CAR_Public/060529.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 29, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 105

                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Continues to Face Racial Discrimination Suit in Ohio
AK STEEL: Ohio Court Reduces ERISA Violation Penalty to $44.9M
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiff in iPod Nano Suit Wants Name Dropped
AT&T CORP: DOJ Wants Executive Branch to Hear Wiretapping Suit
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS: June Hearing Set in "UCAN" Suit Settlement

BELLSOUTH CORP: Faces Suit in Ga. Over AT&T Merger Agreement
CONCORD EFS: Calif. Court to Hear Judgment Motion Mid-September
CONCORD EFS: Tenn. Court Mulls Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
CORN PRODUCTS: Accused of Fixing Corn Syrup Prices in Canada
CREMALITA MANAGEMENT: Advertising Fraud Suit Denied Class Status

DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Lawyers Get 22% of Sex Abuse Lawsuit Deal
HERCULES INC: Pa. Court Grants Class Status to ERISA Lawsuit
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in Minn.
JUMBO FOODS: Recalls Turkey Sandwiches for Possible Health Risk
LABORATORY CORP: N.C. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit

LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Mich. Suit Over Emissions From Alpena Plant
LEAR CORP: Former Employee Files ERISA Violations Suit in Mich.
MADE-RITE: Recalls Sandwiches at Risk of Bacterial Contamination
NEW YORK: No Violation Found in Inmates' Voting Rights Lawsuit
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Report on Suit Against Garment Firms Due June

NORTH FORK: Shareholders File N.Y. Suits Over Capital One Merger
NVE CORP: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in Minn.
PRECISION BRAND: Accused of Causing Environmental Damage in Ill.
REFCO INC: Lead Plaintiff in Stock Suit Requests Access to Info
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit

SEPRACOR INC: Court Grants Class Status to Mass. Stock Lawsuits
ST. PAUL: Continues to Face Securities Litigation in Minnesota
ST. PAUL: Settlement Reached for ERISA Violations Suit in Minn.
TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Ida. Enters $198T Settlement Over Lupron
TAP PHARMACEUTICALS: Wis. Enters $798T Settlement in Lupron Suit

TRANSALTA CORP: Justice Topolniski Junks Class Status Request
UNITED LIFE: Circuit Judge Limits Scope of "Booher" Lawsuit
UST INC: Indirect Buyers of Smokeless Tobacco File Suit in Pa.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: New Lead Plaintiff Named in "Madsen" Suit

    
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
BAUSCH & LOMB: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ESCALA GROUP: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in La.
XM SATELLITE: Mason Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.


                            *********


AK STEEL: Continues to Face Racial Discrimination Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported racial discrimination
class action against AK Steel Holding Corp. that is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit was filed on Jun. 26, 2002 by 17 individuals.  As
subsequently amended, the complaint alleges that the company
discriminates against African-Americans in its hiring practices
and that it discriminates against all of its employees by
preventing its employees from working in a racially integrated
environment free from racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory, injunctive and
unspecified monetary relief, including back pay, front pay, lost
benefits, lost seniority and punitive damages, for themselves
and unsuccessful African-American candidates for employment at
the company.  Defendants have responded to the complaint and
discovery is ongoing.  No trial date was yet slated.

The suit is "Bert, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00467-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) David Donald Kammer and Paul Henry Tobias of Tobias,
         Kraus & Torchia, Phone: 513-241-8137, Fax: 513-241-
         7863, E-mail: davek@tktlaw.com and tkt@tktlaw.com; and

     (2) Allison W. Lowell of Wiggin Childs Quinn & Pantazis,          
         301 19th Street, N. Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-
         314-0575, Fax: 205/254-1500, E-mail: awl@wcqp.com.

Representing the defendants are Lawrence James Barty, Patricia
Anderson Pryor and Gregory Parker Rogers of Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, 1800 Firstar Tower, 425 Walnut St., Cincinnati, OH
45202-3597, Phone: 513-381-2838, 513-357-9409 and 513-357-9344,
Fax: 513-381-0205, E-mail: barty@taftlaw.com, Pryor@Taftlaw.com
and Rogers@Taftlaw.com.


AK STEEL: Ohio Court Reduces ERISA Violation Penalty to $44.9M
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
reconsidered the method by which prejudgment interest was
determined in a purported class action against the AK Steel
Corp. Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP), and the AK
Steel Corp. Benefit Plans Administrative Committee (AK BPAC).

On Jan. 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed the
class action, claiming that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class
members.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the court entered a final judgment against the
defendants in the approximate amount of $37.6 million in damages
and $8.6 million in prejudgment interest, for a total of
approximately $46.2 million, with post judgment interest
accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until paid.

Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider the method by which prejudgment interest was
determined.  On Mar. 29, 2006, the court granted the defendants'
motion and entered an amended final judgment, which had the
effect of reducing the prejudgment interest by approximately
$1.3 million.

After entry of the amended final judgment, the total liability
of the defendants was approximately $44.9 million, with post
judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until
paid.  

The suit is "West v. AK Steel Retirement, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-00001-SSB-TSB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Black.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Thomas R. Theado of Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC, 446
Broadway, Lorain, Ohio 44052, (Lorain Co.), Phone: 216-244-4809,
Fax: 440-244-3462.

Representing AK Steel is Robert Wick of Covington & Burling,
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia
20004-2401, Phone: 202-662-6000, Fax: 202-662-6291.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiff in iPod Nano Suit Wants Name Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the iPod Nano scratch class action against
Apple Computer, Inc. has sent an "Open Letter to the Mac
Community" saying he wants to get his name out of the suit,
reports say.

Jason Tomczak, who was named in the suit alleging that Apple
Computer knowingly sold iPod nanos that scratched too easily,
said his involvement was a mistake.  He claimed the law firm
Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP used his name without consent.

Apple Computer faces several class actions filed in California
state and federal courts, alleging that the company's iPod nano
was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.  

The company has filed a motion for transfer and consolidation
before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to have
all of the federal cases transferred to the Northern District of
California and consolidated for pre-trial purposes (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

The suits are:

     (1) Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed as Tomczak v.  
         Apple Computer, Inc. on October 19, 2005 in the United  
         States District Court for the Northern District of  
         California, San Jose Division; amended complaint filed  
         October 26, 2005;

     (2) Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed  
         October 26, 2005 United States District Court for the  
         Northern District of California, San Jose Division;

     (3) Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed October  
         26, 2005, Los Angeles County Superior Court;

     (4) Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed October  
         31, 2005, United States District Court for the Southern  
         District of New York;

     (5) Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed  
         November 4, 2005, United States District Court for the  
         Northern District of California, San Jose Division

The Wimmer and Moschella actions were brought on behalf of
purported nationwide classes of iPod nano purchasers, with the
exception of California purchasers, and allege violations of the
consumer protection, express and implied warranty statutes of
each state covered by the putative class definition, as well as
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under the
common laws of these jurisdictions.  

