CAR_Public/060523.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 101

                            Headlines

ADMINISTAFF INC: No Appeal Filed for Nixed Tex. Securities Suit
ADVANCED MARKETING: Reaches $6M Deal to Settle Investors' Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC: Proposes to Settle Suit Filed Over Planned Sale
ATHEROGENICS INC.: Ga. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BROADCOM CORP: Calif. Court Denies Motion in Shareholder Lawsuit

CARREKER CORP: Enters $5.25M Settlement in Tex. Stock Fraud Suit
CNA FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Federal, State Labor Laws
CNA FINANCIAL: July Hearing Set in Calif. Labor Suit Settlement
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: W.Va. Court Remands "Adams" to State Court
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Continues to Face Okla. Natural Gas Lawsuit

ENSIGN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Nursing Homes Operations in Calif.
GLENVIEW CAR: Barred from Asking Workers' Immigration Status
HOOPER HOLMES: Examiner Launches Overtime Calif. Wage, Hour Suit
ILLINOIS: Parolees' Lawsuit Against Corrections Dept. Certified
ILLINOIS: U-46 Dist. Has Until June to Answer Amended Bias Suit

LOUISIANA: Flood Victims Sue FEMA in Tex. Court Over Housing Aid
MASTERCARD INT'L: Nixing of Lawsuit Over Interchange Fees Upheld
MASTERCARD INT'L: Files Opposition Brief in "Kendall" Lawsuit
MASTERCARD INT'L: To File Response in N.Y. Interchange Fee Case
MAY DEPARTMENT: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Federated Stores Merger

METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: Shareholders to Get $4.9M in Settlement
MICROFINANCIAL INC: Mass. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Contraceptive Patch User Files Lawsuit in N.J.
OWENS CORNING: Sept. 11 Trial Set for Mass. Securities Lawsuit

POZEN INC: N.C. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
STEWART & STEVENSON: Faces Mich. Power Products Antitrust Suits
STEWART & STEVENSON: Faces Tex. Suit Over Armor Holdings Merger
TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Ken. Reaches $600T Settlement in Lupron Suit
THORNHILL SUPERSTORES: Fined for Ignoring Court Order in Ad Suit

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles LANL Bias Lawsuit for $12M
VERISIGN INC: Calif. Court Grants Green Light to Consumer Suit
WET SEAL: June Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
CHINA ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
CHINA ENERGY: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Lawsuit

DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit
ESCALA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
HOME DEPOT: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in La.
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in Minn.


                            *********


ADMINISTAFF INC: No Appeal Filed for Nixed Tex. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action
against Administaff, Inc. did not file a notice of appeal by the
deadline set by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

On Jun. 13, 2003, a class action was filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  After that date, six
similar class actions were filed against the company in that
court.  Those lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the
company's officers and directors.

In May 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
complaint, which amended and consolidated the seven previously
filed cases.  In June 2004, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On Mar. 30, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and thereafter entered a final order of dismissal with
prejudice.  The lead plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal
by the deadline to do so.  Accordingly, the company believes
that this matter is now concluded.

The suit is "Arnone, et al. v. Administaff, Inc., et al., Case
No. 03-CV-2082," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter, LLP, 830 Apollo
         Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-
         907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com; and

     (2) Barry Craig Barnett of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 901 Main
         St., Ste. 5100, Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214-754-
         1903, Fax: 214-665-0832, E-mail:
         bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com.  

Representing the defendants is Philip J. John, Jr. of Baker
Botts, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-229-1215,
Fax: 713-229-2815, E-mail: philip.john@bakerbotts.com.  


ADVANCED MARKETING: Reaches $6M Deal to Settle Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Marketing Services agreed to settle for $6 million a
class action filed by shareholders over alleged fraud and
accounting irregularities by the company and its executives, the
Union-Tribune reports citing regulatory filings.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Diego, accuses the book
publishing wholesaler and distributor of engaging in fraudulent
accounting practices and its key executives of misrepresenting
the company's financial status between 1999 and 2003.  Three of
its former company executives have already pled guilty for
withholding to retail clients the credit due to them for
advertising and promotion services.

Meanwhile, ongoing investigations by the Justice Department and
the Securities and Exchange Commission discovered fraudulent
accounting practices that resulted in overstatement of Advanced
Marketing's pre-tax earnings, the report said.

The $6 million settlement is still subject to court approval.  
The company plans to finance the settlement using a $10.5
million deal reached from a lawsuit against several insurance
carriers.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Proposes to Settle Suit Filed Over Planned Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding for
the settlement of the putative class suit challenging its sale
to a group of investors, the Reuters reports.

In a filing with U.S. regulators, Albertson's disclosed
additional details of a proposed deal that it considered before
agreeing to be taken over by a consortium.

In January, the company entered into a series of agreements
providing for the sale of Albertsons to Supervalu Inc., CVS
Corp. and a consortium of investors including Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P., Kimco Realty Corp., Lubert-Adler Management,
Inc., Klaff Realty, L.P. and Schottenstein Stores Corp. (Class
Action Reporter, Apr. 22, 2006).  The company's shareholders are
set to vote on the consortium deal on May 30.

The complaint specifically alleged that the company and its
directors violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or
aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
including by failing to value Albertsons properly and by
ignoring conflicts of interest.  Among other things, the
complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
enjoin the completion of the transactions (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 22, 2006).

The suit is "Carmona v. Bryant, et al., Case No. 1:06- cv-00078-
BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Philip H. Gordon of Gordon Law Offices, 623 W Hays Boise, ID
83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345-7100, Fax: 1-208-345- 0050, E-mail:
pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark S. Geston and Samia E McCall of Stoel Rives, LLP,
         101 S. Capitol Blvd. #1900, Boise, ID 83702-5958,
         Phone: (208) 389-9000, Fax: 1-208-389-9040, E- mail:
         msgeston@stoel.com and semccall@stoel.com; and

     (2) John M. Newman, Jr. and Robert S Walker of Jones Day,
         N. Point 901, Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, OH 44114,
         Phone: (216) 586-3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:
         jmnewman@jonesday.com and
         rswalker@jonesday.com.


ATHEROGENICS INC.: Ga. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the securities class action filed against pharmaceutical
company AtheroGenics, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors has been dismissed.  The lawsuits had been
consolidated and recently transferred to federal court in
Georgia.

The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the matters voluntarily,
without prejudice, and without any payment or consideration to
the plaintiffs or their counsel.

AtheroGenics is focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of novel drugs for the treatment of chronic
inflammatory diseases, including heart disease
(atherosclerosis), rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

The company has two drug development programs currently in the
clinic.  AtheroGenics' lead compound, AGI-1067, is being
evaluated in the pivotal Phase III ARISE clinical trial as an
oral therapy for the treatment of atherosclerosis, in
collaboration with AstraZeneca.  AGI-1096 is a novel, oral agent
in Phase I that is being developed for the prevention of organ
transplant rejection in collaboration with Astellas.

AtheroGenics also has preclinical programs in rheumatoid
arthritis and asthma utilizing its proprietary vascular
protectant technology.

The allegations in these lawsuits relate to the company's
disclosures regarding the results of the CART-2 clinical trial
for AGI-1067. The complaint sought unspecified damages.

The suit is "In Re: Atherogenics Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-00061-RJH," originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Richard J. Holwell.  Representing the company is Dawn M.
Wilson of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park
Avenue, NY, NY 10022, Phone: (212)-230-8862, Fax: (212)-230-
8888, E-mail: dawn.wilson@wilmerhale.com.  The plaintiff firms
are:

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

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

     (3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
  
     (5) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,

     (6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com
  
     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747 Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com
  
     (8) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com
  
     (9) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com
  
    (10) Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106 Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290,
         sn06106@AOL.com
  
    (11) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

    (12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com

     (13) Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689Ave Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com


BROADCOM CORP: Calif. Court Denies Motion in Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Orange denied
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining
Broadcom Corp. from holding a vote on the approval of the
company's second amended and restated articles of incorporation
at a 2006 annual meeting of shareholders.  

