CAR_Public/060512.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 94

                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Facing Last "Provider" Litigation in Florida Court
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer", "You"
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ariz. Federal Court Stays "Haritos" Lawsuit
AMERICAN INNOVATIONS: Recalls Ladder with Loose Extension Unit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Labor Law Violations in Calif.

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Miscalculating Advisors' Fees
ANGLO PLATINUM: Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Mine Expansion in Zimbabwe
BISYS GROUP: N.Y. Court Partly Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
BOEING CO: Faces Bias Suit in Kans. Over Spirit Hiring Decisions
BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits

BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Lawsuit Seeking to Bar PLAVIX Settlement
BRISTOL-MYERS: Securities Lawsuit Over VANLEV Continues in N.J.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Over VANLEV
BRISTOL-MYERS: "Starkman" Suit Still Looking for Suitable Court
CENDANT CORP: ABI Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 24

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Uninsured Patients' Suits Continue in Illinois
DANA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed for Securities Suit in Ohio
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage, Hour Suits in Calif.
E.I. DUPONT: Suit Seeks Consolidation of Complaints Over Teflon
HOSHINO USA: Recalls Basses to Replace Battery Snap Connector

H&R BLOCK: Attorney General Amends $250M Retirement Plan Suit
KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11
MASTERFOODS USA: Fire Reports Prompt Recall of Candleholders
PTI SPORTS: Recalls Carriers for Potential Injury to Children
RAYTHEON CO: Mass. Court Mulls Securities Pact Allotment Order

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Sacking of Cabin Stewards "Tips" Suit Appealed
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Ensues in N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
SUREBEAM CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 17
UTAH STATE: Deaf Students Demand Better University Facilities
                         

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Resolves 100,026 Pneumo Abex Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Collects $22M Claim Reimbursements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Posts $469M Losses in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Books $1.5B Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Protecting CNA From New Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reopens Suit Against CNA Financial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Allots $4.28B Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Links Loss to Settlements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Faces Burns & Roe Ent. Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Units Face Suits in 4 States

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Units Sued in Texas Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. Va. Court Remands Suit Against CNA Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Faces Suit Filed by WR Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Dismisses Colony Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KeySpan Unit Works With EPA on Remediation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Face Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Suits by 22T Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Challenge Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Worker in Union Pacific Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TX Court Approves Condition in ASARCO Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Orders Retrial of Blandford Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Posts $98.6M Interest Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Reaches $4.9M in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Subsidiaries Have 119,400 Open Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Posts US$1.3B T&N Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T&N Ltd. Posts $620M Insurance Recoverable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul's Liabilities Reach $213.6M  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurance Claim Hits $160.3M
ASBESTOS ALERT: Diamond Offshore, Subsidiaries Named in 29 Suits

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ST JUDE: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Complaint in Minn.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Minn. Stock Suit
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Stock Suit

VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Paskowitz & Associates Files Calif. Suit
VITESSE LABORATORIES: Schatz Nobel Files Calif. Securities Suit
XM SATELLITE: Berman DeValerio Files D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
XM SATELLITE: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
XM SATELLITE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in D.C.


                            *********

AETNA INC: Facing Last "Provider" Litigation in Florida Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. settled litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida that was filed on behalf of all
health care providers, but continues to face another case
pending in the same court.

From 1999 through early 2003, the Company was involved in
purported class actions as part of a wave of similar actions
targeting the health care payor industry and, in particular, the
conduct of business by managed care companies.

These cases, brought on behalf of health care providers (the
Provider Cases), alleged generally that the Company and other
defendant managed care organizations engaged in coercive
behavior or a variety of improper business practices in dealing
with health care providers and conspired with one another
regarding this purported wrongful conduct.

Effective May 21, 2003, the Company and representatives of over
900,000 physicians, state and other medical societies entered
into an agreement (the Physician Settlement Agreement) settling
the lead physician Provider Case, which was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Company believes that the Physician Settlement Agreement,
which has received final court approval, resolved all then
pending Provider Cases filed on behalf of physicians that did
not opt out of the settlement.

During the second quarter of 2003, the Company recorded a charge
of $75 million ($115 million pretax) (included in other
operating expenses) in connection with the Physician Settlement
Agreement, net of an estimated insurance recoverable of $72
million pretax.

The Company believes that its insurance policies with third
party insurance carriers apply to this matter and are pursuing
recovery from those carriers.  It has not received any insurance
recoveries as of March 31, 2006.  

The Company continues to work with plaintiffs' representatives
in implementing the Physician Settlement Agreement and the
issues that may arise under that agreement.

Several Provider Cases filed in 2003 on behalf of purported
classes of chiropractors and/or all non-physician health care
providers also make factual and legal allegations similar to
those contained in the other Provider Cases, including
allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

These Provider Cases seek various forms of relief, including
unspecified damages, treble damages, punitive damages and
injunctive relief.  These Provider Cases have been transferred
to the in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer", "You"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two lawsuits making similar allegations as in the
American Express Financial Advisors securities litigation (based
solely on state causes of actions) moved to remand cases pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to state court.  The Court's decision on the remand motion is
pending.  The suits are:

     -- "Beer v. American Express Company and American Express
        Financial Advisors," and

     -- "You v. American Express Company and American Express
        Financial Advisors."  

In October 2005, the Company reached a comprehensive settlement
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the Company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004
called "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities
Litigation."  

The settlement, under which the Company denies any liability,
includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class
members.  The class members include individuals who:

     -- purchased mutual funds in the Company's Preferred
        Provider Program, Select Group Program, or any similar
         revenue sharing program;

     -- purchased mutual funds sold under the American Express
        or AXP brand; or

     -- purchased for a fee financial plans or advice from the
        Company between March 10, 1999 and through the date on
        which a formal stipulation of settlement is signed.

The suit "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities
Litigation (1:04-cv-01773-DAB)," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Deborah
A. Batts.  Representing the plaintiffs is Michael Robert Reese
of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania
Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-
0307, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com.
   
Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,  
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,  
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:  
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ariz. Federal Court Stays "Haritos" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
joint stipulation to stay a suit filed against American Express
Financial Advisors Inc.

The suit, now captioned "Haritos et al. v. American Express
Financial Advisors Inc.," was filed in November 2002 by
plaintiffs who purport to represent a class of all persons that
have purchased financial plans from the Company's advisors from
November 1997 through July 2004.  Plaintiffs allege that the
sale of the plans violates the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of
the investment advisor plans and restitution of monies paid for
such plans.

On January 3, 2006, the Court granted the parties joint
stipulation to stay the action pending the approval of the
proposed settlement in the putative class action "In re American
Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation (1:04-cv-01773-
DAB)."

In October 2005, the Company reached a comprehensive settlement
regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against
the Company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004.  
the settlement, under which the Company denies any liability,
includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class
members.  

The Haritos suit is under Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt.  
Representing plaintiff John Haritos are:

     (1) Robert C. Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan,  
         Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 501,  
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612)341-0400

     (2) Barry Grant Reed, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Zimmerman  
         Reed PLLP, 14646 N Kierland Blvd, Ste 145 Scottsdale,  
         AZ 85254-2762, Phone: (480)348-6400

     (3) Jon E. Drucker, Moss Gropen, Law Offices of Jon E  
         Drucker, 8306 Wilshire Blvd, #638 Beverly Hills, CA  
         90211, Phone: (323)931-6363

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr  
         LLP, 2445 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone:  
         (202)663-6000

    (ii) Robert S Stern, Esq, James P Maniscalco, Joseph T Hahn,  
         Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los  
         Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: (213)892-5200

   (iii) Peter K Vigeland, David W Bowker, Wilmer Cutler  
         Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave, 31st Floor,  
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)230-8800

    (iv) William J Maledon, Esq, Jeffrey Bryan Molinar, Osborn  
         Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379,  
         Phone: (602)640-9000


AMERICAN INNOVATIONS: Recalls Ladder with Loose Extension Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Innovations Corp., of Long Lake, Minnesota, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission
is recalling about 750 walk-through railing ladder extensions.

The company said if the knob securing the extension unit to the
ladder is not tight, it can detach and fall when the ladder is
being removed or lowered.  The unit could hit a bystander,
causing serious head injuries.

American Innovations has received one report of an extension
falling off a ladder.  No injuries have been reported.

The Ladder walk-through railing extensions fit over extension
ladder rails and provide handholds for safe passage while moving
to a platform or rooftop.

The ladders were made in the U.S. and sold in hardware supply
stores, catalogs, and the American Innovations Corp. Web site
nationwide from September 2004 through February 2006 for between
$325 and $380.

Ladder owners are being sent a free repair kit, including a
safety strap and easy-to-follow assembly instructions.  Until
the repair is made, consumers should check to make sure the knob
securing the extension unit is tight during use.

Picture of the recalled ladder:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06549.jpg

For more information, contact American Innovations toll-free at
(888) 912-9888 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.ladderdolly.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Labor Law Violations in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is facing a purported class action
"Maddox, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (BC349215)" in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  

The suit alleges that certain present and former employee
advisors in California are entitled to overtime pay and other
wages and that the Company made wrongful deductions from their
wages.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company's actions were in
violation of the California Labor Code and Business &
Professional Code, and seek recovery of unspecified overtime and
penalties.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Ameriprise Financial, Inc. --
http://www.ameriprise.com-- provides financial planning, asset  
management, and insurance services to individuals, businesses,
and institutions.  It operates through two segments, Asset
Accumulation and Income, and Protection.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Miscalculating Advisors' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit captioned "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
et al. (Case No. 00-cv-01027)" was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota in March 2006.

The lawsuit has been brought as a putative class action and
plaintiffs purport to represent all of the Company's advisors
who sold shares of Real Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit
limited partnerships between March 22, 2000 and March 2006.  
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary
damages as well as injunctive relief, alleging that the Company
incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of
these products.

The Company has moved to dismiss certain claims in the
complaint.

The suit is filed under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral to
Judge Susan R. Nelson.  Plaintiffs Daniel R. Miller and Robert
B. Good, Jr. are represented by Bryan L. Crawford, Samuel D.
Heins, Stacey L. Mills, Brian L. Williams of Heins Mills &
Olson, PLC, 80 S 8th St Ste 3550, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-
338-4605, Fax: 612-338-4692, E-mail: bwilliams@heinsmills.com,
sheins@heinsmills.com, smills@heinsmills.com,
magarian.edward@dorsey.com, bcrawford@heinsmills.com.

Defendants are represented by Edward B. Magarian of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498,
Phone: 612-340-7873, Fax: 612-340-2807, E-mail:
magarian.edward@dorsey.com


ANGLO PLATINUM: Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Mine Expansion in Zimbabwe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the Ga-Tshaba village in northeast Limpopo province
in Zimbabwe filed a lawsuit against the world's biggest platinum
producer Anglo Platinum Ltd. (Angloplat), in an attempt to halt
a big expansion project at its Potgietersrust mine, the
Fin24.co.za reports.  The suit is set to go to the Pretoria High
Court next month.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Richard Spoor, demanded an urgent
halt to activities by the company ahead of the expansion such as
drilling since it was causing damage to the villagers' lands.  
It alleges that a proposed expansion of the mine interferes with
their access to arable land and restricts their cattle from
grazing.

