CAR_Public/060517.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 97

                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Immigrant Workers File Sex Bias Suit in Minn.
ARM FINANCIAL: Aug. Trial Set for $3M Securities Suit Settlement
ARVINMERITOR INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Suits in Mich.
AT&T CORP: October Trial Slated for Del. Suit Over TCI Purchase
AT&T INC: Calif. Lawyer Files Suit Against Communications Firms

AVONDALE INC: Appeals N.C. Court's Ruling in Open-End Yarns Case
CANADA: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Get Windfall in School Abuse Deal
CAREER EDUCATION: Asks Judge to Curb Publicity in Overtime Suit
CARRIER ACCESS: Seeks Dismissal of Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
CASH AMERICA: Appeals Discovery Process in Payday Loan Lawsuit

CHICO'S FAS: Settles "Uniform" Lawsuit Filed by Calif. Workers
CHICO'S FAS: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Calif. Privacy Suit
CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Settlement for Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
CINTAS CORP: Subclass Intervenes in "Serrano" Gender Bias Case
CNL HOTELS: Paying $35M to Settle Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

COLORADO: More Hispanic Officers File Employment Bias Complaints
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Subscribers' Suits in Mass., Pa.
COMCAST CORP: Contributes to Settlement of AT&T Stock Suits
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Continues to Face N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.J. ERISA Suit

GOOGLE INC: Faces Challenge to $90M Settlement of Ark. Lawsuit
HALLIBURTON CO: Continues to Face Consolidated Tex. Stock Suit
HORIZON HEALTH: Court Denies Class Status for ProCare Wage Suit
ILLINOIS: More Families Join Racial Bias Suit Against U46 Dist.
INTERVEST BANCSHARES: Settles Del. Suit Over Warrant Amendment

KRISPY KREME: Settles N.C. ERISA Violations Lawsuit for $4.75M
KRISPY KREME: N.C. Court Mulls Securities Fraud Suit's Dismissal
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Tenn. Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
MEDICAL INFORMATION: Mass. Court Nixes Some Claims in "Hubert"
NEBRASKA: Loses Appeal in "Transitional Medicaid Benefits" Suit

NUTRITECH CORP: Recalls Food Supplement for Undeclared Milk
POLAR ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Air Pollution
ROCKWELL INT'L: Jury Holds Company Liable in Rocky Flats Case
SOUTH CAROLINA: Ordered to Refund Retirees' Payment to TERI Plan
TRIBUNE CO: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Inflated Circulation Numbers

VERIZON NORTHWEST: Ore. Man Files Lawsuit Over Privacy Rights
VISTAPRINT LTD: Working to Settle Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
VULCAN MATERIALS: La. Court Denies Class for Tank Car Leak Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Wyoming County Flood Victims to Receive Payment

      
                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ESCALA GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ESCALA GROUP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in Fla.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Bernard M. Gross Files Ill. Stock Suit
PXRE GROUP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.

ST JUDE: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Minn. Stock Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Minn.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in Calif.
XM SATELLITE: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Immigrant Workers File Sex Bias Suit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eight Latino women filed a civil rights class action on May 15
in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota in Minneapolis
against their employer ABM Industries Inc.  

The plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of women who have
experienced sex harassment -- including coerced sex and
additional assaults in the workplace -- as well as other
discrimination and retaliation at work.   The federal lawsuit
alleges that the company has failed to address these civil
rights violations for years, fostering a work environment where
male supervisors have been free to sexually harass their female
subordinates.

The class action also alleges that female janitors have been
subjected to repeated sexual insults, physical intimidation, and
other abuses by male supervisors.  According to the federal
complaint, ABM has ignored the pattern of civil rights
violations in its workplace despite numerous reports by female
janitors and others.

"The evidence we have seen to date is startling," said Justin
Cummins of Miller-O'Brien and attorney for the plaintiffs in the
case.  "It's as if these long-term employees are invisible to
the company."

The civil rights lawsuit asks the court, among other things, to
certify the case as a class action, to compel ABM's adoption and
enforcement of employment policies that end the pattern of civil
rights violations, and to monitor ABM's compliance with the law
going forward.

ABM has its headquarters in San Francisco, California.  It
provides janitorial services at dozens of Minnesota locations,
such as the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and
downtown office towers.  ABM is one of the largest facility
services contractors listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
employing nearly 75,000 people across North America.

The suit is "Sandoval, et al. v. American Building Maintenance
Industries, Inc., a/k/a ABM Industries Incorporated, d/b/a ABM
Janitorial Services, Case No. 0:06-cv-01772-RHK-JSM," filed
under Judge Richard H. Kyle, with referral to Judge Janie S.
Mayeron.

Representing the plaintiffs are Brendan D. Cummins, Justin D.
Cummins, Kelly A. Jeanetta, and Maurice W. O'Brien of Miller
O'Brien, 1 Financial Plz., 120 S 6th St Ste 2400, Mpls, MN
55402, Phone: (612) 333-5831, Fax: 6123422613, E-mail:
bcummins@miller-obrien.com.


ARM FINANCIAL: Aug. Trial Set for $3M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John G. Heyburn II will hold a fairness hearing on Aug.
30, 2006, 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $3 million settlement in
the matter "In re ARM Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:99-CV-539-H."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased ARM Financial Group, Inc. common stock (symbol: ARM
(now traded as ARMGQ), CUSIP 001944107) from Feb. 10, 1998
through and including Aug. 3, 1999.

The hearing will be held in the U.S. Courthouse, 601 West
Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky 40202.  Deadline to file proof of
claims is Oct. 4, 2006.  Deadline to file for exclusion is Jul.
24, 2006.  Objection to the settlement is due Aug. 4, 2006.

For more information, contact:

     (1) "In re ARM Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
         Exclusions" c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6277 Merrick, NY 11566-
         9000, Phone: (800) 276-1243, On the Net:
         http://www.gardencitygroup.com;or

     (2) plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. of
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania
         Plaza New York, New York 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-
         5300; or

     (3) plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. of
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison
         Avenue New, York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 545-
         4600.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Suits in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. is defendant in three separate class actions
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
as a result of changes it made to its health insurance benefits
to certain United Auto Worker and United Steel Worker retirees,
spouses and dependents.

The company approved amendments to certain retiree medical plans
in fiscal years 2002 and 2004.  The cumulative effect of these
amendments was a reduction in the accumulated postretirement
benefit obligation (APBO) of $293 million, which is being
amortized as a reduction of retiree medical expense over the
average remaining service period of approximately 12 years.

These plan amendments were challenged in three separate class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  The suits allege that the changes breach
the terms of various collective bargaining agreements entered
into with the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the United Steel
Workers at facilities that have either been closed or sold.

The complaints also allege a companion claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) essentially
restating the alleged collective bargaining breach claims and
seeking to bring them under ERISA.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief, which will be requiring the company to provide lifetime
retiree health care benefits under the applicable collective
bargaining agreements.

On Dec. 22, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting a
motion by the UAW for a preliminary injunction.  The order
enjoins the company from implementing the changes to retiree
health benefits that had been scheduled to become effective on
Jan. 1, 2006, and orders the company to reinstate and resume
paying the full cost of health benefits for the UAW retirees at
the levels existing prior to the changes approved in 2002 and
2004.

Due to the uncertainty related to the ongoing lawsuits and since
the injunction has the impact of at least temporarily changing
the benefits provided under the existing postretirement medical
plans, the company has accounted for the injunction as a partial
rescission of the 2002 and 2004 plan amendments.

The company recalculated the APBO as of Dec. 22, 2005, which
resulted in an increase in the APBO of $168 million.  The
increase in APBO will offset the remaining unamortized negative
prior service cost of the 2002 and 2004 plan amendments and will
increase retiree medical expense over the average remaining
service period associated with the original plan amendments of
approximately 10 years.

In addition, the increase in APBO will result in higher interest
cost, a component of retiree medical expense, of approximately
$9 million.  For accounting purposes, the company began
recording the impact of the injunction in March 2006, 90 days
from the Dec. 22, 2005 measurement date, which is consistent
with the 90-day lag between the company's normal plan
measurement date of Jun. 30 and its fiscal year-end.

The injunction did not have a significant impact on the
company's results of operations for the six months ended Mar.
31, 2006.  The company expects its retiree medical expense to
increase by approximately $13 million in fiscal year 2006 and
retiree medical benefit payments to increase by approximately
$10 million in fiscal year 2006 compared to previous estimates
included in the company's annual report on form 10-K for the
year ended Sept. 30, 2005.

The first identified complaint is "Intl U Utd Auto, et al. v.
Arvinmeritor Inc, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-73872-NGE," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart M. Israel of Martens, Ice, (Royal Oak), 306 S.
         Washington Suite 600, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Phone: 248-
         398-5900, E-mail: israel@martensice.com; and

     (2) Daniel W. Sherrick, UAW International Union, Legal
         Department, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI
         48214, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5216.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Michael A. Alaimo and Leonard D. Givens of Miller,
         Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Avenue Suite
         2500, Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone: 313-963-6420, E-
         mail: alaimo@millercanfield.com or
         givens@millercanfield.com; and

     (2) Charles S. Mishkind of Miller, Canfield, (Grand
         Rapids), 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200, Grand
         Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: 616-454-8656, E-mail:
         Mishkind@MillerCanfield.com.


AT&T CORP: October Trial Slated for Del. Suit Over TCI Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative October 2006 trial date is set for the consolidated
class action that is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
against AT&T Corp. and other defendants regarding the
acquisition of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) by AT&T.

In June 1998, the first of a number of purported class actions
was filed by then-shareholders of TCI Series A TCI Group Common
Stock (Common A) against AT&T and the directors of TCI relating
to the acquisition of TCI by AT&T.

