CAR_Public/060530.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 30, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 106

                            Headlines

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Settles Claims in Md. Market Timing Suit
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Breach of Contract Suit in Ill. Dismissed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits Over Cards
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces ERISA Fraud Suit in N.Y. Over AXP Plan
ATHEROGENICS INC: Ga. Court Allows Transfer of N.Y. Stock Suit

BIOLAB INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over 2004 Fire at Ga. Warehouse
BRISTOL-MYERS: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Drug Pricing Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Reaches $185M Settlement in N.J. Securities Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Suits Over PLAVIX* Patent Breach Settlement
CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Benzene Level of Juice

CAMBREX CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Lawsuits Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires
CATALINA MARKETING: Stock Suit in Fla. Gets Class Certification
CIT GROUP: Seeks Decertification of N.J. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CITIGROUP INC: Brokerage Unit to Pay $98M for Overtime Claims

CONSECO INC: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over Annuity Products
CONSECO INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Insurance Charges Calculation
CONSECO INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Ind.
CONSECO INC: Oct. 24 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
HAMBURG-MANNHEIMER: Pays Extra in Suit Over Cancelled Policies

HARTFORD INSURANCE: Homebuyers Suit Settlement Hearing Set June
HERCULES INC: Ordered to Recalculate Employees' Retirement Award
HOT TELECOM: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Transmission Failures
LANTRONIX INC: Trial in Calif. Stock Suit Set for Sept. 2006
L.L. BEAN: Wins Favorable Ruling in Maine Sales Tax Lawsuit

LOUISIANA: FEMA Extends Housing Aid to Hurricane Katrina Victims
MANHATTAN NATIONAL: N.Mex. Policyholders' Suit Voluntarily Nixed
MATAV-CABLE: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Cable Franchise Terms
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Calif. Suit Over EpiCept Merger
MICROSOFT CORP: June Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Settlement

NEW JERSEY: Court Allows Suit Over Copy Machines Fee to Go Ahead
PSS WORLD: Fla. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
SCHOLASTIC CORP: Wash. Judge Junks Deceptive Marketing Lawsuit
STATE FARM: Okla. Couple Gets $13M in Suit Over Insurance Claims
STATE FARM: Judge Rules Against Firm in Flood Insurance Suit

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Libertarian Party Sues Over Wiretapping
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in Ky.
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Face Merix Securities Suit in Ore.
UNITED STATES: MTA, Labor Union Face Suit Over Health Care Funds


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
          
CHINA ENERGY: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
CHINA ENERGY: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
IMAGE INNOVATIONS: Federman Sherwood Files N.Y. Securities Suit
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Suit in La.


                            *********


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Settles Claims in Md. Market Timing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the market timing-related litigation pending
against AllianceBernstein, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, entered into a confidential memorandum
of understanding to settle:

     -- mutual fund shareholder claims,

     -- mutual fund derivative claims, and

     -- Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims

On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint, "Hindo, et
al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.," was
filed against:

     -- AllianceBernstein, L.P., formerly Alliance Capital
        Management L.P.;

     -- Alliance Capital Management Holding, L.P.;

     -- Alliance Capital Management Corp. (ACMC);

     -- AXA Financial Corp.;

     -- the AllianceBernstein Funds;

     -- the registrants and issuers of those funds;

     -- certain officers of the company and certain other
        defendants not affiliated with the company; and

     -- unnamed Doe defendants.

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of two
U.S. Funds.  It alleges that certain of the AllianceBernstein,
L.P. defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds and other unidentified parties to engage in
"late trading" and "market timing" of U.S. Fund securities,
violating Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 206 and 215 of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.  

Plaintiffs sought unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
rescission of their contracts with AllianceBernstein, including
recovery of all fees paid to AllianceBernstein pursuant to such
contracts.

Since Oct. 2, 2003, 43 additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint
were filed in various federal and state courts against
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants.

The plaintiffs in such lawsuits have asserted a variety of
theories for recovery including, but not limited to, violations
of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the
Investment Company Act, the ERISA of 1974, certain state
securities laws, and common law.  All state court actions
against AllianceBernstein either were voluntarily dismissed or
removed to federal court.  On Feb. 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all actions to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types:

     -- mutual fund shareholder claims,

     -- mutual fund derivative claims,

     -- derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, and

     -- claims brought under ERISA by participants in the Profit
        Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein.

All four complaints include substantially identical factual
allegations, which appear to be based in large part on the
company's agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Order dated Dec. 18, 2003 (amended and restated Jan.  
15, 2004), and the company's final agreement with the New York
State Attorney General on Sept. 1, 2004.

The claims in the mutual fund derivative consolidated amended
complaint are generally based on the theory that all fund
advisory agreements, distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans
between AllianceBernstein and the U.S. Funds should be
invalidated, regardless of whether market timing occurred in
each individual fund, because each was approved by fund trustees
on the basis of materially misleading information with respect
to the level of market timing permitted in funds managed by
AllianceBernstein.  

The claims asserted in the other three consolidated amended
complaints are similar to those that the respective plaintiffs
asserted in their previous federal lawsuits.  All of these
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On Apr. 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims.  The agreement will be documented by a stipulation
of settlement and will be submitted for court approval at a
later date.


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Breach of Contract Suit in Ill. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the purported class action,
"Erb et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P.," filed against
AllianceBernstein, L.P., was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice on Mar. 21, 2006.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois on Oct. 1, 2003.  The plaintiff, purportedly a
shareholder in the Large Cap Growth Fund, alleged that
AllianceBernstein, formerly known as Alliance Capital Management
L.P., breached unidentified provisions of Large Cap Growth
Fund's prospectus and subscription and confirmation agreements.  
The deal allegedly required that every security bought for Large
Cap Growth Fund's portfolio must be a "1-rated" stock, the
highest rating that the company's research analysts could
assign.

Plaintiff claims that AllianceBernstein impermissibly purchased
shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  In June 2004, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois.  The amended ERB complaint allegations are
substantially similar to those contained in the previous
complaint, however, the amended ERB complaint adds a new
plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons or entities holding an interest in any
portfolio managed by AllianceBernstein's Large Cap Growth Team.

The amended ERB complaint alleges that AllianceBernstein
breached its contracts with these persons or entities by
impermissibly purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  
Plaintiffs seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated
stocks AllianceBernstein made for Large Cap Growth Fund and
other Large Cap Growth Team clients' portfolios over the past
eight years, as well as an unspecified amount of damages.  

In July 2004, AllianceBernstein removed the ERB action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on the
basis that plaintiffs' claims are preempted under the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act.  In August 2004, the District
Court remanded the action to the Circuit Court.  

In September 2004, AllianceBernstein filed a notice of appeal
with respect to the District Court's order.  In December 2004,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss AllianceBernstein's appeal.  In
September 2005, AllianceBernstein's appeal was denied.

The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on Mar. 21,
2006 pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The suit is "Erb et al. v. Alliance Capital Management, LP, Case
No. 3:04-cv-00485-GPM-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy
with referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiffs are Diane M. Heitman, Steven A. Katz
and Douglas R. Sprong of Korein Tillery - Swansea, Generally
Admitted, 10 Executive Woods Court, Swansea, IL 62226-2030,
Phone: 618-277-1180, E-mail: dheitman@koreintillery.com,
katzman001@att.net and dsprong@koreintillery.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Rebecca R. Jackson and Darci F. Madden of Bryan Cave -
         St. Louis, Generally Admitted, 211 North Broadway, One
         Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102,
         Phone: 314-259-2000, E-mail: rrjackson@bryancave.com
         and dfmadden@bryancave.com; and

     (2) James F. Moyle of Clifford, Chance, et al., 200 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-878-8000, E-
         mail: james.moyle@cliffordchance.com.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits Over Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. is facing a number of purported class
actions in which the plaintiffs allege unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between the company's charge cards, credit cards and
debit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.  The
cases include:

      -- "Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Company,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

      -- "Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Company,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

      -- "DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Company, et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed December 2003);

      -- "Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company, et al.,"
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

      -- "Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Company, et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
         Express Company, et al.," U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mims Restaurant v. American Express Company, et al.,"
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February 2004); and

      -- "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Company, et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed July 2004).