The Calado action was brought on behalf of a purported
California class of iPod nano purchasers and asserts claims for
alleged violation of California Business & Professions Code  
Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business &  
Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer  
Legal Remedies Act, breaches of express and implied warranties,  
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  

The Jennings action was filed on behalf of a purported class of
all iPod nano purchasers outside of the U.S., based upon alleged
violations of the same California statutes as in the Calado
complaint.  

The Kahan action was brought on behalf of a purported New York
class of iPod nano purchasers and alleges claims under the New
York unfair competition law, breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment.  The complaints seek damages and various
other remedies. The company's responses to these complaints are
not yet due.   

The company filed a motion for transfer and consolidation before
the MDL panel to have all of the federal cases transferred to
the California court and consolidated for pre-trial purposes.  
The motion is unopposed and the Company awaits a ruling.  Five  
of the actions are stayed pending a ruling on the company's MDL
motion.  The company is seeking stays in the remaining actions.


AT&T CORP: DOJ Wants Executive Branch to Hear Wiretapping Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a response brief on March
24 to a privacy rights violation suit filed against AT&T Corp.
in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The DOJ said "the U.S. courts have traditionally been "ill-
equipped" to judge harm to national security," according to the
Jurist.  It said the executive branch should decide on the case.

U.S. District Judge Vaughnn Walker rejected on May 17 a request
for a closed-door hearing of a lawsuit alleging AT&T illegally
handed over its customers' telephone and Internet records and
communications to the National Security Agency (Class Action
Reporter, May 19, 2006).

The judge also ruled that a set of internal AT&T documents
supporting Electronic Frontier Foundation's allegations in the
suit filed in January may be used in the case.  

The evidence, which was filed under seal with the court, is
composed of three documents given to EFF by former AT&T
technician Mark Klein.  It appears to describe a secret room
established in AT&T's main switching centers through which
Internet and voice traffic flows, giving NSA full access to the
company's networks.  Reportedly, these can be found in switching
centers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Jose,  
California.  The data collection started after the Sept. 11,  
2001 terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, the judge declined to hear motions by EFF to issue a
preliminary injunction against the alleged data collection until
after he considers whether to dismiss the case.  The judge set a
hearing for motions from both of them on Jun. 23.  

The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., case no.  
3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the   
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:    

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454     
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-    
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:    
         cindy@eff.org; and     

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman    
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San     
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-    
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.    

Representing the defendant are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.   
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont   
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:   
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:   
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and   
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.   

For more details, visit, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/.      


AT&T COMMUNICATIONS: June Hearing Set in "UCAN" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the state of California, County of San
Diego will hold a fairness hearing on Jun. 9, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
for the proposed settlement in the matter, "UCAN, et al. v. AT&T
Communications of California, et al., Case No. GIC 837830."  

The case was brought on behalf of all current and former AT&T
Single Line Business customers nationwide between October 1,
2002 and January 31, 2005 who were charged a Long Distance
Carrier Line Charge.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Linda B. Quinn at
Department 74 of the Court, located at 330 W. Broadway, San
Diego, California 92101.

Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
May 24, 2006.  Proof of claim must be submitted by Jul. 31,
2006.

For more details, contact John W. Hanson, Esq. of Rosner, Law &
Mansfield, 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Floor, San Diego, CA
92131, Phone: (858) 348-1005 and Nancy L. Stagg of Fish &
Richardson, P.C., 12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, California
92130-2081, Phone: 858-678-5070, Fax: 858-678-5099, Web sites:
http://www.fr.comor http://www.ucansettlement.com/.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Faces Suit in Ga. Over AT&T Merger Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. is defendant in a purported class action filed
in the Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County over its merger
agreement with AT&T Inc.

On Mar. 4, 2006, the company agreed to merge with AT&T in a
transaction in which each share of BellSouth common stock will
be exchanged for 1.325 shares of AT&T common stock.  The stock
consideration in the transaction is expected to be tax-free to
its shareowners.  The acquisition, which is subject to approval
by its shareowners and regulatory authorities, and other
customary closing conditions, is currently expected to close by
the end of 2006.

On Mar. 9, 2006, two putative class actions, entitled, "Williams
v. BellSouth Corp., et al., Case No. 2006CV113858," and "Jannett
v. BellSouth Corp., et al., Case No. 2006CV113861," were filed
against the company and its directors.

The complaints, which are substantially identical, purport to be
brought on behalf of all BellSouth shareholders, excluding the
defendants and their affiliates.  They allege that BellSouth's
directors violated their fiduciary obligations to BellSouth's
shareholders in approving the merger agreement.

In that connection, the complaints allege that:

      -- the merger consideration is inadequate and unfair in
         offering a very meager premium and not reflecting the
         intrinsic value of BellSouth;

      -- the directors failed to properly inform themselves of
         BellSouth's value or its strategic alternatives because
         the proposed transaction is not the result of a pre-
         signing auction or market check process and the merger
         agreement does not provide a market check mechanism
         process;

      -- the size of the termination fee, the no-shop and
         matching rights provisions of the merger agreement,
         which provides AT&T with information on any third party
         proposal but not information to a third party on any
         amended AT&T proposal, are impermissible steps to lock
         up the deal and will hinder and deter other potential
         acquirers from seeking to acquire BellSouth on better
         terms than the proposed merger; and

      -- by agreeing to the merger, the BellSouth directors have
         served their own interests at the expense of
         shareholders, including the triggering of change in
         control agreements.

The complaints seek various forms of relief, including
injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the completion
of the merger, unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys'
fees and expenses.


CONCORD EFS: Calif. Court to Hear Judgment Motion Mid-September
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hear Concord EFS, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its
favor in the consolidated class action filed against it, its
parent company First Data Corp. and various financial
institutions on September 15, 2006.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company, its
subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial institutions
(Brennan).  

Plaintiffs claim the defendants violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  They seek a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and such other relief as the nature of the case may
require or as may seem just and proper to the court.

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004, two in the Central District of Los Angeles,
California; two in the Southern District of New York, and one in
the Western District of Seattle, Washington.  

The plaintiffs sought to have all of the cases consolidated by
the Multi District Litigation panel.  The panel denied that
request on Dec. 16, 2004 and all cases were transferred to the
Northern District Court of California and assigned to a single
judge.  All cases other than Brennan were stayed.  Subsequently,
a seventh lawsuit was filed in the District of Alaska, which
thereafter was also transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to the same judge.