A consolidated amended complaint combining the various different
actions was filed in February 1999 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that former members
of the TCI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Common A shareholders by agreeing to transaction terms whereby
holders of the Series B TCI Group Common Stock received a 10%
premium over what Common A shareholders received in connection
with the transaction.  It further alleges that AT&T aided and
abetted the TCI directors' breach of their fiduciary duties.

In connection with the TCI acquisition, which was completed in
early 1999, AT&T agreed under certain circumstances to indemnify
TCI's former directors for certain losses, expenses, claims or
liabilities, potentially including those incurred in connection
with this action.  

In connection with the acquisition of AT&T Corp.'s broadband
cable business, Comcast Corp. agreed to indemnify AT&T for
certain losses, expenses, claims or liabilities.  Those losses
and expenses potentially include those incurred by AT&T in
connection with this action, both as a defendant and in
connection with any obligation that AT&T may have to indemnify
the former TCI directors for liabilities incurred as a result of
the claims against them.

In July 2003, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted AT&T's
motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to
adequately plead AT&T's "knowing participation," as required to
state a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty.

In February 2005, the former TCI director defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.  In December 2005, the court issued
a ruling that there were triable issues of fact as to whether
the merger was fair to the Common A shareholders, among other
matters.  The trial is scheduled to begin in October 2006.


AT&T INC: Calif. Lawyer Files Suit Against Communications Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno, California attorney Nicholas "Butch" Wagner filed a
class action in Fresno Superior Court against AT&T Inc.,
BellSouth Corp., and Verizon Communications, Inc., for providing
customer phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA),
the Fresno Bee reports.

Mr. Wagner said the companies' actions are illegal.  His
lawsuit, filed on behalf of 11 plaintiffs, claimed the companies
violated their California customers' right to privacy.

He joins attorneys in several states who have filed similar
lawsuits following a news story in USA Today that said the NSA
was secretly collecting phone call records since Sept. 11, 2001.

Verizon Communications Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in federal
court in Manhattan on May 12 by New Jersey attorneys Bruce Afran
and Carl Mayer, alleging the phone company violated privacy laws
by participating in a secret surveillance program with the NSA.
The suit asks the court to stop the company from turning over
any more records to the NSA without a warrant or consent of the
subscriber, and is seeking $1,000 for each violation of the
Telecommunication Act, or $5 billion once the case is certified
as class action (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2006).

For more information, contact Mr. Wagner of Wagner & Jones, 1111
E. Herndon, Fresno, CA 93720-3100, Phone: (559) 449-1800, Fax:
(559) 449-0749.


AVONDALE INC: Appeals N.C. Court's Ruling in Open-End Yarns Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avondale, Inc. filed its appeal brief with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Fourth Circuit over the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina's decision to let a
consolidated antitrust class action over open-end yarns filed
against it and other defendants move forward.

The complaint seeks, under federal or state antitrust laws,
various damages and injunctive relief related to the pricing and
sale of open-end yarns (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).  

On Feb. 14, 2005, the company, along with the other defendants
named in the federal lawsuits, moved to dismiss the federal
complaint and to compel arbitration with certain of the named
plaintiffs.  The motion has been fully briefed and argued and
remains pending (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).  

On Nov. 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motion and
ordered the case to go forward.  On Dec. 7, 2005, the company
filed its notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking to reverse the trial court's order (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).  

On Mar. 8, 2006, the company filed its appeal brief with the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In addition to the federal suit, the company was also named as a
defendant in a similar class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee.  The company moved
to dismiss that case for failure to state a claim on Jan. 24,
2005.  That motion is not fully briefed yet (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).


CANADA: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Get Windfall in School Abuse Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for survivors of Canada's residential school system are
to get a total of $80 million for pursuing the class action,
CTV.ca News reports.

The federal government has agreed to pay such amount to Regina-
based Merchant Law Group and a national consortium of 20 law
firms, a draft copy of the final residential school agreement
shows.  Survivors, meanwhile, are to get an average of $30,000.

Canada and churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian,
Anglican and United Church operated residential schools in
Canada from 1848 until the 1970s.  Their objectives included
separating aboriginal children from their traditional languages
and cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society.   
The Merchant Law Group represents 9,000 survivors, which the
firm's Web site says is half of all those who sought justice by
means of class action.

                        Settlement Terms

Under a $2 billion comprehensive settlement that was reached
last year:

     (1) every eligible residential school survivor who applies  
         will get a payment of $10,000, plus $3,000 for each  
         year spent at a residential school;  

     (2) there will be a fast-track process for former students
         over age 65, who may apply for an immediate payment of
         $8,000;  

     (3) there will be a $60-million "truth and reconciliation"
         process;  

     (4) there will be a $10 million for a commemoration
         program;  

     (5) there will be another five years of funding, totaling
         $125 million, for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.  

     (6) survivors already involved in class-action claims will  
         qualify for compensation;  

     (7) those who take compensation under the agreement --  
         except for those who suffered sexual abuse or serious  
         physical abuse -- release the government from all  
         further liability.  

The settlement has been cleared by the cabinet of Prime Minister
Stephen Harper.  It is still subject to the approval of courts
in several provinces.

The deal benefits about 86,000 aboriginal people in Canada,
including at least 3,000 Inuit.   

For more information, contact: Jon Faulds, Field Law, Phone:  
(780) 423-7625 or (780) 951-5495; Craig Brown, Thomson, Rogers,  
Phone: (416) 868-3163.


CAREER EDUCATION: Asks Judge to Curb Publicity in Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp., which operates for-profit post-secondary
education facilities, filed a motion for a protective order
Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, the Chicago Business reports.

The company wants the court to place limitations on a lawyer's
contact with potential plaintiffs and the press in a labor class
action against the company.  In its filing, the company accuses
the plaintiffs' lawyer, Robin Potter, of "engaging in deceptive
telephone conversations with potential class members and
threatening to send class notification to individuals who are
not entitled to join this suit."  It also alleged that Ms.
Potter is using the press, including Crain's Chicago Business
and The Daily Herald, which have recently written about the
lawsuit, to influence potential class members.

The Hoffman Estates-based company filed the motion along with
co-defendants American InterContinental University Online, a
wholly owned subsidiary, and Steve Fireng, president of Career
Education's online division.  

Employees of Career Education filed the suit in August 2005
against the company, alleging the company violated state and
federal overtime laws by forcing workers not to report some
overtime and work off the clock.  Ms. Potter said the suit was
granted class status in January.  It involves more than 100
workers.  He said some 800 temporary workers are receiving
notices that they, too, are eligible to join.  U.S. Judge
William Hart of the Illinois Northern District has allowed
temporary employees of Career Education Corp. to join the suit
(Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2006).

The suit is "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental
University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge William T. Hart.  Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B.
Potter of Robin Potter & Associates P.C., 111 East Wacker Drive,
Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-1800, E-mail:
robinpotter@igc.org.

Representing the defendants is James M. Gecker of Katten Muchin
Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL
60661, Phone: 312-902-5200, E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Seeks Dismissal of Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Access Corp. moved to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  

Beginning on Jun. 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the company and certain company
officials.  The cases were:

      -- "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1011-LTB,"

      -- "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and

      -- "Sved v. Carrier Access Corp., et al, Case No.
         05-cv-1280-EWN."

On Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Oct.
21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing
in connection with the company's announcement of the company's
intention to restate previously issued financial statements for
the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004 and certain interim
periods in each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004.

On Mar. 17, 2006, the company moved to dismiss on numerous
grounds, including failure to state a claim, failure to
adequately plead a claim based upon purported failure to
disclose "saturation" and product development delays, failure to
plead specific facts giving rise to a strong inference that
defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that the 2003
and 2004 Annual Reports on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q contained materially false financial statements,
failure to plead motive for defendants to commit fraud and
failure to plead a violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act
(15 U.S.C. Section 78t-1(a)).

The consolidated suit is "Croker v. Carrier Access Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01011-LTB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T. Babcock.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kip Brian Shuman, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
         KShuman@DyerShuman.com;

     (2) Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone, P.C., 1600 Stout
         Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-534-
         4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com

     (3) Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and Charles Walter Lilley,
         Lilley & Garcia, LLP, 1600 Stout Street #1100, Denver,
         CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-298-
         8975, E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com or
         clilley@lilleygarcia.com

Representing the company is Karen Thomas Stefano of Wilson,
Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1050, U.S.A., Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-
mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


CASH AMERICA: Appeals Discovery Process in Payday Loan Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. is appealing the order of the
state court in Cobb County, Georgia to permit the plaintiff in a
class action against it and several other defendants to conduct
discovery related to alleged defenses to an arbitration
agreement in relation to payday loans.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash
America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together with
Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America), Daniel R. Feehan, and
several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders"
of Cash America.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank (CSB) has for some time made loans to
Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating
locations.  The complaint in this lawsuit claims that CSB is not
the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia
borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere
subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the
"de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

Cash America removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia and filed a motion to compel the
plaintiff to arbitrate his claim pursuant to the terms of his
contract with Cash America, in addition to denying the
plaintiff's allegations and asserting various defenses to his
claim.  The district court approved a motion by the plaintiff to
remand the case to the state court on Dec. 13, 2005.  

On Mar. 10, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for Scheduling
Conference Regarding Discovery as to Class Certification with
the state court.  

On Apr. 18, 2006 the State Court entered an order permitting the
plaintiff to conduct discovery related to his alleged defenses
to the arbitration agreement.

Cash America intends to file a Motion for Reconsideration to ask
the state court to reconsider its Apr. 18, 2006 order because
the plaintiff either cannot establish his alleged defenses, even
with discovery, or no discovery is needed for the plaintiff to
present his alleged defenses.