The court also denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary
restraining order enjoining the company from filing the second
amended articles with the California Secretary of State.

In March 2006, a plaintiff, who claims to be a shareholder of
Broadcom Corp., filed a purported class action "Jin v. Broadcom
Corp., et al., Case No. 06 CC00057."

The suit names as defendants the company, each of the members of
its board of directors, and Henry T. Nicholas III, the company's
co-founder.  The principal claims asserted in the lawsuit are
that

      -- disclosures in the company's Mar. 27, 2006 proxy
         statement concerning proposed second amended and
         restated articles of incorporation, which would, among
         other things, increase the number of authorized shares
         of its Class A common stock, are incorrect and/or
         misleading; and

      -- Broadcom's recent stock split, the recent amendment to
         its share repurchase program, and recent and proposed
         changes in the compensation of its non-employee
         directors constitute breaches of the defendants'
         fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the proposed
increase in the number of authorized Class A shares is part of
an alleged scheme to allow company insiders to sell Class B
stock and nevertheless retain voting control over the company's
affairs.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
second amended articles are invalid, an injunction against the
continuation and expansion of a plan to repurchase shares of the
company's Class A common stock, rescission of certain changes to
non-employee director compensation, and unspecified damages.

The plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
enjoining the company from holding a vote on the approval of the
second amended articles at the company's 2006 annual meeting of
shareholders and from filing the second amended articles with
the California Secretary of State.  The court denied that motion
in April 2006.


CARREKER CORP: Enters $5.25M Settlement in Tex. Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carreker Corp. and plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class
action, which is pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, agreed to settle the
litigation for $5,250,000.

On Apr. 16, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating a
number of purported class actions.  On Oct. 14, 2003 the
plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint.  

The complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between May 20, 1998 and Dec. 10, 2002, inclusive,
alleged:

     -- violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants: the
        company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori, Terry L.
        Gage and Ernst & Young, the company's auditors;

     -- violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
        the individual defendants; and

     -- violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act
        against defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald
        Antinori.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants
artificially inflated the value of Carreker stock by knowingly
or recklessly misrepresenting the company's financial results
during the purported class period.

On Mar. 22, 2005 the court dismissed the action without
prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs 60 days in which to file an
amended complaint.  Also the court dismissed, with prejudice,
all claims by shareholders relating to periods prior to Jul. 31,
1999.

On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between Jul. 30, 1999 and Dec. 10, 2002, inclusive,
which reiterates the allegations in the first complaint, and
alleges:

     -- violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants: the
        company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori and Terry
        L. Gage, except Ernst & Young LLP;

     -- violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
        the individual defendants; and

     -- violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act
        against defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald
        Antinori.  

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.

On Apr. 21, 2006, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants
executed and submitted to the court a stipulation of settlement
whereby they agreed to settle the class action litigation for a
payment of $5,250,000.  The proposed settlement is subject to
final court approval.  

The suit is "In re Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:03-cv-00250," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, under Judge Jane J.
Boyle.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary L O'Connor, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -
         Dallas, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201-
         4618, Phone: 214/969-2800, Fax: 214/969-4343, E-mail:
         moconnor@akingump.com;

     (2) Barry C. Barnett, Susman Godfrey - Dallas, 901 Main St
         Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214/754-1900,
         Fax: 214/754-1933, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com;

     (2) Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey - Houston, 1000
         Louisiana St, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
         Phone: 713/651-9366, E-mail: kmarks@susmangodfrey.com;

     (4) Fred T. Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 212/545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com;  

     (5) Jeffrey W. Chambers, Ware Snow Fogel & Jackson, America
         Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston, TX
         77019, Phone: 713/659-6400, Fax: 713/659-6262;

     (6) Thomas E Bilek, Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St,
         Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720,
         Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.

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


CNA FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Federal, State Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. is defendant in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
entitled, "W. Curtis Himmelman, et al. v. Continental Casualty
company, Case No. 06-166."

The case is a purported class action and representative action
brought on behalf of present and former CNA environmental claims
analysts and workers' compensation claims analysts asserting
they worked hours for which they should have been compensated at
a rate of one and one-half times their base hourly wage.

The complaint was filed on Jan. 12, 2006.  The claims are
brought under both federal and New Jersey state wage and hour
laws on the basis that the relevant jobs are not exempt from
overtime pay because the duties performed are not exempt duties.

Under federal law and New Jersey state law, plaintiff seeks to
represent others similarly situated who opt in to the action and
who also allege they are owed overtime pay for hours worked over
eight hours per day and/or forty hours per workweek from Jan. 5,
2003 to the entry of judgment.

Plaintiff seeks "overtime compensation," "compensatory, punitive
and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys' fees" without specifying any particular amounts, as
well as an injunction.

Under New Jersey law, plaintiff seeks to represent an "opt out"
class of employees and former employees holding the analysts
jobs -- a class alleged to be at least 300 individuals.

The suit is "Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Company, Case No.
3:06-cv-00166-GEB-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.  Representing the plaintiff is
Seth R. Lesser of Locks Law Firm, LLC, 457 Haddonfield Road,
Suite 500, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, Phone: (856) 663-8200, E-mail:
slesser@lockslawny.com.

Representing the defendants is Christopher H. Lowe of Sevfarth
Shaw, LLP, 1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 2500, New York, NY
10020, Phone: (212) 218-5523, E-mail: clowe@ny.seyfarth.com.  


CNA FINANCIAL: July Hearing Set in Calif. Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative July 2006 final hearing is slated for the settlement
of purported class actions in California state courts against
CNA Financial Corp.  The lawsuits were filed on behalf of
present and former CNA employees asserting they worked hours for
which they should have been compensated at a rate of one and
one-half times their base hourly wage over a four-year period.

The suits are:

      -- "Ernestine Samora, et al. v. CCC, Case No. BC 242487,"
         filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
         Los Angeles, California; and

      -- "Brian Wenzel v. Galway Insurance Company, Case No.
         BC01CC08868," filed in the Superior Court of
         California, County of Orange.

Plaintiffs seek "overtime compensation," "penalty wages," and
"other statutory penalties" without specifying any particular
amounts.  

Although it denied the material allegations of the amended
complaint, the company has entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs, which was preliminarily approved by the court.  
A final approval hearing has been scheduled for July 2006.  

The company previously recorded a liability in anticipation of
this settlement therefore resolution of this matter is not
expected to have a material impact on results of operations.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: W.Va. Court Remands "Adams" to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia remanded back to Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia, the action "Adams v. Ins. Co. of North America (INA),
et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-0527," which was filed against
Continental Casualty Company and other insurers.

Initially, Continental Casualty was named in the case "Adams v.
Aetna, Inc., et al.," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia on Jun. 28, 2002.  The case is a
purported class action alleging that the defendants violated
West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPTA) in handling
and resolving asbestos claims against five specifically named
asbestos defendants.

A planned motion for an amended complaint by the plaintiffs that
reflected two June 2004 decisions of the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals stayed the Adams litigation.

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

Plaintiffs' amended complaint greatly expanded the scope of the
action against the insurers, including Continental Casualty.  
Under the Amended complaint, the defendant insurers, including
Continental Casualty, were now being sued for alleged violations
of the UTPA in connection with handling and resolving asbestos
personal injury and wrongful death claims in West Virginia
courts against all their insureds if those claims were resolved
before Jun. 30, 2001.

Continental Casualty, along with other insurer defendants
removed the Adams case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia under the caption, "Adams v.
Ins. Co. of North America (INA), et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-0527."  
A motion by plaintiffs to remand the case to state courts was
granted on Mar. 30, 2006.

Numerous factual and legal issues remain to be resolved that are
critical to the final result in Adams, the outcome of which
cannot be predicted with any reliability.

