music Group Corp. is named in 14 class actions
brought by consumers alleging a "conspiracy among record
companies to fix prices for downloads, the ZDNet News reports.

The accusations come three months after Elliott Spitzer, New
York's Attorney General, began investigating whether the music
Company agreed to fix download prices.

The Company is faced with a similar suit, filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, on December 29, 2005.
The action, Richard Feferman et al. v. Universal et.al. seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006)


WEST BEND: Fined on Late Reporting of Coffeemaker Carafes Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Bend Houswares LLC, of West Bend, Wisconsin will pay a
$100,000 civil penalty to settle allegations that the Company
failed to report a hazard with its 10-Cup Coffeemaker Carafes
and Replacement Carafes.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said West Bend
Housewares failed to report in a timely manner that the handles
on the reported carafes could break, presenting a burn hazard
from hot coffee or possible lacerations from broken glass.

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers must immediately report product
defects to the Commission.

In August 2005, West Bend Housewares LLC recalled about 14,000
of these carafes sold from July 2004 through July 2005 with 10-
cup Automatic Coffeemakers and as replacements for these
coffeemakers.

West Bend Housewares LLC received reports of 169 handles
breaking on these carafes between October 2004 and July 2005.
These incidents resulted in at least two reports of burn and cut
injuries as a result of handles breaking.

For more information, contact West Bend Housewares at (800) 874-
4084 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

May 18, 2006
MEALEY'S E-MAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 23-24, 2006
12TH ANNUAL D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Marriott East Side Hotel, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

June 5-6, 2006
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5-6, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6, 2006
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2006: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

June 8-9, 2006
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 8-9, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15-16, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago, Gleacher Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15-16, 2006
LITIGATING, SETTLING AND MANAGING ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino , Las Vegas, NV
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 20-21, 2006
12TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY
INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Union Square , San Francisco, CA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 20-22, 2006
PREVENTING, MANAGING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF OBSTETRIC
MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Park Hyatt, Philadelphia, PA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2006
5TH INTERNATIONAL GUIDE TO REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTIONS
American Conference Institute
Park Central, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 29 - 30, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Swiss”tel Chicago , Chicago, IL
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 13-14, 2006
INTERACTIVE MASTER CLASS ON TRIAL ADVOCACY FOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
The Westin New York at Times Square, New York, NY
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 19-20, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

July 27-28, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

May 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 16, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 18, 2006
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 23, 2006
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


May 24, 2006
REVISITING KATRINA AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ON THE EVE OF THE NEXT
HURRICANE SEASON
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

May 25, 2006
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 5, 2006
PREPARING FOR CATASTROPHES: LEGAL AND INSURANCE ISSUES TO
CONSIDER
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

June 6, 2006
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13, 2006
ETHICS IN CLASS ACTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased Putnam mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group (Parent Company is defendant
American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG), hereinafter AIG
or the Company) from June 30, 2000 through June 8, 2005,
inclusive.

During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

On June 8, 2005, the NASD announced that it had fined AIG in
connection with the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange
for preferential treatment for certain mutual fund companies and
certain mutual fund families (the "Shelf-Space Funds").

The Shelf-Space Funds included the following mutual fund
families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American
Funds, American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton,
Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM Funds
Distributor, Inc.

The Complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the
Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards
to AIG and its personnel based on sales.

Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to
investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined
recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited
number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap
millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds,
with which they had struck secret, highly-lucrative deals to
profit at shareholders' expense.

The defendants' sales practices created a material
insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and
their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to
sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants'
overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the
process.

While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the
defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives
for selling such funds.  The conflict of interest created by the
defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear
violation of federal securities laws.

Interested parties may, not later than June 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
American International Group, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased Columbia mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group between June 30, 2000 and June
8, 2005, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated
entities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients.

Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.  The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately
disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal
securities laws.

Interested parties may, no later than June 6, 2006, file a
motion with the Court requesting to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.

For more details, contact James Lahm, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.


ASTEA INT'L: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
initiated a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers
of Astea International Inc. (ATEA) between May 11, 2005, through
March 31, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Astea and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to
the complaint, the defendants materially overstated and
exaggerated Astea's financial health throughout the Class
Period.

Specifically, it alleges that the defendants failed to
accurately account for the Company's software development costs
in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As
a result, Astea overstated its earnings.

As alleged in the Complaint, on March 31, 2006, Astea announced
that it would have to restate its financial results for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005, as well as the two prior
quarters, in order to adjust for the improper accounting.

On news of the restatement, the price of the Company's stock
plummeted from $16.50 to $11.73 per share, a loss of nearly 30%
in a single day, on exceptionally high volume.  During the Class
Period, Astea stock had traded as high as $25.71 per share.

Interested parties may, no later than June 5, 2006, move the
court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

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


CHINA ENERGY: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities China Energy Savings Technology, Inc.
(CESV) between April 21, 2005 and February 15, 2006, inclusive.
The class action was filed in the U.S. 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 China Energy
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.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Roy Jacobs Plans Amendment to Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates will amend its class action against
Comverse Technology, Inc. (CMVT) to include:

     -- updated allegations, including that defendants are now
        facing a criminal investigation into the alleged
        wrongdoing by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that,

     -- in light of the expanding scandal, Defendant Kobi
        Alexander, who served as chairman and chief executive
        officer and defendant David Kreinberg who served as
        chief financial officer of the Company, have resigned.

The class action complaint was previously filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the Company from April 30,
2001 through April 16, 2006 against Comverse and certain of its
top officers and directors.