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.  Upon motion to the court by the
company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in December 2003.

Each of the suit, except for Hayama, is now pending in the
Southern District of New York.

In April 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the
district court.  On Mar. 15, 2006, such motion was granted, with
the court finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject to
arbitration.  Plaintiffs have asked the court to reconsider its
dismissal.

In addition, during the pendency of the motion in the district
court, the company had asked the California Superior Court
hearing the Hayama action referenced above to stay that action
pending resolution of such motion.

The Hayama Court has asked the parties to file a status report
on Jul. 7, 2006 to report on, among other matters, the Mar. 15
decision of the district court.  

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by
the Marcus Corp., which was denied in July 2005.  The company
continues to believe that it has meritorious defenses and will
continue to vigorously defend against the Marcus action.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces ERISA Fraud Suit in N.Y. Over AXP Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. is defendant in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

In January 2006, the purported class action, "Paula Kritzman, et
al. v. American Express Retirement Plan, et al.," was filed.

The plaintiff alleges that when the American Express Retirement
Plan (AXP Plan) was amended effective Jul. 1, the terms of the
amended AXP Plan violated ERISA.  The amendment was intended to
convert a final average pay formula to a "cash balance" formula
for the calculation of benefits.

The plaintiff claims that:

      -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on reducing
         rates of benefit accrual due to the increasing age of a
         plan participant;

      -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on forfeiture
         of accrued benefits; and

      -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's present value calculation
         rules.

The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
entitling the plaintiff and the purported class to benefits that
are the greater of the benefits to which the members of the
class would have been entitled without regard to the conversion
of the benefit payout formula of the AXP Plan to a cash balance
formula and the benefits under the AXP Plan with regard to the
cash balance formula.

The plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys fees and expenses.  The company filed a motion with
the court seeking to dismiss the complaint.

The suit is "Kritzman v. American Express Retirement Plan, et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer and Mark K. Gyandoh
         of Schiffrin & Barroway, L.L.P., 280 King of Prussia
         Road, Radnor, PA 19087, US, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax:
         (610) 667-7056; and

     (2) Curtis Victor Trinko of Law Offices of Curtis V.
         Trinko, LLP, 16 West 46th Street, Seventh Floor, New
         York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-490-9550, Fax: 212-986-0158,
         E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com.

Representing the defendants is Jeremy P. Blumenfeld of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, (Philadelphia), 1701 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215)-963-5258, Fax: (215)-963-
5001, E-mail: jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com.


ATHEROGENICS INC: Ga. Court Allows Transfer of N.Y. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted Atherogenics, Inc.'s motion to transfer the consolidated
securities class action filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
Georgia federal court's jurisdiction.

Purported securities class actions were filed against the
company and some of its executive officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Jan. 5, 2005 and Feb. 8, 2005 and in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 7, 2005, Jan. 10, 2005,
Jan. 11, 2005 and Jan. 25, 2005.

Plaintiffs filed separate motions to consolidate these suits in
the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of
Georgia on Mar. 7, 2005.  

In addition, three class members simultaneously moved for
appointment as lead plaintiffs in both districts on Mar. 7,
2005.

On Apr. 18, 2005, the Honorable Richard J. Holowell ordered the
New York actions consolidated as, "In re Atherogenics Securities
Litigation," and appointed lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel.

On Jul. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion to transfer the New
York Action to the Northern District of Georgia.  On Jul. 14,
2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Georgia Actions.

On Mar. 31, 2006, Judge Holowell granted the motion to have the
New York Action transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.  

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 seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during the
period after these disclosures were made in September 2004 to
Dec. 31, 2004.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a02.

The lead plaintiff in the case is The Billings Group.  For more
information, contact plaintiffs' attorney:

     (1) Joseph E. White of Joseph E. White of Milberg, Weiss          
         Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Tower
         One Suite 600, Boco Raton, FL 33486, Phone: (561) 361-
         5000; and

     (2) Kip B. Shuman of Dyer and Shuman, 801 East 17th Avenue,
         Denver, CO 80218-1417, Phone: (303) 861-3003.

The defendant's attorney is Dawn M. Wilson of Wilmer, Cutler,
Pickering, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P.(VA), 1600 Tysons Boulevard, Suite
1000, Mclean, VA 22102, Phone: (212)-230-8862, Fax: (212)-230-
8888, E-mail: dawn.wilson@wilmerhale.com.


BIOLAB INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over 2004 Fire at Ga. Warehouse
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new suit over a fire that broke out at a Biolab Inc. warehouse
two years ago was filed in Gwinnett County, Georgia on May 25,
according to the Gwinnett Daily Post.

A suit filed in another court is awaiting certification.  But
Robert Orwell, a lawyer representing about 600 clients, filed
the suit to make sure plaintiffs do not miss a two-year deadline
by which a personal injury lawsuit must be filed in Georgia, in
case the other suit does not get class status.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Rockdale County, Gwinnett
County and Fulton County (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2004).  
According to Mr. Orwell, the appropriate venue for a trial,
whether in Gwinnett, Rockdale or federal court, has yet to be
determined by the judges.  However, attorneys for the plaintiffs
want to try the case in federal court as a class action.

Clients claim their health and livelihoods were negatively
impacted by the fire that started from building 14 of the BioLab
complex on Old Covington Highway in Conyers.  The fire destroyed
the building, which was used to store dangerous chemicals and
hazardous and toxic materials.  

Headquartered in Lawrenceville, BioLab manufactures pool and spa
products.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Drug Pricing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss
the purported class action, "The County of Santa Clara v. Astra
USA, Inc., et al."

The company is defendant in the putative class action, which
involves its prices under Section 340B of the Public Health
Services Act (PHSA).  Section 3405 requires prescription drug
manufacturers to offer discounts to qualified medical providers
-- generally those who disproportionately service poor people.

The County of Santa Clara, California, contends that it and
other counties and cities in California have had to provide more
financing to local hospitals than otherwise would have been
necessary had the company and the other defendants provided the
appropriate discounts.

The County of Santa Clara recently filed an amended complaint.  
A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on Apr. 27,
2006 and the motion is currently pending.  

The suit is "The County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
California under Judge William H. Alsup.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey W. Lawrence and Jacqueline E. Mottek 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:
         jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com and JacquiM@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Cheryl A. Stevens of County of Santa Clara, 70 W.
         Hedding Street, 9th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA
         95110, Phone: 408-299-5900, Fax: 408-292-7240, E-mail:
         cheryl.stevens@cco.sccgov.org.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven M. Edwards and Lyndon M. Tretter of Hogan &
         Hartson, L.L.P., 875 Third Ave., Suite 2600, New York,
         NY 10012, Phone: (212) 918-3000, Fax: (212) 918-3100;
         and

    (ii) Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq. of Sedgwick Detert Moran &
         Arnold, One Embarcadero Center, 16th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-3628, Phone: 415-781-7900, Fax:
         415-781-2635, E-mail: paul.riehle@sdma.com,
         phyllis.flynn@sdma.com, matthew.fischer@sdma.com,
         paul.tokarz@sdma.com and SDMACalendaring@sdma.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Reaches $185M Settlement in N.J. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $185 million settlement was reached in the consolidated
securities class action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., which
is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In April, May and June 2000, the company, its former chairman of
the board and chief executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr.,
and its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose,
Ph.D., were named as defendants in a number of class actions
alleging violations of federal securities laws and regulations.