These issues include:

      -- the legal sufficiency and factual validity of the novel
         statutory claims pled by the claimants;

      -- the applicability of claimants' legal theories to
         insurers who issued excess policies and/or neither
         defended nor controlled the defense of certain
         policyholders;

      -- the possibility that certain of the claims are barred
         by various Statutes of Limitation;

      -- the fact that the imposition of duties would interfere
         with the attorney-client privilege and the contractual
         rights and responsibilities of the parties to CNA's
         insurance policies;

      -- whether plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in
         part by injunctions that have been issued by bankruptcy
         courts that are overseeing, or that have overseen, the
         bankruptcies of various insureds;

      -- whether some or all of the named plaintiffs or members
         of the plaintiff class have released Continental
         Casualty from the claims alleged in the Amended
         complaint when they resolved their underlying asbestos
         claims;

      -- the appropriateness of the case for class action
         treatment; and

      -- the potential and relative magnitude of liabilities of
         co-defendants.

The suit is "Adams, et al. v. Insurance Company of North America
(INA), et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00527," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) J. David Cecil of James F. Humphreys & Associates,
         United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street, East
         Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/347-5050, Fax: 347-
         5055; and

     (2) W. Stuart Calwell of The Calwell Practice, P.O. Box
         113, Charleston, WV 25321-0113, Phone: 304/343-4323,
         Fax: 344-3864.

     (3) David P. Chervenick of Goldberg Persky & White, Third
         Floor, 1030 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295,
         Phone: 412/471-3980, Fax: 471-8308.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) John D. Aldock, Frederick C. Schafrick and Mark S.
         Raffman of Goodwin & Procter, 901 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202/346-4000, Fax: 346-
         4444; and

    (ii) Robert B. Allen of Allen Guthrie Mchugh & Thomas, P.O.
         Box 3394, Charleston, WV 25333-3394, Phone: 304/345-
         7250, Fax: 345-9941, E-mail: rballen@agmtlaw.com.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Continues to Face Okla. Natural Gas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorchester Minerals, L.P. is a defendant in a class action filed
against it and several other natural gas companies in the
District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma.

Dorchester Minerals is a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership that commenced operations on Jan. 31, 2003 upon the
combination of Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd., which was a publicly
traded Texas limited partnership, and Republic Royalty Company
and Spinnaker Royalty Company, L.P., both of which were
privately held Texas partnerships.

The suit initially named as defendants:

     (1) Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,

     (2) Anadarko Petroleum Corp.,

     (3) Conoco, Inc.,

     (4) XTO Energy Inc.,

     (5) ExxonMobil Corp.,

     (6) Phillips Petroleum Company, Incorporated,

     (7) Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.,

     (8) Dorchester Minerals Operating L.P.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called
Rural Residents for Natural Gas Rights, referred to as RRNGR,
filed the suit.  The individuals and RRNGR consist primarily of
Texas County, Oklahoma residents who, in residences located on
leases use natural gas from gas wells located on the same
leases, at their own risk, free of cost.

The plaintiffs seek declaration that their domestic gas use is
not limited to stoves and inside lights and is not limited to a
principal dwelling as provided in the oil and gas lease
agreements with defendants in the 1930s to the 1950s.  
Plaintiffs' claims against defendants include failure to
prudently operate wells, violation of rights to free domestic
gas, violation of irrigation gas contracts, underpayment of
royalties, a request for accounting, and fraud.  Plaintiffs also
seek certification of class action against defendants.

In July 2002, the defendants were granted a motion for summary
judgment removing RRNGR as a plaintiff.  On Oct. 1, 2004, the
plaintiffs severed claims against Dorchester Minerals Operating
LP regarding royalty underpayments.


ENSIGN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Nursing Homes Operations in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-nine nursing homes throughout California, owned or
operated by Ensign Group, Inc. recently faced a class action in
Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, alleging unlawful
business practices, unfair and fraudulent business practices,
violations of health & safety codes, and violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The suit was filed on behalf of:

     -- Barbara Davison, a former resident of Shoreline
        Healthcare Center;

     -- the California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA), a
        nonprofit corporation, on behalf of patients, their
        families; and

     -- the Service Employees International Union United
        Healthcare Workers-West, representing nursing home
        employees and the thousands of other citizens of the
        State of California similarly situated.

The essence of the complaint is that the defendants professed
that their skilled nursing facilities provided the level of
patient staffing and quality of care that are required, at the
very minimum, by the State of California and that they billed
individuals, their private insurance companies, and government
sources, such as MediCare and MediCal, as if they had been
providing the care promised.

The lawsuit alleges that the reality is that they did not
provide this legally mandated minimum care to the elder and
infirm residents of their skilled nursing facilities.

"I have successfully litigated hundreds of elder abuse cases for
individuals throughout the southwest, and the fact is, there is
a direct correlation between the level and quality of care a
patient receives and the direct nursing staff available at a
facility," says Long Beach plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia
of Garcia Law.

"The California Department of Health Services has cited Ensign
repeatedly for such inadequacies, which we believe to be caused
by short-staffing, leading Ensign to have what the company  
believe to be an unacceptable number of residents who develop
bed sores and urinary tract infections, who have unexplained
falls, who have an unexpected weight loss, and who suffer
medication errors, all often the first signs of inadequate care
and elder abuse."

"What concerns us is corporate greed," Mr. Garcia continues.  
"Our lawsuit alleges that Ensign ignores the needs of a
particularly vulnerable segment of our community: our parents,
our grandparents -- and someday maybe ourselves.  We wish to
ensure that quality patient care by sufficient and qualified
staff is the norm, not the exception and that a 'profits over
people' mentality becomes a thing of the distant past."

In 1999, in response to a growing concern over the low levels of
direct patient staffing and quality of care in nursing homes,
the California legislature increased required direct patient
care to 3.2 hours per day as of January 2000.  Per filings with
the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development submitted by Ensign and its related entities under
penalty of perjury, Ensign often fails to have sufficient staff
on duty to meet the needs of their residents as required by
state and federal law.

"This is one of many class action cases I have brought in recent
years against nursing home operators who do not properly care
for this particularly vulnerable segment of our population,"
says Mr. Garcia.  "As horrible as the individual cases are, they
can't compare with these so-called skilled nursing facilities
who are abusing our elderly relatives and friends by the
hundreds, sometimes the thousands."

Bill Powers of CARA concurs with Mr. Garcia, saying, "We hope
this lawsuit helps force the Ensign Group to clean up and to
staff up for better patient care."

List of nursing homes named in class action:

     -- Bellflower: Rose Villa Health Care Center
     -- Cloverdale: Cloverdale Healthcare Center
     -- Costa Mesa: Victoria Healthcare Center
     -- Downey: Brookfield Healthcare Center
     -- Escondido: Palomar Vista Healthcare Center
     -- Glendora: Claremont Care Center
     -- Huntington Beach: Sea Cliff Healthcare Center
     -- Laguna Hills: Palm Terrace Healthcare & Rehabilitation
        Center
     -- Lemon Grove: Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center
     -- Long Beach: Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Center
                    Shoreline Healthcare Center
     -- Norwalk: Southland Care Center
     -- Oxnard: Glenwood Care Center
     -- Palm Springs: Premier Care and Rehabilitation for Palm
                      Springs
     -- Panorama City: Panorama Gardens
     -- Redlands: Brookside Healthcare Center
     -- Rosemead: Mission Care Center
     -- San Diego: Arroyo Vista Nursing Center
     -- San Dimas: Arbor Glen Care Center
     -- Santa Rosa: Park View Gardens at Montgomery
                    Summerfield Health Care Center
     -- Sonoma: Sonoma Healthcare Center
     -- Ukiah: Ukiah Convalescent Hospital
     -- Upland: Upland Rehabilitation and Care Center
     -- Ventura: Victoria Care Center
     -- Vista: Vista Knoll Specialized Care Facility
     -- Willits: Northbrook Nursing and Rehab
     -- Whittier: Royal Court Health Center
     -- Whittier Hills Health Care Center

For additional information, contact Garcia Law Firm, Phone:
(800) 281-8515, Web site: http://www.lawgarcia.com.