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

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

This manipulation of the grant dates permitted the individual
defendants to enrich themselves, while artificially inflating
net income, operating income and retained earnings.  Had the
timing not been manipulated, and properly accounted for, these
financial measures would have been materially lower.

As a result of the recent revelations of the fraud, Comverse
shares have dropped markedly in value and have not recovered.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by June 19, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-888-
884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Pa. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Discovery
Laboratories, Inc.

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 January 26, 2006 through April 25, 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.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Fairfax Financial
Holdings Limited (FFH) between March 24, 2004 and March 22,
2006, inclusive.

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

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

Fairfax engages in property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance, conducted on a direct basis principally in Canada,
the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Fairfax were materially false and
misleading because:

      -- Defendants had manipulated Fairfax's accounting for
         purchases and sales of certain "finite risk"
         reinsurance to and from the Company's captive
         subsidiaries, and/or allowed such manipulation to
         occur;

      -- Defendants allowed and/or authorized the Company to
         enter into bogus reinsurance contracts with Odyssey
         Reinsurance Holdings Ltd. (Odyssey Re) and Northbridge
         Financial Corp. (Northbridge);

      -- Defendants failed to maintain adequate operational or
         financial controls within Fairfax such that the
         officers and directors of the Company could assure that
         its reported financial statements were true, accurate
         or reliable;

      -- the Company's financial statements and reports were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and SEC rules; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
         reasonable basis to claim that Fairfax was operating
         according to guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by
         defendants, or that the Company could achieve such
         guidance.

At the end of the Class Period, investors finally learned that
the Company had engaged in inappropriate "finite risk" insurance
transactions with its captive subsidiaries, including Odyssey Re
and Northbridge.

Defendants then revealed that the Company's CEO and others
related to the Company had received subpoenas from U.S. market
regulators concerning Fairfax's finite risk insurance business.

These sudden and shocking disclosures had an immediate impact on
the price of the Company's stock, causing Fairfax shares to
decline almost 30% in the days following these belated
disclosures.

Interested parties may move the Court, not later than June 12,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of Newpark
Resources, Inc. (NR) from February 28, 2005 through April 16,
2006, inclusive.

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

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

      -- that defendants, among other things, had irregularly
         processed and paid invoices at the Company's
         subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
         in accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP).

On April 17, 2006, before the market opened, Newpark revealed
that, based on information that had come to its attention, the
Company's Audit Committee had commissioned an internal
investigation regarding "potential irregularities involving the
processing and payment of invoices" by Soloco Texas, LP, one of
the Company's smaller subsidiaries and "other possible
violations."

The Company also announced that defendant James D. Cole, recent
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, defendant Matthew W.
Hardey, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and an officer of
Soloco Texas, LP, had been placed on administrative leave.

Following this disclosure, shares of Newpark sank $1.28 per
share, or 17.25 percent, to close, on April 17, 2006, at $6.14
per share.

Interested parties may, not later than June 20, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


PXRE GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of PXRE Group
Ltd. (PXT) between July 28, 2005 and February 16, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are those who purchased in a secondary
offering on October 3, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the
following:

      -- that PXRE concealed from investors the full impact on
         its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
         (the 2005 Hurricanes);

      -- that, in fact, the Company's cost of the 2005
         Hurricanes had doubled to an estimated $758 million to
         $788 million;

      -- that the magnitude of the loss would cause PXRE to lose
         key financial-strength and credit ratings from A.M.
         Best;

      -- that PXRE 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 were lacking in reasonable basis.

On February 16, 2006, 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 to $311 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to the high end of
their prior announced estimates.  On this news, shares of PXRE
fell $7.85 to close at $4.05 per share.

Interested parties may, no later than July 3, 2006, request that
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Curtis V. Trinko Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, commenced a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities
of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (NasdaqNM: VTSS) between
October 23, 2003 to April 26, 2006 inclusive.

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

On April 17, 2006, Louis Tomasetta (Vitesse's CEO), Eugene
Hovanec (Vitesse's Executive VP) and Yatin Mody (Vitesse's CFO)
were placed on administrative leave while the Company
investigated the stock option transactions.

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

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations during the Class Period thereby artificially
inflating the price of Vitesse securities.

The Complaint alleges that Vitesse's October 23, 2003 press
release, its Form 10-Ks for its years ended September 30, 2003,
September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2005 and the Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2005 were all materially false
and misleading because the financial statements included in each
document did not fairly present the financial condition, results
or operations of Vitesse.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Vitesse securities during the
Class Period.

Interested parties may, no later than July 3, 2006 to request
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 16 West 46th St., 7th Floor
New York, New York 10036, Phone: (212) 490-9550, E-mail:
ctrinko@trinko.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Stull Stull Files Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS) between October 23,
2003 and April 26, 2006 inclusive.

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

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

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

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations during the Class Period thereby artificially
inflating the price of Vitesse securities.

The Complaint alleges that the Company's October 23, 2003 press
release, its Form 10-Ks for its years ended September 30, 2003,
September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2005 and the Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2005 were all materially false
and misleading because the financial statements included in each
document did not fairly present the financial condition of the
Company.

Defendants include Vitesse, Dr. Vincent Chan, Ph.D., James A.
Cole, Alex Daly, Moshe Gavrielov, John C. Lewis, Dr. Louis
Tomasetta, Ph.D., Yatin Mody, Eugene F. Hovanex and Edward
Rogas, Jr.

Interested parties may request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff by no later than July 3, 2006.

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