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

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

The court certified two separate classes: a class relating to
the period from Nov. 8, 1999 to Apr. 19, 2000 (First Class
Period) and a class relating to the period from Mar. 22, 2001 to
Mar. 20, 2002 (Second Class Period).

The First Class Period involved claims related to VANLEV's
efficacy, safety and/or potential to be a blockbuster drug.  The
Second Class Period involved claims related to VANLEV's
potential to be a blockbuster drug.  The class certifications
were without prejudice to defendants' rights to fully contest
the merits of plaintiff's claims.  

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, costs and expenses on
behalf of shareholders with respect to the two class periods.

On Dec. 17, 2004, the company and the other defendants made a
motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims.

On Aug. 17, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
the summary judgment motion and also dismissed two of the three
individual defendants, Peter R. Dolan and Peter S. Ringrose,
from the case.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement between the parties under which the company
will pay $185 million into a settlement fund and agree to
certain non-monetary terms.  

Accordingly, the company established a reserve in the fourth
quarter of 2005 and the $185 million was paid to the settlement
fund in Feb. 2006.

The suit is "Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:00-cv-01990-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler, with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

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

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, Thirteen Main Street, Suite Four,
         Sparta, NJ 07871, Phone: (973) 726-4242;

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

     (4) Allyn Zissel Lite and Michael E. Patunas of Lite
         Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway Center,
         12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
         3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com and
         mpatunas@ldgrlaw.com.

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Suits Over PLAVIX* Patent Breach Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. reports that several purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio that sought to bar the proposed settlement of
the PLAVIX* patent infringement suit.

Between March and May 2006, seven lawsuits were filed against
the company, Sanofi-Aventis and Apotex Corp., seeking, among
other things, permanent injunctive relief barring the proposed
settlement of the PLAVIX* patent infringement lawsuit and/or
monetary damages.

The first complaint, an individual suit filed by Kroger Co. in
March 2006, alleges that the proposed settlement violates the
Sherman Act and related antitrust laws.

The other six actions, filed in April and May 2006, are
purported class actions which allege, generally, violations of
the Sherman Act and related antitrust laws, and seek to bar the
proposed PLAVIX* settlement and to recover alleged monetary
damages.

The six purported class actions were filed by:

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

      -- Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc. (a drug wholesale
         cooperative);

      -- Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund
         (an employee welfare benefit fund);

      -- Vista Healthplan, Inc. (a private insurance company and
         health maintenance organization);

      -- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
         98 Health & Welfare Plan (an employee welfare benefit
         fund); and

      -- the health and welfare benefit funds for American
         Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
         District Council 47, International Association of Fire
         Fighters Local 22 and United Food and Commercial
         Workers Union Local 1776.


CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Benzene Level of Juice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cadbury Schweppes Public Ltd. Co. has been added, as defendant,
in a suit filed in Florida over findings that its Cadbury Crush
Pineapple drink contained benzene, a known carcinogen, at nearly
10 times the water limit, Amonline.com reports.

Coca-Cola has also been named in the Florida suit that said
independent lab tests found Coca Cola's Fanta Orange Pineapple
to be contaminated with benzene at 4.7 times the five parts per
billion limit for benzene in U.S. drinking water.

Similar lawsuits have also been filed against well-known soft
drink makers in several states.

Lawyers Howard Hewell and Howard Rubinstein filed a class action
in California against PepsiCo Inc. alleging its Pepsi Twist
Drink contain cancer-causing chemical benzene above America's
legal limit for drinking water (Class Action Reporter, may 10,
2006).

Kraft Foods Inc. in Massachusetts, Florida and California is
facing allegations that Kraft Foods Inc.'s Crystal Light Sunrise
Classic Orange drink contained cancer-causing benzene above the
legal limit for tap water (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2006).

In Boston, Florida and Washington, D.C., similar claims have
been made against Talking Rain Beverage, of Washington; Zone
Beverages, of Georgia; and Polar Beverages, of Massachusetts.  
They were lodged in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas
(Class Action Reporter, May 3, 2006).


CAMBREX CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corp. is defendant in a consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In October 2003, the company was notified of a securities class
action filed against it and five former and current of its
officers.  Five class actions were later filed.

In January 2004, the court consolidated the cases, designated
the lead plaintiff and selected counsel to represent the class.

An amended complaint was filed in March 2004.  The suit has been
brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock from Oct. 21, 1998 through Jul. 25, 2003.  

The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose in
timely fashion the January 2003 accounting restatement and
subsequent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation, as well as the loss of a significant contract at
the Baltimore facility.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss in May 2004.  Thereafter
the plaintiff filed a reply brief.  In October 2005, the court
denied the company's motion to dismiss against the company and
two current company officers.

The suit is "Dodge v. Cambrex Corp., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-
04896-WJM-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge William J. Martini with
referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

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

     (2) Barry A. Knopf and Peter s. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland,
         Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, Park 80 Plaza, West One,
         Saddle Brook, NJ 07662, Phone: (201) 845 9600, E-mail:
         PSP@njlawfirm.com;

     (3) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com; and

     (4) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants is Alan E. Kraus of Latham &
Watkins, LLP, One Newark Center, 16th Floor, Newark, NJ 07101-
3174, Phone: (973) 639-7293 and 973-639-1234, E-mail:
alan.kraus@lw.com.



CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Lawsuits Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cano Petroleum, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in two lawsuits by local landowners.  The
suits are filed in state court in Roberts County, Texas, seeking
damages and other relief relating to the recent grass fires in
the Texas panhandle.

Cano maintains the suits are without merit and the company
intends to vigorously defend itself.

Jeff Johnson, Cano's chairman and chief executive officer said,
"We continue to stand firmly by our previous statements and
strongly believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are not
supported by the facts."

Cano's appropriate subsidiary intends to seek compensation for
lost production, damages and other costs from those who are
determined to be at fault for the fires and the effects thereof.

A similar suit has been filed against Cano Petroleum, Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries in state court in Carson County,  
Texas.  The suit blamed the fire to Cano's electrical wiring and
equipment.  It said the company failed to comply with the
applicable standards in the installation, maintenance and
operation of its electrical equipment used in connection with
oil production.  Burnett Ranches, Ltd., leading the complaint in
the Mar. 12 grass fire, is seeking the termination of Cano's oil
and gas lease and the market value of the destroyed property in
damages (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2006).

Cano Petroleum Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com-- is an  
independent Texas-based energy producer with properties in the
mid-continent region of the U.S.  Cano's primary focus is on
increasing domestic production from proven onshore fields using
secondary and enhanced recovery methods.  Cano trades on the
American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol CFW.


CATALINA MARKETING: Stock Suit in Fla. Gets Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
granted class action status to the consolidated securities class
action against Catalina Marketing Corp., certain of its present
and former officers and directors and Catalina Health Resource.

Numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The actions were originally brought on
behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock between
Jan. 17, 2002 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.

The complaints contain various allegations, including that,
during the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
operations with the result of artificially inflating the
company's share price and maintained inadequate internal
controls.  It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re
Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-
CV-1582-T-27TBM."  

In December 2003, Virginia P. Anderson and the Alaska Electric
Pension Fund were named as co-lead plaintiffs. On Jun. 21, 2004,
they served their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
behalf of those who purchased our stock between Aug. 14, 1999
and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.

The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which motion was
denied by the court on Mar. 31, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification in May 2005, which was subsequently
granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.  The parties are
currently engaged in discovery, including the production of
documents.