GLENVIEW CAR: Barred from Asking Workers' Immigration Status
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman issued an order on May 5
barring Glenview Car Wash from seeking information from
employees about their immigration status until a sexual
harassment case against the company is settled, the Chicago
Tribune reports.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a sexual
harassment class action in federal court in Chicago in September
on behalf of three current or former male employees of Glenview
Car Wash.  Court records show that the employees filed
complaints with the EEOC in 2003.  

One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Fidencio Antimo.  He is now
among those requested to fill out forms asking for his
immigration status.  The defendant's lawyer, Peter Andjelkovich,
said the company is asking for the information to complete its
personnel files.  But the court finds it impossible to believe
that the company is not previously aware that its employees'
files are not in compliance with immigration law requirements.

"The court finds that the main purpose behind this alleged new
found desire to abide by the law is to effect a not so subtle
intimidation of the" men who filed the lawsuit and other workers
who would be impacted by it, the judge said.

The other plaintiffs in the class action are Diego Perez and
Elmer Bethancourth.

The suit is "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Glenview Car Wash, Case No. 1:05-cv-05568," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  Representing the defendant is Bradley
J. Wartman of Peter Andjelkovich & Associates, 39 South LaSalle
St., Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 782-6517.

Representing the plaintiffs are John C. Hendrickson and Ethan
Cohen of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West
Madison St., Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone (312) 353-8551
and (312) 353-7568 Fax: (312) 353-8555, E-mail:
john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov and ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov.  

  
HOOPER HOLMES: Examiner Launches Overtime Calif. Wage, Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging violations of
the state's wage and hour laws.

On Jan. 25, 2005, Sylvia Gayed, one of the company's examiners
in California, filed the suit, alleging that the company failed
to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations.  
The plaintiff is attempting to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action on behalf of other examiners who perform similar
work for the company in California.

The company currently employs 441 examiners in California and
has employed in excess of 1,200 examiners in California over the
past 48 months.  The company believes that it has properly paid
its California examiners for overtime worked and intends to
provide a vigorous defense to the litigation, the company said
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ILLINOIS: Parolees' Lawsuit Against Corrections Dept. Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert Gettleman in Chicago certified a class
action filed by prison parolees who are demanding timely parole-
revocation hearings from prison officials, the Chicago Tribune
reports.

Judge Gettleman signed the ruling on May 8.  The Illinois
Department of Corrections officials are accused of violating
parolees' rights by not quickly holding parole-revocation
hearings when they are charged with new crimes.  The officers
denied the claims against them saying the parolees receive a
probable-case hearing on new charges.

The judge also granted a preliminary injunction against the
practice and gave lawyers until May 26 to come up with a
proposal to end the scheme.


ILLINOIS: U-46 Dist. Has Until June to Answer Amended Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elgin Area School District U-46 officials have until Jun. 12 to
respond to the third and latest version of a bias lawsuit filed
against it, the Daily Herald reports.

Plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against the district
filed an amended complaint on May 12, according to  
Chicago Tribune (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).

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.    


LOUISIANA: Flood Victims Sue FEMA in Tex. Court Over Housing Aid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for New Orleans, Louisiana evacuees filed a class action
seeking to stop the Federal Emergency Management Agency from
withdrawing housing support for Hurricane Katrina flood victims,
The New York Times reports.

The FEMA is planning to stop paying rent for evacuated families
who were issued 12-month housing vouchers by local governments.  
It will withdraw support for an estimated 17,000 evacuated
families living in apartments on May 31, the suit said,
according to Associated Press.

Last month, agency officials said that nearly a third of about
55,000 families who received the vouchers were ineligible for
such assistance, and some availed of it individually, violating
the agency's per family limit of $26,000.  Also, they said the
program is not to be used for extended periods.  The program
ended in March.

According to the report, Hurricane Katrina victims are being
referred to the agency's long-term individual assistance
program, which has stricter eligibility requirements.

The suit is filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas by Houston law firm Caddell & Chapman.  It
alleges FEMA failed to adjust its estimation of fair-market rent
or provide clear criteria for re-qualification, whose renewal
expires every three months.

The suit is "Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Case
No. 4:06-cv-01709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge David Hittner.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A. Caddell of Caddell and
Chapman, 1331 Lamar Ste 1070, Houston, TX 77010-3027, Phone:
713-751-0400, Fax: 713-751-0906.


MASTERCARD INT'L: Nixing of Lawsuit Over Interchange Fees Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's
dismissal of the class action against MasterCard International,
Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several
member banks in California.

In July 2002, a purported class action was filed by a group of
merchants alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and
Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act.  The suit
seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.  

On Mar. 4, 2004, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice
in reliance upon the approval of the settlement agreement in the
U.S. merchant lawsuit by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, which held that the settlement and release
in that case extinguished the claims brought by the merchant
group in the present case.

The plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York's approval of the U.S. merchant lawsuit
settlement and release to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
and have also appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California's dismissal of the present lawsuit to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
order affirming the district court's approval of the U.S.
merchant lawsuit settlement agreement, including the district
court's finding that the settlement and release extinguished
such claims.  Plaintiffs did not seek certiorari of the Second
Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Mar. 27, 2006 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's
dismissal of the case.  Plaintiffs' time in which to seek
certiorari from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision is
currently running.

The suit is "Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC et al. v. VISA U.S.A. Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-03003-JSW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Representing the plaintiffs is Richard Joseph
Archer of Archer & Hansen, 3110 Bohemian Highway, Occidental, CA
95465, Phone: 707-874-3438, Fax: 707-874-3438, E-mail:
archerdic@aol.com.

Representing the company are:

     (1) Jay Neil Fastow and Debra J. Pearlstein of Weil Gotshal
         & Manges, LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153,
         Phone: 212-310-8644, Fax: 212-310-8007, E-mail:
         jay.fastow@weil.com and debra.pearlstein@weil.com;

     (2) Noah J. Hanft, Joshua L. Peirez and Eileen S. Simon of
         Mastercard International Incorporated, 2000 Purchase
         Street, Purchase, NY 10577, Phone: 914-249-6229, Fax:
         914-249-4261; and

     (3) Wesley Railey Powell and Keila Doris Ravelo of Hunton &
         Williams, LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166,
         Phone: 212-309-1013 and 212-309-1049, Fax: 212-309-1100
         and 212-309-1011, E-mail: wpowell@hunton.com and
         kravelo@hunton.com.


MASTERCARD INT'L: Files Opposition Brief in "Kendall" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International, Inc. filed its opposition brief to the
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California of the class action
"Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
04276-JSW."

On Oct. 8, 2004, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against MasterCard International, Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks
in California.  The suit alleges, among other things, that
MasterCard's and Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman
Act and the Clayton Act.

The complaint contains similar allegations to those brought in
other interchange cases, and plaintiffs have designated it as a
related case.  

The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard
and Visa, setting interchange and engaging in "joint marketing
activities," which plaintiffs allege include the purported
negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants.

On Nov. 19, 2004, MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint.  
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Apr. 25, 2005.  

MasterCard moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for
failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for
summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims.  On Jul.
25, 2005, the court issued an order granting MasterCard's motion
to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On Aug. 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs' opening appeal brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2005.  
MasterCard filed its opposition brief to plaintiffs' appeal on
Dec. 26, 2005.

The suit is "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard Joseph Archer of Archer & Hansen, 3110 Bohemian
         Highway, Occidental, CA 95465, Phone: 707-874-3438,
         Fax: 707-874-3438, E-mail: archerdic@aol.com; and

     (2) James Archer Kopcke of Golden & Kopcke, LLP, 22 Battery
         Street, Suite 610, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-
         399-9995, Fax: 415-398-5890, E-mail:
         jameskopcke@yahoo.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Jay Neil Fastow of Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, Phone: 212-310-8644,
         Fax: 212-310-8007, E-mail: jay.fastow@weil.com;

    (ii) Gianluca Morello of Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A.,
         501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700, Tampa, FL
         33602, Phone: (813) 769-7867, E-mail:
         gianluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com; and

   (iii) Wesley Railey Powell of Hunton & Williams, LLP, 200
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-309-1013,
         Fax: 212-309-1100, E-mail: wpowell@hunton.com.