The remanded federal suit is "Strong v. Georgia Cash America
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02611-WSD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
William S. Duffey, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are Roy E.
Barnes, Jennifer Auer Jordan and John Frank Salter, Jr. of The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, P.O. Box 489, Marietta, GA 30061, Phone:
770-419-8505, Fax: 770-590-8958, E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com,
jennifer@barneslawgroup.com, john@barneslawgroup.com.  

Representing the company are Claudia Callaway, John Garrett
Parker, and Sabrina Rose Smith of Paul Hastings Janofsky &
Walker, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Tenth Floor, Washington,
DC 20004-2400, Phone: 202-508-9500, E-mail:
claudiacallaway@paulhastings.com, johnparker@paulhastings.com,
sabrinarosesmith@paulhastings.com.  


CHICO'S FAS: Settles "Uniform" Lawsuit Filed by Calif. Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the state of California, County of San
Francisco granted final approval to the settlement of the class
action "Charissa Villanueva v. Chico's FAS, Inc."

The complaint alleges that the company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.  The company denied
the allegations, saying that no such mandatory uniform policy
exists (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).

Although the company believed it had strong defenses to the
allegations in this case, the company agreed to participate in a
voluntary private mediation on Nov. 10, 2004.  A settlement was
reached at the mediation, and the parties are in the process of
preparing and finalizing the settlement documents (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  

On Jul. 27, 2005, the court gave its preliminary approval to the
settlement.  The class members were notified of the settlement
and given until Oct. 24, 2005 to submit notice of their
intention to partake in or opt out of the settlement (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).

On Dec. 2, 2005, the court gave its final approval to the
settlement.  The company made all required payments under the
settlement.  The court was notified that administration of the
settlement has been completed.  The total settlement costs were
not material to the company's financial statements taken as a
whole.

The suit is "Charissa Villanueva v. Chico's FAS, Inc., Case No.
CGC-03-420380," filed in the California Superior Court for San
Francisco County under Judge Arlene T. Borick.    Representing
the plaintiffs is Patrick R. Kitchin of Law Office Of Patrick R.
Kitchin, 807 Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA 94133, USA,
Phone: (415) 627-9117.

Representing the company is David S. Bradshaw of Jackson Lewis,
LLP, 801 K. Street, Ste. 2300, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA, Phone:
(916) 341-0404.


CHICO'S FAS: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Calif. Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The named plaintiff in the putative class action styled, "Marie
Nguyen v. Chico's FAS, Inc.," pending in the Superior Court for
the state of California, County of Los Angeles has voluntarily
dismissed her case, without prejudice.

The complaint, filed in May 2005, alleges that the company, in
violation of California law, requested or required its
customers, in connection with the sign-up process for its
Passport Club and as such, as part of a credit card transaction,
to provide certain personal identifying information.  The
company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).

In late 2005, the plaintiff determined that she did not wish to
pursue her claims.  On Jan. 3, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the complaint, without prejudice.  The company made no
payments or promises to the plaintiff in order to obtain the
dismissal.


CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Settlement for Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a putative class action against
Chico's FAS, Inc., which is pending in the Superior Court for
the state of California, County of San Bernardino and styled,
"Carol Schaffer v. Chico's FAS, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleges that the company, in violation of
California law, failed to:

      -- pay overtime wages,

      -- permit rest periods, and

      -- timely pay separation wages (Class Action Reporter,
         Jan. 10, 2006).

Although the company believed it had strong defenses to the
allegations in this case, the company agreed to participate in a
voluntary private mediation on Mar. 16, 2006.  The company
reached a settlement at that mediation, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the Court.

Notice of the settlement will also be sent to all class members,
who will be given the opportunity to partake in, opt out of, or
object to the settlement.  The settlement, if approved by the
court, will have no material adverse effect on the company's
financial statements taken as a whole.


CINTAS CORP: Subclass Intervenes in "Serrano" Gender Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subclass of plaintiffs has filed a motion to intervene in the
racial discrimination class action "Mirna E. Serrano, et al., v.
Cintas Corp."  The motion is brought by Colleen Grindle on
behalf of a nationwide subclass and an Ohio subclass of female
employees in Cintas Corp.'s Rental Division who were allegedly
denied hire, promotion or transfer to a service sales
representative (SSR) position.  

The suit was filed on May 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division on
behalf of female service sales representative job applicants at
all company locations in Michigan.  It is seeking relief damages
and fees.

On Sept. 6, 2005, a Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint to expand the
lawsuit to a nationwide claim.  On Nov. 15, 2005, the
EEOC intervened to participate in the lawsuit in continuation of
an EEOC charge filed on Apr. 17, 2000, by Mirna Serrano with the
EEOC Detroit District office.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a motion to intervene in Serrano was filed by
intervening plaintiffs Colleen Grindle.

The suit is "Serrano v. Cintas Corp., Case No. 4:04-cv-40132-
PVG-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, under Judge Paul V. Gadola with referral
to Judge Donald A. Scheer.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert K. Dawkins of Equal Employment Opportunities
         Commission (Detroit), 477 Michigan Ave., Suite 865,
         Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-226-4600, Fax: 313-226-
         2778, E-mail: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov;  

     (2) James K. Fett and Lawrence A. Fields of Fett & Fields
         (Pinckney), 805 E. Main St., Pinckney, MI 48169-3266,
         Phone: 734-954-0100, E-mail: jim@frflaw.com and
         larry@frflaw.com;  

     (3) Rachel J. Geman and Gena E. Wiltsek of Lieff, Cabraser,
         (New York), 780 Third Ave., 48th Floor, New York, NY
         10017-2024, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-
         mail: rgeman@lchb.com and gwiltsek@lchb.com; and

     (4) William G. Tishkoff of Tishkoff & Assoc. (Ann Arbor),
         407 N. Main, Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1158,
         Phone: 734-663-4077, E-mail: will@tishkofflaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Gregory M. Utter of Keating,
Muething, (Cincinnati), One East Fourth St., Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6540, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-
mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com.


CNL HOTELS: Paying $35M to Settle Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc., a large Orlando-based real estate
investment trust, agreed to pay a total of $35 million to settle
a consolidated securities class action filed against it over a
failed initial public offering, The Sentinel reports.

The company will settle the suit in three payments between Jan.
15, 2007, and Jan. 15, 2009.  The money "will be deposited into
a settlement fund account to be administered by plaintiffs
counsel."

U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell signed the preliminary
order Apr. 21.  A final hearing is scheduled for Jul. 26, 2006
when plaintiff-attorney fees will also be considered.  The firm,
Chimicles & Tikellis, in Haverford, Pa., is seeking 25 percent
plus expenses.

The suit is also filed against CNL Real Estate Advisors, LLC,
certain of their affiliates and certain of their directors and
officers.  The company and other defendants have denied and
continued to deny liability or any act of negligence or
misconduct.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, is "Campbell v. CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc.
et al., (6:04-cv-01231-GAP-KRS)."  Presiding judge is Gregory A.
Presnell.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly Marie Donaldson,
         Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Haverford Centre, 361
         West Lancaster Ave., Haverford, PA 19041, Phone:
         215/642-8500, E-mail: nick@chimicles.com or
         kimdonaldson@chimicles.com;

     (2) Beth Hoffman, Lawrence A. Sucharow, Goodkind Labaton
         Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY
         10017, E-mail: bhoffman@glrslaw.com or
         lsucharow@glrslaw.com;
  
     (3) Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212/545-4600, E-mail: kolker@whafh.com; and

     (4) George E. Ridge, Cooper, Ridge & Lantinberg, P.A., 200
         W. Forsyth St., Suite 1200, Jacksonville, FL 32202-
         1069, Phone: 904/353-6555, Fax: 904-353-7550, E-mail:
         gridge@attorneyjax.com

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark Herman Budoff, Kenneth A. Lapatine, Toby S. Soli,
         Greenberg Traurig LLP, MetLife Building, 200 Park Ave.,
         15th Floor, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212/801 9200,
         Fax: 212/801-6400, E-mail: budoffm@gtlaw.com,
         lapatinek@gtlaw.com, solit@gtlaw.com; and

     (2) David B. King and Thomas A. Zehnder, King, Blackwell,
         Downs & Zehnder, P.A., 25 E. Pine St., P.O. Box 1631,
         Orlando, FL 32801-1631, Phone: 407/422-2472, Fax: 407-
         648-0161, E-mail: dking@kbdlaw.com or
         tzehnder@kbdlaw.com.


COLORADO: More Hispanic Officers File Employment Bias Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 29 Denver police officers have now filed complaints
of discrimination against the department and the city, the Rocky
Mountain News reports.  

The law enforcers alleged in a complaint filed with the
Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in Denver they've been discriminated against in areas
such as recruitment, hiring, promotions and discipline.

In March, eight Latino police officers filed a class action
employment discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of
Justice in Washington, D.C., and the federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in Denver alleging the department makeup
does not reflect that of the city.

According to a Denver Post report, there are 1,493 officers in
the Denver Police Department: about 20 percent are Latino -- 36
women and 266 men.  The complaint also alleged that Hispanics
have been slow to earn promotions and minority officers who file
hostile work environment complaints within the department face
retaliation or find their complaints ignored (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 9, 2006).

The National Latino Peace Officers Association has been
negotiating with the city for three years, and will go forward
with a lawsuit if a settlement cannot be reached with the city
or the police department.  The organization has nearly 100
members locally and 30,000 nationally.


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Subscribers' Suits in Mass., Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. is defendant in two purported class actions by
local subscribers pending in both the U.S. District Courts for
the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, respectively.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case is the company's
subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the potential
class in the Pennsylvania case is its subscriber base in the
"Philadelphia and Chicago clusters," as those terms are defined
in the complaints.