The suit is "Corwin, et al. v. Catalina Marketing, et al., Case
No. 8:03-cv-01582-JDW-TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore.    
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth J. Arleo, Andrew Brown, William S. Lerach and
         Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins
         LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619/231-1058, E-mail: AndrewB@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Jack G. Fruchter of Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212/279-5050;

     (3) Christopher S. Jones, Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya
         Saxena, Joseph E. White of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite
         600, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561/361-5000,
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cjones@milbergweiss.com,
         cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com;
         and

     (4) Andrei Rado and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg, Weiss,
         Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212/594-
         5300.

Representing the company are Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A.
Nichols of Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100,
P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com.


CIT GROUP: Seeks Decertification of N.J. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group, Inc. and other financial institutions asked the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County to decertify the
class action, "Exquisite Caterers Inc., et al. v. Popular
Leasing Inc., et al."

The suit, which was filed on Sept. 9, 2004, was brought against
13 financial institutions, including CIT, which had acquired
equipment leases from NorVergence, Inc.

The complaint alleged that NorVergence misrepresented the
capabilities of the equipment leased to its customers and
overcharged for the equipment, and that the NorVergence Leases
are unenforceable.

Plaintiffs seek rescission, punitive damages, treble damages and
attorneys' fees.

The Court in Exquisite Caterers case certified a New Jersey-only
class, and a motion for decertification is pending.


CITIGROUP INC: Brokerage Unit to Pay $98M for Overtime Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc.'s Smith Barney brokerage unit has agreed to pay
$98 million to current and former brokers who claimed they were
owed overtime pay and other reimbursements, Associated Press
reports.

More than a dozen class actions claiming unpaid overtime on
behalf of brokers, primarily in California, were brought against
several securities firms.  The brokerage firms claim that the
Fair Labor Standards Act exempt salespeople from overtime.  They
said brokers are salaried, administrative employees.  

Plaintiffs argued they receive incentive-based compensations,
such as commissions tied to sales that qualify as salary.  They
also said that overtime exemption applies only to store sales,
not trades of securities.

A preliminary settlement was reached earlier this month.  A
federal district judge in San Francisco has yet to approve the
deal.  It affects about 11,000 full-time equivalent employees at
Smith Barney.

The number of people eligible for compensation from the
settlements, and the amounts they can receive, depend on
statutes of limitations in individual states and court approvals
of the settlement formulas, according to the report.

Citigroup on the Net: http://www.citigroup.com.


CONSECO INC: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over Annuity Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated consumer fraud
class action over the sale of annuity products to seniors aging
65 and older.

On Nov. 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, as: "Robert H.
Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation
f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726."

Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class:

      -- alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO);

      -- elder abuse;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising;

      -- breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach
         of fiduciary duty; and

      -- unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same
court: "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois
company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-
00537."  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.  

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and
that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable
for seniors age 65 and older.

On Mar. 3, 2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding Friou P. Jones as a named Plaintiff and
adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  

This in effect has consolidated the two cases, and the original
Jones case will be dismissed.  The court has not yet made a
determination whether the case should go forward as a class
action, and the company intends to oppose any form of class
action treatment of these claims.

The suit is "Robert H. Hansen v Conseco Insurance Company, Case
No. 5:05-cv-04726-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Howard D. Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Krinsk, 501 West
         Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3593, Phone:
         619-238-1333, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail:
         fk@classactionlaw.com;

     (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
         Balint, P.C., 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000,
         Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-
         1199; and

     (3) John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619)
         231-7423, E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Thomas A. Doyle, James J. Dries
and Mark L. Karasik of Baker & McKenzie, LLP, 130 E. Randolph,
Drive, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-8000, Fax:
312-861-2899, E-mail: Thomas.A.Doyle@bakernet.com,
James.J.Dries@bakernet.com and Mark.L.Karasik@bakernet.com.


CONSECO INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Insurance Charges Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. and certain subsidiaries, including principally
Conseco Life Insurance Co., are defendants in several purported
state court class actions in Indiana, California and
Pennsylvania.

The suits alleges breach of contract, fraud and
misrepresentation in relation to a change made in 2003 and 2004
in the way cost of insurance charges are calculated for life
insurance policies sold primarily under the names "Lifestyle"
and "Lifetime."

Those cases filed in Indiana state courts were consolidated as
"Arlene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211," (Superior Court, Hamilton County,
Indiana).  

Four putative nationwide and/or statewide class actions filed in
California state courts have been consolidated and are being
coordinated in the Superior Court of San Francisco County under
the new caption "Cost of Insurance Cases, Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 4384" (Judicial Council of
California).

On Jan. 25, 2005 an Amended Complaint making similar allegations
was filed in the case, "William Schwartz v. Jeffrey Landerman,
Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc., Samuels Jacky Insurance
Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Company, Successor to
Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Case No. GD 00-011432"
(Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania).

Additionally, Mr. Schwartz filed a purported nationwide class
action, "William Schwartz and Rebecca R. Frankel, Trustee of the
Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life
Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-3742" (Court of Common Pleas,
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania).

On Dec. 22, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania as, "Lisa
M. Jordan v. Allen R. Shank and Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 05-10204." (Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Pennsylvania).


CONSECO INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to dismiss the second amended complaint for
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
some of its former officers.

After the company's Predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in
Indiana) announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9, 2002,
eight purported securities fraud class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  

These suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased its Predecessor's common stock on various dates
between Oct. 24, 2001 and Aug. 9, 2002.  

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and allege
material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading
statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of
Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s (CFC)
manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the
artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On Mar. 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one
case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et
al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The
plaintiffs have filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8,
2003.

The company's liability with respect to this suit was discharged
in the company's Predecessor's plan of reorganization and the
company's obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were
not serving as an officer or director on the effective date is
limited to $3 million in the aggregate under such plan.  

This limit was reached in May of 2005.  The company's liability
to indemnify individual defendants who were serving as an
officer or director on the effective date, of which there is one
such defendant, is not limited by such plan.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea,
Wendt and Chokel and on Jul. 14, 2005, this matter was
dismissed.  

Plaintiffs were given until Aug. 24, 2005 to amend their
complaint a second time.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on Aug. 24, 2005.  The company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2005.

The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton
with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, 3858 Carson Street, Suite 204,
         Torrance, CA 90503, Phone: (310) 792-3948, Fax: (310)
         792-0600, E-mail: laskido@hotmail.com; and

     (2) Brian Joseph Barry of Law Offices Of Brian Barry, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307, Los Angeles, CA 90046,
         Phone: (310) 788-0831, Fax: (310) 788-0841, E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven Kenneth Huffer of Huffer & Weathers, 151 North
         Delaware Street, Suite 1850, Indianapolis, IN 46204,     
         Phone: (317) 822-8010, Fax: (317) 822-8088, E-mail:
         steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com; and

    (ii) Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East
         Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-
         2084, Fax: (317) 660-0412, E-mail:
         rkopecky@kirkland.com.


CONSECO INC: Oct. 24 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Oct. 24, 2006 trial date is slated for the
consolidated life insurance fraud class action filed against
Conseco, Inc. and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against.

The company and certain subsidiaries, including principally
Conseco Life Insurance Company, were named in numerous purported
class action and individual lawsuits alleging, among other
things, breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation with
regard to a change made in 2003 and 2004 in the way cost of
insurance charges are calculated for life insurance policies
sold primarily under the names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime".

Approximately 86,500 of these policies were subject to the
change, which resulted in increased monthly charges to the
policyholders' accounts.  Many of the purported class actions
were filed in federal courts across the U.S.

In June 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these lawsuits into the action now referred to as
"In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation,
Cause No. MDL 1610."

In September 2004, plaintiffs in the multi-district action filed
an amended consolidated complaint and, at that time, added
Conseco, Inc. as a defendant.  