MASTERCARD INT'L: To File Response in N.Y. Interchange Fee Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International, Inc. has until Jun. 6, 2006 to file a
response to the first amended class action complaint and the
individual merchant complaints filed over its interchange fees.  
The suits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial
proceedings under the caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-CLP."

On Jun. 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against
MasterCard International, Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa
International Services Association and a number of member banks
alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 40 similar complaints filed on behalf of merchants
against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member
banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.  
Majority of the 40 suits are styled as class actions although
six complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings.  

On Apr. 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a first amended class action complaint.  Taken together, the
claims in the first amended class action complaint and in the
six complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are
generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these
claims:

      -- that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
         fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions)
         violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

      -- that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced
         various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
         purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
         1 or 2 of the Sherman Act;

      -- that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the
         acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit
         cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

      -- that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
         bundled transaction fees.

In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law,
some of these complaints contain certain state unfair
competition law claims based upon the same conduct described
above.  These interchange-related litigations also seek treble
damages in an unspecified amount as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.  Several of the complaints allege that the
plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of
billions of dollars.

MasterCard's responses to the first amended class action
complaint and the individual merchant complaints are currently
due on Jun. 6, 2006.  The court has ordered that new fact
discovery may proceed, and such fact discovery is to be
completed by Nov. 30, 2007 with expert discovery scheduled to be
completed by Jul. 18, 2008.  Summary judgment and other pretrial
motions are to be completed by Nov. 24, 2008.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Judge James
Orenstein.  


MAY DEPARTMENT: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Federated Stores Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former stockholder of The May
Department Stores Company, filed a purported class action in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri over the company's 2005
merger.

The suit was filed on behalf of all former May stockholders
against the Delaware corporation and its former board of
directors

On Aug. 30, 2005, May and Milan Acquisition LLC merged pursuant
to the agreement and plan of merger dated Feb. 27, 2005 by and
among Federated Department Stores, Inc.  Milan Acquisition LLC
is formerly Milan Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Federated (Merger Sub).  As a result of the merger, May's
separate corporate existence terminated.

Afterwards, Merger Sub was consolidated with and into the
Federated, and Merger Sub's separate corporate existence
terminated.

The complaint, filed on Jan. 11, 2006, generally alleges that
the directors of May breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
due care, good faith and candor to May stockholders in
connection with the Merger.


METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: Shareholders to Get $4.9M in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recent settlement involving Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities
Co. would give about $4.9 million to investors who filed a class
action against the company, according to Associated Press.

Under the settlement, about 700 investors who sued their brokers
will share about $4.75 million, another $5 million will be
deposited into Metropolitan's bankruptcy account, and about $5.2
million will be used to pay the defense costs of executives, the
report said.  Civil complaints filed by investors against all
lower-level former Metropolitan executives will be dismissed.

The settlement will be financed by a $20.2 million fund
available from an insurance policy that the company purchased
two years ago to cover the costs of lawsuits brought against
executives and board members.

Lawyer Brad Jones, who represents investors in the lawsuit filed
in early 2004, said the case would continue against accounting
firms and other professionals.  

Headquartered in Spokane, Washington, Metropolitan Mortgage &
Securities Co., Inc., owns insurance businesses.  Metropolitan
filed for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. E.D. Wash. Case No.
04-00757), along with Summit Securities Inc., on Feb. 4, 2004.


MICROFINANCIAL INC: Mass. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on Microfinancial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
purported securities class action filed against it.

In October 2003, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.  The purported class would consist of all persons who
purchased company securities between Feb. 5, and Oct. 30, 2002.

The complaint asserts that during this period the company made a
series of materially false or misleading statements about the
company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the company's reserves for
credit losses.

In April 2004, an amended class action complaint was filed which
added additional defendants and expanded upon the prior
allegations with respect to the company.  The company has filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is awaiting
decision by the court.

The suit is "Wilson v. Microfinancial Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-11883-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro
         Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108,
         Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com and tshapiro@shulaw.com;

     (2) David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley,
         Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
         Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-369-
         7100; and

     (3) Richard Maniskas of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706.

Representing the defendants are, Richard J. McCarthy and Barbara
L. Moore of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal Street, Boston,
MA 02110, Phone: 617-439-4444, Fax: 617-439-4170, E-mail:
rmccarthy@edwardsangell.com and bmoore@ealaw.com.


OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the consolidated securities class
action against Omnicom Group, Inc., entitled, "In re Omnicom
Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV4483 (RCC)."

Beginning Jun. 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed against the company and certain senior executives in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
actions were later consolidated under the caption, "In re
Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV4483 (RCC),"
on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's
common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and Jun. 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

      -- the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth;

      -- the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         internet investments made by the company's Communicade
         Group, which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC
         in 2001; and

      -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys' fees.  Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and on Mar. 28, 2005, the court dismissed
the first and third portions of the complaint detailed above.

The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.

Defendants have answered the complaint, and fact discovery is
ongoing.  Plaintiffs have moved to have the proposed class
certified and the defendants have opposed that motion, which is
now fully briefed.

The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Richard C. Casey with referral to Michael
H. Dolinger.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Max W. Berger and Douglas M. McKeige of Bernstein,
         Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P., Phone: (212) 554-
         1400 and (212) 554-1481; and

     (2) David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58
         South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are David Harold Braff and Stacey
Rubin Friedman of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad Street,
NY, NY 10007, Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000, Fax: 212-
558-3333 and 212-558-3588, E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and
friedmans@sullcrom.com.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Contraceptive Patch User Files Lawsuit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman LLP filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc., on
behalf of a 33-year-old woman and her husband who suffered a
bilateral pulmonary embolism (blood clot) and deep venous
thrombosis after using the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch for
two months.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey in Newark, New Jersey.

According to Parker & Waichman, in May 2005, the injured party
was taken to the emergency room of Hillside Hospital with
shortness of breath, chest pains, tachycardia and hypoxemia.
Diagnostic tests revealed a bilateral pulmonary embolism with a
large embolus in the right main pulmonary artery and right upper
and right lower lobe peripheral infiltrates suspected to be
pulmonary infarctions.

Additional tests revealed a deep venous thrombosis of the right
popliteal vein extending to the right common femoral vein.  The
woman was admitted to the hospital's intensive care unit where
she received Coumadin and Lovenox treatment.  She will likely
undergo prolonged treatment with these medications, which may be
necessary for the remainder of her life, a statement from Parker
& Waichman said.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.  In
the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time that
women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen.  

FDA's warning:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01262.html.

It is widely understood that increased exposure to estrogen
greatly increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause
serious injury or death.

Pulmonary embolism is a sudden blockage in a lung artery,
usually due to a blood clot that traveled to the lung from the
leg, but they can also form in the pelvic vein.  Pulmonary
thromboembolism can be fatal or may result in pulmonary arterial
obstruction, pulmonary obstruction, pulmonary infarction,
chronic pulmonary hypertension, dyspenea and tachypnea.  
Symptoms may include shortness of breath, difficulty breathing,
anxiety, chest pain, fainting and convulsions.

Treatment may include long-term use of anticoagulant medications
and/or surgery.  Recent reports have indicated that the risk of
developing blood clots, pulmonary thromboembolism, heart attack
and stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch
than with oral contraceptive use.

It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased
medical risks associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was
approved and that, once approved, the company failed to
adequately warn patients about these risks.  Evidence shows that
the risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke associated with
Ortho Evra is significantly higher than with oral contraceptive
pills.  The incidence of embolisms and thrombotic injuries in
Phase III trials of Ortho Evra was reportedly six times greater
than the incidence of such events in oral contraceptives using
the hormone levonorgestral.

The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of adverse reactions to the
patch in a 17-month period, whereas Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth
control pill, only generated 1,237 adverse reports in a six-year
period.  During a 12-month period, 44 serious injuries or deaths
have been associated with Ortho Evra, whereas only 17 such
reports were linked to the birth control pill during a similar
time period.  The pattern is further magnified when usage rates
are considered: Ortho Tri-Cyclen has six times the number of
users as Ortho Evra.