In Brennan, on May 4, 2005, the court ruled on defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The
court did not dismiss the complaint, except for a technical
dismissal of the claims against First Data Corp., Bank One Corp.
and JPMorgan Chase.  

On May 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
clarified the basis for alleging that the holding companies
First Data Corp., Bank One Corp. and JPMorgan Chase were liable.  

On Jul. 21, 2005, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to foreclose claims arising after Feb. 1, 2001, the date
that Concord acquired the STAR network.  

On Aug. 22, 2005, the court also consolidated all of the ATM
interchange cases pending against the defendants in Brennan that
is now referred to collectively as the "ATM Fee Antitrust
Litigation."

On December 8, 2005, the judge presiding over the case recused
himself and all deadlines previously set were vacated.  The
company's Motion for Summary Judgment was set for hearing on
Mar. 14, 2006.  A status conference for the case was set May 3,
2006.  

On Feb. 13, 2006, the case was assigned to a new judge.  The
company's Motion for Summary Judgment has been scheduled for
hearing on Sept. 15, 2006.  

The suit is "In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-
cv-02676-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel O. Myers, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and
         Brickman, LLC, 1037 Chuck Dawley, Building A, Mt.
         Pleasant, SC 92464, Phone: 843-727-6500, fax: 843-216-
         6509, E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com; and

     (2) Joseph R. Saveri, Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein,
         LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-
         mail: jsaveri@lchb.com.  

Representing the defendants are Buckmaster DeWolf, Peter Edward
Moll, Esq., Benjamin K. Riley, Brian Wallach of Howrey Simon
Arnold & White, LLP, 301 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA
94025, Phone: 650-463-8100, E-mail: dewolfb@howrey.com,
mollp@howrey.com, rileyb@howrey.com and wallachb@howrey.com.


CONCORD EFS: Tenn. Court Mulls Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------  
The Shelby County Circuit Court for the state of Tennessee has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against Concord EFS, Inc.'s
current and former officers and directors.

On Apr. 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action complaints
were filed on behalf of the public holders of the company's
common stock, excluding shareholders related to or affiliated
with the individual defendants.  The defendants in those actions
were certain current and former officers and directors of
Concord.

The complaints generally alleged breaches of the defendants'
duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants'
alleged attempt to sell Concord without maximizing the value to
shareholders in order to advance the defendants' alleged
individual interests in obtaining indemnification agreements
related to the securities litigation discussed above and other
derivative litigation.  

The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief
directing the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged
sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts'
fees and other costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On Apr. 2, 2003, Barton K. O'Brien filed an additional purported
class action complaint.  The defendants were the company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  

This complaint contained allegations regarding the individual
defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged violations of
securities and other laws and asserted that this alleged
misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of First Data Corp.  

The complaint sought class certification, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, costs and other relief the Court deems just and
proper.  

Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is
consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants
to account to the putative class members for unspecified
damages.

These complaints were consolidated in a second amended
consolidated complaint filed Sept. 19, 2003 into one action, "In
re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in the Shelby
County Circuit for the State of Tennessee.  

On Oct. 15, 2003, the plaintiffs "In re Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation" moved for leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint similar to the previous complaints but
also alleging that the proxy statement disclosures relating to
the antitrust regulatory approval process were inadequate.

On Oct. 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger
and/or the merger itself.  The court denied the plaintiffs'
motion on Oct. 20, 2003 but ordered deposition discovery on an
expedited basis.

On Oct. 27, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enjoin
the shareholder vote, which was denied by the court the same
day.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on Jun. 22, 2004 alleging that the
claims should be denied and is moot since the merger has
occurred.  

On Oct. 18, 2004, the court heard arguments on the plaintiff's
motion to amend complaint and the defendant's motion to dismiss.


CORN PRODUCTS: Accused of Fixing Corn Syrup Prices in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Products International, Inc. is defendant in a purported
anti-competition class action in the Supreme Court of British
Colombia

On April 4, 2006, the company was served with the suit, which
was filed on June 13, 2005, on behalf of Sun-Rype Products Ltd.
and Wendy Weberg against a number of industry participants,
including the company.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for an alleged
conspiracy to fix the price of high fructose corn syrup sold in
Canada during the period between 1988 and June 1995.  In the
alternative, the complaint seeks recovery under restitutionary
principles.


CREMALITA MANAGEMENT: Advertising Fraud Suit Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman denied
class status to a lawsuit filed by Stephen Brandt who blamed
CremaLita Management LLC's frozen desserts for his weight gain,
AP WorldStream reports.

Judge Goodman denied the motion to add thousands of plaintiffs
to the suit saying Mr. Brandt failed to show they would file
similar complaints.  

Mr. Brandt filed the suit in 2004, accusing the company of
hiding the true calorific, cholesterol and fat content of its
products.  He alleged fraud and false and deceptive business
practices and advertising.

But he also declared to the court he had eaten one serving of
CremaLita a week for about four months in his firm's cafeteria.  
He also admitted eating at fast food restaurants, and being
unable to exercise much because of a bad knee.  

His suit came after the city's Department of Consumer Affairs
charged that CremaLita lied about having virtually no
cholesterol and fat.  DCA later announced that it had been
mistaken in saying CremaLita lied, and the agency found that the
company had erred only slightly in its calories-per-serving
count, CremaLita's court papers say.

Philip Sellinger, lawyer for CremaLita, said Brandt's individual
lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, is still pending.

For more information, contact Mr. Sellinger of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, 200 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 677, Florham Park, New
Jersey 07932 (Morris Co.), Phone: 973-360-7900, Fax: 973-301-
8410.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Lawyers Get 22% of Sex Abuse Lawsuit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A judge awarded attorneys in the settlement of sex abuse class
actions against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington about 22
percent of all awards paid, the Associated Press reports.

In January, Judge John Potter approved an $85 million settlement
between sexual abuse victims and the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington, Kentucky.  The settlement covers 361 victims who
claimed they were abused over a 50-year period by priests in the
diocese.  The payouts to victims are between $5,000 and
$450,000, depending on the severity and duration of the abuse
they suffered.  Some money will also be set aside to pay for
counseling for abuse victims.  Those in the highest category of
abuse will be eligible to apply to a special fund for
extraordinary claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

In February, attorneys in the lawsuit Stan Chesley and Robert
Steinberg, both of Cincinnati, Michael O'Hara of Crestview
Hills, and Ann Oldfather of Louisville said they deserve 30
percent of the money awarded.  A fifth attorney, Barbara Bonar
of Covington, said she deserves a portion of that 30 percent for
her work in the early stages of the lawsuit. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006).

Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley filed the class action in
Boone County Circuit Court back in 2003, claiming 21 priests and
some other workers abused more than 150 victims in the Diocese
of Covington for decades while church officials did nothing to
stop the misconduct.  According to the court filings, from about
1956, information on the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan
priests has been concealed from the public, including parents of
children in schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators
were assigned, as well as from family members of employees of
the diocese.  Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which
is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year
cover-up of sexual abuse by priests and others, (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 18, 2003).

For more info, visit: http://www.covingtonkydioceseabuse.com/.


HERCULES INC: Pa. Court Grants Class Status to ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted class action status to one of two lawsuits, which were
consolidated for discovery and trial purposes, against Hercules,
Inc.  The suit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In June 2004, a purported class action, "Charles Stepnowski v.
Hercules Inc.; The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.; The Hercules
Inc. Finance Committee; and Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' Vice
President Human Resources, Civil Action No. 04-cv-2296," was
filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  

The Stepnowski lawsuit seeks the payment of benefits under the
Pension Plan of Hercules Inc., and alleges violations of ERISA,
29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq.  Under the plan, eligible
retirees of the company may opt to receive a single cash payment
of 51% of the present value of their accrued benefit with the
remaining 49% payable as a monthly annuity.  

In the Stepnowski suit, it is alleged that the company's
adoption of a new interest rate assumption used to determine the
51% cash payment constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and a
violation of the anti-cutback requirements of ERISA, the
Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the plan, and that its
communications to employees concerning the new interest rate
assumption constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.  The suit
seeks the payment of additional benefits under ERISA, as well as
costs and attorneys fees); to compel the company to use an
interest rate assumption that is more favorable to eligible
retirees; and to establish a class comprised of all plan
participants who retired, or who will retire, on or after Dec.
1, 2001.  

By Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 2005, the court denied
without prejudice plaintiff's motion for class certification and
dismissed plaintiff's anti-cutback claim, but allowed
plaintiff's claim for benefits and breach of fiduciary duty to
proceed.  

In Dec. 2005, a virtually identical purported class action was
filed in the same court.  The suit is "Samuel J. Webster, et al.
v. Hercules, Inc.; The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.; The
Hercules Inc. Finance Committee; and Edward V. Carrington,
Hercules' Vice President Human Resources, Civil Action No. 05-
6404."

In January 2006, the court consolidated both the Stepnowski and
Webster lawsuits for discovery and trial and set both cases for
trial on Mar. 27, 2006.  That trial was then re-scheduled and
then postponed indefinitely.

In March 2006, the court certified the Webster action as a class
action.  By Order dated Apr. 20, 2006, the court entered partial
summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and ordered the company
to recalculate the lump sum pension benefit owed to class
members by using the prior interest rate assumption to calculate
benefits accrued through Dec. 31, 2001, and the new interest
rate (30-Year Treasury Bill rate) for all benefits accrued after
Dec. 31, 2001.  

That order also required the company to make certain payments to
Mr. Stepnowski and Mr. Webster, with such payments representing
the additional lump sum benefit payable as a result of the
adjusted lump sum calculation described in the preceding
sentence, plus interest.

The suits are "Stepnowski v. Hercules, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-02296-JF," and "Webster v. Hercules, Incorporated et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-06404-JF," which are both pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania under Judge
John P. Fullam.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) [Stepnowski] Alice W. Ballard of Law Office of Alice W.
         Ballard, PC, 1616 Walnut St., Suite 2205, Philadelphia,
         PA 19103, Phone: 215-893-9708, Fax: 215-893-9997, E-
         mail: awballard@awballard.com;

     (2) [Stepnowski] Mervin m. Wilf of Mervin M. Wilf, Ltd.,
         One South Broad Street, Suite 1630, Philadelphia, PA
         19107, Phone: 215-568-4842; and  

     (3) [Webster] Robert J. Larocca of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.,
         One South Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA
         19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, E-mail:
         rlarocca@kohnswift.com.

Representing the Company in both cases are David S. Fryman and
Allison V. Kinsey of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPP,
1735 Market St., 51ST FL., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599, Phone:
215-864-8105 and 215-864-8782, Fax: 215-864-9743, E-mail:
fryman@ballardspahr.com and kinseya@ballardspahr.com.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint was filed in the securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota against Hutchinson Technology, Inc.

Initially, the company and three of its present executive
officers, two of which are also directors, were named as
defendants in two actions.  The company and six of its present
executive officers, two of which are directors, were also later
named in a third action.

The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota between Sept. 9, 2005 and Oct. 11, 2005.  The three
actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court appointed
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On May 1, 2006, the lead plaintiff served a consolidated
complaint that purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
all persons (except defendants) who purchased the company's
stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004 and Aug. 29, 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company, and
its business and prospects, in press releases and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings during the class
period, and that the market price of the company's stock was
artificially inflated as a result.

The consolidated complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  
It seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in
an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation, and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.  Defendants must respond to the consolidated complaint
by Jun. 30, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Robert J. Averdick, et al. v.
Hutchinson Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2095," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under
Judge Michael J. Davis.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423;

     (6) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
         Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
         4335, Phone: 202.544.9840, Fax: 202.544.9850;

     (7) 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;

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

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


JUMBO FOODS: Recalls Turkey Sandwiches for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jumbo Foods of Mukilteo, Washington recalled 762 Smoked Turkey
on Sourdough Triple Decker Sandwiches.

The company said the recall was made because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short- term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages, and stillbirths among pregnant women.  No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program
conducted by the U.S. Army Veterinary Service that revealed that
the finished product contained the bacteria.

The last day Jumbo Foods produced the Smoked Turkey on Sourdough
was Apr. 20, 2006.  Jumbo Foods completed its recall in advance
of the notification from the U.S. Army that the Smoked Turkey on
Sourdough contained Listeria monocytogenes on May 16, 2006.

Smoked Turkey on Sourdough Triple Decker was distributed in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and was available at convenience
stores and on military installations.  The product was packaged
in clear plastic with a label bearing its name, Smoked Turkey on
Sourdough, 6.6 oz., coded 051906 16D.

Jumbo Foods and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are
continuing their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Jumbo Foods Smoked Turkey on
Sourdough coded 051906 16D are urged to return it to the place
of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Jumbo Foods at 1-800-562-
6507.