The amended complaint alleges, among other things that the
change enabled Conseco, Inc. to add $360 million to its balance
sheet.  It seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and
exemplary damages as well as an injunction that would require
the company to reinstate the prior method of calculating cost of
insurance charges and refund any increased charges that resulted
from the change.

On Apr. 26, 2005, the judge in the multi-district action
certified a nationwide class on the claims for breach of
contract and injunctive relief.  

On Apr. 27, 2005, the Judge issued an order certifying a
statewide California class for injunctive and restitutionary
relief pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, but denied certification on the claims for fraud and
intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.  Trial
is currently set to begin on or about Oct. 24, 2006.

The suit is "In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of
Insurance Litigation, Case No. 2:04-ml-01610-AHM-Mc," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge A. Howard Matz.  Representing the plaintiffs are:
   
     (1) Christopher Casper and John Yanchunis, James Hoyer
         Newcomer & Smiljanich, 1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy
         Blvd., Ste. 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100;

     (2) Timothy P. Dillon of Timothy P. Dillon Law Offices, 361
         Forest Avenue, Suite 205, Laguna Beach, CA 92651,
         Phone: 949-376-2800, E-mail: timothy@dillonlaw.net; and

     (3) John A. Yanchunis of James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich,
         1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550,
         Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail:
         jyanchunis@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the company is Timothy G. Majors, Brent L. Caslin
and Michael S. McCauley of Kirkland & Ellis, 777 S. Figueroa
St., Ste. 3700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-680-8400 and
213-680-8686, E-mail: bcaslin@kirkland.com and
mmccauley@kirkland.com.


HAMBURG-MANNHEIMER: Pays Extra in Suit Over Cancelled Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
German insurer Hamburg-Mannheimer is paying customers an
additional EUR185 to EUR857 to settle disputes over low
repurchase values in the case of cancelled policies, according
to Suddeutsche Zeitung.

The payment follows a German Supreme Court ruling in several
cases providing that a minimum of, approximately, just under
half the amount paid in would have to be paid back in cases of
premature cancellations of life or pension policies.

It arose out of a class action filed by consumer association
Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg on behalf of 11 customers.  

Hamburg-Mannheimer is part of ERGO Versicherungsgruppe, a
company whose businesses include life, health, property,
casualty, and legal expenses insurance, as well as pensions.


HARTFORD INSURANCE: Homebuyers Suit Settlement Hearing Set June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, State of Arkansas, will hold
a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter:
"Beasley, et al. v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest,
et al., Case No. CV-2005-58-1."  

The settlement includes these "Hartford" homeowner insurance
companies:

      -- Hartford Fire Insurance Company;

      -- Hartford Casualty Insurance Company;

      -- Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company;

      -- Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company;

      -- Twin City Fire Insurance Company; Pacific Insurance
         Company, Limited;

      -- Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd.;

      -- Hartford Lloyd's Insurance Company;

      -- Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois;

      -- Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest;

      -- Trumbull Insurance Company;

      -- Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast;

      -- Nutmeg Insurance Company;

      -- Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; and

      -- Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford.

The lawsuit claimed that Hartford improperly withheld payments
of general contractor's overhead and profit, which is an amount
charged by a general contractor for supervising, scheduling,
and/or warranting work, and/or for materials supplied by a
subcontractor in the course of repairing damage to a building,
from amounts paid on claims for Structural Losses under
homeowner's policies.  

The class includes everyone who is, or was insured under a
Hartford homeowner's policy that provide coverage for any
building or other structure located in the U.S. who submitted a
claim for structural loss that:

      -- occurred from Jan.  1, 1999 to Mar. 30, 2006;

      -- was determined to be covered by a Hartford homeowner's
         policy; and

      -- resulted in a payment by Hartford within the Class
         Period.

The court will hold a fairness hearing on Jun. 13, 2006 at 9:00
a.m., Central Time at the Courthouse for the Circuit Court of
Miller County, Second Floor Court Room, 412 Laurel Street,
Texarkana, Arkansas before the Honorable Joe E. Griffin.

Deadline for submitting any objections to the settlement is May
30, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Hartford Settlement Claims, P.O. Box 4098, Portland,
         Oregon 97208-4098, Phone: 1 (877) 316-3153, Web site:
         http://www.hartfordsettlement.com/;and  

     (2) Jason E. Roselius of Whitten, Nelson, McGuire, Terry &
         Roselius, Suite 400, One Leadership Square, 211 North
         Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, (Canadian,
         Cleveland, Oklahoma & Pottawatomie Cos.), Phone: 405-
         239-2522, Fax: 405-239-2573, Web site:
         http://www.whitten-nelson.com.


HERCULES INC: Ordered to Recalculate Employees' Retirement Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam ordered Wilmington-based
chemical company Hercules Inc. to recalculate retirement
benefits for workers who retired after Dec. 31, 2001, and opted
to take part of their benefits in a lump sum at retirement, the
News Journal reports.

The ruling arose out of a suit filed by Hercules retirees
Charles Stepnowski and Sam Webster, questioning a decision by
the company in December 2001 to change the interest rate it used
to calculate lump sum payments.  

Starting Jan. 1, 2002, Hercules stopped using the interest rate
published by the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) and
began using the 30-year Treasury bill rate, which carries a
higher interest rate.  It afterwards retroactively applied this
to cover all employees' entire length of service, according to
Robert LaRocca of Philadelphia law firm Kohn Swift & Graf PC,
who represents class members.

The change reduced the amount of the lump-sum portion of the
retirees' benefits, said Alice Ballard, one of Mr. Stepnowski's
lawyers.

Judge Fullam ruled the company breached the terms of its pension
plan by changing interest rates.  He said the company must
instead use two interest rates for figuring benefits -- the PBGC
rate for service time accrued up to Dec. 31, 2001, and the
Treasury bill rate for service from Jan. 1, 2002, until
retirement.

The order could see Hercules paying as much as $20 million in
additional retirement benefits, according to the report.

Hercules has filed a motion asking Judge Fullam to reconsider
his ruling.

The suit is "Stepnowski v. Hercules, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:04-
cv-02296-JF" filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge John P. Fullam.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Robert J. Larocca of Kohn Swift & Graf, PC, One South
         Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
         19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, E-mail:
         rlarocca@kohnswift.com; and

     (3) Mervin M. Wilf of Mervin M. Wilf, Ltd., One South Broad
         Street, Suite 1630, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107,
         Phone: 215-568-4842.

Representing the defendants are David S. Fryman, Farrah Gold and
Allison V. Kinsey of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPP,
1735 Market St., 51st FL, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-7599,
Phone: 215-864-8105 and 215-864-8782, Fax: 215-864-9743, E-mail:
fryman@ballardspahr.com; goldf@ballardspahr.com and
kinseya@ballardspahr.com.


HOT TELECOM: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Transmission Failures
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed in the District Court of Tel
Aviv-Jaffa, Israel against "HOT Cable Television Broadcasts."  
The suit claims damages incurred from telephone interconnect
transmission failures.

Matav owns approximately 26.6% of HOT Telecom, a limited
partnership owned by Israel's three cable companies that
provides telephony services to subscribers.  The lawsuit claims
damages on behalf of all subscribers in the aggregate amount of
approximately $22 million.  Matav is in the initial stage of
reviewing and evaluating this lawsuit.

Based in Netanya, Israel, Matav -- http://www.matav.co.il-- is  
one of the county's three cable television providers, serving
roughly 25 percent of the Israeli cable subscriber market.  
Matav's current investments include 1.2% of Partner
Communications Ltd., a GSM mobile phone company and 18.5% of
Barak I.T.C. (1995) Ltd., one of the three international
telephony providers in Israel.


LANTRONIX INC: Trial in Calif. Stock Suit Set for Sept. 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative September 2006 trial date was slated for the
consolidated securities class action against Lantronix, Inc. and
certain of its current and former directors and former officers.  
The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Beginning May 15, 2002, a number of securities class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and former officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  These actions were consolidated into a
single action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California as, "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)."