In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
"horizontal market restraints" in those areas, and seek damages
pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

As a result of recent events in both cases relating to the
procedural issue of whether plaintiffs' claims could proceed in
court or, alternatively, whether plaintiffs should be compelled
to arbitrate their claims pursuant to arbitration clauses in
their subscriber agreements, it has become more likely that
these cases will proceed in court.


COMCAST CORP: Contributes to Settlement of AT&T Stock Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. is potentially responsible, under the terms of the
acquisition of AT&T Corp.'s broadband cable business, for a
portion of the liabilities arising from two purported securities
class actions brought against AT&T and others and consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

These lawsuits assert claims under Section 11 and Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act.

The first lawsuit, for which the company's portion of any loss
is up to 15%, alleges that AT&T made material misstatements and
omissions in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
AT&T Wireless initial public offering.

In March 2004, the plaintiffs, and AT&T and the other
defendants, moved for summary judgment in the Wireless Case.  
The New Jersey District Court denied the motions and the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the cases
for trial to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, where they had originally been brought.  

A trial date was set for Apr. 19, 2006.  On Apr. 5, 2006, the
parties reached an agreement to settle the Wireless case for
$150 million, of which the company's portion is $22.5 million.

This settlement agreement is pending before the court for
approval.  The additional amount recorded related to the
settlement did not have a material impact on the company's
results of operations for the three months ended Mar. 31, 2006.

The second lawsuit, for which the company's portion of any loss
is 50%, alleges that AT&T knowingly provided false projections
relating to AT&T common stock.  

In October 2004, the plaintiffs, and AT&T and the other
defendants, agreed to settle the Common Stock Case for $100
million.  Some class members objected to the amount and
apportionment of the fees of class counsel and appealed to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In May 2005, the company paid $50 million representing its share
of the settlement amount.  AT&T and its directors' and officers'
insurers are in litigation as to whether the Common Stock case
claims and the settlement are covered by the D&O policies.

Should AT&T recover all or some of the settlement from the
insurers, the company will be entitled to a return of all or
some of its payment from AT&T.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Continues to Face N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc. is set to respond by May 31, 2006 to
plaintiffs' opposition to an amended motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities fraud class action pending against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

December 2004 and January 2005, the company and certain current
and former officers and directors were named as defendants in
several class actions seeking monetary damages filed on behalf
of all persons who purchased company common stock during a
specified class period.

These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
facts.  The California cases have now been consolidated with the
New Jersey cases so that all of the class actions are being
heard in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same
judge.

On Sept. 1, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the case.  On Nov. 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion to file a second amended complaint, which was filed on
Dec. 5, 2005.  

The defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the case on
Feb. 6, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Apr. 24,
2006, and defendant's reply is expected by May 31, 2006.

The suit is "Witriol v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-06219-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ
         07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:
         PSP@njlawfirm.com; and

     (2) Katrina Blumenkrants and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite
         Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Phone: (973) 623-3000,
         E-mail: kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com and
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are Gregory B. Reilly and Deborah A.
Silodor of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue,
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone: (973) 597-2500 and (973) 597-
2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com and
dsilodor@lowenstein.com.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.J. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey's decision to dismiss the purported class
action against Conexant Systems, Inc. that alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and
former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit.  It was filed
on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's
401(k) Plan (Plan) during a specified class period.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants
in the Plan.  The defendants believe these charges are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
case.

The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30,
2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006.

On Mar. 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it
closed.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on Apr. 17, 2006.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez &
Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway, West Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.   

Representing the defendants is Gregory B. Reilly of Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com.  


GOOGLE INC: Faces Challenge to $90M Settlement of Ark. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Internet search advertisers have filed a suit
seeking to block a proposed settlement of a click fraud class
action filed against Google Inc. in Arkansas, reports say.

In March, Google agreed to pay $90 million, including lawyers'
fees, to settle the suit filed against it by advertisers in
Arkansas state court, Associated Press reports (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 10, 2006).

The suit was initially filed by Texarkana gift shop, Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2005).  
A case subsequently filed by John C. Goodson and Dallas lawyer
Joel Fineberg, also named:

     -- Yahoo! Inc.,
     -- Overture Services Inc.,
     -- America Online Inc.,
     -- Ask Jeeves Inc.,
     -- Looksmart Ltd.,
     -- Lycos Inc.,
     -- Netscape Communication Corp.,
     -- Buena Vista Internet Group,
     -- Findwhat.Com Inc., and
     -- Time Warner Inc.

The suit alleged that Google overcharged thousands of
advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the "click fraud"
strategy.  The scheme involves sending fraudulent clicks to
advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts.

Under the settlement, eligible advertisers in Google's network
during the past four years will be granted an account credit
that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google.

The Arkansas judge has set a hearing on Jul. 24 to 25, 2006 to
consider whether to give the proposed settlement final approval,
according to Shawn Khorrami, one of the lawyers challenging the
settlement.

The latest suit -- filed in the same Arkansas court -- wants the
settlement rejected because it would not adequately compensate
advertisers who lost money from fraud.  The plaintiff in the
case is Joseph Kinney, a security consultant.  Mr. Kinney said
he has lost about $1,500 to click fraud on ads related to his
SafeSpaces.com Web site.  

"Under the settlement, Google can pay a half a percent of your
losses," or $5 on every $1,000 of losses claimed, Mr. Khorrami
said.  According to him, Google has not yet sent out notices to
advertisers advising them of the proposed settlement.

Google and attorneys for Mr. Kinney have exchanged statements
accusing each other of manipulating the class-action process.  
Google is quoted in an Associated Press report saying Mr.
Kinney's lawyers were, "trying to circumvent the normal class
action process..."

        Statement by the Law Firm Representing Mr. Kinney

On May 15, Darren Kaplan, partner with Chitwood Harley Harnes
LLP, who represents Joseph Kinney in the Arkansas case as well
as the plaintiffs in another class action against Google in
California federal court responded: "If anything, Google is the
one abusing the class action process by cutting itself a
sweetheart deal in Arkansas that provides almost nothing to
class members."

Both the Arkansas class action and the California federal court
action allege that Google has overcharged its advertisers for
"click fraud" -- clicks on Google Internet ads intended solely
to force advertisers to pay fees to Google network partners.  
Independent studies have claimed that as much as $100 to $400 of
every $1,000 billed to advertisers stems from click fraud.  If
those estimates are correct, Google may have overcharged its
advertisers as much as $5 billion, the law firm said.

Google's form contract requires all lawsuits with its
advertisers to be brought in Santa Clara County, California.  
However, after the federal court in Santa Clara scheduled a
hearing to decide whether that case should proceed as a class
action, Google agreed to a settlement in the Arkansas case
instead.

The proposed settlement in Arkansas will extinguish any claims
for overcharges that all U.S. Google advertisers might have, but
Kinney's lawsuit alleges that the proposed settlement in
Arkansas is grossly inadequate because:

     * the only cash Google is paying in the settlement -- as
       much as $30 million -- is going to the lawyers
       representing the class in the Arkansas case;

     * Google advertisers, on the other hand, will only receive
       credits against future advertising charges in an amount
       that is less than half a cent for every dollar of
       overcharge;

     * under the settlement, Google advertisers will have to
       make a claim to Google, which has sole discretion to
       determine which claimants will receive credits in the
       settlement and how much; and

     * Google is not required to make any changes to how it
       protects advertisers from "click fraud" or in how it
       investigates claims by advertisers that they have been
       victimized by click fraud.

"Google never answers these criticisms of the proposed
settlement," said Mr. Kaplan. "In fact, Google has no answer."

Google advertisers will receive notice of the proposed
settlement only by e-mail, and will have thirty days to file an
objection to the settlement.  Objections must be filed with the
Arkansas court and mailed to the attorneys for the Arkansas
plaintiffs and the attorney for Google as provided for in the
notice.

Kaplan is advising all Google advertisers who are dissatisfied
with the settlement not to wait for notice and to simply object
now: "Advertisers have to let the court know how angry they are
that Google is using an Arkansas class action to insulate itself
from billions of dollars in claims without paying a dime to its
customers."  Objections should reference the case, "Lane's Gifts
and Collectibles, L.L.C., et al. vs. Yahoo! Inc., et al, Case
No. CV-2005-52-1," and must be sent to:

     (1) Clerk for the Miller County Circuit Court 400 Laurel
         Texarkana, AR 71854;

     (2) George L. McWilliams Patton, Roberts, McWilliams &
         Capshaw, LLP 2900 St. Michael Drive, Fourth Floor
         Texarkana, TX 75503; and

     (3) Daralyn J. Durie Keker & Van Nest, LLP 710 Sansome
         Street San Francisco, CA 94111.


HALLIBURTON CO: Continues to Face Consolidated Tex. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action against
Halliburton Co., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, recently filed their fourth
amended consolidated complaint in the case.

In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
the period of approximately May 1998 until approximately May
2002 alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved
in the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.  In the weeks
that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were
filed against the company.

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors.  The class action
cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated
class action complaint "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton
company, et al.," was filed and served upon the company in April
2003 (the Moore class action).

In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a
written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon
which the Moore class action would be settled.  

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated
complaint, which was granted by the court.

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes
claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (the Dresser claims).

The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by
the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore
class action and the derivative action.  The memorandum of
understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6 million, which
would be funded by insurance proceeds.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement the court entered an order in September 2004 holding
that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate,
denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the
Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among other
things, to mediate.

After the court's denial of the motion to approve the
settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it
believes that it is entitled to do by its terms.  The mediation
was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be
at an impasse with no settlement having been reached.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new
lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated
amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss.  
The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at
which time the court took the motion under advisement.