Angloplat, majority owned by mining giant Anglo American Plc,
accounts for around 40% of global platinum production.

For more information, contact Richard D. Spoor of Keating
Muething & Klekamp PLL, One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (Hamilton Co.), Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax:
513-579-6457.


BISYS GROUP: N.Y. Court Partly Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed certain claims while retaining others in a
consolidated securities class action against BISYS Group, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  

Following the Company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results, seven putative class
action and two derivative lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.  By
order of the Court, all but one of the putative class actions
was consolidated into a single action, and on October 25, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004 and generally asserts that the
Company, certain of its officers, and its independent auditors
allegedly violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the purported issuance of false and misleading information
concerning the Company's financial condition.  The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount as well as unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief.

On December 23, 2004, the Company, the individual defendants and
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm
filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint.  

On October 28, 2005, the Court dismissed certain claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to six of the individual
defendants, narrowed certain additional claims against the
Company and the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
as to the Company's independent registered public accounting
firm.  The Court denied the motions to dismiss in all other
respects.

The Court granted leave for plaintiffs to file on or before
November 14, 2005, an amended complaint addressing the scienter
of the individual defendants and the independent registered
public accounting firm.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who acquired BISYS securities from the
Company as part of private equity transactions during the period
October 23, 2000 to May 17, 2004.

The complaint generally asserts that the Company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the Company's financial condition, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On November 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  By
order of the Court, the defendants' time to answer the complaint
has been extended until resolution of the motion to dismiss the
complaint described above.

The first identified complaint is, "Rosen, et al. v. BISYS
Group, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Plaintiff firms in this or
similar case:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

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

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         (Philadelphia), 1845 Walnut St., Suite 945,
         Philadelphia, CA, 19103, Phone: 215.988.9546, Fax:
         215.988.9885, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: E-mail@rabinlaw.com;

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

     (7) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; and

     (8) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com.


BOEING CO: Faces Bias Suit in Kans. Over Spirit Hiring Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. is a defendant in purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for District of Kansas alleging age
discrimination.

On March 2, 2006, the Company was served with a complaint in
Wichita, Kansas, alleging that hiring decisions made by Spirit
Aerosystems near the time of the Company's sale of the Wichita
facility were tainted by age discrimination.

The case, filed on December 19, 2005, was brought as a class
action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit.  Pursuant
to an indemnity provision in the Asset Purchase Agreement,
Spirit agreed to defend and indemnify the Company.

The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Company, et al., Case
No. 6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Texas under Judge Monti L. Belot with referral
to Judge Karen M. Humphreys.  Representing the plaintiffs are,
Uzo L. Ohaebosim and Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. of Shores,
Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center,
Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400, Fax: 316-261-5404, E-
mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are, James M. Armstrong and Carolyn
L. Matthews of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, 1551 N Waterfront Parkway,
Ste. 100, Wichita, KS 67206-4466, Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-
267-6371, Fax: 316-267-6345, E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com and
cmatthews@foulston.com.


BOEING CO: Continues to Face Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. is defendant in nine employment discrimination
cases filed June 1998 through January 2005, in which class
certification was or is being sought or has been granted.

The cases were filed in:

     -- federal court in Seattle (three cases),
     -- federal court in Los Angeles,
     -- state court in California,
     -- federal court in St. Louis, Missouri,
     -- federal court in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
     -- federal court in Wichita, Kansas, and
     -- federal court in Chicago

The suits seek various forms of relief including front and back
pay, overtime, injunctive relief and punitive damages. All are
in varying stages of litigation.  

One case in Seattle alleging discrimination based on national
origin resulted in a verdict for the company following trial and
is now on appeal.  Another case in Seattle alleging
discrimination based on gender was recently settled.  

Three cases - one in Los Angeles, one in Missouri, and one in
Kansas, all alleging gender discrimination resulted in denials
of class certification.  The decision in the Los Angeles case
was affirmed on appeal and was dismissed with prejudice, the
decision in the Kansas case is on appeal, and the Missouri case
was dismissed with prejudice.

The case in Oklahoma, also alleging gender discrimination,
resulted in the granting of class action status.  The Company
challenged that ruling, and the Oklahoma court is awaiting the
ruling in the Kansas appeal before deciding whether the case can
proceed to trial.

In the second case alleging discrimination based on gender in
California, which was pending in state court, was dismissed.  

The court certified a limited class in the race discrimination
case filed in federal court in Seattle (consisting of heritage
Boeing salaried employees only) and after trial on the claim of
disparate treatment in promotions the jury returned a verdict in
the Company's favor.  The court has also ruled in the Company's
favor on the claim of disparate impact.  Plaintiffs have filed
an appeal in that case, which challenges the pre-trial dismissal
of the compensation claim.

The final case, also alleging race discrimination and filed in
Chicago, seeks a class of all individuals excluded from the
limited class in the Seattle case.  The Company anticipates that
the court will determine whether the case can proceed as a class
action in late 2006.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Lawsuit Seeking to Bar PLAVIX Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sanofi-Aventis and Apotex Corp.
faces seven lawsuits filed between March and May 2006 in U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.

The suit seeks permanent injunctive relief barring the proposed
settlement of the PLAVIX patent infringement lawsuit and/or
monetary damages.  The first complaint, an individual suit filed
by Kroger Co. in March 2006, alleges that the proposed
settlement violates the Sherman Act and related antitrust laws.  
The other six actions, filed in April and May 2006, are
purported class actions which allege, generally, violations of
the Sherman Act and related antitrust laws, and seek to bar the
proposed PLAVIX settlement and to recover alleged monetary
damages.

The six purported class actions were filed by:

     -- Meijer Co. (and Meijer Distribution Inc.),

     -- Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc.,

     -- Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund,

     -- Vista Healthplan, Inc.,

     -- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98
        Health & Welfare Plan (an employee welfare benefit fund)
        and the health and welfare benefit funds for American
        Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
        District Council 47, International Association of Fire
        Fighters Local 22 and United Food and Commercial Workers
        Union Local 1776.

On April 20, 2005, Apotex filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment against Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Aventis, Inc., and
Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership.  
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the `265 patent
is unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct committed
during the prosecution of the patent.

The defendants responded by submitting a motion to dismiss,
which the court granted on September 12, 2005.  Apotex filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  On
March 24, 2006, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of the complaint.

The suit is "Meijer Inc. et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis et al.," filed
under Judge Michael H. Watson.  Representing the plaintiffs is
James Rubin Cummins of Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA,
1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH
45202 USA, Phone: 513-621-0267, Fax: 513-381-2375, E-mail:
jcummins@wsbclaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Gregory Alan Harrison of Dinsmore
& Shohl -1, 255 E 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
977-8200, Fax: 513-977-8141, E-mail: greg.harrison@dinslaw.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Securities Lawsuit Over VANLEV Continues in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company continues to face a number of class
actions alleging violations of federal securities laws and
regulations in relation to its disclosure about developments of
a research on the drug VANLEV.

Defendants in the suit filed in April, May and June 2000 were:

     -- Bristol-Myers,

     -- its former chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and

     -- its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose,
        Ph.D.

These actions were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The plaintiff
claimed that the defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information concerning the safety, efficacy and commercial
viability of VANLEV, a drug in development, during the period
November 8, 1999 through April 19, 2000.

A number of related class actions, making essentially the same
allegations, were also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
court certified two separate classes:

     -- a class relating to the period from November 8, 1999 to
        April 19, 2000 (the First Class Period); and

     -- a class relating to the period from March 22, 2001 to
        March 20, 2002 (the Second Class Period).

The First Class Period involved claims related to VANLEV's
efficacy, safety and/or potential to be a blockbuster drug.  The
Second Class Period involved claims related to VANLEV's
potential to be a blockbuster drug.  The class certifications
were without prejudice to defendants' rights to fully contest
the merits of plaintiff's claims.  The plaintiff sought
compensatory damages, costs and expenses on behalf of
shareholders with respect to the two class periods.  

On December 17, 2004, the Company and the other defendants made
a motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims.  
On August 17, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the summary judgment motion and also dismissed two of the three
individual defendants, Peter R. Dolan and Peter S. Ringrose,
from the case.

Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn Zissel Lite and Michael A.
Patunas, Lite, Depalma, Greenberg and Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway
Center 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000,
E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com, and mpatunas@ldgrlaw.com; and Robert
J. Berg, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Ave.
Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024 by Phone: 201-592-3201, by E-mail:
berg@bernlieb.com.

Representing the Company is William J. O'Shaughnessy of Mccarter
& English, ESQS, Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, PO
Box 652, Newark NJ, 07101-0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
woshaughnessy@mccarter.com.

For more details, contact: Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6399, Merrick, NY 11566-9000,
(888) 252-4402.  Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form is
available at: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.  


BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Over VANLEV
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company has settled all securities class
actions and derivative suits filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to a regulatory filing.  

The suits were filed in 2002 and 2003, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and
PricewaterhouseCoopers.  They alleged violations of federal
securities laws and regulations in connection with sales
incentives and wholesaler inventory levels, breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the Company's conduct
concerning:

     -- safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV;

     -- the Company's sales incentives to certain wholesalers
        and the inventory levels of those wholesalers;

     -- the Company's investment in and relations with ImClone
        and ImClone's product ERBITUX*; and

     -- alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with
        BUSPAR and TAXOL (paclitaxel).

The suits have all been settled with respect to the Company and
its current and former officers and directors.

The suit is "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:02-cv-02251-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Loretta A.
Preska.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr.,
Gustavo Bruckner and Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein,
Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com or
kolker@whafh.com.    

Representing the Company are Elizabeth L. Grayer and Evan R.
Chesler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-
mail: egrayer@cravath.com or echesler@cravath.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: "Starkman" Suit Still Looking for Suitable Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proper court for the securities fraud suit "Starkman v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb et al.," is still under contention, a
regulatory filing shows.

On September 21, 2005, certain of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's
current and former officers were named in a purported class
action, "Starkman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb et al.," filed in New
York State Supreme Court alleging violations of federal
securities laws and regulations in connection with sales
incentives and wholesaler inventory levels, breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the Company's conduct
concerning:

     -- safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV;

     -- the Company's sales incentives to certain wholesalers
        and the inventory levels of those wholesalers;

     -- the Company's investment in and relations with ImClone
        and ImClone's product ERBITUX*; and

     -- alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with
        BUSPAR and TAXOL (paclitaxel).

It also asserted common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
claims on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
stock before October 19, 1999 and held their stock through March
10, 2003.  

On October 7, 2005, the Company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This case
had been stayed.  On March 21, 2006, the Supreme Court entered
its decision in another case which held that holder class
actions asserting state law claims, like Starkman, are preempted
under federal law.  The Company was given 45 days from entry of
the Supreme Court's decision to move or answer, and to oppose
the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to State court.