LABORATORY CORP: N.C. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on Laboratory Corp. of America
Holdings' motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its executive officers,
alleging securities fraud.

On Jun. 24, 2003, the company and certain of its executive
officers were in the first of a series of putative shareholder
class actions alleging securities fraud.  Shortly thereafter,
five other complaints containing substantially identical
allegations were filed against the company and certain of the
company's executive officers.

Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements and/or
omissions that caused the price of the company's stock to be
artificially inflated between Feb. 13 and Oct. 3, 2002.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of substantially
all persons who purchased shares of the company's stock during
that time period and unspecified monetary damages.  These six
cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a single case.

The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint.  On
Jul. 16, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  

The suit is "In Re: Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings
(LabCorp) Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-0591," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina under Judge James A. Beaty, Jr.  Plaintiff firms named
in complaint:

     (1) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E-
         mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com;

     (2) McDaniel, Anderson & Stephenson, LLP, P.O. Box 58186,
         Raleigh, NC, 27658;

     (3) 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; and

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


LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Mich. Suit Over Emissions From Alpena Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America Inc. is defendant in a purported class
action, "Olden, et al. v. Lafarge Corp.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On Apr. 19, 1999, several individuals living in Alpena, Michigan
filed the suit, claiming personal injury and property damages
allegedly stemming from certain emissions, which they claim
originated from the Company's cement manufacturing plant in
Alpena.  

The trial court ordered the case to proceed as a class action
and the company's appeals on certification of the class proved
unsuccessful.

The suit is "Olden, et al. v. Lafarge Corp., Case No. 1:99-cv-
10176-DML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Peter W. Macuga, II of Macuga & Liddle,
(Detroit), 975 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207-3101,
Phone: 313-392-0015, Fax: 313-392-0025, E-mail:
pmacuga@mlclassaction.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr. of Hoyle, Fickler, One S. Broad
         Street, Suite 1500, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3418, Phone:
         215-981-5850, Fax: 215-981-5959, E-mail:
         lhoyle@hoylelawfirm.com;

     (2) Steven C. Kohl of Warner, Norcross, (Southfield), 2000
         Town Center, Suite 2700, Southfield, MI 48075-1222,
         Phone: 248-784-5141, E-mail: skohl@wnj.com; and

     (3) Mahesh K. Nayak of Clark Hill, (Birmingham), 255 S. Old
         Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-642-9692, E-mail: mnayak@clarkhill.com.


LEAR CORP: Former Employee Files ERISA Violations Suit in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corp. is defendant in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

In April 2006, a former employee of the company filed a
purported class action against the company, members of its board
of directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee and
certain of its human resources personnel alleging violations of
the ERISA with respect to its retirement savings plans for
salaried and hourly employees.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among other things,
providing them with company matching contributions and offering
them the option of investing in the company's common stock,
which allegedly was not a prudent investment.

Plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of the plans
and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
plans from February 2, 2005 to the present and seeks to recover
losses allegedly suffered by the plans.  The complaint does not
specify the amount of damages sought.  

No determination has been made that a class action can be
maintained, and there have been no decisions on the merits of
the case.  

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge John Corbett O'Meara with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Stephen F. Wasinger of Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC,
(Royal Oak), 32121 Woodward Avenue, 300 Balmoral Centre, Royal
Oak, MI 48073-0999, Phone: 248-554-6306, E-mail: sfw@sfwlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Thomas G. McNeill of Dickinson
Wright, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI 48226-3425,
Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail: TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com.


MADE-RITE: Recalls Sandwiches at Risk of Bacterial Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Made-Rite Sandwich Company of Ooltewah, Tennessee recalled about
27,000 chicken salad and tuna salad sandwiches because it has
the potential to be contaminated with harmful bacteria.

The company said the recall was made because one of their
suppliers provided them with an ingredient that was not
processed in a manner to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria.

Affected products are a potential risk for growth of bacteria
due to the under-acidification of the celery used as an
ingredient in the salads.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The products have been sold under the following brands: Great
American Deli, Granny Green and Lil' Cindy's and are packaged in
triangle shaped clear plastic containers with a net weight of
5.0 ounces per sandwich.

Affected product was distributed to Florida, Alabama,
Massachusetts, Louisiana, Georgia, Arizona, Tennessee, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and
Michigan and reached consumers through a variety of distribution
avenues including retail stores, vending machines and wholesale
distribution centers.

Sandwich code dates include:

Tuna Salad 122
Tuna Salad 124
Tuna Salad 130
Chicken Salad 118
Chicken Salad 122
Chicken Salad 124
Chicken Salad 129

Consumers who have purchased these products are advised to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. ]

Consumers with questions should contact Made-Rite Sandwich
Company at 1-800-343-1327.


NEW YORK: No Violation Found in Inmates' Voting Rights Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled that the
right of prisoners in New York was not violated when they were
prevented from voting, according to the Gotham Gazette.

Plaintiffs in the class action, "Hayden v. Pataki," have claimed
that Voting Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments applied to
them, and that the high rate of imprisonment for African-
Americans and Latinos led to an inference of racial
discrimination.

But Judge Jose A. Cabranes ruled that their exclusion from
voting in elections under the New York Election Law is not a
violation of the Voting Rights Act.  He also decided that the
denial is not based on race.

The New York Election Law prohibits persons convicted of felonay
from voting unless he has been pardoned, his maximum sentence of
imprisonment has expired, or he has been discharged from parole.  

The Voting Rights Act forbids "denial or abridgement of the
right of any citizen of the U.S. to vote on account of race or
color...."


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Report on Suit Against Garment Firms Due June
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Alex Munson of the Northern Mariana
Islands rescheduled to June a status conference hearing of the
settlement of the class action against the Commonwealth's
garment factories, according to the Saipan Tribune.

Judge Munson was set on May 24 to hear whether payments have
been made to workers involved in the class action, but decided
to postpone it to Jun. 6, 2006, 4:30 p.m. following a
stipulation entered by parties in the lawsuit.

The judge ordered the hearing on March 9 to know the status of
the distribution of the settlement money, and to hear a report
from claims administrator Gilradi and Co. LLC, a representative
of the counsel for the class action plaintiffs, and The Garment
Oversight Board.

The suit was filed by New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP in 1999 on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions.  A settlement
reached five years after, provides an award close to $20
million.  The money is to be distributed as:

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million

The trust fund is to be administered by the non-profit Tides
Foundation.


NORTH FORK: Shareholders File N.Y. Suits Over Capital One Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Fork Bancorp, Inc. is defendant in several purported class
actions in New York state courts over its merger agreement with
Capital One Financial Corp.