On Mar. 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead those claims
to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint.

With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied
the motion, the company requested that the court certify its
order for interlocutory appeal.  

On Apr. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
consolidated complaint.  The company intends to renew its motion
to dismiss those portions of the complaint that have been re-
plead.  

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton company, et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard S Schiffrin, Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor, 280
         King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610/667-
         7706, Fax: 610/667-7056;

     (2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello   
         Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301,
         Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and

     (3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270
         Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212/545-4600.

Representing the company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek,
1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.


HORIZON HEALTH: Court Denies Class Status for ProCare Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California for the County of
Orange denied class-action status to the case "Jeanine Phillips,
on behalf of herself and all others simultaneously situated v.
ProCare One Nurses, LLC, Obstetrical Nurses, Inc. and Horizon
Health Corporation, Case No. 030000425."  An August 2006 trial
has been set.

The complaint alleges various violations of California wage and
hour laws and seeks the recovery of substantial amounts for
wages, fines, penalties and attorneys fees.  The case is filed
as a private attorney general action under Section 17200 of the
California Business and Profession Code (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 5, 2006).

The company considers that it is entitled to indemnity from
Obstetrical Nurses, Inc., a predecessor to ProCare One Nurses,
LLC for liability relating to a portion of the claims and has
asserted a claim for Indemnity in a separate lawsuit (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2006).

The parties are engaged in discovery proceedings.  The case is
filed as a class action, but the court denied the motion for
class certification.  The case has been set for trial in August
2006.


ILLINOIS: More Families Join Racial Bias Suit Against U46 Dist.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against Elgin School
District U46 filed an amended complaint on May 12, according to
Chicago Tribune.

The revised suit added two Hispanic families and an African-
American family alleging unfair treatment of their children by
the Elgin public schools.  According to the report, the suit
accuses the school district of:

     -- treating minority students with hostility,
    
     -- disproportionately referring black and Latino students
        to an alternative high school,

     -- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities,
        and

     -- failing to provide proper services to Latino students
        with limited English proficiency.

The plaintiffs' lawyers hope they can now satisfy requirements
for class certification.  In March District Judge Robert
Gettleman refused to certify the lawsuit, saying the complaint
must be narrowed, or the plaintiff list must be expanded to
accommodate all of the issues listed to get class certification.

A black family and a Hispanic family in Elgin filed the suit in
2005 to complain about the closure of Illinois Park Elementary
School in 2004.  

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black
students who claim they were discriminated against in
assignments, transportation, school closings and educational
programs.

The original suit is "Daniel et al. v. Board of Education for
Illinois School District U-46, Case No. 1:05-cv-00760," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, Chtd., 122 South
Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-
3600, E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com.

Representing the defendants is Patricia J. Whitten of Franczek
Sullivan, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL
60606-6785, Phone: (312) 986-0300, E-mail: pjw@franczek.com.  


INTERVEST BANCSHARES: Settles Del. Suit Over Warrant Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intervest Bancshares Corp. has settled a lawsuit filed in the
Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware, individually and as
a class action on behalf of Class A stockholders.

The action challenges the proposed amendment and extension of
warrants held by the company, which is one of the items on the
agenda for the company's annual meeting on May 25, 2006.  The
firm has mailed its proxy statement for the meeting.

The company also reported that, although it denies any
wrongdoing or liability, it determined that it is in the best
interests of the company and its stockholders to reach a prompt
and amicable settlement with respect to the action.  In that
regard, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiff in the matter.

The memorandum provides, among others that:

     -- if the amendments are approved by the stockholders, the    
        authority conferred on the directors will not provide
        for an extension of the terms of the warrants for more
        than 2 years;

     -- in determining incentive compensation of the chairman,
        the company's Compensation Committee will take into
        consideration any extension of the term of the warrants,
        the value of the extension and any related expense to
        the company; and

     -- the company will send its shareholders a supplement to
        its proxy statement.  A copy of the proposed supplement
        to the proxy statement was filed on Mar. 15 with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission and is available for
        review at http://www.sec.gov.  

The parties have agreed to move forward with a stipulation of
settlement and dismissal of the action upon the terms of the
memorandum, although any such settlement is subject to the
approval by the Court of Chancery.

Intervest Bancshares Corporation is a financial holding company.  
Its Class A Common Stock is listed on the NASDAQ National
Market: Trading Symbol IBCA.  For more information, contact
Jerome Dansker, Phone: 212-218-2800, Fax: 212-218-2808.


KRISPY KREME: Settles N.C. ERISA Violations Lawsuit for $4.75M
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached resolving an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act class action filed on Mar. 3,
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and individual
defendants including certain members of its board of directors,
officers and employees.

The settlement would include a one-time cash payment to be made
by the company's insurer in the amount of $4,750,000.  The
company and the individual defendants deny any and all
wrongdoing and would pay no money in the settlement.

The lawsuit alleges that the company and the individual
defendants breached duties with respect to the management and
administration of the Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp. Retirement
Savings Plan (the 401(k) Plan) and the Krispy Kreme Profit
Sharing Stock Ownership Plan (the KSOP).  

If the settlement is finalized, it will impact members of a
settlement class consisting of the plans' participants from Jan.
1, 2003 through May 12, 2006.  If the settlement is finalized,
in addition to the cash payment by the company's insurer, the
company will amend the plans to cause the merger of the KSOP
into the 401(k) Plan.

Several contingent events must be satisfied before the
settlement becomes final, including preliminary and final
approval by the U.S. District Court where the matter is pending.  
It is anticipated that if the U.S. District Court gives final
approval to the proposed settlement, this matter will be
resolved finally by the end of calendar 2007.

                         Case Background

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
employees were served with the complaint on Mar. 16, 2005, which
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the company's retirement
savings plan or profit sharing stock ownership plan between Jan.
1, 2003 and the date of filing and whose accounts included
investments in the company's common stock.

Plaintiffs, who seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief, contend that:

      -- defendants failed to manage prudently and loyally the
         assets of the plans by continuing to offer the
         company's common stock as an investment option and to
         hold large percentages of the plans' assets in the
         company's common stock;

      -- failed to provide complete and accurate information
         about the risks of the company's common stock;

      -- failed to monitor the performance of fiduciary
         appointees; and

      -- breached duties and responsibilities as co-fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Jul. 1, 2005,
asserting the same claims they asserted in their original
complaint.  

The defendants received an extension of time to respond to the
amended complaint, and on Dec. 15, 2005, filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.  

The suit is "Smith v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-00187-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L. Osteen.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) T. David Copley of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 3rd.
         Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-
         623-3384, E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Gary V. Mauney of Lewis & Roberts, 5960 Fairview Rd.,
         Ste. 102, Charlotte, NC 28210-3102, US, Phone: 704-347-
         8990, Fax: 704-347-8929, E-mail:
         garymauney@lewis-roberts.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Adam H. Charnes of Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P., 1001 W.
         Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone: 336-607-
         7382, Fax: 336-734-2602, E-mail:
         acharnes@kilpatrickstockton.com;

     (2) Stacey Cerrone of Proskauer Rose, LLP, 909 Poydras St.,
         Ste. 1100, New Orleans, LA 70112, US, Phone: 504-310-
         4089, Fax: 504-310-2022, E-mail:
         scerrone@proskauer.com; and

     (3) Michael Scott Fox of Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A.,
         P.O.B. 2888, Greensboro, NC 27402, Phone: 336-271-5244,
         Fax: 336-274-6590, E-mail: mfox@tuggleduggins.com.


KRISPY KREME: N.C. Court Mulls Securities Fraud Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and its executives.

On May 12, 2004, Eastside investors, on behalf of itself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of the company's investors who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Aug.
21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, filed an action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against the
company and certain of its current and former officers.

This action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with various public statements made
by the company.  It asks an order that the action may proceed as
a class action and an award of compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified
amount, together with interest and reimbursement of costs and
expenses of the litigation.

To date, 14 follow-on actions have been filed in the same court
alleging substantially similar claims.  On Nov. 8, 2004 all of
these claims were consolidated into one action.

Subsequent to the consolidation, plaintiffs filed two amended
complaints, the latest of which was filed on May 23, 2005.  The
complaint now covers investors who purchased the company's
publicly traded securities between Mar. 8, 2001 and Apr. 18,
2005.  The company filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 14, 2005,
which motion is currently pending.

In arguing for the suit's dismissal, the company stated in court
papers "that predictions of future financial performance cannot
be the basis for a securities fraud claim."  It also said that
the plaintiffs "have failed to show any fraudulent intent behind
Krispy Kreme's accounting errors" (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
27, 2005).

Also, the company said in court papers that it restated past
earnings because of what it said are accounting errors, but
pointed out, "The mere fact of a restatement, however, does not
give rise to a strong inference of fraud."  It further stated
that it warned investors of potential business risks that could
alter the company's performance and that shielded it from legal
liability (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2005).

The company also discounted information from confidential
witnesses that was included in a revised suit filed against the
company saying, "Plaintiffs offer no credible contrary
information from their confidential witnesses, all of whom
worked in low-level positions at individual stores or
franchises, and none of whom would be expected to know the
overall corporate results or forecasts" (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 27, 2005).

Attorneys for Scott Livengood, the former chief executive of the
company and who is one of the individual defendants in the case,
criticized the suit in a court filing.  They said, "This case
follows an all-too-familiar pattern: a corporation announces its
business prospects may not be as rosy as they once were, and
plaintiffs immediately accuse the company, along with its
officers and directors, of having intentionally lied to the
public in the earlier, more positive announcements" (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2005).