The suit, case no. 1:05-cv-08604-LAP," is filed under Judge
Loretta A. Preska.  Representing the plaintiffs are Lawrence
Walner of  Lawrence Walner & Associates, Ltd., 150 North Wacker
Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 201-1616.

Representing the defendants are Evan R. Chesler and Elizabeth L.
Grayer of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-
mail: echesler@cravath.com and egrayer@cravath.com.


CENDANT CORP: ABI Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing for proposed $26,000,000 settlement in the
matter: "P. Schoenfeld Asset Management, LLC, et al. v. Cendant
Corp., Walter A. Forbes, E. Kirk Shelton, Cosmo Corigliano,
Christopher McLeod and Ernst & Young, LLP, Case No. 2:98-cv-
04734-WHW-SDW."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of American Bankers Insurance Group,
Inc. (ABI) common stock from January 27, 2998 through and
including October 13, 1998.

The hearing will be held on July 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Hon. William H. Walls, U.S.D.J., at the Martin Luther King,
Jr. Federal Bldg. and U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 4D, at 50
Walnut St., Newark, New Jersey.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by June 30, 2006.  Deadline for the submission of a proof
of claim is on August 24, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) ABI/Cendant Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims
         Administrator, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, N.Y. 11753-
         8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
         site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;and  

     (2) Joseph J. Depalma and Allyn Zissel Lite of Lite,
         Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center,
         12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
         3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com and
         alite@ldgrlaw.com.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Uninsured Patients' Suits Continue in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
are defendants in purported class actions pending in Illinois
state courts.

On of these suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Williamson
County, Illinois under the caption, "Sheri Rix v. Heartland
Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems, Inc."

This class action, served against the Company on March 3, 2005,
was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the
representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who
were treated at the Company's Heartland Regional Medical Center.

The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify
for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably
high rates for services and materials and that the Company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  

They seek recovery for breach of contract and the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of overpayment,
and for unjust enrichment.  In addition, they also seek
compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

In addition the Company is also a defendant in a purported class
action in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, styled,
"Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company,
LLC d/b/a Gateway Regional Medical Center."

The complaint, which was served against the Company on April 8,
2005, seeks class action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.


DANA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed for Securities Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
appointed the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions &
Retirement as the lead plaintiff in consolidated securities
class action against Dana Corp. and certain of its current and
former officers.

Initially five purported class actions were filed in the fourth
quarter of 2005, which were later consolidated under the
caption, "Howard Frank v. Dana Corporation, et al."

The plaintiffs in the consolidated case allege violations of the
U.S. securities laws arising from the issuance of false and
misleading statements about Dana's financial performance and
failures to disclose material facts necessary to make these
statements not misleading, the issuance of financial statements
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SEC
rules and the issuance of earnings guidance that had no
reasonable basis.

The plaintiffs' claim that the price at which Dana's shares
traded at various times was artificially inflated as a result of
the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.  

The defendants believe the allegations in this case are without
merit.  The company has advised the District Court that the
claims in this case cannot proceed against it due to the
automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

On March 27, 2006, the District Court appointed the City of
Philadelphia Board of Pensions & Retirement as lead plaintiff in
this case.  The appointment is subject to a pending motion for
reconsideration subsequently filed by another plaintiff.

The suit is "Frank v. Dana Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:05-
cv-07393-JGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge James G. Carr.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Callow, Jr. of Keating, Muething & Klekamp,
         One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH
         45202, Phone: 513-579-6419, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-mail:
         jcallow@kmklaw.com;

     (2) Keith W. Schneider of Maguire & Schneider, Ste. 200,
         250 Civic Center Drive, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-
         224-1222, Fax: 614-224-1236, E-mail:
         kwschneider@ms-lawfirm.com;

     (3) Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ste.
         200, 1360 West Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44113,        
         Phone: 216-522-9000, Fax: 216-522-9007, E-mail:
         jack@landskronerlaw.com;

     (4) David W. Zoll of Zoll & Kranz, Ste. 200, 6620 West
         Central Avenue, Toledo, OH 43617, Phone: 419-841-9623,
         Fax: 419-841-9719, E-mail: david@toledolaw.com; and

     (5) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, Ste. 1900, 655 West Broadway, San
         Diego, CA 92101-3301, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-
         231-7423, E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage, Hour Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, Inc. faces several lawsuits related to
employment practices and wage and hour claims filed in the
Orange County, California Superior Court by certain of the
Company's former employees.

On June 10, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees.  This case is in the discovery stage and no
determination with respect to class certification has been made.

On August 19, 2004, a former general manager filed a lawsuit,
alleging that the Company misclassified the position of general
manager as an exempt employee.  This case involves the issue of
whether employees and former employees in the general manager
position who worked in the Company's 60 California stores during
specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived
of overtime pay.  This case is in the earliest stages of
discovery, and the status of the class action certification is
yet to be determined.


E.I. DUPONT: Suit Seeks Consolidation of Complaints Over Teflon
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Des Moines, Iowa asks
to combine complaints from 16 states against the maker of Teflon
into one master case, according to Associated Press.

The suit alleged E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. failed to disclose
possible health risks from using the nonstick cookware, and that
it continued to tell the government and consumers that Teflon
was safe even though its own studies showed the material could
become toxic at high cooking temperatures.

It is asking the court to:

     -- create a fund for independent research into whether
        Teflon is harmful;

     -- to replace all existing Teflon coated cookware products
        or pay owners equivalent compensation;

     -- to stop making, selling and distributing Teflon coated
        products; and

     -- to provide a warning label or other disclosure about
        potential harmful effects from using Teflon.

DuPont plans to file an answer to the allegations by June 19,
2006.

An important component of Teflon used to render some cookware
with a non-stick quality is perfluorooctanoic acid, also called
PFOA or C-8.  It is claimed to release toxic particles when
heated to temperatures that can be reached during normal
cooking.  It is labeled a likely cancer-causing agent in humans
by the Science Advisory Board for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont -- http://www.dupont.com/   
-- manufactures resins and additives used in the trenchless pipe
rehabilitation industry.  

The suit is "Luett et al. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (4:05-
cv-00422-REL-CFB)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Iowa for
the Southern District under Judge Ronald E. Longstaff, with
referral to Celeste F. Bremer.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kimberley K. Baer of Wandro &
Associates PC, 2501 Grand Ave. STE B Des Moines, IA 50312,
Phone: 515 281 1475, Fax: 515 281 1474, E-mail:
kbaer@2501grand.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robert L. Fanter of Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317 Sixth
         Avenue Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110, Phone:
         515 288 6041, Fax: 246 1474, E-mail:
         fanter@whitfieldlaw.com

     (2) Carolyn J. Frantz, Sean W. Gallagher, and Adam L.
         Hoeflich of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP,
         54 W Hubbard St. Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone:
         312 494 4400, Fax: 312 494 4440, E-mail:
         carolyn.frantz@bartlit-beck.com,
         adam.hoeflich@bartlit-beck.com,
         sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com

     (3) Gretchen Witte Kraemer of Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317
         Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110,
         Phone: 515 288 6041, Fax: 246 1474, E-mail:
         kraemer@whitfieldlaw.com

     (40 Kaspar J. Stoffelmayr of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
         & Scott LLC, 1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Floor, Denver, CO
         80202, Phone: 303 592 3100, Fax: 303 592 3140, E-mail:
         kaspar.stoffelmayr@bartlit-beck.com


HOSHINO USA: Recalls Basses to Replace Battery Snap Connector
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hoshino USA Inc., of Bensalem, Pennsylvania and Chesbro Music
Company, of Idaho Falls, Idaho, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling about 700
Ibanez Basses.

The company said if the battery is improperly installed, the
bass can overheat causing internal damage and a fire hazard.  
The firm has received three reports of the bass not working due
to improper battery installation.  No injuries or damage to
property has been reported.

The Ibanez Basses involves 2005 and 2006 Ibanez Soundgear,
Roadgear and Gary Willis series basses.  Model numbers are
located on the back of the headstock.  Models included in this
recall are:

     -- GWB105NTF
     -- SR1000EBGNTF
     -- SR1000EFMNTF
     -- SR1000EPBNTF
     -- SR1000EWNNTF
     -- SR1000EZWNTF
     -- SR1005EBGNTF
     -- SR1005EFMNTF
     -- SR1005EPBNTF
     -- SR1005EWNNTF
     -- SR1005EZWNTF
     -- RD900AHNHS
     -- RD900FMNT

The basses were manufactured in Korea and sold in authorized
Ibanez dealers nationwide from March 2005 through March 2006 for
between $700 and $1,400.

Consumers are advised to stop using the basses immediately and
contact their local Ibanez dealer for a free inspection and
repair.  Dealers will remedy the hazard by having affected
basses updated with a new battery snap connector.

Picture of the recalled basses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06161a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06161b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06161c.jpg

For more information, contact Hoshino USA at (800) 699-8262
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit http://www.ibanez.com


H&R BLOCK: Attorney General Amends $250M Retirement Plan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed amendments to a
$250 million civil lawsuit he filed in March against H&R Block
Inc., the Kansas City Star reports.

In the amendments filed Monday in a New York state court in
Manhattan, Mr. Spitzer cited new evidence that he claims shows
Block's senior management went beyond ignoring objections by
subordinate to endorse a now controversial retirement accounts
and penalized tax preparers who objected to marketing the
accounts.  He also clamed the company continued the alleged
abuses in marketing its so-called Express Individual Retirement
Accounts (IRAs) as recently as the current tax season that ended
last month.

Mr. Spitzer alleged that new evidence cited in the amended
complaint indicates:

     -- block managers disregarded complaints from tax preparers
        about the marketing of the accounts;

     -- managers instructed tax preparers to make a positive
        presentation of the accounts and to avoid mentioning
        negative points;

     -- managers told preparers at conferences to "sell more
        IRAs" or "there's the door"; and

     -- tax professionals who refused to sell IRAs they thought
        were inappropriate for clients had their access to
        customers.

On March 15, Mr. Spitzer filed a civil suit against H&R Block,
Inc. in New York State's Supreme Court, seeking $250 million in
damages.  It alleged that the Kansas-based H&R Block failed to
adequately disclose fees related to its Express IRA product,
failed to warn that the interest paid would not cover the fees
in certain instances, and misleadingly endorsed the interest
rates (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2006).

The misleading and incomplete disclosure allegedly violated New
York's consumer fraud law and was a breach of the company's
fiduciary duty to its clients.  The violation affected hundreds
of thousands of clients, including almost 30,000 New Yorkers,
the lawsuit claims.  It seeks injunction from further violations
of New York law, damages and civil penalties.

The Kansas City firm defends the IRAs as a valuable savings
tool, particularly for taxpayers whose modest incomes don't
afford many other opportunities to save money.  The company
insists that the lawsuit overlooks tax savings and other
benefits that the accounts provide for clients.

H&R Block is represented by Robert Abrams of Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan, LLP, 180 Maiden Lane, New York, New York 10038-4982 (New
York Co.), Phone: 212-806-5400, Telecopier: 212-806-6006.


KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, California Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias
will hold a fairness hearing on the proposed $717,031 settlement
of the class action "In re Kava Kava Litigation" on Aug. 11,
2006, 9:00 a.m.  The suit was filed on behalf of all persons in
California who purchased products containing the herb Kava Kava
between March 14, 1998, and December 31, 2005.  

The trial will be at Department 308 of the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, 600 South Commonwealth
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.  Deadline to file for
exclusion and objection is July 14, 2006.

Under the settlement, the court shall enter a permanent
injunction requiring each settling defendant to provide specific
product warnings on all Kava Products that the respective
settling defendant makes available for sale in the State of
California or makes available for sale to any third party whom
settling defendants know will offer Kava Products for sale in
the State of California.  In summary, the warnings pertain to
the alleged risk of liver problems associated with Kava Product
use, among other warnings.

The settling defendants have also agreed to make settlement
payments, totaling $717,031, from which two charitable
contributions, together totaling at least $100,000, will be made
to two organizations agreed upon by the settling parties and
approved by the Court.  

Class Counsel will apply for attorneys' fees and expenses not to
exceed $520,531.  This amount will not fully reimburse Class
Counsel for their fees and costs.  In addition, Class Counsel
will ask the Court to award each of the representative
plaintiffs $500 in recognition of the services provided for the
Class in this lawsuit.   The court preliminarily approved the
settlement on April 27, 2006.  

In 2002, cases were filed against certain entities that
allegedly manufactured, distributed and/or sold products
containing "kava kava" or "piper methysticum" without adequately
warning consumers of alleged risks of liver damage.  These
actions were subsequently consolidated by the Los Angeles
Superior Court into: "In re Kava Kava Litigation, Case No. BC
269717."

For more information, contact:

     (1) defendants' notice counsel, Amy P. Lally, Sidley Austin
         LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA
         90013; or

     (2) co-lead class counsel Christopher M. Burke of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West
         Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058); or

     (3) David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler III Scott+Scott,
         LLC, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone:
         619-233-4565.


MASTERFOODS USA: Fire Reports Prompt Recall of Candleholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Masterfoods USA, of Hackettstown, New Jersey, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling
about 1,008 M&M'S Brand Menorah.

The company said if a candle burns all the way down, the plastic
Menorah could ignite and present a fire hazard.  Masterfoods USA
has received five reports of the Menorah smoldering or igniting.  
No injuries or property damage have been reported.

The Menorah is an eight-branch candleholder designed to resemble
M&M'S Brand candies.  On each end of the Menorah is an M&M'S
Brand character holding a Star of David.

The candleholders are manufactured in China and are sold in
M&M'S World catalogue, M&M'S World stores in Las Vegas and
Orlando, and online at http:www.mmsworld.com from November 2005
through December 2005 for about $30.

Consumers are advised stop using these Menorahs immediately and
return them to Masterfoods USA for a full refund including taxes
and shipping and handling, where applicable.  Masterfoods USA is
also offering a $10 gift certificate good towards the purchase
of any M&M'S collectible.

Picture of the recalled Menorah:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06162.jpg

For more information, consumers can contact Masterfoods USA at
(800) 849-4867 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday.


PTI SPORTS: Recalls Carriers for Potential Injury to Children
-------------------------------------------------------------
PTI Sports Inc., of Coral Gables, Florida, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling
about 14,000 Schwinn Deluxe Bicycle Child Carriers.

The company said if the seat is not fully seated on the rack,
the plastic guide tabs on the carrier can break.  If these tabs
break, it could cause the seat to fall off.  This poses a risk
of serious injury to a child seated in the carrier.

PTI Sports has received five reports of the bicycle child
carriers falling, including three reports of minor injuries,
such as bumps and scratches.

The carrier is a seat for a child that is attached to the back
of an adult bicycle.  The carrier is a gray plastic with a blue
rubber back and seat pad, a gray head rest, and black straps.  
Model number SW571T is printed on the carrier's packaging and in
the owner's manual.  "PTI" is printed on a yellow warning
sticker on the back of the carrier seat.

The carriers were manufactured in China and sold in department
stores, discount department stores, and military exchanges
nationwide from September 2004 through November 2005 for about
$50.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the bicycle
child carriers, but not return them.  Instead, they should
contact PTI Sports for a free safety bracket and revised
installation instructions.

Picture of the recalled bike carrier:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06159.jpg

For more information, contact PTI Sports at (800) 515-0074
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, e-mail the
firm at customerservice@ptisports.com, or visit the firm's web
site at http://www.schwinnbike.com


RAYTHEON CO: Mass. Court Mulls Securities Pact Allotment Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard
the motion to approve the class distribution order on the
settlement of a consolidated class action filed against Raytheon
Co. and two of its officers.

Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated into a
single complaint in June 2000, when four additional former or
present officers were named as defendants in a Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint with the caption, "In re:
Raytheon Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 12142-PBS)."  
The Consolidated Complaint principally alleged that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by purportedly
making misleading statements and by failing to disclose material
information concerning the Company's financial performance
during the class period.

In March 2002, the court certified the class of plaintiffs as
those people who purchased Raytheon stock between October 7,
1998 through October 12, 1999.  On March 17, 2003 the named
plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint
which did not change the claims against the Company or the
individual defendants, but which added the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm as an additional defendant.

In May 2004, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the
company reached an agreement to settle this class action on
behalf of Raytheon and all individual defendants.

The terms of the settlement included a cash payment of $210
million and the issuance of warrants for the company's common
stock with a stipulated value of $200 million.  The warrants
will have a five-year term with a strike price of $37.50 and
will be issued when the settlement proceeds are distributed to
the claimants.

On December 10, 2004, the Court entered a final judgment
resolving all claims asserted against Raytheon and the
individual defendants.  

On March 10, 2006, the Court heard the motion to approve the
class distribution order.  The Court deferred approval of the
order and scheduled another hearing for April 24, 2006.

Subject to the timing of the Court's approval of the order, the
Company expects that the distribution of the settlement
proceeds, including the issuance of the warrants, will occur in
the second quarter of 2006.

The suit is "Meisel v. Raytheon Company, et al., Case No. 99-
12142," filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts under
Judge Patti B. Saris.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew L. Barroway of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone:
         610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, Web site:
         http://www.sbclasslaw.com;

     (2) Jeffrey C. Block, Glenn de Valerio, Patrick T. Egan of
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One
         Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com, gdevalerio@bermanesq.com,
         pegan@bermanesq.com;  

     (3) Bryan L. Crawford, Samuel D. Heins and Stacey L. Mills,
         Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., 3550 IDS Center, 80 South
         Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-338-
         4605, E-mail: heins@heinsmills.com; and

     (4) Mark D. Smilow and Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss & Yourman,
         551 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10076, Phone: 212-682-
         3025.

Representing the Company is John F. Batter, III of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 617-526-6000, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
john.batter@wilmerhale.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Sacking of Cabin Stewards "Tips" Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Inc. and one of its cruise brands are asking the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to review the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida's decision
to grant the Company's dismissal motion.

Filed in April 2005, the suit alleges that the Company's
Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards
to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards.  The
suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46
U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest, (Class Action
Reporter, March 6, 2006).

In March 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the suit.  In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Ensues in N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities class action
against Schering-Plough Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Following the Company's announcement that the FDA had been
conducting inspections of the Company's manufacturing facilities
in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing
deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good
Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that the Company failed to disclose an
alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX
would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and
they allege that the Company failed to disclose the alleged
depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of Company stock from May 9, 2000 through February 15,
2001.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.
The Court certified the shareholder class on October 10, 2003.
Discovery is ongoing.

The suit is "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:01cv829," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with
referral under Judge Mark Falk.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024,
         Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
         Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com;

     (3) Andrew Robert Jacobs Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com; and

     (4) Justin F. Johnson of Lunga, Evers & Johnson, Esqs., 710
         Route 46E, Suite 100, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone: (973)
         227-4200, E-mail: jfj.lejlaw@attglobal.net.

Representing the defendant is Douglas Scott Eakeley, Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791,
Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com.


SUREBEAM CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $32,750,000
settlement in the matter: "SureBeam Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 03-CV-01721-JM (POR)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
SureBeam Corp. common stock during the period March 16, 2001
through August 27, 2003.

The hearing will be held on July 17, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. before
the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller, at the U.S. Courthouse, 880
Front St., Courtroom 6, San Diego, California.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by June 26, 2006.  Deadline for the submission of a proof
of claim is on July 25, 2006.

For more details, contact Jeffrey D. Light 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.


UTAH STATE: Deaf Students Demand Better University Facilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 12 deaf students currently and formerly enrolled in
Utah State University filed a suit alleging they were
inadequately provided help by the school, Associated Press
reports.

The suit alleges deaf students in the school were not
sufficiently provided with sign-language interpreters and other
services.  According to the report, the suit specifically
claims:

     -- the school denies deaf students equal access to
        educational opportunities, and effective communication
        with professors;

     -- fails to provide accommodations in a timely manner; and

     -- uses policies and procedures that are discriminatory or
        tend to screen out students who are deaf.  

The suit seeks a declaration that the school violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and new policies for the
accommodation of deaf students as well as unspecified monetary
damages.  It names as defendants both the university and the
Board of Regents.  The plaintiffs are asking class status for
the suit on behalf of past, current and future USU students who
are deaf.

The suit is "Christensen et al. v. Utah State University et al.
(1:06-cv-00057-DB)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Utah
under Judge Dee Benson.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard F. Armknecht, III of Armknecht & Cowdell
         364 W 120 S, Lindon, UT 84042, Phone: (801)796-0901, E-
         mail: adalaw@att.net; and

     (2) Dale H. Boam and Tracy Scott Cowdell of 1320 Lincoln
         St. Salt Lake City, UT 84105, Phone: (801)485-0921, E-      
         mail: tcowdell@aitsinc.com.

                         
                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Resolves 100,026 Pneumo Abex Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd., from August 28, 1998 through March 31,
2006, resolved 100,026 of the 138,457 asbestos-related claims
facing Pneumo Abex Corporation, according to the Company's 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

At March 31, 2006, 38,431 claims, which fall under the
responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corporation, are pending.

During the three months ended March 31, 2006, 734 claims were
filed and 738 claims were resolved. Since August 28, 1998, the
average payout for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,061. A total of
US$88 million was spent on defense costs for the period August
28, 1998 through March 31, 2006.

In the March 10, 2006 Class Action Reporter Edition, Cooper
resolved 99,288 Abex claims from August 28, 1998 through
December 31, 2005. A total of 137,723 claims were filed, from
August 28, 1998 through December 31, 2005, leaving 38,435 Abex
Claims pending at December 31, 2005.

In October 1998, Cooper sold its Automotive Products business to
Federal-Mogul. These businesses, which included the Abex product
line from Pneumo-Abex in 1994, were operated by subsidiaries.
The stock of those units was sold to Federal-Mogul in an August
17, 1998 Purchase and Sale Agreement.

Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain liabilities of
these subsidiaries, including liabilities related to the Abex
product line and any liability that Cooper may have to Pneumo in
a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between Cooper and Pneumo.

On October 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed for bankruptcy and indicated that Federal-Mogul may not
honor the indemnification obligations to Cooper.  

In December 2005, Cooper and other parties involved in the
resolution of the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy proceeding had
reached an agreement regarding Cooper's participation in Federal
Mogul's proposed asbestos trust. In the trust, Cooper would
resolve its liability for asbestos claims arising from Cooper's
former Abex Friction Products business. The settlement would
resolve more than 38,000 pending Abex Claims.  

The accrual for potential liabilities related to the Automotive
Products sale and the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy was US$528.0
million at March 31, 2006 and US$526.3 million at December 31,
2005.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Cooper Industries Ltd.
manufactures electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal
support products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Collects $22M Claim Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s net cash outflows for asbestos claims
and expenses, in the 2006-1st quarter, increased to US$21.4
million from US$1.9 million in the 2005-1st quarter, when EnPro
received about US$22 million in past due asbestos insurance
reimbursements, according to a Company disclosure.

New asbestos claims filed against the Company's subsidiaries in
the 2006-1st quarter were 2,900, 53% lower than the 6,200 new
claims filed in the 2005-1st quarter. The reduction showed the
trend of lower filings that began in the second half of 2004 and
reflects a decrease in non-malignant filings.

Near the end of the 2006-1st quarter, the Ohio Court of Appeals
overturned a US$6.4 million asbestos-related verdict, which was
rendered in 2003, against subsidiary Garlock Sealing
Technologies. A US$5.7 million cash bond posted by the Company
in connection with the appeal will be released in the 2006-2nd
quarter.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Posts $469M Losses in 1Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corporation's asbestos-related gross
unpaid losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses, at the
beginning of the 2006-1st quarter, stood at US$469,199,000 as
opposed to US$522,685,000 for the same period in 2005, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q SEC report.

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE, at the end of the
2006-1st quarter, stood at US$461,078,000 as opposed to
US$449,520,000 for the same period in 2005.

At the beginning of the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's net
unpaid losses and ALAE stood at US$376,781,000 as opposed to
US$408,794,000 for the same period in 2005.

At the end of the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's net unpaid
losses and ALAE stood at US$367,183,000 as opposed to
US$393,028,000 for the same period in 2005.

Company subsidiaries receive claims that allege injuries and
damages from asbestos and other hazardous waste and toxic
substances and are subject to litigation. The conditions
surrounding the final resolution of these claims and the related
litigation continue to change.

In 2005 and 2004, the Company strengthened its asbestos,
environmental and other latent reserves by US$44,646 and
US$100,542, respectively. No adjustment was made to asbestos,
environmental or other latent reserves in the three months ended
March 31, 2006.

Headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey, Crum & Forster Holdings
Corp. offers property/casualty insurance products to businesses,
including management liability, automobile, and workers'
compensation coverage. The Company is a subsidiary of Fairfax
Financial Holdings Ltd.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Books $1.5B Claims Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation, as of March 31, 2006, carried about
US$1,508 million of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves,
net of reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Company carried about
US$1,554 million and US$1,686 million, respectively, of claim
and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance
recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-related
claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006)

The Company recorded US$1 million and US$2 million of
unfavorable asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment
expense reserve development for the three months ended March 31,
2006 and 2005. The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of
reinsurance recoveries, of US$47 million and US$53 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005.

CNA's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure
to asbestos-related claims. Estimation of asbestos-related claim
and claim adjustment expense reserves involves limitations such
as inconsistency of court decisions, specific policy provisions,
allocation of liability among insurers and insureds, and
additional factors such as missing policies and proof of
coverage.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp. provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Protecting CNA From New Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A bankruptcy court, on June 2006, will consider confirmation of
a plan with an injunction to protect CNA Financial Corporation
from any future asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's 10-Q SEC report.

On February 13, 2003, CNA resolved asbestos-related coverage
litigation and claims involving A.P. Green Industries, A.P.
Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak Corp.

Under the agreement, CNA is required to pay US$74 million, net
of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period after the final
approval of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization.

The settlement resolves CNA's liabilities for all pending and
future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, Bigelow-Liptak Corp. and related subsidiaries,
including alleged "non-products" exposures.

On August 18, 2003, the settlement received initial bankruptcy
court approval.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp. provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Reopens Suit Against CNA Financial
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New York State Court, on January 2006, reopened an asbestos-
related case, in which CNA Financial Corporation was named a
defendant, for evidentiary submissions and briefing, according
to the Company's 10-Q SEC report. Addition closing arguments
were held on March 27, 2006.

The Company faces insurance coverage litigation with a defendant
class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury
claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Co.

Filed in 2003, the suit is styled Continental Casualty Co. v.
Employers Ins. of Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).

Keasbey sold and installed asbestos-containing insulation
products in New York and New Jersey. Plaintiffs have filed
bodily injury claims against Keasbey. However, Keasbey's
involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested
issue. Therefore, the defense disputes the percentage of valid
claims against Keasbey.

CNA issued Keasbey policies for 1970-1987 and excess policies
for 1972-1978. CNA has paid an amount equal to the policies'
aggregate limits for products and completed operations claims in
the confirmed CNA policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that CNA owes coverage under
sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate limits, an
allegation CNA vigorously contests in the suit. CNA and the
claimants seek declaratory relief as to the interpretation of
various policy provisions.

The court dismissed a claim alleging bad faith and seeking
unspecified damages on March 21, 2004, in which the Appellate
Division, First Department, affirmed the ruling on March 31,
2005.

The Keasbey trial commenced on July 13, 2005. Closing arguments
concluded on October 28, 2005.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp. provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Travelers Allots $4.28B Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., at the end of the 2006-1st
quarter, allotted net asbestos related reserves of US$4.280
billion, according to a Company SEC report.

At the end of the 2005-4th quarter, the Company posted net
asbestos reserves of US$4.364 billion.

At the beginning of the 2006-1st quarter, the Company posted net
asbestos reserves of US$4.364 billion as opposed to US$3.669
billion in the 2005-4th quarter.

St. Paul Travelers Cos. Inc. offers personal and commercial
liability and casualty, property, workers' compensation, auto,
marine, and other coverage to companies of all sizes in North
America and the UK. The Company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Links Loss to Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc.'s 2006 cash flow from operations was
reduced by gross loss payments of about US$1,900,000 for a
settled asbestos-related claim of which US$1,100,000 will be
collected from reinsurers in subsequent accounting periods,
according to a Company press release.

The Group's 2006 cash flow from operations was also reduced by
gross loss payments of about US$10,200,000 for 2005 hurricane
losses of which US$4,000,000 will be collected from reinsurers
in subsequent accounting periods.

The 2005 cash flow from operations included US$24,000,000
attributable to the settlement of the 2002 underwriting year
reinsurance to close premium recorded by the Group's Lloyd's
Operations in the 2004-4th quarter.

The Group reported net income of US$15,525,000 or US$0.93 a
share for the 2006-1st quarter based on 16,757,000 diluted
shares compared to net income of US$9,699,000 or US$0.76 a share
for the 2005-1st quarter based on 12,760,000 diluted shares.

The 2006-1st quarter results include a net realized capital loss
of US$0.02 a share and the 2005-1st quarter results include a
net realized capital gain of US$0.01 a share.

Headquartered in New York City, New York, The Navigators Group
Inc.'s main insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC
Insurance, write ocean and marine insurance including hull,
energy, liability, and cargo insurance, as well as property
insurance for onshore energy concerns. The company also offers
specialty liability and professional liability insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Faces Burns & Roe Ent. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. faces a bankruptcy-related proceeding, filed
by Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., involving disputes over Burns &
Roe's Plan of Reorganization confirmation and the scope and
extent of coverage afforded to it for its asbestos liabilities.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.

These disputes are part of coverage litigation, which is stayed
in view of the bankruptcy, and a proceeding styled In re: Burns
& Roe Enterprises Inc., which is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

On December 4, 2000, at the time of bankruptcy filing, Burns &
Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily
injury resulting from asbestos exposure as a result of
construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved.

CNA allegedly provided primary liability coverage to Burns & Roe
from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain project-
specific policies from 1964-1970.

On December 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization. A confirmation hearing relating to that Plan is
anticipated in 2007.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp. provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Units Face Suits in 4 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two CNA Financial Corporation subsidiaries and other insurers
face asbestos-related insurance suits filed in four
jurisdictions: Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and Montana,
according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

In the 70 Ohio actions filed to date, plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants negligently performed duties to protect workers
and the public from asbestos' effects, spoliated evidence and
conspired and acted in concert to harm the plaintiffs.

In the most recent cases, plaintiffs have made only negligent
undertaking claims against the insurers.

Several of the Ohio suits are styled Varner v. Ford Motor Co.,
filed in Ohio Ct. Common Pl. on June 12, 2003, Peplowski v. ACE
American Ins. Co., filed in N.D. Ohio on filed April 1, 2004,
and Cross v. Garlock, Inc., filed in Ohio Ct. Common Pl. on
September 1, 2004.

The Cuyahoga County court granted insurers, including CNA,
dismissals against plaintiffs, ruling that insurers had no duty
to warn plaintiffs about asbestos' dangers and that there was no
basis for spoliation, conspiracy and concert of action claims.
That ruling was affirmed on appeal.

The Cuyahoga County court has continued to dismiss similar
complaints and the plaintiffs have either failed to appeal the
dismissals or have dismissed their appeals.

Plaintiffs continued to file similar suits, although one case in
that court has been dismissed and that case makes no substantive
claims against CNA named as a defendant. The other case that
remains is the Peplowski suit, which was moved to the federal
Multi-District Litigation court in October 2004 and has been
dormant since then.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Units Sued in Texas Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two CNA Financial Corporation units, with insurers and non-
insurer corporate defendants, continue to defend against suits
that assert liability for failing to warn of the dangers of
asbestos. The suits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002.

In 2003, many of the suits were dismissed as time-barred by the
Statute of Limitations. In other suits, the carriers argued that
they did not owe duty to the plaintiffs to advise them of the
effects of asbestos and that Texas statutes precluded liability
for such claims. Two Texas courts dismissed these suits.

Several of the courts' rulings were appealed, but plaintiffs
later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas court denied
similar motions seeking dismissal at the pleading stage,
allowing limited discovery to proceed.

After that court denied a challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers moved those cases to a state multi-district litigation
court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos cases.

The insurers have petitioned the Houston appellate court for an
order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district litigation court
to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. Va. Court Remands Suit Against CNA Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A West Virginia Court, on March 30, 2006, remanded an asbestos-
related lawsuit against CNA Financial Corp. unit, Continental
Casualty Co., to state courts.

Continental Casualty, along with other insurer defendants, had
previously removed the case to Federal court.