On Mar. 12, 2006, the company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Capital One Financial Corp.
(Capital One) pursuant to which the company would merge with and
into Capital One, with Capital One continuing as the surviving
corporation.

On Mar. 15, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company
and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York, New
York County.  The suit is "Lasker v. Kanas et al., Index No.
06/103557."

On Mar. 16, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company
and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York,
Nassau County.  The suit is "Showers v. Kanas et al., Index No.
06-004624."

Two further putative class actions on behalf of the public
shareholders of North Fork were subsequently filed:

     -- "New Jersey Building Laborers Pension & Annuity Fund v.
        Kanas et al., Index No. 06-004786," filed in the Supreme
        Court of New York, Nassau County on Mar. 21, 2006;

     -- "Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 06105091," filed in
        the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on Apr.
        12, 2006.

These complaints allege, among other things, that the directors
of the company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in the transaction.  

Among other things, the complaints seek class action status, a
court order enjoining the company and its directors from
proceeding with or consummating the merger, and the payment of
attorneys' and experts' fees.  


NVE CORP: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVE Corp. is defendant in several purported securities class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

On Feb. 10, 2006 a lawsuit was filed against the company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors by an individual shareholder seeking to represent a
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between May
22, 2003 and Feb. 11, 2005.

On Mar. 6 and Mar. 7, 2006, two additional lawsuits were filed
in the same court by two additional NVE shareholders, with the
same proposed class period, purporting to represent the same
class.

All of the complaints make similar allegations that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing material misrepresentations concerning NVE's projected
revenues and product technology, which artificially inflated the
market price of the company's common stock.

The first identified complaint is "Carole Kops, et al. v. NVE
Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00574," filed in the U.S. District
Court for District of Minnesota under Judge Michael J. Davis.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) 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;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102. Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
         Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;  

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

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

     (6) Seeger Weiss, LLP, (New York), One William Street, New
         York, NY, 10004, Phone: 212.584.0700, E-mail:
         info@seegerweiss.com.


PRECISION BRAND: Accused of Causing Environmental Damage in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Brand Products, Inc., is defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois brought by and on behalf of area residents.

Filed in April 2004, the suit is alleging that the company and
the other defendants caused diminution in property values of
nearby homes and put the residents at an increased risk of
contracting cancer.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.  The court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class on liability
issues, but not on damages, and discovery is ongoing.

The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Myron Milton Cherry of Myron M.
Cherry & Associates, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100, E-mail:
mcherry@cherry-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Alan Bruce White of Karaganis,
White & Magel, Ltd., 414 North Orleans, Suite 810, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: (312) 836-1177.


REFCO INC: Lead Plaintiff in Stock Suit Requests Access to Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a class action filed over the bankruptcy
of Refco Inc. has asked a federal court for access to important
documents of the financial services firm, according the English
Business News.

Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO), which is leading the
class action on behalf of bondholders and shareholders, is
saying that a lack of access to important documents from
bankrupt brokerage firm Refco Inc. is keeping bondholders in a
class action from recovering money from the collapse as fast as
other creditors.

Thus, PIMCO is asking the U.S. District Court in Manhattan leave
to see "all documents" that Refco has provided or intends to
provide to U.S. prosecutors, the creditors committee and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  It also asked for the right
to demand documents from third parties who provided information
to the prosecutors, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and the creditors committee, according to the report.

The information, in which they have limited access are
confidential e-mails indicating a fraud conspiracy between Refco
and Austria's Bawag P.S.K. Group.  PIMCO claims the information
permitted the creditors to "extract a significant settlement..."

The committee of Refco's creditors has so far recovered $263
million from a collapsing hedge fund linked to Refco, the report
said.

An amended securities suit filed in federal court on May 5 by
Refco shareholders added Bawag PSK as defendant (Class Action
Reporter, May 10, 2006).  The suit alleged Bawag "controlled"
former Refco chief executive officer, Phillip Bennett, enabling
it to extract some $1.4 billion from a "Bennet-controlled Refco
affiliate" in 2004.  Mr. Bennett is accused of engaging in
fraudulent transactions to hide hundreds of millions in bad
debt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. notified the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York of its intention to move for
the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against the company and certain of its present and former
executive officers and directors.

Beginning in July 2005, seven putative class actions were filed
against the defendants.  In December 2005, these actions were
consolidated and in February 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased and/or acquired the publicly traded
securities of the company between Apr. 22, 2003 and Jul. 25,
2005.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint names as defendants in
addition to the company, current and former officers of the
company as defendants.  It alleges that the company and the
other named defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws
by making material misstatements and failing to state material
facts about the company's business and financial condition in,
among other things, U.S. Securities and Exchange filings and
public statements.

In March 2006, the defendants notified the court of their
intention to move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The suit, which is at an early stage, seeks compensatory damages
without specifying an amount.

The suit is "In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Christopher J. Keller of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow,
         LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: (212) 907-0853, Fax: (212) 883-7053, E-mail:
         ckeller@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants is Steven Robert Paradise of Vinson
& Elkins, L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor, New York 10103,
Phone: (917) 206-8000, Fax: (917) 849-5338, E-mail:
sparadise@velaw.com.


SEPRACOR INC: Court Grants Class Status to Mass. Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
certified as class actions these cases against Sepracor, Inc.:

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12235-MEL," (Debt Purchasers Action); and

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12338-MEL," (Equity Purchasers Action).

The cases were brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
either purchased any of the 5%, 5.75% or 7% convertible debt
securities of the company, or purchased the common stock or call
options or who sold put options of the company on the open
market, between May 17, 1999 and Mar. 6, 2002.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6372,
         Merrick, New York 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 916-5305.

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

     (3) Michael R. Dube Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
         LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526-
         6420, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         michael.dube@wilmerhale.com.

The complaints: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e7(Debt  
Purchasers Action) and http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e8
(Equity Purchasers Action).


ST. PAUL: Continues to Face Securities Litigation in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. is defendant in a
consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

Initially, three actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Two of these
actions were originally captioned:

      -- "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.
         (Nov. 2, 2004);" and

      -- "Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St.
         Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 10,
         2004)."

Certain shareholders of the company brought the putative class
actions against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  These actions have been
consolidated as "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation
II," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the company's alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the
practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis,
the company's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids
and the company's allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.  

On Apr. 1, 2004, Travelers Property Casualty Corp. merged with a
subsidiary of The St. Paul Companies, Inc.