The suit is "Eastside Investors v. Doughnuts, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-00416-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L. Osteen.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard B. Brualdi of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29
         Broadway, Ste. 2400, New York, NY 10006, US, Phone:
         212-952-0602, Fax: 212-952-0608, E-mail:
         rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com;

     (2) John Thurston O'Neal of O'Neal Law Office, 7
         Battleground Court, Suite 212, Greensboro, NC 27408,
         Phone: 336-510-7904, Fax: 336-510-7965, E-mail:
         oneallaw@triadbiz.rr.com; and  

     (3) Leslie Bruce McDaniel of McDaniel & Anderson, L.L.P.,
         P.O.B. 58186, Raleigh, NC 27658-8186, Phone: 919-872-
         3000, Fax: 919-790-9273, E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William Mark Conger of Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.,
         1001 W. Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone:
         336-607-7309 and 336-607-7351, Fax: 336-734-2633 and
         336-734-2625, E-mail: mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com
         and jkelly@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) Nicholas I. Porritt of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
         Rosati, P.C., Two Fountain Sq., Reston Town Ctr., 11921
         Freedom Dr., Ste. 600, Reston, VA 20190-5634, Phone:
         703-734-3107, Fax: 703-734-3199, E-mail:
         nporritt@wsgr.com.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Tenn. Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
approved the settlement of the class action alleging violations
of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) filed against
Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc. in relation to ten of its facilities.

On Jan. 12, 2001, Access Now, Inc., a disability rights
organization, filed a class action against each of the company's
hospitals alleging non-compliance with the accessibility
guidelines under the ADA.  The suit seeks injunctive relief
requiring facility modification, where necessary, to meet the
ADA guidelines, along with attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2002, the Court certified the class action and issued
a scheduling order that requires the parties to complete
discovery and inspection for approximately six facilities per
year.  As of Jun. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs have conducted
inspections at 22 of the company's hospitals.  

The district court approved the settlement agreements between
the parties relating to ten of the company's facilities.  The
company is now moving forward in implementing facility
modifications in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
The company currently anticipates that the costs associated with
modifying three of these facilities will be approximately $1.0
million, the company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of Mar. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs have conducted inspections
at 23 of the company's hospitals.  To date, the district court
has approved the settlement agreements between the parties
relating to ten of the company's facilities.

The company is moving forward in implementing facility
modifications in accordance with the terms of the settlement.  
It recently completed corrective work on three facilities for a
cost of $1.0 million.  

The company currently anticipates that the costs associated with
seven facilities that require modifications will be
approximately $3.1 million.

The suit is "Access Now, Inc. v. Lifepoint Hospitals, et al.,
Case No. 4:01-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge James H. Jarvis.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Linda F. Burnsed and Stanley M. Chernau of Chernau,
         Chaffin & Burnsed, PLLC, One American Center, 3100 West
         End Avenue, Suite 550, Nashville, TN 37203, Phone: 615-
         460-7478, Fax: 615-460-7484, E-mail:
         schernau@ccblaw.net; and

     (2) Charles D. Ferguson of de la O & Marko, 3001 S.W. 3rd
         Avenue, Miami, FL 33129, Phone: 305-285-2000, Fax: 305-
         285-5555, E-mail: ferguson@delao-marko.com.  

Representing the defendants are, Andrew S. Naylor and Paula D.
Walker of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, P.O. Box 198966, 511
Union Street, Suite 2700, Nashville, TN 37219-8966, Phone: 615-
244-6380, Fax: 615-2446804, E-mail: anaylor@wallerlaw.com and
pwalker@wallerlaw.com.


MEDICAL INFORMATION: Mass. Court Nixes Some Claims in "Hubert"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed certain claims in a purported class action against
Medical Information Technology, Inc. (Meditech), which was filed
by a former employee over the company's profit sharing plan.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee,
filed a complaint against the Medical Information Technology
Profit Sharing Plan, A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company
Director, and the other five company Directors, Lawrence A.
Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E.
Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente (Class Action Reporter Feb. 6,
2006).

The complaint is purportedly brought on Plaintiff's own behalf
and on behalf of a purported class consisting of "all
participants in the [Plan] who have received any distribution
since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair value of
their benefits".  The complaint alleges that:

     -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the
        Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of
        redemption and payment of a participant's benefits
        under the Plan;

     -- the Directors, in connection with an annual
        contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan,
        have undervalued the company's common stock and have
        not paid retiring or terminating participants in the
        Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan;

     -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders,
        including some of the Directors, have been buyers of
        Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low
        price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved
        without adequate care by the other Directors;

     -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither
        he nor the other Directors have relied upon an
        independent appraiser;

     -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each
        employee participating in the Plan upon his or her
        termination, that all of the defendants violated their
        fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and
        that as a result Plaintiff and members of the purported
        class are due benefits from the Plan; and

     -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the
        participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee
        Retirement Income Security Act (Class Action Reporter
        Feb. 6, 2006).

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment
against the defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan
to consult an outside appraiser in valuing the plan's assets,
removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan Trustee, and damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs (Class Action Reporter Feb.
6, 2006).

According to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Mar. 31, 2006, on
Mar. 20, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims
brought against the individual defendants.  The remaining claim
is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan, the plan's trustee,
and the company.  The judge did not rule on the plaintiff's
request for the complaint to be a class action.

The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit
Sharing Plan, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Rya W. Zobel.  Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A.
Collora of Dwyer & Collora, LLP, Federal Reserve Building, 600
Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor, Boston, MA 02210, Phone: 617-371-
1002, Fax: 617-371-1037, E-mail: mcollora@dwyercollora.com.  

Representing the defendants are Kevin P. Martin and Stephen D.
Poss of Goodwin Proctor, LLP, Phone: 617-570-1000 and 617-570-
1886, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com and
sposs@goodwinprocter.com.


NEBRASKA: Loses Appeal in "Transitional Medicaid Benefits" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found the state of
Nebraska wrong in cutting Medicaid payments to some 1,700 single
working parents in 2004, according to the Sioux City Journal.

The ruling affirms a decision by U.S. District Judge Laurie
Smith-Camp in a class action filed by Kelly Bowlin of Ogallala
and others in similar situations.  The suit, filed by The
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest on
behalf of some 800 single mothers, accuses the state of refusing
to give plaintiffs their so-called "transitional Medicaid
benefits."

In deciding on the Bowlin's case, Judge Smith-Camp cited a
ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar
case filed by Appleseed in 2002 on behalf of two mothers Teresa
Kai of Pender and Stacy Noller of Kearney.  The plaintiffs
argued that under federal law, they are entitled to continuing
Medicaid coverage through the Transitional Medical Assistance
program.  The program provides up to a year of additional health
care coverage for those terminated from Medicaid.

"As the Eighth Circuit Court stated in Kai, 'medically needy
caretaker relatives are not entitled to Medicaid by reason of
any mandatory provision of federal law,'" the judge said.  "But
when the state removes these persons from eligibility, it must
do so subject to the condition ... that they receive
Transitional Medical Assistance."


NUTRITECH CORP: Recalls Food Supplement for Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nutritech Corp. of Santa Barbara, California is recalling its
8.5 oz. jug of "ALL ONE Calcium Complex" with expiration dates
of March 2006 through June 2007 because it may contain
undeclared milk products.

The recall was initiated after a complaint alleging an allergic
reaction from consumption of the product revealed it may contain
milk derivatives and was being distributed without proper
labeling.  Subsequent investigation indicates that the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown of the company's lab testing
processes.

The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk products run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.  
There has been one illness reported to date in connection with
this problem.

The product comes in an 8.5 oz. white plastic jug with a green
label marked "ALL ONE Calcium Complex."

"ALL ONE Calcium Complex" was distributed nationwide to
distributors, in retail stores and through mail order.

Stores that carry "ALL ONE Calcium Complex" are advised to
remove the product from sale and return it to their distributor.  
Consumers who have purchased ALL ONE Calcium complex who have an
allergy to milk are urged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 1-800-235-5727.


POLAR ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Air Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferndale, Michigan residents filed a class action against
recycling company Polar Environmental Service Corp. on May 3,
according to The Oakland Press.

The suit alleging the company is filling the air in the
neighborhood with foul odor, was filed by Detroit law firm
Macuga & Liddle P.C. in Oakland County Circuit Court.  It is
asking monetary damages exceeding $25,000.  

Polar Environmental -- http://www.polarcompanies.com/--  
recycles and disposes non-hazardous waste oil and wastewater at
its Ferndale facility, the company said at its Web site.  

For more information, contact Steven Liddle of Macuga & Liddle
P.C. (http://www.mlclassaction.com/).


ROCKWELL INT'L: Jury Holds Company Liable in Rocky Flats Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury in Colorado returned a verdict against Rockwell
International Corp. (RIC) saying that it was liable for
trespassing and nuisance in a protracted legal action involving
the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant.

RIC, which is now part of The Boeing Company, is the predecessor
of Rockwell Automation, Inc.  It operated the Rocky Flats Plant
i Golden, Colorado, from 1975 through December 1989 for the
Department of Energy (DOE).

Incident to Boeing's acquisition of RIC in 1996, the Rockwell
Automation, Inc. assumed and agreed to indemnify RIC and Boeing
for any liability arising out of RIC's activities at the plant
to the extent such liability is not assumed or indemnified by
the government, and RIC and Boeing assigned to the company the
right to any reimbursements or other proceeds to which they
might be entitled under RIC's Rocky Flats contracts with the
DOE.

On Jan. 30, 1990, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado against RIC and Dow Chemical
Co., another former operator of the plant.

The action alleges the improper production, handling and
disposal of radioactive and other hazardous substances,
constituting, among other things, violations of various
environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and
misrepresentation and concealment of the facts relating thereto.