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso.  The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours.  It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation.  The regimen is then repeated.  Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001, and over 4 million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval.  Ortho Evra continues
to be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

For more information on Ortho Evra, visit:
http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.comor  
http://ww.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Ortho_Evra_Patch

The suit is "Murphy v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-02239-KSH-PS, filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiff, Amanda Michelle are Melanie H.
Muhlstock and Jerrold S. Parker of Parker & Waichman, 1 Gateway
Center, Suite 2500 Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973)-297-1020, E-
mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com, jparker@yourlawyer.com.


OWENS CORNING: Sept. 11 Trial Set for Mass. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 11, 2006 trial date has been set for the class action
filed against certain of Owens Corning's current and former
directors and officers.  The suit is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The company
is not named in the suit.

The suit, "John Hancock Life Insurance Company, et al. v.
Goldman, Sachs Co., et al., CA No.01-10729-RWZ," filed on Apr.
30, 2001, purports to be a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of certain unsecured debt securities of the
company in offerings occurring on or about Apr. 30, 1998 and
Jul. 23, 1998.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statements pursuant
to which the offerings were made contained untrue and misleading
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts,
which were required to be stated therein and which were
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in
violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages or, where appropriate, rescission of the plaintiffs'
purchases.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on Nov. 20,
2001. A hearing was held on this motion on Apr. 11, 2002, and
the Court issued a decision denying the motion on Aug. 26, 2002.

On Mar. 9, 2004, the court granted class certification as to
those claims relating to written representations but denied
certification as to claims relating to alleged oral
representations.

A status conference was held on this matter on Nov. 8, 2005 and
a trial has been scheduled for Sept. 11, 2006, as to certain
defendants.

The suit is "Hancock Mutual Life, et al. v. Goldman Sachs
& Co., et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-10729-RWZ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Jugde Rya
W. Zobel.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David A. Bunis, Daniel J. Cloherty and William H.
         Kettlewell, Dwyer & Collora, LLP, 12th Floor, 600
         Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2211, Phone: 617-371-
         1000, Fax: 617-371-1037, E-mail:
         dbunis@dwyercollora.com, dcloherty@dwyercollora.com and
         wkettlewell@dwyercollora.com;

     (2) Richard L. Stone and Mark A. Strauss of Kirby,
         McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., 10th Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-371-6600, Fax: 212-751-
         2540.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Timothy C. Blank, Joseph A. Tate and Kevin T. Kerns of
         Dechert, LLP, 200 Clarendon St., 27th Floor, Boston, MA
         02116, Phone: 617-728-7100, Fax: 617 426-6567, E-mail:
         timothy.blank@dechert.com; and

    (ii) John D. Donovan, Jr. of Ropes & Gray, LLP, One
         International, Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-
         7566, Fax: 617-951-7050, E-mail:
         jdonovan@ropesgray.com.


POZEN INC: N.C. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina denied Pozen, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers.

Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class
actions in 2004, alleging violations of securities laws.  These
actions were filed as a single consolidated class action
complaint on Dec. 20, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims,
violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company and
a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.

On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss was denied on Aug. 30,
2005.  

The suit is "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 04-
CV-505," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James E. McGovern, Steven J. Toll, Matthew K. Handley,
         Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste.
         500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax:
         202-408-4699, E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com and
         dsommers@cmht.com;  

     (2) Harry H. Albritton, JR. and Marvin Key Blount, JR., The
         Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C., POD 58, GREENVILLE, NC
         27835-0058, Phone: 252-752-6000, Fax: 252-752-2174, E-     
         mail: harry@theblountlawfirm.com and
         deborah@theblountlawfirm.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King Of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-822-0247.

Representing the defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA,
Phone: 919-755-2100 and 919-755-2135, Fax: 919-755-6067, E-mail:
pmillen@wcsr.com.


STEWART & STEVENSON: Faces Mich. Power Products Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. is a co-defendant with
Detroit Diesel Corp. and other Detroit Diesel distributors in
two putative class actions related to the Power Products
business filed on Feb. 9, 2005.  The suits are:

     (1) "Cumberland Truck Equipment Co., et al. v. Detroit
         Diesel Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-74594-AJT-MKM";
         and

     (2) "Diamond International Trucks, Inc., et al. v. Detroit
         Diesel Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-74930-AJT-MKM."

The suits were initially filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On Nov. 14, 2005, the
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.  

In the Cumberland Litigation, plaintiffs were dealers of Detroit
Diesel parts whose agreements were terminated or not renewed on
or after Feb. 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs are claiming antitrust
violations arising out of the termination or non-renewal of
their dealer agreements.  

In the Diamond International Litigation, plaintiffs are dealers
of Detroit Diesel parts whose dealership classification was
changed on or after Feb. 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs in the Diamond
International Litigation are claiming antitrust violations
arising out of changes to the classification of their
dealerships.  The company is a distributor of Detroit Diesel
parts and had a dealer agreement with one or more of the named
plaintiffs in each suit.  

The plaintiffs in each suit have also alleged price fixing and
group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
have made claims for treble damages and injunctive and other
relief.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Cumberland & Diamond Plaintiff] Wayne A. Mack of
         Duane, Morris, (Philadelphia), 30 S. 17th Street,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-4001, Phone: 215979-1152;

     (2) [Cumberland & Diamond Plaintiff] James E. DeLine of
         Kerr, Russell, (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite
         2500, Detroit, MI 48226-3406, Phone: 313-961-0200, E-
         mail: jed@krwlaw.com;

     (3) [Cumberland & Diamond Defendant] Howard B. Iwrey of
         Dykema Gossett (Bloomfield Hills), 39577 Woodward
         Avenue, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2820,
         Phone: 248-203-0526, Fax: 248-203-0763, E-mail:
         hiwrey@dykema.com; and

     (4) [Diamond Defendant] Jennifer R. Clarke of Dechert,
         Price, 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4000, Philadelphia, PA
         19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-4000, E-mail:
         jennifer.clarke@dechert.com.


STEWART & STEVENSON: Faces Tex. Suit Over Armor Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. is defendant in a purported
class action in the District Court in Harris County, Texas,
relating to the proposed merger transaction with Armor Holdings,
Inc.  

A purported shareholder of the company on behalf of all other
similarly situated shareholders filed the suit against the
company and six of its directors are defendants.

Filed on Apr. 11, 2006, the suit alleges, among other things,
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders of the company by failing to maximize shareholder
value when selling the company, by favoring Armor Holdings in
the proposed merger transaction and precluding superior offers
for the company and by failing to disclose material information
or disclosing materially false information in its proxy
materials relating to the shareholders' meeting to be held on
May 9, 2006.  

It also alleges that a class should be certified and the
plaintiff named as representative of the purported class.  No
class has been certified at present and accordingly, the company
regard the action as a purported class action.

The suit seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
merger agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary
duties of the individual defendants and is therefore unlawful
and unenforceable, an injunction against the company proceeding
with the transaction or consummating the transaction or any
other business combination unless certain procedures are in
place and damages, attorneys' and experts' fees, expenses and
other relief.  


TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Ken. Reaches $600T Settlement in Lupron Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo announced that the state
has reached a $600,000 settlement with TAP Pharmaceutical
Products Inc. as part of a class action over fraudulent
marketing practices involving the cancer drug Lupron, the
Herald-Leader reports.

According to Mr. Stumbo, the funds received from the settlement
will go towards helping Kentuckians who suffer from prostate
cancer, uterine fibroids and precocious puberty or Kentucky
consumers who purchased Lupron and also promote cancer screening
and cancer research.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns granted preliminary
approval to a proposed $150 million settlement between TAP
Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc. and a nationwide class of
consumers and third-party payors who purchased the drug Lupron
in November last year.  