After the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint
along with other motions was filed and the defendants filed
various motions to dismiss directed at particular allegations.  
Through that process, the court dismissed certain of the
allegations.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed the third amended
complaint, which is now the operative complaint in the action.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  

The Securities Act claims are brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased common stock of Lantronix pursuant or traceable to
the company's Aug. 4, 2000 initial public offering (IPO).  

The Exchange Act claims are based on alleged misstatements
related to the company's financial results that were contained
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO.  The
claims brought under the Exchange Act are brought on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Lantronix
securities from Nov. 1, 2000 through May 30, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the business and financial
condition in order to allegedly inflate the value of the
company's securities during the class period.  

The complaint also alleges that during the class period, the
company overstated financial results through improper revenue
recognition and failure to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

Defendants have filed an answer to the complaint and the case is
now in discovery.  The court has set a trial date in September
2006.  

The suit is "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire Blvd.
         - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone: 310-725-
         6400 and 310.208.2800, Fax; 310.209.2348, E-mail:
         valexander@yaplaw.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         andrewb@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Karnit Daniel of Weiss and Lurie, 10940 Wilshire,
         Boulevard, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
         310-208-2800, E-mail: service@wyca.com.

Representing the defendants are, Keith E. Eggleton, Boris
Feldman, Kelley E. Moohr and Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100.


L.L. BEAN: Wins Favorable Ruling in Maine Sales Tax Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on May 25 ruled in favor of
L.L. Bean in a lawsuit accusing the company of wrongfully
charging sales tax on the full price of merchandise before
deducting the value of discount coupons, the Boston.com News
reports.

The suit was filed as a purported class action in 2000 by Rona
Flippo of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who held a $5 coupon account
as award on her application for a credit card.  When she used
the coupon toward a purchase of a merchandise, L.L. Bean charged
a sales tax amounting to $0.28 on the entire amount of her
purchase without first deducting the value of the coupon.

Ms. Flippo filed a complaint, which was later certified as class
action.  The suit accuses L.L. Bean of overcharging sales tax,
breach of an implied contract and violation of the Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

A Superior Court judge granted partial summary judgment on the
case in favor of the company.  Later, the suit was passed to the
Supreme Court upon request by the parties.  On May 25, the court
ruled unanimously that the value of the coupons honored by L.L.
Bean was part of the sale price, and that L.L. Bean properly
charged sales taxes on the value of the coupons.

Ms. Flippo's lawyer is Peter Rubin of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer &
Nelson, P.A., 100 Middle Street, PO Box 9729, Portland, Maine
04104-5029 (Cumberland Co.), Phone: 207-774-1200, Fax: 207-774-
1127.

L.L. Bean's lawyer is David Bertoni of Brann & Issacson, 184
Main Street, P.O. Box 3070, Lewiston, Maine 04243-3070
(Androscoggin Co.), Phone: 207-786-3566, Telecopier: 207-783-
9325.


LOUISIANA: FEMA Extends Housing Aid to Hurricane Katrina Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Emergency Management Agency granted extensions to 11
jurisdictions in Texas that had been facing a May 31, 2006
cutoff of the Section 403 program in which state and local
governments directly paid rents to landlords on behalf of those
displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

The extensions came to light in the government's response to a
class action recently filed by 12 individuals as representatives
in a class action seeking a temporary restraining order against
the cutoff.  The suit was 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.

FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for evacuated
families who were issued 12-month housing vouchers by local
governments (Class Action Report, May 24, 2006).  An estimated
17,000 evacuated families are affected.

Agency officials had 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 (Class
Action Report, May 24, 2006).

To see relevant documents, visit:
http://www.femaanswers.org/index.php/FEMA_Litigation

Meanwhile, the City of Houston has requested a further extension
beyond the Jun. 30 deadline.  FEMA has not yet responded to this
request.

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.


MANHATTAN NATIONAL: N.Mex. Policyholders' Suit Voluntarily Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported nationwide class action against
Manhattan National Life Insurance Co. have voluntarily dismissed
their case.  The suit against the former subsidiary of Conseco,
Inc. is pending in the First Judicial District Court of Santa
Fe, New Mexico.

The suit "Robert Atencio and Theresa Atencio, for themselves and
all other similarly situated v. Manhattan National Life
Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation, Cause No. D-0101-CV-
2000-2817," was filed on Dec. 1, 2000.  It alleges among others,
fraud by non-disclosure of additional charges for those
policyholders paying via premium modes other than annual.  

Conseco, Inc. retained liability for this litigation in
connection with the sale of Manhattan National Life in June
2002.

Shortly after Manhattan National Life Insurance Company filed a
motion to dismiss this case, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
this action on Apr. 4, 2006.


MATAV-CABLE: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Cable Franchise Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd. is facing a purported class
action in the District Court of Nazareth, Israel.  The lawsuit
challenges the legitimacy of the basic cable television
subscription package offered by Matav to its subscribers since
the early 1990s.  It claims that the subscription package
violates the terms of Matav's initial cable franchise.

The lawsuit argues that the initial cable franchise permitted
the cable companies to offer only a basic subscription package
in the "tiering" system at a certain fixed price, and that the
Council for Cable and Satellite Broadcasting subsequently
approved a more expansive basic package, known as "Super Basic",
for a higher fixed price.

The lawsuit also asserts, among other things, that the Council
was not authorized to approve this change, and therefore, this
change is void.  The lawsuit claims damages on behalf of 300,000
of Matav's cable subscribers over a 15-year period based on the
difference in price between the initial package and the expanded
"Super Basic" package, for an aggregate amount of approximately
$1.07 billion; and request a court order requiring Matav to
offer a more basic subscription package at a lower price.

Matav is in the initial stage of reviewing and evaluating this
lawsuit.

Based in Netanya, Isarel, Matav -- http://www.matav.co.il-- is  
one of Israel's three cable television providers, serving
roughly 25 percent of the Israeli cable subscriber market.  
Matav's current investments include 1.2% of Partner
Communications Ltd., a GSM mobile phone company and 18.5% of
Barak I.T.C. (1995) Ltd., one of the three international
telephony providers in Israel.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Calif. Suit Over EpiCept Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached a settlement for a
derivative complaint filed in California state court over a
definitive merger agreement with EpiCept Corp.

On Oct. 7, 2004 plaintiff Jesus Putnam, filed -- purportedly on
behalf of the company -- a derivative complaint in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, against
one officer of the company, two former officers of company and
the company's entire Board of Directors.

Mr. Putnam's suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust
enrichment and violations of the California Corporations Code.  
All of these arose from allowing purported violations of federal
securities laws related to declines in the company's stock price
in connection with various statements and alleged omissions to
the public and to the securities markets.  The complaint sought
damages.

In October 2005, plaintiff attempted to file an amended
complaint to include class action allegations that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger.

In addition, the plaintiff requested that the court enjoin the
company's directors from completing the merger of EpiCept and
Maxim.  The court, pending the lifting of the stay, rejected the
amended complaint.  

The complaint was tendered to company's insurance carrier, which
denied coverage.  The company disputes the position taken by the
insurance carrier and fully intends to enforce its rights under
the policy.

On Mar. 7, 2006, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiff where EpiCept will pay $50,000 in EpiCept
common stock to cover the plaintiff's legal expenses.  The
settlement is subject to customary conditions such as the
execution of settlement documents, the final court approval of
the settlement and dismissal of the Putnam claims with
prejudice.


MICROSOFT CORP: June Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Supreme Court will hold a fairness hearing
for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Cox v. Microsoft
Corp., Index No. 105193/00" on Jun. 13, 2006, 10:00 a.m.  The
case was brought on behalf of all consumers and businesses that
acquired Microsoft software from May 18, 1994 through Dec. 31,
2004.