On Oct. 8, 1993, the court certified separate medical monitoring
and property value classes.  

On Feb. 14, 2006, a federal jury empanelled to try certain of
the class action plaintiffs' property damage claims found the
contractor defendants liable for trespass and nuisance, and
awarded $176 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in
punitive damages against the two defendants collectively.

The jury also found RIC to be 10% responsible for the trespass
and 70% responsible for the nuisance.  No appealable judgment
was entered on the jury verdict, in part because the court has
yet to decide how the damages are to be allocated between the
defendants and among the plaintiff class members.

Appeals are likely after judgment is entered.  Effective Aug. 1,
1996, the DOE assumed control of the defense of the contractor
defendants, including RIC, in the action and has either
reimbursed or paid directly the costs of RIC's defense.

Case Background

The trial of the $500 million class action, filed 15 years ago,  
began in Oct. 2005.  Residents who owned property near the site,  
claimed that Dow Chemical Co., which operated the site from the  
1950s through 1975, and RIC, which took over in 1975 and
operated the plant until it was shut down in 1989, improperly
stored or otherwise mishandled plutonium-laced waste, resulting
in contamination of soil and groundwater.  According to the
suit, both firms operated the plant under a Department of Energy
(DOE) contract, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).   

Those residents, who are the named plaintiffs in the suit,  
claimed that large fires at the plant and windstorms and other  
natural events helped to spread the waste outside the plant's  
boundaries.  That contamination, plus what the property owners  
said was a stigma attached to houses near the plant, resulted in  
plummeting property values.  They also contend that Dow,
Rockwell and the DOE have covered up how harmful the plant
really was (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).

Much of the case centers on an FBI raid at the site in the  
summer of 1989.  Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats at the time,  
pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes and  
paid a fine of $18.5 million (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23,
2006).

Built in the 1950s during the Cold War era, the plant has been  
shut down.  Its 6,500-acre site underwent environmental  
cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).

The suit is "Cook, et al. v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case No.
1:90-cv-00181-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Gary B. Blum of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York St.,
         Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax: 303-
         399-2650, E-mail: blumg@s-d.com;  

     (2) Stanley M. Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &  
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One  
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0268;

     (3) Merrill Gene Davidoff, Jennifer E. MacNaughton, Peter  
         B. Nordberg, Ellen T. Noteware, Bernadette M. Rappold,  
         Stanley B. Siegel and David F. Sorensen of Berger &  
         Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA  
         19103, U.S.A, Phone: 215-875-3084, 215-875-3000 and  
         215-875-3051, Fax: 215-875-4671, 215-875-4604 and 215-
         875-5707, E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net,  
         jmacnaughton@bm.net, pnordberg@bm.net,  
         enoteware@bm.net and dsorensen@bm.net;  

     (4) Bruce H. DeBoskey of Silver & Deboskey, P.C., 1801 York  
         St. #700, Denver, CO 80206-5607, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399
         -3000;

     (5) Kenneth A. Jacobsen of Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, 12  
         Orchard Lane, Wallingford, PA 19086, U.S.A., Phone:  
         610-566-7930, Fax: 610-566-7940;

     (6) David Evans Kreutzer of Colorado Department of Law,   
         1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,  
         Phone: 303-866-5667, Fax: 303-866-3558, E-mail:  
         david.kreutzer@state.co.us;  

     (7) Louise M. Roselle of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &  
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One  
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:  
         513-621-0267, Fax: 513-381-2375, E-mail:  
         louiseroselle@wsbclaw.com;  

     (8) Clisham, Satriana & Biscan, LLC, 1512 Larimer St., #400  
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-468-5403, Fax: 303-
         942-7290, E-mail: satrianad@csbattorneys.com;  

     (9) Holly Brons Shook of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York  
         St., Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax:
         303-399-2650, E-mail: shookh@s-d.com;  

    (10) Ronald Simon of Simon & Associates, 1707 N. St., N.W.  
         Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone: 202-429-0094, Fax:
         202-429-0075, E-mail: ron@1707law.com; and

    (11) John David Stoner of Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., 361  
         West Lancaster Ave., One Haverford Centre, Haverford,
         PA 19041-0100, U.S.A

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Joseph John Bronesky and Christopher Lane of Sherman &  
         Howard, L.L.C.- 17th St., Denver, CO, U.S.  
         District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth St., #3000
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-299-8450 and 303-
         299-8422, Fax: 303-298-0949 and 303-298-0940, E-mail:  
         jbronesk@sah.com and clane@sah.com;  

     (2) Wendy S. White, Timothy P. Brooks, Patrick M. Hanlon,
         Amy Horton, Franklin D. Kramer and Edward J. Naughton   
         Of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 1800 Massachusetts Ave.,  
         N.W. #800, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone:  202-
         828-2000, Fax: 828-2000;

     (3) Michael K. Isenman of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 901 New  
         York Ave., NW #700, Washington, DC 20001, U.S.A, Phone:
         202-346-4000, Fax: 202-346-4444, E-mail:  
         misenman@goodwinprocter.com;  

     (4) Lester C. Houtz of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar &
         Scott-Colorado, 1899 Wynkoop St., #800 Denver, CO  
         80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-592-3177, Fax: 303-3140, E-  
         mail: lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com;  

     (5) Douglas J. Kurtenbach, S. Jonathan Silverman, Mark S.  
         Lillie and David M. Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP-
         Illinois, 200 East, Randolph Drive, #5400 Chicago, IL  
         60601, U.S.A, Phone: 312-861-2225, 312-861-2089 and  
         312-861-2248, Fax: 861-2200, 312-660-0452 and 312-861-
         2200, E-mail: mlillie@kirkland.com and  
         dbernick@kirkland.com;  

     (6) Douglas M. Poland of LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn, P.O.  
         Box 2719, One East Main St., Madison, WI 53703-2719,  
         U.S.A, Phone: 608-257-3911, Fax: 608-257-0609, E-mail:
         dpoland@gklaw.com; and

     (7) Louis W. Pribila of Dow Chemical Company, 2030 Dow  
         Center, Midland, MI 48674, U.S.A, Phone: 517-638-9511,  
         Fax: 638-9410.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Ordered to Refund Retirees' Payment to TERI Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina Supreme Court has found the state in
violation of a labor contract with state retirees who returned
to work when it required them to contribute toward their
pensions, the Charleston Post Courier reports.

Under a Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive program created
in 2001, state employees who retire after 28 years may return to
work and earn pension benefits and a salary for up to five years
without contributing to the retirement system.  The benefits are
set aside until the person retires permanently.  But lawmakers
changed the rules last year and required them to pay.  Now the
Supreme Court said the state has to return the money plus
interest to retirees who signed up for the program before Jul.
1, 2005.

The money contributed to the TERI program was set aside in
August when the court grated class action status to the case.  
It was to remain in an interest-bearing account until the suit
was settled.  Justices said the case applied to all the 13,400
state retirees in the program.

The Supreme Court has also sent part of the lawsuit back to the
lower court to determine if a contract existed between the state
and another group of working retirees not covered under the TERI
program.

The employees are represented by lawyer Cam Lewis.


TRIBUNE CO: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Inflated Circulation Numbers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. is defendant in several class actions filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging it
overcharged for advertising as a result of inflated circulation
numbers at their "Newsday" and "Hoy" publications.

Newsday is a morning newspaper published seven days a week and
circulated primarily in Long Island, New York, and in the
borough of Queens in New York City.  Hoy, New York, is a Spanish
language newspaper that is also published seven days a week
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2004).

On Feb. 11, 2004, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court in New York by certain advertisers of "Newsday"
and "Hoy," New York.  The purported class action also alleges
that entities that paid a "Newsday" subsidiary to deliver
advertising flyers were overcharged.  The suit is captioned,
"Crab House of Douglaston Inc., et al. v. Tribune company, et
al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00558-DRH-WDW."

In Jul. 21, 2004, another lawsuit was filed in the same court by
certain advertisers of "Newsday" alleging damages resulting from
inflated "Newsday" circulation numbers as well as federal and
state antitrust violations.  The suit is captioned, "Arnold
Chevrolet, LLC, et al. v. Tribune Company, et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-03097-DRH-WDW."

For more details, contact:

    (1) [Crab House - Plaintiff] Joseph O. Giaimo of Giaimo &
        Vreeburg, LLP, 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Kew Gardens, NY
        11415, Phone: 718-261-6200, Fax: 718-261-0316, E-mail:
        giaimovreeburgpc@aol.com;

    (2) [Crab House - Defendant] Judd Burstein of Judd Burstein,
        P.C., 1790 Broadway, Suite 1501, New York, NY 10019,
        Phone: 212-974-2400, Fax: 212-974-2944, E-mail:
        Jburstein@burlaw.com;

    (3) [Arnold Chevrolet - Plaintiff] Leonard A. Bellavia of
        Bellavia Gentile & Associates, LLP, 200 Old Country
        Road, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (516) 873-3000, Fax:
        516-873-9032, E-mail: lbellavia@bellavialaw.com; and

    (4) [Arnold Chevrolet - Defendant] Alan M. Unger of Sidley
        Austin, LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019,
        Phone: 212-839-5785, Fax: 212-839-5599, E-mail:
        aunger@sidley.com.


VERIZON NORTHWEST: Ore. Man Files Lawsuit Over Privacy Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Northwest Inc. is facing a $1 billion lawsuit filed by a
Beaverton, Oregon resident claiming his privacy rights were
violated when the company released his telephone records to the
National Security Agency, Associated Press reports.

The suit is filed in U.S. District Court in Portland by Darryl
Hines.  Mr. Hines said the Verizon gave his information to the
NSA without his permission or after-the-fact notification in
violation of the consumer privacy protections in the federal
Telecommunications Act.  He is asking the court to certify the
case as class action on behalf of about 1 million Verizon
customers in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California.