Continental Casualty was named in a purported multi-defendant
class action, which alleged that defendants violated West
Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act in handling and resolving
asbestos claims against five named defendants.

The suit, styled Adams v. Aetna Inc., et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, on June 28,
2002.

The Adams litigation had been stayed, pending a plaintiffs'
motion to file an amended complaint that reflected two June 2004
decisions of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

In June 2005, the court presiding over Adams and three similar
putative class actions against other insurers directed
plaintiffs to file any amended complaints by June 13, 2005 and
directed the parties to agree upon a case management order that
would result in trial being commenced by July 2006.

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint greatly expands the scope of the
action against the insurers, including Continental Casualty.

Under the Amended Complaint, the defendant insurers have now
been sued for alleged violations of the UTPA in connection with
handling and resolving asbestos personal injury and wrongful
death claims in West Virginia courts against all their insureds,
if those claims were resolved before June 30, 2001.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Faces Suit Filed by WR Grace
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation, with Maryland Casualty Co. and the
State of Montana, defends against an asbestos-related suit filed
by eight W.R. Grace & Co. employees, according to CNA's 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The suit, named Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.,
was filed on March 22, 2002 in the First Judicial District Court
of Lewis & Clark County, Montana.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos at a Grace
vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Montana.

The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of Grace's
pending bankruptcy.  

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CNA Financial Corp provides
commercial coverage, such as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of CNA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Dismisses Colony Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division dismissed
Colony Specialty Insurance Co. from an asbestos-related lawsuit
regarding third-party claims against it by Mt. McKinley
Insurance Co., Continental Casualty Co., Columbia Casualty Co.,
Century Indemnity Co., and Allstate Insurance Co.

Judge Ann Aldrich decided Case No. 1:03-CV-01322 on March 21,
2006.

The suit concerned policies issued by McKinley, Continental,
Columbia, Century and Allstate to RPM Inc., Bondex International
Inc., and Republic Powdered Metals Inc.

The Court determined whether those policies were used by claims
filed against RPM, Bondex and Republic for asbestos-related
personal injuries.

The third-party complaints filed by Century, McKinley,
Continental, Columbia, and Allstate sought declaratory relief
against Colony and contribution from Colony.

Colony's predecessor-in-interest issued policies covering
asbestos-related claims against RPM, Bondex and Republic, but
settled with the Companies regarding Colony's remaining coverage
duties in February 2000.

Colony argued that the third-party claims for contribution and
declaratory relief are barred by Colony's February 2000
settlement with RPM, Bondex, and Republic.

As Allstate's third-party complaint only contained claims
against Colony, the Court dismissed the complaint.
      
Christopher S. Williams, Matthew M. Mendoza, Michael E.
Brittain, Shelly K. Hillyer, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Dennis
R. Lansdowne, Peter J. Brodhead, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber,
Cleveland, OH, represented RPM Inc., Bondex International Inc.,
and Republic Powdered Metals Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KeySpan Unit Works With EPA on Remediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
KeySpan Corporation's subsidiary, EnergyNorth Natural Gas Inc.,
entered into a remediation agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for asbestos contamination in the Nashua, New
Hampshire manufactured gas plant site, according to KeySpan's
10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The site was allegedly commingled with asbestos at the adjacent
Nashua River asbestos site.

KeySpan may have or share responsibility for the remediation of
10 manufactured gas plant sites and related facilities
associated with the historical operations of EnergyNorth in New
Hampshire.

At four of the sites, KeySpan has entered into cost sharing
agreements with other parties who share responsibility for
remediation of these sites.

Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, KeySpan Corp.'s Energy
Delivery units bring natural gas to 2.6 million customers in New
York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. The Company deals with
the Long Island Power Authority to manage electricity service
for about 1.1 million customers, and it owns fossil-fueled power
plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Face Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Inc.'s subsidiaries co-defend against
complaints, filed in Mississippi Circuit Courts, involving over
700 persons that allege personal injury arising out of asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's 10-Q Securities and
Exchange Commission report.

The plaintiffs were allegedly exposed in the course of their
employment by some of the defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries to which the Company may owe indemnity. The
complaints name other unaffiliated defendant firms, which range
from about 20 to 70, including firms that allegedly made
asbestos-containing drilling related products.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used those asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages. The trial court has ordered that the
plaintiffs provide additional information regarding their
employment histories.

The Company has not yet conducted extensive discovery nor has it
been able to determine the number of plaintiffs that were
employed by its subsidiaries or have any connection with the
Company's drilling operations.

Based in Houston, Texas, Transocean Inc. operates as an offshore
drilling contractor in Africa, Asia, Brazil, Canada, India, the
Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico, and the North Sea. Other
Company operations include management of third-party drilling
services and a nine-rig contract land drilling business in
Venezuela.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Suits by 22T Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc. subsidiaries, particularly Leslie,
Spence, and Hoke, co-defend against asbestos-related product
liability claims filed on behalf of about 22,000 plaintiffs,
according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

Of the plaintiffs who have sued CIRCOR subsidiaries, all but
about 650 have been in Mississippi. The suits comprise 50 to 400
defendants.

In Mississippi, the courts have rendered decisions and the
legislature has passed laws aimed at curbing certain abusive
practices by plaintiff attorneys pursuant to which large numbers
of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in the same case
against hundreds of defendants. Many of these "mass filings"
have been or will be dismissed.

Any such refilings would be made on behalf of one or a small
number of related individuals who can demonstrate actual injury
and some connection to the subsidiaries' products.

The Company also has been named individually or as successor in
interest to one or more of these subsidiaries. These cases were
filed in state courts in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington and Wyoming with the vast majority of
claimants having brought their claims in Mississippi.

The cases brought on behalf of the vast majority of claimants
seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all
defendants in the aggregate.

However, the complaints filed on behalf of claimants who do seek
specified compensatory and punitive damages typically seek
millions or tens of millions of dollars in damages against the
aggregate of defendants.

To date, the Company's insurers have been paying the vast
majority of the costs associated with the defense of these
actions, particular with respect to Spence and Hoke for which
insurance has paid all defense costs to date.

The Company has negotiated a revised cost sharing understanding
with Leslie's insurers, which results in Leslie being
responsible for 29% of its defense costs.

Headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts, CIRCOR International
Inc. makes instrumentation and fluid regulation products,
including precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and
regulators for hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam
systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Challenge Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries co-defend against
lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury due to asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

Most claimants in such litigation have worked in construction of
various industrial facilities, including power plants. Some of
the claimants have worked at sites owned by the Company, but
most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by
the Company or its subsidiaries.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of the claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as
NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas
Genco, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses
from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed
by Texas Genco and its successor.

However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend such
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense from the purchaser.

Formerly Reliant Energy Inc., CenterPoint Energy Inc.'s
utilities distribute natural gas and electricity to about 4.8
million customers in six southern states. CenterPoint Energy
operates 8,200 miles of gas pipeline, and it has gas gathering
and storage operations. The Company is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Worker in Union Pacific Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Utah upheld a trial court's ruling that
Carol Christiansen produced sufficient evidence in a Federal
Employer's Liability Act suit filed against Union Pacific
Railway Co.

The Appeals Court also reversed and remanded the trial court's
grant of Union Pacific motion for summary judgment on a three-
year limitation period.

The Panel, comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Pamela T.
Greenwood and Judges James Z. Davis and Carolyn B. McHugh,
decided Case No. 20040991-CA on March 23, 2006.

In 1951, Mr. Christiansen worked for Union Pacific, where he
installed and removed asbestos-containing products. In the
1990s, he began developing breathing problems, which caused him
to retire in 1995 and file a Social Security disability claim.

In January 2002, Mr. Christiansen sued Union Pacific. Later that
year, a doctor diagnosed his condition as asbestosis.

Mr. Christiansen appealed the trial court's grant of summary
judgment to Union Pacific, asserting that Mr. Christiansen's
FELA claim was barred by the applicable three-year statute of
limitations. Union Pacific cross-appealed.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court properly denied
Union Pacific's motion on the merits of Mr. Christiansen's
claim, but erred in granting Union Pacific's motion on the
limitations period.

C. Ryan Christensen, Robert G. Gilchrist, S. Brook Millard, Salt
Lake City, and Nance F. Becker, Novato, California, represented
Carol Christiansen.

E. Scott Savage and Casey K. McGarvey, Salt Lake City,
represented Union Pacific Railroad Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TX Court Approves Condition in ASARCO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Bankruptcy Judge Richard Schmidt of the Southern District of
Texas in Corpus Christi approves the stipulation between ASARCO
LLC, the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors for the Subsidiary Debtors and the Future
Claims Representative of the Subsidiary Debtors, which generally
provides for the realignment of representation in the lawsuit
filed by ASARCO against the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors.

Based in Phoenix, Arizona, ASARCO Inc. operates as a mining firm
that produces around 600 million pounds of copper, 300 million
pounds of zinc, and 20 million ounces of silver.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 21; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Orders Retrial of Blandford Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
ordered the retrial of an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Kathleen Blandford for the wrongful death of her husband Clyde
Blandford.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Diane Karpinski, Colleen Conway
Cooney, and Christine T. McMonagle, decided Case No. 85710,
86214 on March 23, 2006.

From 1965 until 1971, Mr. Blandford worked as a pipe fitter. He
serviced high-pressure steam lines by removing and replacing
gaskets, which contained up to 85% asbestos, and packing made by
Garlock Sealing Technologies. In November 2000, he died of
mesothelioma.

In connection with Mr. Blandford's death, Mrs. Blandford sued
defendants, including Garlock Sealing and insulation supplier
The Edward R. Hart Co. The defendants except Garlock Sealing and
Hart settled with Mrs. Blandford before trial. Hart moved for a
separate trial, which the trial court granted.

The jury returned an award to Mrs. Blandford in the amount of
US$6.4 million. Garlock Sealing moved for a new trial, which the
trial court denied.

After Garlock Sealing appealed, the Appeals Court granted the
trial court to set off against all the amounts Mrs. Blandford
had received from the settling defendants. The award was reduced
to US$5,634,041.40.

The Appeals Court reversed its decision and remanded the case
for a new trial.

Ladd R. Gibke, Baron & Budd P.C., Dallas, Texas, Bruce P.
Mandel, Cleveland, represented Kathleen Blandford.

Michael L. Close, Dale D. Cook, Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder &
Bringardner Co. L.P.A., Columbus, Matthew C. O'Connell,
Christina Tuggey Hidek, Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion & Farchione
Co. L.P.A., Cleveland, represented the defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Posts $98.6M Interest Charge
------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation, at March 31, 2006, records an asbestos-
related interest charge of US$98.6 million, according to the
Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

At December 31, 2005, the Company recorded the interest charge
at US$90.3 million.

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million in the 2002-
4th quarter, of which US$512.5 million covered a cash payment
that the Company is required to make upon the effectiveness of a
plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co.

The Company expects to fund this payment by using a combination
of accumulated cash and future cash flows from operations and
funds available under its US$500 million senior unsecured multi-
currency credit facility or its accounts receivable
securitization program or a combination of these alternatives.