The hearing will be held at New York State Supreme Court, 60
Centre St., Room 248, New York, New York 10007.

Any objections must be made before May 18, 2006.  Claims forms
must be submitted by Oct. 18, 2006.

For more details, call 1-877-867-6133 or visit:
http://www.microsoftnysettlement.com/.


NEW JERSEY: Court Allows Suit Over Copy Machines Fee to Go Ahead
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Superior Court judge denied an attempt by the Gloucester
County to dismiss a class action filed against it over the fee
it collects from its self-service copy machines, the NJ.com
reports.

The clerk's office charges 50 cents per page for copies made on
self-service machines.  The suit, filed by Ernest Bozzi of
Burlington County, seeks to determine the actual cost associated
with making companies and to reimburse patrons for overcharges
made by the county, according to Donald Doherty, a lawyer for
the contractor.

Mr. Bozzi is a developer from Eastampton Township.  His suit was
filed on Feb. 15, 2006.

For more information, contact Mr. Doherty of Blackwell Sanders
Peper Martin, LLP, 720 Olive Street, Suite 2400, St. Louis,
Missouri 63101 (Independent City), Phone: 314-345-6000, Fax:
314-345-6060.


PSS WORLD: Fla. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
approved the settlement of the securities class action against
PSS World Medical, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  

In May 1998, the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities
class action, "Jack Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:98-CV 502-J-32TEM."

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants engaged in violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 14a-9.  The allegations referenced a decline in the
company's stock price following an announcement by the company
in May 1998 regarding the Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc.
merger.

On Sept. 9, 2005, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which reflected
the settlement reached by all the parties to the litigation for
a cash payment of approximately $16,500, of which approximately
$12,700 was recovered through existing insurance policies.

A hearing on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement was held on Oct. 7, 2005.  The final fairness
hearing was held on Dec. 20, 2005.

The Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice on Dec. 20, 2005.  During the three months ended Dec.
30, 2005, the company made payments totaling approximately
$3,800 to cover the uninsured losses and professional fees
relating to this matter.

As a result of these payments and the final fairness hearing,
the company as of Dec. 30, 2005, satisfied all obligations to
the plaintiffs related to this litigation matter.

The suit is "Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, et al., Case No. 3:98-
cv-00502-TJC-TEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, under Judge
Timothy J. Corrigan.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lee G. Kellison, J Michael Lindell, Lindell & Kellison,
         P.A., 12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 126, Jacksonville, FL
         32223-8630, Phone: 904/880-4000, fax: 904-880-4013, E-
         mail: lkellison@lindellkellison.com or
         mlindel@lindelkellison.com;

     (2) Seth R. Klein, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Andrew Schatz, Schatz
         & Nobel, P.C., One Corporate Center, 20 Church St.,
         Hartford, CT 06103, E-mail: sklein@snlaw.net;

     (3) Richard B. Margolies, Abbey & Gardy, LLP, 2l2 E. 39th
         St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/889-3700, Fax:
         212/684-5191; and

     (4) James Notis, Lee Squitieri, Abbey & Gardy, LLP
         2l2 E. 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/889-
         3700, E-mail: jnotis@abbeygardy.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Peter Bassett, John A. Jordak, Jr., Alston & Bird, LLP,
         1201 W. Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424,
         Phone: 404/881-7000, E-mail: jjordak@alston.com;

    (ii) Robert Eric Bilik, McGuireWoods LLP, 50 N. Laura St.,
         Suite 3300, Jacksonville, FL 32202-3661, Phone:
         904/798-3200, E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com;

   (iii) Darlene DeMelo, Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Gary M.
         Grossman, Jordan D. Hershman, Testa, Hurwitz &
         Thibeault, High Street Tower, 125 High Street, Boston,
         MA 02110, Phone: 617/248-7000, E-mail: demelod@tht.com
         or friedman@tht.com; and

    (iv) Robert Bruce George, Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy
         225 Water St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202,
         Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax: 904/634-1234, E-mail:
         rgeorge@lgcmlaw.com.


SCHOLASTIC CORP: Wash. Judge Junks Deceptive Marketing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez dismissed a
lawsuit filed in January against Scholastic Inc., alleging the
company sends consumers unwanted books and demanding payment,
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

The suit was dismissed after Scholastic produced new evidence
that the plaintiffs in the purported class action knew the
details of the contract they were entering into with the
company.

John Hart and Carly Alcombrack filed the suit in January.  In
Mr. Alcombrack's original allegations, she said she filled out
and sent in a postcard offering a free Barbie backpack and three
books.  She denied knowing additional conditions attached to the
offer.

But the company produced evidence in court that the plaintiff
sent in two book club postcards offering membership in a book
club, and agreeing to accept a telemarketing offer to buy
encyclopedias.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys agreed to a voluntary
dismissal of the case in April.

The case is "Hart et al v. Scholastic, Inc. (2:06-cv- 00151-
RSM)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Washington
Western District under Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
         (http://www.hbsslaw.com),1301 5th Ave., STE 2900  
         Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292; E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Simeon J. Osborn, Osborn Machler, 2125 Fifth Avenue
         Seattle, WA 98121, U.S., Phone: 206-386-5505; Fax: 206-
         386-5505; E-mail: simosborn@osbornmachler.com; and

     (3) Nicholas John Styant-Browne of Hagens Berman Sobol
         Shapiro, LLP, 1301 5th Ave. STE 2900, Seattle, WA
         98101, Phone: 206-623-7292; E-mail: nick@hbsslaw.com.


STATE FARM: Okla. Couple Gets $13M in Suit Over Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma awarded a
local couple nearly $13 million in a class action over insurance
payments for families whose homes were damaged by tornadoes in
1999, The Times and Democrat.

The suit filed by Donald and Bridget Watkins against State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co. in 2001 alleged the company intentionally
underpaid claims.  It accuses the company of wrongfully adjusted
or denied claims by relying at the opinion of Haag Engineering
Co., which inspected brick and other structural damage to
policyholders' homes.

The jury agreed with the plaintiffs in that the underpayment of
claims was intentional.  It awarded the Watkinses $99 million in
punitive damages and $3 million in actual damages.

The Watkins couple is among 71 policyholders who sued the
company.  Their lawyer, Jeff Marr, filed a motion on May 26
requesting trial dates for remaining class members.

For more information, contact Mr. Marr at 210 Park Ave., Ste.
1130 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


STATE FARM: Judge Rules Against Firm in Flood Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Haik on May 18 held insurance
companies in Louisiana not responsible for hurricane-related
flood damage for homeowners covered only for wind storms,
Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed against State Farm and Louisiana Citizens
Property Insurance on behalf of two families.  According to the
report, the homeowners' lawyers argued that under Louisiana law,
insurance companies must pay total losses on a destroyed home
when at least some of the damage was caused by a hazard covered
by insurance, unless a disclaimer is given in the policy
application.  They are seeking class-action status for the suit.

The insurance companies claim the policies explicitly excluded
flood damage.

The suit is "Turk et al. v. Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corp et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana under Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr.,
with referral to C. Michael Hill.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Kenneth W. DeJean, P.O. Box 4325, Lafayette, LA 70502, Phone:
337-235-5294, Fax: 337-235-1095, E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Wayne J. Lee of Stone Pigman et. Al, 546 Carondelet St.
         New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-581-3200, Fax: 504-
         581-3361, E-mail: wlee@stonepigman.com;

     (2) Robert I. Siegel of Gieger Laborde & Laperouse, 701
         Poydras St. Ste 4800, New Orleans, LA 70130-4800,
         Phone: 504-561-0400, Fax: 504-561-1011, E-mail:
         rsiegel@glllaw.com; and

     (3) John W. Waters, Jr., Bienvenu Foster et al., 1010
         Common St. Ste 2200, New Orleans, LA 70122, Phone: 504-
         310-1500, Fax: 504-310-1501, E-mail: JWaters@bfrob.com.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Libertarian Party Sues Over Wiretapping
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party of Indiana has joined a purported class
action against a group of telecommunication companies accused of
"spying" on telephone and Internet communications of the
American people.