The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner and Mark C Rifkin
         of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, NYC, 270
         Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4690,
         212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-
         mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and
         rifkin@whafh.com; and

     (2) Jack L. Chestnut and Karl L. Cambronne of Chestnut &
         Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls., MN 55402,
         Phone: (612) 339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail:
         jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David H. LaRocca, Michael J. Chepiga and Michael J.
         Garvey of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425
         Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-
         455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358, E-mail:
         dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
         mgarvey@stblaw.com; and   

    (ii) Peter W. Carter and Richard B. Solum of Dorsey &
         Whitney - Mpls., 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Mpls., MN
         55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-
         mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
         solum.rick@dorsey.com.


ST. PAUL: Settlement Reached for ERISA Violations Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. reached a settlement for the
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Initially, an alleged beneficiary of the company's 401(k)
savings plan commenced a putative class action against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The suit is "Spiziri v. The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc., et al. (Dec. 28, 2004)."  

The complaint alleges violations of the ERISA based on
allegations similar to those in "In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation I, Master File No. 04-CV-3801 (JRT/FLN)."

On Jun. 1, 2005, the company and the other defendants in
"Spiziri" moved to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 4, 2006, the
parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.  The
settlement remains subject to court approval.

The suit is "Spiziri v. St Paul Travelers Companies Inc., et
al., Case No. 0:04-cv-05096-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Karl L. Cambronne and Jack L. Chestnut of Chestnut &
         Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls, MN 55402,
         Phone: 612-339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail:
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com and
         jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com; and

     (2) Michael Jaffe of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-
         545-4606, E-mail: jaffe@whafh.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David H. LaRocca, Michael J. Chepiga and Michael J.
         Garvey of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425
         Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-
         455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358, E-mail:
         dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
         mgarvey@stblaw.com; and   


    (ii) Peter W. Carter and Richard B. Solum of Dorsey &
         Whitney - Mpls., 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Mpls., MN
         55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-
         mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
         solum.rick@dorsey.com.


TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Ida. Enters $198T Settlement Over Lupron
------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho has received $198,000 as part of a settlement of a class
action filed against TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. over its
marketing of the cancer drug Lupron, the IdahoStatesman.com
reports.

The settlement resolves potential claims regarding the pricing
of the drug, and does not involve safety, the report said.

In November 2005, 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.   

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).

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 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.  


TAP PHARMACEUTICALS: Wis. Enters $798T Settlement in Lupron Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Department of Justice reached a $798,000
settlement with TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. in a class
action over its marketing of the cancer drug Lupron, the
Wispolitics.com reports.

Wisconsin's Medicaid Program was also part of the class that
settled with the company.

The Attorney General's Office previously recovered $1.4 million
from TAP on behalf of the program.  Because of that, the court
ordered the recent settlement to go to 48 Wisconsin
organizations engaged in the care and treatment of cancer or the
promotion of improved health care for Wisconsin citizens.

Wisconsin filed the suit against 30 pharmaceutical companies.  
The settlement is only part of one claim for one drug produced
by one of the defendants, and the suit remain pending in Dane
County Circuit Court.

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.  


TRANSALTA CORP: Justice Topolniski Junks Class Status Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Juliana Topolniski denied class
status to a suit filed by a group of Wabamun Lake residents
seeking compensation from the Alberta government and TransAlta
Corp. for environmental damages, the Edmonton Journal reports.

In her judgment, issued last week, Judge Topolniski said given
the nature of the claims, individual landowners may have highly
divergent issues.  

The class action argued that residents' use and enjoyment of
their properties was hindered by lower water levels and
pollution caused by a TransAlta power plant.

The suit asked for $25 million in damages and an injunction
prohibiting TransAlta from drawing any more lake water for its
operations.  It also asked for an order requiring the government
to raise the lake level by repairing a weir, a type of dam.  A
settlement stands to compensate about 600 people who owned land
on the shores of Wabamun Lake between 1996 and 2005.


UNITED LIFE: Circuit Judge Limits Scope of "Booher" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Circuit Judge Don Weber amended on March 24 the
certification of the class action "Booher v. United Life
Insurance."  He decided that the case, filed in Madison County,
should be a purely-Illinois case, according to The Madison St.
Clair Record.

Judge Weber reversed a 2003 decision by former judge Phil Kardis
in light of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling decertifying a
nationwide class in the "Avery v. State Farm" case, and
remanding the Gridley case back to the trial court.

The United Life suit was filed in 2001 by Christopher Booher,
who claims the company cheated him when he bought credit
insurance on an auto loan at Four Flags Motors.  According to
him, the firm secretly paid a portion of the insurance payment
to Four Flags.  

In April 2003, then Judge Kardis certified Mr. Booher as
representative of plaintiffs in Illinois and 17 other states.  
When he retired before the case came to trial, all his cases
passed to Judge Weber.

In his order Judge Weber wrote: "Contrary to the position of the
plaintiff, the court believes that the Supreme Court did modify
Illinois class action law when it announced its Avery decision."

Mr. Booher originally filed the case against General Motors,
Four Flags -- which sells General Motors vehicles -- and United
Life Insurance Four Flags.  Four Flags was dismissed from the
complaint.

Representing Mr. Booher is Daniel Cohen of The Lakin Law Firm,
P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois
62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-
254-0193.


UST INC: Indirect Buyers of Smokeless Tobacco File Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
UST Inc. is defendant in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On Feb. 27, 2006, the company was served with a Summons and
Class Action Complaint in an action, "Gregory Hunt, et al. v.
United States Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 06-CV-1099."

This action was brought by an individual plaintiff on behalf of
himself and a purported class of indirect purchasers of the
company's smokeless tobacco products in the State of
Pennsylvania from Jan. 1, 1990 to the present.

Plaintiffs allege the company violated the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.  Thus they seek
unspecified compensatory and statutory damages in an amount not
to exceed $75,000 (including trebling) per putative class member
and other relief.

The suit is "Gregory Hunt, et al. v. United States Tobacco
Company, et al., Case No. 06-CV-1099," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Gordon and Alan M. Sandals of Sandals &
         Associates, PC, One South Broad St., Suite 1850,
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-825-4008 and 215-
         825-4000, Fax: 215-825-4001, E-mail:
         jgordon@sandalslaw.com and asandals@sandalslaw.com; and  

     (2) James R. Kahn of Margolis Edelstein, The Curtis Ctr.,
         4th Fl., Independence Square West, Philadelphia, PA
         19106-3304, Phone: 215-931-5887, Fax: 215-922-1772.

Representing the defendants are: Charles H. Samel and Margaret
M. Zwisler of Latham & Watkins, LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW
Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1304, US, Phone: 202-637-2200
and 202-637-1092, Fax: 202-637-2201, E-mail:
margaret.zwisler@lw.com.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: New Lead Plaintiff Named in "Madsen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The wife of the lead plaintiff in an insurance-related class
action filed against Washington Mutual Bank will be replacing
her husband as lead plaintiff in the case, according to The Salt
Lake Tribune.