Under the proposed settlement, TAP will pay $150 million on
behalf of all defendants.  After paying $55 million to certain
health plans, the remaining $95 million will go to consumers,
additional health plans and litigation costs and fees.  If the
court gives final approval to the proposed settlement,
individual class members will get payments based on the amount
of Lupron they purchased.  TAP admits no wrongdoing in the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

TAP Pharmaceuticals pled guilty to criminal and civil charges, a
consolidation of many federal cases in U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts in Boston.  The lawsuit charged
TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Abbott Laboratories and
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited of conspiring to
fraudulently market, sell and distribute Lupron, a drug
primarily prescribed to treat prostate cancer in men,
endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women, and premature
puberty in children (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

The suit claimed that the companies forced consumers to pay
inflated prices for the drug by artificially inflating the
"Average Wholesale Price" of the drug, giving free samples to
doctors knowing they would charge patients and insurers for
them, and giving incentives to doctors so that they would
prescribe Lupron instead of cheaper alternatives (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

The suit is "Citizens for Consume, et al. v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris
with referral to Marianne B. Bowler.  Representing Kentucky is
Paula J. Holbrook, Office of Attorney General, 1024 Capitol
Center Drive, Frankfort, KY 40601-8204, U.S., Phone: 502-696-
5503, Fax: 502-573-7150, E-mail: paula.holbrook@ag.ky.gov.

Representing TAP Pharmaceutical is Toni-Ann Citera, Jones Day,
222 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017-6702, Phone: 212-782-
3939, Fax: 212-755-7306, E-mail: tcitera@jonesday.com.


THORNHILL SUPERSTORES: Fined for Ignoring Court Order in Ad Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit judge in West Virginia fined auto dealer Thornhill
Superstores $7,600 on May 10 for failing to update the company's
purchase agreements and invoices in compliance with a court
order in January.

Lawyer Harry F. Bell Jr. of Bell and Bands in Charleston filed a
suit in 2003 over the company's advertising of prices at a
dollar over invoice on behalf of four customers led by Patricia
Jarrell of Madison.  Ms. Madison claimed that when she bought a
Chevy Blazer in 2000, she paid $2,453.52 more than the
manufacturer's invoice price.

An ensuing compromise between the parties required Thornhill's
lawyer, Johnnie Brown of Charleston, to provide purchase
agreements and invoice sheets of General Motors, whose vehicles
it is selling.  Mr. Bell agreed to stop contacting customers and
advertising the case.  Mr. Brown complied, giving purchase
agreements and invoice sheets Jan. 27, 2004.  

In November, Mr. Bell asked Kanawha Circuit Judge Charles King
to order Thornbill to produce documents about all sales since
Jan. 27, 2004.  Thornhill attorney Cy Hill of Charleston
promised to produce the documents.

Judge King heard arguments on Jan. 12.  Twelve days later he
gave Thornhill 30 days to bring the purchase agreements and
invoices up to date, but lawyers failed to do so.  Instead,
Thornbill filed a motion to reconsider Judge King's
certification of the class action in August 2004.

Judge King ordered sanctions of $100 a day for the non-
compliance, resulting to a $7,600 fine for the 76 days it failed
to comply with the order.  According to the report the judge
based the penalty on annual sales made by the company as
provided on an affidavit of Mr. Bell that estimates Thornhill's
sales at $150,000 a day, seven days a week.  Between 1999 and
2003, Thornhill sold 2,234 new General Motors vehicles a year at
an average price of $24,670.45, according to Mr. Bell.

As of May 16, Thornhill's fine stood at $8,200.  The circuit
court had received no payment yet on that date.

For more information, contact Mr. Bell of Bell & Bands, P.L.L.C.
30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, West Virginia
25301 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-345-1700, Fax: 304-345-1715; and
Cy A. Hill, Jr. of Pullin, Fowler & Flanagan, PLLC, 344-0100,
Phone: 1-800-355-2753, Fax: 304-342-1545, Web Site:
http://www.pffwv.com.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles LANL Bias Lawsuit for $12M
------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California agreed to settle for $12 million a
gender and racial discrimination suits filed against it by
Hispanic and female employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
The Albuquerque Tribune reports.  The university manages the lab
for the federal government.

Hispano Round Table, an employee union and four Hispanic women,
including a state human rights commissioner, filed the suit in
2004 alleging pay disparity stemming from decades of gender and
racial discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2004).  
The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed on May 19 to
settle the suit to avoid a length legal process.  

The settlement stands to benefit 5,500 current and former lab
employees.  It is still subject to the approval of U.S. District
Judge William P. Johnson.

The four women plaintiffs in the suit are Martinez, Gloria
Bennett, Yolanda Garcia and Yvonne Ebelacker.  They are
represented by Santa Fe attorney Richard Hughes of othstein,
Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP, 1215
Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 (Santa Fe Co.),
Phone: 505-988-8004, Fax: 505-982-0307.


VERISIGN INC: Calif. Court Grants Green Light to Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murphy, a California Superior Court judge, approved a
consumer class action filed against VeriSign Inc., saying the
plaintiffs' allegations that the firm engaged in false and
misleading advertising about Secure Site Pro merit legal
proceedings, the Internet News reports.

In February 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed
a consumer class action in the Superior Court of California, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Secure Site Pro
certificate from February 2001 to present, alleging violations
of the unfair competition laws, breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment relating to the company's Secure Site Pro SSL
certificates (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).  The
complaint states it is untrue that one of the company's SSL
certificates, Secure Sit Pro, provides more security that its
other product, Secure Site.  

More than 400,000 plaintiff are seeking $500 each in
restitution, bringing the company's potential liability to $200
million.

According to Marc E. Gravely, counsel for the plaintiffs, though
the class action has been certified by a court of law, the court
has not ruled on the merits of the case.


WET SEAL: June Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Jun. 12, 2006 court hearing is scheduled for The Wet Seal,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Between Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 12, 2004, six securities class
actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock between Jan. 7, 2003, and Aug. 19, 2004.  
The company and certain of its former directors and executives
were named as defendants.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, on the
grounds that, among other things, the company failed to disclose
and misrepresented material adverse facts that were known to the
company or disregarded by us.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel.  On Jan. 29, 2005, the
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
with the Court, which consolidated all of the previously
reported class actions.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the company violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements of fact
or failing to disclose material facts during the class period,
from March 2003 to August 2004, concerning the company's
prospects to stem ongoing losses in the company's Wet Seal
concept and return that business to profitability.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the company's
former directors and La Senza Corp., a Canadian company
controlled by them, unlawfully utilized material non-public
information in connection with the sale of the company's common
stock by La Senza.  It seeks class certification, compensatory
damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  
The company  filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in April 2005.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the consolidated class action was dismissed
against the company in the lawsuit.  However, plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint, which they did file
on Nov. 23, 2005.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Jan. 25, 2006, and a court hearing is scheduled for Jun. 12,
2006.  

The suit is "Alexander Vinokurov v. Wet Seal Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-07159-GAF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.  Representing the
plaintiffs in this litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

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

     (3) Michael M. Goldberg of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg,
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA
         90067, Phone: 310-201-9150;

     (4) Christopher Kim and Lisa J. Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim,
         1055 W. 7th St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017,      
         Phone: 213-955-9500, E-mail:
         christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com and
         lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com;

     (5) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, 10 E.
         40th St., 22nd Fl., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-
         1414; and

     (6) Brian J. Robbins and Marc M. Umeda of Robbins Umeda and
         Fink, 610 West Ash St., Suite 1800, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619-525-3990, Fax: 619-525-3991, E-mail:
         umeda@ruflaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David F. Berry, Joan E. Lewis-Heard and Lawrence H.
         Nagler of Nagler & Associates, 2300 S. Sepulveda Blvd.,
         Los Angeles, CA 90064-1911, Phone: 310-473-1200, Fax:
         310-473-7144;

    (ii) Marlyn M. Gates and Charles M. Stern of Katten Muchin
         Zavis Rosenman, 2029 Century Pk. E, Ste. 2600, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067-3012, Phone: 310-788-4400, Fax: 310-
         788-4471, E-mail: charles.stern@kmzr.com;

   (iii) Seth A. Aronson and Amy J. Longo of O'Melveny & Myers,
         400 S. Hope St., 15th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899,
         Phone: 213-430-6000, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail:
         saronson@omm.com; and

    (iv) Charles Avrith of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 350 S. Grand
         Ave., 36th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-3442, Phone: 213-
         613-2800.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

During the class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of
these broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


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

During the class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of
these broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


CHINA ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of China Energy Savings Technology, Inc.
(CESV) common stock between Apr. 21, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006.