The suit, filed in state and U.S. courts, challenges the
telecommunications companies' illegal actions in permitting the
National Security Agency and affiliated governmental agencies to
monitor customers' communications without proper authorization,
according to the Hammer of Truth.

Indianapolis law firm, George & Sipes, filed the lawsuit on
behalf of 11 parties.

George & Sipes on the Net: http://www.lgrslaw.com/.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in Ky.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky

Between Oct. 7, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were
filed against the company and certain of its directors and
officers purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased the company's stock between Apr. 22, 2005 and Sept.
19, 2005.

On Dec. 29, 2005, the court consolidated these five actions.  
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb.  27,
2006.

In their consolidated complaint, lead plaintiffs assert claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Lead plaintiffs allege that certain of
the company's public disclosures regarding its financial
performance between Apr. 22, 2005 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false
and/or misleading.

The principal allegation set forth in the securities law action
is that the company did not disclose the impact of competition
on its prospects.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other
relief within the Court's discretion.

The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Joseph M. Hood.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michelle M. Ciccarelli of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-213-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423; and

     (2) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman,
         L.L.P. - New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-
         868-1229.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael D. Blanchard of Bingham McCutchen, LLP -
         Hartford CT, One State Street, Hartford, CT 06103-3178,
         Phone: 860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2800, E-mail:
         michael.blanchard@bingham.com; and

    (ii) Barry D. Hunter of Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 250 W. Main
         Street, 2700 Lexington, Financial Center, Lexington, KY
         40507, Phone: 859-231-0000, Fax: 859-231-0011.


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Face Merix Securities Suit in Ore.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. is defendant in a purported
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon.  The suit was brought in connection with an offering
involving Merix Corp. in which Thomas Weisel served as co-lead
manager.

Plaintiffs filed the suit, "In re: Merix Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," against Merix and certain of
its directors and senior officers as well as Merix's
underwriters, alleging false and misleading statements in the
registration statement.  

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court entered an order dismissing all
claims against the underwriter defendants, including the
company, and the Merix defendants.  

A portion of the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissed with prejudice, and the
remainder of that claim and the Section 11 claim were dismissed
with leave to re-file.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint.  The company
denies liability in the matter.  

The suit is "In re: Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, under Michael W. Mosman.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart L. Berman, Gregory M. Castaldo, Darren J. Check,
         Sean M. Handler, Andrew L. Zivitz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
         dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com,
         azivitz@sbclasslaw.com  
  
     (2) Gary M. Berne, David F. Rees, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting
         & Shlachter, PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,
         Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503)
         227-6840, E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com or drees@ssbls.com  

     (3) Lori G. Feldman, Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite
         2550, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax:
         (206) 839-0728, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Bruce L. Campbell and Ky Fullerton of Miller Nash, LLP,
         111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400, Portland, OR 97204,
         Phone: 503 205-2419, Fax: (503) 224-0155, E-mail:
         bruce.campbell@millernash.com and
         ky.fullerton@millernash.com; and

    (ii) Darryl S. Lew of White & Case, LLP, 701 Thirteenth
         Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-
         3600, Fax: (202) 639-9355, E-mail: dlew@whitecase.com.


UNITED STATES: MTA, Labor Union Face Suit Over Health Care Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two workers at the Metropolitan Transport Authority filed a
class action on May 12 against the Transport Workers Union and
MTA, alleging misappropriation of health care funds, NY1 News
reports.

Mr. Borish and a fellow transit worker, Danny D'Antonio filed
the suit.  They have formed a group, Transit Workers for
Retirement Justice to pursue the legal action.

Transit workers voted down in January a proposed contract,
partly, in opposition to a provision that they contribute 1.5%
of their pay toward health care.  But some workers claim they
already paid for that 10 years ago, by contributing to a special
fund that would let them retire early, at age 55, with full
health benefits guaranteed.  

Mr. Borish claim the money should have been invested for
retirement purposes, but that did not happen.  He claims the
union gave the money to the MTA to help plug a budget gap.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA ENERGY: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all who purchased shares of China Energy
Savings Technology, Inc. between Apr. 21, 2005 and Feb. 15,
2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that China Energy and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  Based in Hong Kong,
China Energy develops, manufactures, and markets energy savings
products to businesses in China.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about China Energy's financial results
during the Class Period, some contained in Securities and
Exchange Commission filings.

In particular, the complaint says defendants failed to disclose
that:

      -- insiders of the company were engaged in massive self-
         dealing involving the company's January 2006 private
         placement; and

      -- the company was in violation of SEC Rules regarding
         limitations on sales of restricted stock and, as a
         result of this violation, trading of the company's
         stock would be halted by Nasdaq.

In addition, the complaint accuses the defendants of falsely
stating that they had complied with the reporting requirement of
the SEC and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
had voluntarily complied with the reporting requirements of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

On Feb.  15, 2006, as a result of the above-mentioned fraudulent
activities, Nasdaq announced that trading in shares of China
Energy had been halted, the complaint said.

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 30, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the case. S. If you would
like to discuss this action, this announcement, or your rights
and interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel Bradley P.
Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP.

For more details, contact Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank &
Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 and (212) 682-1818, Fax:
(212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com, Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


CHINA ENERGY: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a class action against China Energy
Savings Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: CESV) and certain officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action is on behalf of China Energy securities purchasers
during the period Apr. 21, 2005 through Feb.  15, 2006,
inclusive, for securities law violations.  The complaint alleges
that defendants made false and misleading statements and
material omissions regarding the company's financial
performance, including that the company's recent $50 million
private placement was fraught with self-dealing.  As a result,
the price of the company's securities was inflated during the
Class Period, thereby harming investors.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the company announced an underwriting
agreement to raise $50 million through a private placement of
company stock.  The very same day, China Energy announced that
defendant Sun Li resigned as Chairman and CEO of the company and
immediately appointed defendant Kwun Luen Siu to replace him.

The complaint alleges, however, that the company did not
disclose that at the core of the $50 million private placement
was massive self-dealing -- over 6 million of the shares to be
sold were indirectly owned by defendant Li.

Moreover, the complaint details, defendants did not disclose
that defendant Li had recommended defendant Siu as his
replacement and that, prior to being vetted by defendant Li for
the role of China Energy CEO, defendant Siu had played an active
role in facilitating the defendants' self-dealing.

According to the complaint, prior to the announcement of the
company's $50 million dollar private placement, defendant Sui
introduced the investment group that would underwrite the
company's $50 million private placement offering to defendant Li
and the company.

The lawsuit also charges that during the Class Period insiders
sold their company stock at artificially inflated prices,
thereby reaping more than $114 million in proceeds.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Jun. 30,
2006 to serve as lead plaintiff in the case.  

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.  


IMAGE INNOVATIONS: Federman Sherwood Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Image Innovations Holdings, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: IMGV).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from Apr. 13, 2004 through Mar. 16, 2006.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Jul. 14,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

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


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Suit in La.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of 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. (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.

More specifically, 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:

     -- that Newpark was improperly processing and paying
        invoices inconsistent with and in violation of Generally
        Accepted Accounting Principles;

     -- that Newpark had inadequate and deficient internal
        controls and systems;

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

     -- 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 Mar. 22, 2006, without
warning, Newpark reported that defendant James P. Cole had been
replaced as Chief Executive Officer 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."

On Apr. 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.

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

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.co.


                            *********


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  * * *