The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrues interest at a 5.5%
annual rate, which is compounded annually, from December 21,
2002 to the date of payment.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corp.'s
Food Packaging segment produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent
pads, and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to
protect meat and poultry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Reaches $4.9M in 1Q06
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc., for the 2006-1st quarter, spends US$4.9
million for asbestos-related expenses as opposed to US$4.2
million in the 2005-4th quarter, according to the Company's 10-Q
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The Company's asbestos liability, for the 2006-1st quarter,
stood at US$205.4 million and US$189.7 million for the 2005-4th
quarter.

The Company's current asbestos liability, for the 2006-1st
quarter, stood at US$68.2 million and US$189.7 million for the
2005-4th quarter.

EnPro's asbestos insurance receivable, for the 2006-1st quarter,
stood at US$404.2 million and US$388.1 million at the 2005-4th
quarter.

EnPro's current asbestos insurance receivable, for the 2006-1st
quarter, stood at US$107.4 million and US$104.7 million for the
2005-4th quarter.

Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, EnPro Industries
Inc. makes engines, engineered products, and sealing systems.
The company also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, and
natural gas engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Subsidiaries Have 119,400 Open Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. subsidiaries, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., state awareness of 119,400
asbestos-related open claims at March 31, 2006, according to
EnPro's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Of the open claims, EnPro is aware of about 7,600 (6.3 percent)
that involve a claimant alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or
some other cancer.

Of the claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of
plaintiffs alleging mesothelioma, about six percent have been
claims of plaintiffs with lung or other cancers, and more than
90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging asbestosis,
pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of the
respiratory system.

During the 2006-1st quarter, Garlock began four trials involving
five plaintiffs. Two of the trials involving three plaintiffs
settled during trial in Philadelphia. Another case in Dallas
also settled during trial. A retrial of a Kentucky case resulted
in an adverse verdict of US$1.6 million. Garlock was allocated
US$900,000 of the verdict, less than the US$1.75 million share
of the US$5 million verdict allocated against Garlock in the
previous trial.  

As of March 31, 2006, Garlock had available US$548 million of
insurance and trust coverage that the Company states will be
available to cover future asbestos claim and expense payments.
Garlock classifies US$60 million of otherwise available
insurance as insolvent. Garlock collected about US$23 million
from insolvent carriers during 2005 (US$10 million of which
related to insurance receivables), bringing total insolvent
collections from 2002 through 2005 to US$33 million.

The Company also has accrued a liability of US$82 million for
all settled but unpaid claims, advanced stage pending cases and
legal fees incurred but not yet paid, and it has accrued an
additional liability of US$192 million for early-stage and
unasserted claims.

After allocating insurance coverage to the accrual for pending
and future claims, less US$8.7 million of estimated liabilities
not recoverable from insurance, the Company has about US$37
million of available insurance coverage that is unallocated as
of March 31, 2006, compared to US$77 million at December 31,
2005.

The US$40 million decrease in the Company's remaining
unallocated insurance resulted from the payment of insured legal
fees, increasing payments for mesothelioma cases in some
jurisdictions, and the increase in the Company's estimate of
payments to be made over the next 10 years for pending and
future claims.

Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, EnPro Industries
Inc. makes engines, engineered products, and sealing systems.
The company also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, and
natural gas engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Posts US$1.3B T&N Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation, as of March 31, 2006, records an
asbestos-related liability for UK subsidiary T&N Ltd. and two
U.S. affiliates at about US$1.3 billion, according to the
Company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.

The liability represents the Company's estimate before
restructuring proceedings for claims currently pending and
those, which the Company expects to pay through 2012.

In 2000, the Company increased its estimate of asbestos-related
liability for the T&N Companies by US$751 million and recorded a
related insurance recoverable asset of US$577 million.

T&N Ltd. is subject to asbestos-disease litigation in the UK and
France. As of October 1, 2001, T&N was a defendant in about
115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two U.S.
subsidiaries were defendants in about 199,000 pending personal
injury claims.

In December 2000, the Company entered into US$250 million of
surety bonds on behalf of the T&N Companies to meet collateral
requirements for asbestos indemnity obligations associated with
their prior membership in the Center for Claims Resolution. This
amount was stepped down by contract to US$225 million effective
June 2001.

On May 2, 2005, the Company entered into a Surety Claims
Settlement Agreement with the CCR and various surety bondholders
whereby in fulfillment of all claims made by the CCR, US$29
million was placed into escrow for use by the CCR to fund:

-- Settlements that have already occurred or have yet to occur
of up to US$26 million; and

-- CCR expenses of US$3 million.

The surety bondholders allowed the exercise of the surety bonds
in the amount of US$28 million. The remaining US$1 million was
funded from an outstanding letter of credit. The settlement
agreement cancels the remaining face amount of the surety bonds
and gives the surety bondholders an entitlement to adequate
protection upon full payment of the net bond draw of US$28
million.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corp. is a
maker of components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles,
with products including chassis and engine parts, pistons, and
sealing systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T&N Ltd. Posts $620M Insurance Recoverable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation subsidiary T&N Ltd. recorded a US$620
million asbestos-related insurance recoverable as of March 31,
2006, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

The insurance recoverable asset includes an exchange rate
premium of about US$14 million.

In 1996, T&N Ltd. purchased for itself and its then defined
global subsidiaries a GBP500 million layer of insurance which
will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or
brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred prior
to that date, exceed GBP690 million.

During 2000, the Company stated that the aggregate cost of the
claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger point
and recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy
of US$577 million.

In December 2001, one of the three reinsurers, European
International Reinsurance Co. Ltd., sued in a UK court to
challenge the validity of its insurance contract with the T&N
Companies. As a result of this suit, a claim was made against
the broker (Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for
breach of its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in
October 2003.

Before trial conclusion, the parties were able to reach a
settlement. The Company recorded a US$38.9 million asbestos
charge during 2003. Under the settlement terms, EIR would be
liable for 65.5 percent of its one-third share of the
reinsurance policy.

By separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an
additional 17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance
policy. T&N has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums
paid under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N for
which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or
Sedgwick. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's approval of
the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corp. is a
maker of components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles,
with products including chassis and engine parts, pistons, and
sealing systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul's Liabilities Reach $213.6M  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation, as of March 31, 2006, records
US$213.6 million asbestos-related liabilities of its Abex and
Wagner businesses, formerly owned by Cooper Industries Ltd.,
according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

The liability comprised US$129.5 million for Abex liabilities
and US$84.1 million for Wagner liabilities. The liability
represented the Company's estimate before restructuring
proceedings for claims currently pending and those, which the
Company expects to pay through 2012.

Abex and Wagner co-defend against court actions in the U.S.
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products. These claims mainly involve vehicle safety
and performance products. As of October 1, 2001, Abex and Wagner
were defendants in about 66,000 and 33,000 pending claims,
respectively.

In December 2005, Cooper Industries, Inc., Pneumo Abex
Corporation, the Asbestos Committee, the Asbestos Futures
Representative, the Company and various other relevant parties
entered into a non-binding term sheet to resolve all of Cooper
Industries, Inc. and Pnuemo Abex Corp. claims against the
Company arising out of the Abex asbestos litigation and the
related alleged indemnity obligations.

A condition precedent to that term sheet was that the Bankruptcy
Court issue a preliminary injunction staying the asbestos
litigation against Cooper and Pneumo Abex pending completion of
the term sheet which would have occurred through the
confirmation of the Company's Plan.

The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion for preliminary
injunction on January 20, 2006. The parties have resumed
discussions regarding settlement of the outstanding issues.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corp. is a
maker of components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles,
with products including chassis and engine parts, pistons, and
sealing systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurance Claim Hits $160.3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation, as of March 31, 2006, recorded an
asbestos-related insurance recoverable for its Abex and Wagner
businesses, of which US$112.5 million relate to Abex and US$47.8
million to Wagner, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

Abex maintained product liability insurance coverage, which is
shared with other third-party firms, for the time that it made
asbestos-containing products. Abex has been in litigation since
1982 with the insurance carriers of its primary layer of
liability concerning coverage for asbestos claims.

Wagner maintained product liability insurance coverage, which is
shared with other third-party firms, for some of the time that
it manufactured products that contained asbestos.

One of the companies sharing coverage, Dresser Industries, Inc.
sued the Debtors and a number of insurance carriers in the
Company's Restructuring Proceedings. Dresser alleged that it has
rights under certain primary and excess general liability
insurance policies that may be shared with one of the Debtors,
Federal-Mogul Products as the successor to Wagner Electric Corp.

Dresser sought a declaration of the parties' respective rights
and obligations under the policies and a partition of the
competing rights of Dresser and FMP under the policies. FMP
answered Dresser's complaint and filed cross-claims against all
of the defendant-insurers seeking a declaration of FMP's rights
to the policies.

On November 4, 2004, FMP, Dresser and Cooper Industries Inc. and
certain of the insurers entered into a partitioning agreement,
by which the Parties agreed as to the manner in which the limits
of liability, self-insured retentions, deductibles and any other
self-insurance features are to be partitioned among FMP, Dresser
and Cooper.

The partitioning agreement effectively disposes of Dresser's
claims in the Dresser adversary proceeding. However, FMP's cross
claim against the defendant-insurers remains.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corp. is a
maker of components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles,
with products including chassis and engine parts, pistons, and
sealing systems.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Diamond Offshore, Subsidiaries Named in 29 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. received 29 asbestos-related
complaints, of which 13 were filed against Arethusa Off-Shore
Co., a unit of Arethusa (Offshore) Ltd., which the Company
acquired in 1966, according to the Company's 10-Q SEC report.

Sixteen complaints were filed against Diamond Offshore (USA),
Inc., which is now known as Diamond Offshore (USA) L.L.C. and
formerly known as Odeco Drilling Inc.

In April 2005, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss 13 Arethusa
complaints after the Company showed that the claims could not be
maintained against the Company or its units.

The Company expects defense and indemnity for the 16 complaints
from Murphy Exploration & Production Co. in the terms of a 1992
Asset Purchase Agreement.

During the 2004-3rd quarter, Company subsidiaries had been named
in multi-defendant complaints filed in Mississippi Circuit
Courts by about 800 persons alleging that they were employed by
some of the defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints
also named more than 25 other firms not affiliated with the
Company.

The complaints claimed that the defendants made, distributed or
utilized asbestos-containing drilling mud and that such
defendants allowed such mud to be utilized aboard their offshore
drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs sought an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.


COMPANY PROFILE
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.
15415 Katy Fwy.
Houston, TX 77094
Phone: 281-492-5300
Fax: 281-492-5316
Toll Free: 800-848-1980
http://www.diamondoffshore.com

Fiscal Year-End:                  December
2005 Sales (mil.):                US$1,221.0
1-Year Sales Growth:              49.9%
2005 Net Income (mil.):           US$260.3
2004 Employees:                   4,200
1-Year Employee Growth:           12.3%

Description:
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. operates as a contract offshore
oil and gas driller that descends depths of 7,500 feet. Loews
Corp. owns about 54 percent of the Company.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action on April 7, 2006
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 John Hancock 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.