The suit brought by Richard Madsen in 1975 is now awaiting
judgment with both sides in talks on the final terms of the
settlement.  With his death, his wife, Nancy Madsen, will
represent more than 9,000 people in line for a $1 million award.

The suit revolves around Mr. Madsen's advance payments to his
mortgage company for taxes and insurance due on his home each
year.  It turned out that the money was deposited into a general
operating account and invested to accrue interest for the
company instead of the plaintiff.

Washington Mutual indirectly acquired Madsen's mortgage company,
Prudential Federal Savings and Loan, in the 1990s.

Mr. Madsen's lawyer, Robert DeBry, has requested the court to
declare in the final order, the treatment of claims of deceased
class members, and to include a disclaimer.  He also wants a
judgment including borrowers between 1941 and 1947, whose loan
cards Washington Mutual says are unavailable.

3rd District Judge L.A. Dever has given Mr. DeBry time to
respond to the wording of the proposed final order.

The class in the suit includes Utahns who had single-family,
owner-occupied home mortgages through Prudential Federal Savings
and Loan, and who made monthly payments for annual taxes and
insurance into "reserve" or "budget" accounts between Mar. 3,
1971, and Jun. 30, 1979, according to the report.  

For more information, contact Mr. DeBry at 4252 S. 700 E.
Salt Lake City, Utah (Salt Lake Co.).


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BAUSCH & LOMB: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common
stock of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. from Oct. 26, 2005 through May 3,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and
misleading statements during the class period which caused
Bausch & Lomb shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.
These statements were allegedly materially false and misleading
when made because defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- one of the Company's lead products, ReNu(R) with
         MoistureLoc(R) ("ReNu"), was strongly linked to eye
         infections;

      -- quality control issues, including at the Company's
         Greenville, South Carolina plant, where ReNu is
         manufactured, existed and were not fully and properly
         addressed; and

      -- the disproportionate number of Fusarium keratitis cases
         involving Renu users would result in increased scrutiny
         of the Company by both the FDA and CDC which could
         require a removal of the product from the market.

On Apr. 10, 2006, after the market closed, Bausch & Lomb
announced that the Company was temporarily suspending U.S.
shipments of ReNu produced at its Greenville, South Carolina
manufacturing plant and would further investigate reports of
Fusarium keratitis among contact lens wearers in the U.S.  On
this news, the price of Bausch & Lomb common stock fell nearly
$12 a share over the next two days, closing at $45.61 on April
12, 2006.

On May 3, 2006, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that eye
fungus cases may broaden the scrutiny of Bausch & Lomb's lens
products.  The WSJ noted that cases of Fusarium keratitis (a
rare eye infection) were found among users of the Company's ReNu
contact lens solution in Europe.  On this news, Bausch & Lomb
common stock closed at $43.97, down $4.78 a share on May 3,
2006.

The deadline to move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff
is Jul. 25, 2006.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. of Zwerling
Schachter, Phone: 1-800-721-3900 E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com, Web
site: http://www.zsz.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, initiated 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) common stock
between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006.

The complaint charges Escala, its majority shareholder and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and the
activities of its majority shareholder.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Escala stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class period,
reaching a high of $35 per share in February 2006.

On May 9, 2006, Escala announced that it had been advised that
Spanish judicial authorities, as part of an investigation into
the stamps-collectibles sector, had collected documents from
Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. (Afinsa) of Madrid, Escala's
majority shareholder, and also from Escala offices in Madrid.

In addition, the Company announced that certain members of the
board of directors of Afinsa, including an Afinsa representative
on Escala's board, were being questioned.

On this news, Escala's stock dropped from $32.00 to $12.23 per
share and then to $6.55 per share on May 10, 2006.  Then on May
11, 2006, Spanish prosecutors charged 11 people involved in the
scheme, including five individuals affiliated with Afinsa, and
Escala's stock collapsed to as low as $4.01 per share, before
closing at $4.34 per share.

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 parent company was engaging in a pyramid
         scheme and lacked requisite internal controls to
         prevent fraudulent activities;

      -- the Company's merchant/dealer activities were dependent
         on sales of Afinsa, which accounted for 62% of its
         sales, and Afinsa was engaged in fraud; and

      -- Afinsa was engaging in a pyramid scheme.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Escala.pdf.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf
of purchasers of Newpark Resources, Inc. (NYSE:NR) common stock
between Feb. 28, 2005 and Apr. 17, 2006.

The complaint charges Newpark and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants caused Newpark's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
statements, business and prospects.

As alleged in the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) that Newpark was improperly processing and paying
         invoices inconsistent with and in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP);

     (b) that Newpark had inadequate and deficient internal
         controls and systems;

     (c) that, as a result of (a)-(b) above, Newpark's financial
         statements were grossly inflated and materially
         misleading; and

     (d) that, as a result of (a)-(c) above, Newpark had no
         reasonable basis upon which to issue financial guidance
         for fiscal 2005.

The complaint further alleges that on March 22, 2006, without
warning, Newpark reported that defendant James P. Cole had been
replaced as Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") by Paul L. Howes in
order to allow Cole to "devote his full energies to the
development of the new water treatment technology as Chairman
and CEO of Newpark Environmental Water Solutions, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Newpark."

Then, on April 17, 2006, Newpark shocked the investing public
when it reported that it had commenced an internal investigation
regarding "potential irregularities involving the processing and
payment of invoices by Soloco Texas, LP, one of the Company's
smaller subsidiaries, and other possible violations." Moreover,
although not specifically mentioned, defendant Cole had been
placed on administrative leave.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Newpark.pdf.  


XM SATELLITE: Mason Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mason Law Firm, P.C. initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a
plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of XM
Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. between Jul. 28, 2005 and Feb.
16, 2006.

The complaint alleges that XM Satellite and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under by
making false and misleading statements and omissions which
misrepresented XM Satellite's cost of acquiring new subscribers.

In fact, XM Satellite was forced to spend extraordinary sums in
the fourth quarter of 2005 in order to stay on track to achieve
its stated goal of six million subscribers at year's end. In
furtherance of this scheme, XM Satellite failed to disclose to
the market that these substantial costs in acquiring new
subscribers led to huge increases in XM Satellite's net losses.

Interested parties may no later than sixty days from May 3,
2006, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Gary E. Mason at The Mason Law Firm,
P.C. at (202) 429-2290, E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.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  * * *