The suit is "Hines v. Verizon Northwest, Inc.," filed in the
U.S. District Court of Oregon under Judge Janice M. Stewart.  
Representing the plaintiff are Michael J. Ross and Christopher
A. Slate of the law firm Slater Ross, 1850 Benjamin Franklin
Plaza, 1 S.W. Columbia Street, Portland, OR 97258 U.S.A, Phone:
(503) 227-2024, Fax: (503) 224-7299, E-mail:
mjross@slaterross.com.


VISTAPRINT LTD: Working to Settle Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vistaprint, Ltd. is working to settle a class action filed
against one of its subsidiaries and its predecessor corporation
in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California.  

The complaint alleged that the shipping and handling fees the
company charges for free products are excessive and in violation
of sections of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement on Apr. 29, 2005 and, on Jun.
17, 2005, gave final approval to the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to change
the term "shipping and handling" to "shipping and processing" on
its Web site s, to provide all class members who purchase
business cards from the company for a two year period in the
future the opportunity to receive additional cards at reduced
rates, and to pay reasonable attorneys fees to plaintiffs'
counsel.

In August 2005, an objector to the settlement filed an appeal of
the Court's final approval of the settlement.


VULCAN MATERIALS: La. Court Denies Class for Tank Car Leak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, denied
class certification for approximately 22 lawsuits against Vulcan
Materials Co. over a leaking tank car that was discovered on the
morning of May 24, 2002 in New Orleans.

The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Orleans Parish
court, seek class action certification and claims damages for
injuries allegedly resulting from a leaking chlorine tank car
from the company's former Chemicals business.  

The New Orleans Fire Department evacuated approximately 50 to 75
people from their homes.  Plaintiffs' counsel alleges to
represent more than 15,000 people in these cases.  

A hearing regarding the certification of the matter as a class
action was held in the second quarter of 2005.  During the first
quarter of 2006, the court issued a ruling denying the class
certification.


WEST VIRGINIA: Wyoming County Flood Victims to Receive Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury has held the activities of timbering companies liable for
increasing water runoff that caused some streams to overflow and
flood Raleigh County in 2001, The State Journal reports.

It means that the plaintiffs in Mullens and Oceana areas of
Wyoming County are now eligible to receive money for the damage
caused by the flood to their homes, according to the report.

In 2002, lawyers representing some 1,400 victims of last
summer's floods in West Virginia filed a class action against
some 100 coal and logging companies, the Associated Press
Newswires reports (Class Action Reporter, Jun. 25, 2002).

The lawsuit was filed in McDowell, Wyoming and Raleigh County
circuit courts, by Beckley lawyer Warren Randolph McGraw III and
the Provost Umphrey Law Firm of Beaumont, Texas.  The lawsuit
alleges that coal and timber companies in southern West
Virginia, caused the devastating Jul. 8, 2001, flooding (Class
Action Reporter, Jun. 25, 2002).

The plaintiffs who will receive the most recent settlement are a
small part of a major class action that named 31 companies as
defendants.  In this case, the companies which will be paying
are the Western Pocahontas Properties Limited Partnership and
Western Pocahontas Corp.  The rest of the companies have all
settled, the report said.

Provost Umphrey on the Net: http://www.provostumphrey.com/.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

May 18-19, 2006
CLASS ACTION & UCL CONFERENCE
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Hyatt Regency San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.reconferences.com;818-783-7156

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 15-16, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago, Gleacher Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com   
     
June 15-16, 2006
LITIGATING, SETTLING AND MANAGING ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESCALA GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. lodged a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Escala
Group, Inc. (ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006,
inclusive.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jul. 10,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

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


ESCALA GROUP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL)
between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006, inclusive.  Defendants
include Escala and certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and
omitted information regarding the true nature of Escala's
business and sales activities.  

Escala is a major distributor of collectibles including postage
stamps, and one of its major customers and joint venturers is
its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A.

On May 9, 2006, it was publicly reported that Spanish police had
made arrests and raised the offices of Afinsa.  The operations
forms part of a joint investigation launched by the National
Court, tax authorities, financial crime prosecutors and the
National Police over an alleged pyramid-type scheme based on
overpriced stamps and other collectibles.

The prosecutor's office said in a statement that Spanish
authorities are conducting more than 20 searches at company
offices and private residences.  The prosecutor's office also
said it plans to conduct "several arrests" as part of a lawsuit
based on charges ranging from tax evasion and money laundering
to criminal insolvency and falsification of documents.

The operation comes after Barron's magazine extensively reported
questionable practices at Afinsa, which purportedly operates a
"no-lose" stamp-sales program for investors in Spain and
Portugal.

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than Jul. 10, 2006.

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


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel filed a lawsuit against GlobeTel
Communications Corp. (AMEX: GTE) alleging the company violated
securities laws.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Florida,
alleges that GlobeTel made misleading statements about their
acquisition of Moscow based LLC Internafta.  

The company originally said that the agreement to install
Internet services in Russia was a joint venture, which was
valued at $600 million.  The stock rose significantly and then
fell sharply after the deal was scrutinized more closely.

The class action will represent all shareholders of Globe Tel
who purchased securities between Dec. 22, 2005 and Apr. 11,
2006.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street,
Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
mail: sn06106@AOL.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Bernard M. Gross Files Ill. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action
(Case no. 06-1493) against Northfield Laboratories in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The suit
is filed before the Honorable George M. Marovich on behalf of
purchasers of Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (NFLD) securities
between Feb. 20, 2004 and Feb. 21, 2006, including purchasers in
the May 2004 and February 2005 stock offerings.

The action is pending against defendants Northfield
Laboratories, Inc. and Steven A. Gould, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer.

Interested parties may, no later than May 19, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class.

For more details, Susan R. Gross, Esq. and Deborah R. Gross,
Esq. of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., Phone: (866) 561-
3600, Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com.


PXRE GROUP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired the securities of PXRE Group
Ltd. (PXT) between Jul. 28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006, inclusive.  
Also included are those who purchased in a secondary offering on
Oct. 3, 2005.

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

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

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

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

      -- that PXRE concealed the losses in order to complete a
         $114 million secondary offering and raise more than
         $350 million from an offering of perpetual preferred
         shares; and

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
         statements with respect to its loss estimates for the
         2005 Hurricane season were lacking in reasonable basis.

On Feb. 16, 2006, PXRE announced that it would be increasing its
estimates of the net pre-tax impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
and Wilma by an amount between $281 million to $311 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2005 compared to the high end of their
prior announced estimates.  On this news, shares of PXRE fell
$7.85 to close at $4.05 per share.

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than Jul. 3, 2006.

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


ST JUDE: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota against St. Jude Medical, Inc. on
behalf of persons who purchased shares of the company (STJ)
between Jan. 25, 2006 and Apr. 4, 2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that St. Jude violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements regarding
the sales success and prospects of a major St. Jude product, its
implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems (ICD).

Specifically, on Jan. 25, 2006, St. Jude reported that fourth
quarter ICD product sales were $280 million, a 62% increase over
the comparable quarter of 2004 and that ICD product sales for
the full-year 2005 were $1.007 billion, representing a 72%
increase over 2004.

This complaint alleges this was the result of an effort by St.
Jude to push sales of ICDs into the fourth quarter of 2005 so as
to inflate the stock price and achieve extraordinary personal
benefits for top insiders.

On Apr. 4, 2006, St. Jude shocked the market by announcing (1)
its financial and operating results were well below analysts'
expectations and (2) sales of ICDs were declining.  On this
news, shares of St. Jude fell $5.05 per share, on extremely high
volume, to close at $36.25 - a drop of over 10%.

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


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Minn. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota against UnitedHealth Group,
Inc. (UNH).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from May 4, 2001 through Apr. 7, 2006.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Jul. 5,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

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


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH) between May 4, 2001 and Apr.
7, 2006, inclusive.  Also included are all those who acquired
UnitedHealth's securities through its acquisitions of
AmeriChoice, Mid Atlantic Medical, Oxford Health Plans and
Pacificare Health.

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements.
Specifically, the defendants misrepresented and omitted material
facts concerning UnitedHealth's backdating of stock option
grants to defendants William W. McGuire and Stephen J. Hemsley.

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 UnitedHealth'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 request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than Jul. 7, 2006.

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


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Vitesse
Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from Oct. 23, 2003 through Apr. 26, 2006.

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than Jul. 3, 2006.

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


XM SATELLITE: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia against XM Satellite Radio
Holdings, Inc. (XMSR) and its chief executive officer, Hugh
Panero, on behalf of securities purchasers from Jul. 28, 2005
through Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive for securities law violations.  
XM Satellite Radio operates a satellite radio service company.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the company's subscriber acquisition costs
by relying on accounting metrics that did not comply with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and therefore were easy
to manipulate.  As a result, the company's stock price was
artificially inflated, thereby harming Class Period investors.

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
misrepresented the company's ability to reduce its subscriber
acquisition costs, which was required to validate XMSR's
business model and achieve profitability.

In reality, it is alleged defendants knew or consciously and
recklessly disregarded that the company would continue to make
inordinately large expenditures going into the end of the 2005
fiscal year to achieve its heralded goal of 6 million
subscribers, making its claims regarding scalable reductions in
subscriber acquisition cost blatantly false and misleading.

On Feb. 16, 2006, defendants announced that for the company's
fourth fiscal quarter, subscriber acquisition cost was $89 per
customer compared to $64 per customer in the same period last
year.

On this news, the price of XMSR shares fell 12.9%, on unusually
high trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Jul. 3,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

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