The complaint charges China Energy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  China Energy engages in the development, manufacture,
sale, and distribution of energy-saving products for use in
commercial and industrial settings in the People's Republic of
China.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, China Energy stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

On Feb. 15, 2006, after the market closed, the NASDAQ announced
that trading was halted in China Energy stock for "additional
information requested" from the company at a last price of
$6.82.  As of May 18, 2006, trading in China Energy's stock
remained halted.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the class period, were as follows:

      -- the company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

      -- contrary to representations contained in the company's
         SEC filings, the company's internal controls were
         inadequate and easily manipulated;
   
      -- the company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process required to enable it to
         properly analyze and/or estimate China Energy's future
         financial and operational performance;

      -- China Energy was improperly recognizing revenue
         associated with its long-term energy-sharing service
         agreements by recognizing revenue before it was earned
         and realizable;

      -- China Energy's January 2006 private placement was
         fraught with self-dealing; and

      -- China Energy was experiencing inside and/or self
         dealing transactions in the company's stock by
         insiders, its executives and/or members of its Board of
         Directors which could lead to trading of its stock
         being halted by the NASDAQ.

Interested parties who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must meet
certain legal requirements set forth in the applicable law and
file appropriate papers with the Court no later than 60 days
from May 1, 2006.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone: (212) 279-
5050 and (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com.  


CHINA ENERGY: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of China Energy
Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV) common stock between Apr. 21,
2005 and Feb. 15, 2006.

The complaint charges China Energy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  China Energy engages in the development, manufacture,
sale, and distribution of energy-saving products for use in
commercial and industrial settings in the People's Republic of
China.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, China Energy stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

On Feb. 15, 2006, after the market closed, the NASDAQ announced
that trading was halted in China Energy stock for "additional
information requested" from the company at a last price of
$6.82. As of May 12, 2006, trading in China Energy's stock
remained halted.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the class period, were as follows:

      -- the company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

      -- contrary to representations contained in the company's
         SEC filings, the company's internal controls were
         inadequate and easily manipulated;

      -- the company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process required to enable it to
         properly analyze and/or estimate China Energy's future
         financial and operational performance;

      -- China Energy was improperly recognizing revenue
         associated with its long-term energy-sharing service
         agreements by recognizing revenue before it was earned
         and realizable;

      -- China Energy's January 2006 private placement was
         fraught with self-dealing; and

      -- China Energy was experiencing inside and/or self
         dealing transactions in the company's stock by
         insiders, its executives and/or members of its Board of
         Directors which could lead to trading of its stock
         being halted by the NASDAQ.

Interested parties who wish to serve, as lead plaintiff must
move the Court no later than 60 days from May 1, 2006.

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


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of
Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (DSCO) between Dec. 28, 2005 and
Apr. 25, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's operations and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Discovery Laboratories
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

Interested parties have until Jun. 30, 2006, in which to move
for Lead Plaintiff status.

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


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

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

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


ESCALA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Escala Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESCL) stock during the
period from Sept. 5, 2003 through May 8, 2006.

The complaint charges the company and certain named officers
with violating federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements concerning the company's
financial performance.  

The complaint alleges the company failed to disclose that the
company's profitability, as well as the viability of a key
customer, was the result of unsustainable business practices
requiring widespread deception and fraud to succeed, and which
would inevitably be discovered and result in sanctions.

On May 9, 2006 investors learned that Spanish officials had
raided the Madrid offices of Afinsa as part of a criminal
investigation into a suspected billion-dollar fraudulent
investment scheme operated by Afinsa.

Spanish authorities arrested nine individuals, including
Escala's Second Vice Chairman and Director, froze the Spanish
assets of Afinsa and raided over 21 homes.

As a result of this information, the company's stock opened for
trading at $16.39 on May 9, down from the previous closing price
of $32.00. During the two subsequent trading days, the company's
stock further declined, and closed on May 11, 2006, at $4.34 per
share, down 86.4% from the pre-disclosure closing price of
$32.00.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Jul. 10,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060
and (917) 797-4425, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.  


HOME DEPOT: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of all securities purchasers of The Home
Depot, Inc. (HD) between May 19, 2001 and Feb. 22, 2005,
inclusive.  The suit was filed against Home Depot, Robert L.
Nardelli, Carol B. Tome, Kenneth G. Langone, Berry R. Cox, John
L. Clendenin and Larry M. Mercer.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the making of materially
false and misleading statements concerning Home Depot's
operations and financial condition which caused The Home Depot's
securities to trade at artificially inflated prices during the
class period.

The complaint also alleges that throughout the class period, the
company deceived vendors and falsified Home Depot's financial
results through fraudulent return-to-vendor (RTV) policies.  
More specifically, it alleges that the defendants:

      -- coerced Home Depot employees to fraudulently inflate
         company charges to vendors to cover the cost of
         defective and/or damaged merchandise; and

      -- pressured suppliers who complained about excessive
         chargebacks by threatening to reduce orders of their
         products.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased Home Depot securities.

Interested parties may not later than Jul. 11, 2006 move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq., Phone: 1-
800-391-5164 or 1-412-391-5164, E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com.  


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, against Newpark Resources (NR) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of purchasers of Newpark securities from
Feb. 28, 2005 to Apr. 13, 2006, both dates inclusive.  The
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Newpark is headquartered in Metairie, Louisiana.  The company
provides fluids management, environmental, and oilfield services
to the oil and gas exploration and production industries.

The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants'
internal controls and accounting practices during the class
period were flawed and deficient.  As a result of these
deficiencies, the company was forced to announce on Apr. 17,
2006, the commencement of an internal investigation by its Audit
Committee into accounting irregularities and other possible
violations.

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

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

Interested parties have until Jun. 20, 2006 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the Class.  

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm sets a Jun. 2, 2006, deadline to apply as
lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed on behalf of
those who purchased stocks of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(Pink Sheets:NATR) between May 13, 2002 and Mar. 20, 2006.  

The complaint alleges that on Mar. 20, 2006 the company shocked
the market when it announced the company was withdrawing its
financial statements and warned that it could be delisted from
the NASDAQ. The company disclosed that an internal investigation
revealed "certain internal control weaknesses and outline
potential violation of law." The company also revealed that the
internal investigation recommended "the termination of certain
employees and senior officers." No class has yet been certified
in the above action.

Following this disclosure, the company's stock price dropped
over 35%.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (917)
797-4425 or (weekends) (866) 767-3653 Toll Free, Fax: (212) 202-
3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com,
Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a class action against UnitedHealth
Group, Inc. (UNH) and certain officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The action is on behalf of
UnitedHealth securities purchasers from May 4, 2001 through Apr.
7, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
executive compensation practices, including the backdating of
stock option grants.  As a result, the price of the company's
securities was inflated during the class period, thereby harming
investors.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions to the investment community
regarding the company's executive stock award practices during
the class period.

These statements, as the complaint alleges, served to actively
conceal that the defendants backdated the award of stock option
grants to executives in order to reflect specific dates
corresponding to lows in the price of the company's stock,
thereby maximizing the value of the option grants.

When the company fully revealed this information, on Apr. 7,
2006, the price of UnitedHealth stock staged a dramatic decline,
losing $2.96 from its closing price of $54.51 on Apr. 6, 2001,
to close at $51.55 on Apr. 11, 2006.  The stock would finally
close on Apr. 28, 2006, at $47.75, corresponding to an overall
drop of 12% or $6.76.

The lawsuit also charges that during the class period insiders
sold their company stock at artificially inflated prices,
thereby reaping more than $484 million in proceeds.

Interested parties who wish to serve, as a lead plaintiff in the
action must move the Court no later than Jul. 7, 2006.

For more details, contact 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, and Janice
Mendoza, 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  * * *