The John Hancock mutual funds and their respective symbols are
as follows:

      -- John Hancock Balanced (SVBAX)(SVBBX)(SVBCX)(SVBIX)

      -- John Hancock Bond (JHNBX)(JHBBX)(JHCBX)(JHBIX)(JHBRX)

      -- John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income (TACAX)(TSCAX)(TCCAX)

      -- John Hancock Classic Value (PZFVX) (JCVBX) (JCVCX)
         (JCVIX) (JCVRX)

      -- John Hancock Core Equity (JHDCX)(JHIDX)(JHCEX)(JHCIX)

      -- John Hancock Financial Industries (FIDAX) (FIDBX)
         (FIDCX) (FIDIX)

      -- John Hancock Focused Equity (JFVAX)(JFVBX)(JFVCX)

      -- John Hancock Government Income (JHGIX)(TSGIX)(TCGIX)

      -- John Hancock Greater China Opp (JCOAX) (JCOBX) (JCOCX)
         (JCOIX)

      -- John Hancock Growth Trends (JGTAX)(JGTBX)(JGTCX)

      -- John Hancock Health Sciences (JHGRX)(JHRBX)(JHRCX)

      -- John Hancock High Income (JAHIX)(JBHIX)(JCHIX)(JIHIX)

      -- John Hancock High-Yield (JHHBX)(TSHYX)(JHYCX)

      -- John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond (JHTFX)(TSHTX)(JCTFX)

      -- John Hancock Indep Divers Core Eq II (COREX)

      -- John Hancock International (FINAX)(FINBX)(JINCX)(JINIX)

      -- John Hancock Investment Grade Bond (TAUSX) (TSUSX)
         (TCUSX) (TIUSX)

      -- John Hancock Large Cap Equity (TAGRX) (TSGWX) (JHLVX)
         (JLVIX)

      -- John Hancock Large Cap Select (MSBFX) (JHLBX) (JHLCX)
         (JHLIX) (JHLRX)

      -- John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income (JHMAX)(JHMBX)(JMACX)

      -- John Hancock Mid Cap Growth (SPOAX) (SPOBX) (SPOCX)
         (SPOIX)

      -- John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth (JMGAX)(JMGBX)(JMGCX)

      -- John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income (JHNYX)(JNTRX)(JNYCX)

      -- John Hancock Real Estate (JREAX)(JREBX)(JRECX)

      -- John Hancock Regional Bank (FRBAX)(FRBFX)(FRBCX)

      -- John Hancock Small Cap (DSISX)(DSBSX)(DSCSX)(DSIIX)

      -- John Hancock Small Cap Equity (SPVAX) (SPVBX) (SPVCX)
         (SPVIX) (SPVRX)

      -- John Hancock Small Cap Growth (TAEMX) (TSEGX) (JSGCX)
         (JSGIX)

      -- John Hancock Sovereign Investors (SOVIX)(SOVBX)

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

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.  


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action on April 7, 2006
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 WM 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.

The WM mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:

      -- WM CA Insured Interm Muni (SRIIX)(SQIIX)(SIICX)

      -- WM CA Municipal (SRCMX)(SQCMX)(SRCCX)

      -- WM Equity Income (CMPBX)(CMBBX)(CMPCX)

      -- WM Growth & Income (CMPFX)(CMFBX)(CMGCX)

      -- WM Growth (SRGFX)(SQGRX)(SGWCX)

      -- WM High Yield (CPHYX)(CBHYX)(CCHIX)

      -- WM Income (CMPIX)(CMIBX)(CNMCX)

      -- WM International Growth (SRIGX)(SQIGX)(SIGCX)

      -- WM Mid Cap Stock (WMCAX)(WMCBX)(WMCCX)

      -- WM REIT (WMRAX)(WMRBX)(WMRCX)

      -- WM Short Term Income (SRHQX)(SQHQX)(STCCX)

      -- WM Small Cap Growth (SREMX)(SQEMX)(SSKCX)

      -- WM Small Cap Value (WMSAX)(WMSBX)(WMSCX)

      -- WM Str Asset Mgmt Balanced (SABPX)(SBBPX)(SCBPX)

      -- WM Str Asset Mgmt Conservative Bal (SAIPX) (SBIPX)
        (SCIPX)

      -- WM Str Asset Mgmt Conservative Gr (SAGPX)(SBGPX)(SCGPX)

      -- WM Str Asset Mgmt Flexible Income (SAUPX)(SBUPX)(SCUPX)

      -- WM Str Asset Mgmt Strategic Growth (SACAX) (SBCAX)
         (SWHCX)

      -- WM Tax-Exempt Bond (CMTEX)(CBTEX)(CTBCX)

      -- WM U.S. Government Secs (CMPGX)(CBUGX)(CCUGX)

      -- WM West Coast Equity (CMNWX)(CMNBX)(CMNCX)

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

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.  


ST JUDE: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Complaint in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a securities class action against St.
Jude Medical, Inc. (STJ), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all securities purchasers
from January 25, 2006 through April 4, 2006, inclusive.

St. Jude, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures
and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global
cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology and
atrial fibrillation therapy areas as well as implantable
neuromodulation devices.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements in the Company's public financial statements, thereby
artificially inflating the Company's stock price.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made misstatements and
omitted information regarding the sales success and prospects of
a key St. Jude Medical product - its implantable cardioverter
defibrillator systems (ICD's).  The Company pushed sales of
ICD's into 4Q:05 so as to inflate its stock price.

On April 4, the Company announced that it would materially miss
sales projections made just weeks earlier.  The Company also
stated that it was undertaking an intensive customer review to
determine the cause of its sales shortfall.

On this announcement, STJ stock prices fell to $36.25 on April
4, 2006, on trading volume of 51.6 million shares, off $5.05
from the previous day's closing price of $41.30.

To serve as lead plaintiff in the action, interested parties
must seek appointment from the court no later than June 9, 2006.

For more details, contact David R. Scott of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: (800) 404-7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-
scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Minn. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly
traded securities of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH) between May
4, 2001 and April 7, 2006.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning
UnitedHealth's backdating of stock option grants to defendants
William W. McGuire and Stephen J. Hemsley.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that at all times during the
Class Period, UnitedHealth represented that the exercise price
of all stock options would be no less than the fair market value
of UnitedHealth's common stock, measured by the publicly traded
closing price for UnitedHealth stock on the day of the grant.

However, in reality, those options were backdated so their
exercise price correlated to a day on or near the day
UnitedHealth stock hit its low price for the year, or directly
in advance of sharp increases in the price of UnitedHealth
stock. Defendants McGuire and Hemsley have collectively earned
over $500 million by exercising these backdated options.

As the truth concerning United Health's practice of backdating
option grants became known to the market from a variety of
sources, the price of UnitedHealth stock fell $6.76, or 12%,
over several trading sessions.

Interested parties may, no later than July 7, 2006, request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's
Washington, DC office, Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail:
mgm@ftllaw.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation
(VTSS) between October 23, 2003 and April 26, 2006, inclusive.  
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations and omitted information regarding the timing
of stock option grants made to executives, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Vitesse.  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.  


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

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

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

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

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

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


VITESSE LABORATORIES: Schatz Nobel Files Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS) between October 23,
2003 and April 26, 2006, inclusive.

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

Specifically, defendants made material misstatements and omitted
critical information regarding the timing of stock option grants
made to key executives.

On March 18, 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an article
indicating potential options backdating activity at several
companies, including Vitesse.

On April 17, 2006, Vitesse CEO Louis Tomasetta, Executive Vice
President Eugene Hovanec and the Company's CFO, Yatlin Mody,
were placed on administrative leave as the Company investigated
certain stock options transactions.

On April 26, 2006, Vitesse further announced that it was
restating its financial statements for the fiscal years ending
September 2003, 2004, and 2005, as well as the quarter ending
December 31, 2005.  On this news, shares of Vitesse fell from
$2.51 per share to $1.82 per share, or 27.5%.

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

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


XM SATELLITE: Berman DeValerio Files D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class
action against XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., (XMSR) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accusing the
company of securities law violations.

The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders, who acquired
XM securities from July 28, 2005 through and including February
15, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that XM and Hugh Panero, its president and
CEO, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, Washington-based XM and
Panero violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period that artificially inflated the Company's stock price.

Specifically, the complaint says the defendants led the market
to believe that XM would grow its subscriber base to 6 million
by year-end 2005, while lowering two of its "key metrics:"
Subscriber Acquisition Costs (SAC) and Cost Per Gross Addition
(CPGA).

In reality, however, the Company was well aware that costs,
especially SAC and CPGA, would skyrocket in the fourth quarter
of 2005 due to a $25 million promotional campaign to combat the
debut of the popular "Howard Stern Show" on Sirius Satellite
Radio, XM's chief competitor.

On February 16, 2006, the Company announced a net loss of $268.3
million for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $188.2
million a year earlier.  For the full 2005 year, XM's net loss
was $666.7 million, compared to $642.4 million in 2004.  In
addition, the Company announced that both SAC and CPGA were much
higher than the market had been led to believe.

The market reacted swiftly to those revelations, sending the
price of XM's common stock down 5.03%, from a close of $25.25
per share on February 15, 2006, to $23.98 per share the next
day.  

The Company's stock price fell a further 10.05% to $21.57 per
share at the close of trading February 17, 2006, the complaint
says.

According to the complaint, Panero and other insiders engaged in
highly suspicious stock sales during the Class Period, with
Panero selling approximately 413,334 shares, or 98.71% of his
personally held XM stock, for approximately $8,841,161.

Collectively, Company insiders sold approximately 2,769,516 of
personally held XM stock during the fourth quarter of 2005,
reaping proceeds of approximately $73,325,009.

Interested parties may no later than July 3, 2006 move for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq., Bryan A. Wood,
Esq. and Richard Malloy, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
(800) 516-9926, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/XMRadio-Cplt.pdf.  


XM SATELLITE: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc.
(XMSR) between July 28, 2005 and February 15, 2006, inclusive.  
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

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 XM 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.  


XM SATELLITE: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court
of the District of Columbia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (XMSR) between July
28, 2005 and February 15, 2006, inclusive.  

The lawsuit alleges that XM violated federal securities laws by
issuing false or misleading public statements regarding XM's
ability to reduce the costs of its new subscribers as it reached
its goal of 6 million subscribers by year end 2005.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose to the market that XM's cost of subscriber acquisition
would rise to heightened levels, dramatically increasing XM's
net losses

On February 16, 2006, XM issued a press release disclosing the
truth about XM's subscriber acquisition costs and the losses
those costs would cause.

On this news, XM's common stock fell 13% to close at $21.96 on
February 17, 2006.

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

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's
Washington, DC office, Phone: +1-877-337-1050, E-mail:
contact@ftllaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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