CAR_Public/060531.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 31, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 107

                            Headlines

ACUITY LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures with Unattached Nuts
ADAMS GOLF: Discovery Proceeds in Del. Consolidated Stock Suit
ADVANCEPCS: Ariz. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal
AMERIGROUP CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Va. Consolidated Stock Suit
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Off-Highway UVs to Repair Rear Brake Caliper

ARIZONA: Appeals Court Ruling Holds Orders on English Program
BRAVO! DEVELOPMENT: Mich. Woman Sues Over Norovirus Outbreak
CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed
CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated Stock Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed
CAREMARK RX: Discovery Continues for Antitrust Lawsuit in Ill.

CONMED CORP: Former CONMED Linvatec Sales Reps File Suit in N.Y.
DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
DVA RENAL: Court Dismisses Medicare Suit, Compels Arbitration
GRILL CONCEPTS: Servers File Suit in Calif. Over "Tip-Pooling"
HANOVER DIRECT: Shareholder Abandons Plan to Take Firm Private

ICT GROUP: Distributes Cash Settlement of W.Va. Wage Lawsuit
ICT GROUP: Settles Certain Ill., Calif. Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Ind. ERISA Suit's Post-Trial Briefing Ends
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Considers Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Closed
KPMG LLP: Declares Knowledge of Payment Offer to Lead Plaintiff

LOUISIANA: FEMA Defends Self in Texas Housing Aid Lawsuit
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Calif. Sex Discrimination Suit
MURPHY OIL: Wants to Share La. Oil Spill Blame with Army Corps
NETFLIX INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
OPPENHEIMERFUNDS: Brokers File Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y. Court

OREGON: 3 Men File Lawsuit Over Gresham Park Exclusion Ordinance
PIONEER COS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mercury Emission From La. Plant
RALPH LAUREN: Former Employees Allege Calif. Labor Law Breaches
SALOMON SMITH: Calif. Supreme Court to Discuss Phone Taping Suit
SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL: Dialysis Patients File Negligence Lawsuit

SPARK NETWORKS: Trial Extended for Business Law Breach Lawsuit
STAR GAS: Awaits Conn. Court Decision in Consolidated Stock Suit
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Stock Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
VALERO ENERGY: Seeks New Trial for Blue Island Refinery Case
VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.

VERIZON MARYLAND: Court Okays $26M Settlement in Late Fees Suit
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Del. Over "Class C" Stock Plan


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
ESCALA GROUP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
XM SATELLITE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.


                            *********


ACUITY LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures with Unattached Nuts
------------------------------------------------------------
The Lithonia Lighting division of Georgia-based Acuity Lighting
Group Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection
Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100 units of Low Bay TG
Series lighting fixtures.

The company said two nuts in a mounting mechanism of these light
fixtures were not attached. The fixture could detach, fall and
possibly hit consumers.

Acuity Lighting Group Inc. has received 10 reports of fixtures
that have fallen, but no injuries have been reported.

The lighting fixtures are designed for areas that require low
mounting heights and are used in parking garages, stairwells,
entrances or aisles. The fixtures have a heavy-duty aluminum
housing with either a white or a dark bronze finish and a glass
lens. Their installed width is approximately 13 inches. The TGL
and TGR series fixtures are not included in this recall, as
these fixtures have a different mounting mechanism.

These lighting fixtures were assembled in the U.S. and are being
sold in electrical and lighting supply distributors between
November 2004 and February 2006 for about $190.

Facility managers and business owners are being contacted by
Acuity Lighting Group Inc., to schedule an inspection and
repair.

Please contact Acuity Lighting Group if you have not been
contacted yet.

Picture of recalled lighting fixture:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06552.jpg

For more information, call Lithonia Lighting at (800)-745-1788
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
company's Web site at www.lithonia.com.


ADAMS GOLF: Discovery Proceeds in Del. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities class action
against Adams Golf, Inc., which is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court of the District of Delaware.

Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class actions was filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO).  

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
the company's IPO.  In particular, the complaints alleged that
its prospectus, which became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was
materially false and misleading in at least two areas.  

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the company's long-term profits.  They also
alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf
equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at
the retail level, which had an adverse impact on sales.

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including legal fees.  

On Dec. 10, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint.  
Plaintiffs appealed.  

On Aug. 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims relating to oversupply of retail inventory,
while reversing the dismissal of the claims relating to the
impact of gray market sales and remanding those claims for
further proceedings.  

On Sept. 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
their complaint, which was granted on Jan. 24, 2006.   
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, which the District Court granted in part and denied
in part on Apr. 11, 2006.  

Now, in addition to the gray-market sales claim, the second
amended complaint alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose
that the company engaged in questionable sales practices,
including double shipping and unlimited rights of return, which
threatened post-IPO financial results.  This case is currently
in the discovery phase litigation.

The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Kent A. Jordan.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait,
Gross & Goddess, Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box
1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E-mail:
CKeener@rmgglaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kevin G. Abrams of Abrams & Laster, LLP, Brandywine
         Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303, Wilmington, DE
         19803, Phone: (302) 778-1000, Fax: (302) 778-1001;

     (2) Jeffrey L. Moyer of Richards, Layton & Finger, One
         Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551, Wilmington, DE 19899,
         Phone: (302) 651-7700, E-mail: moyer@rlf.com; and

     (3) John E. James of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313
         N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951,
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000, E-
         mail: jjames@potteranderson.com.


ADVANCEPCS: Ariz. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona of the consolidated class
action filed against AdvancePCS, now doing business as
CaremarkPCS.  The suit alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In April 2002, the company was served with a purported class
action filed by Tommie Glanton on behalf of the plaintiff's
health plan and a putative class of self-funded health plans.  

In March 2003, the company was served with a complaint filed by
Tara Mackner in which the plaintiff, a purported participant in
a self-funded health plan customer of AdvancePCS, sought to
bring action on behalf of that plan.  Each of the lawsuits
sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  

Because the previously filed Glanton case purported to be
brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the
court consolidated the Mackner case and the Glanton case.  

In November 2003, the court dismissed and terminated both the
Glanton and Mackner cases on the pleadings, finding that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the actions under ERISA.  

The plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's dismissal of
these cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  
The plaintiffs and AdvancePCS have filed their briefs in the
appeal, and the U.S. Department of Labor has filed an amicus
brief.

The cases are "Glanton, et al. v. AdvancePCS Inc., Case No.
2:02-cv-00507-SRB," and "Mackner v. AdvancePCS Health LP, Case
No. 2:03-cv-00607-SRB," both filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.  

Representing the plaintiffs in both cases is Stephen J. Herman
of Herman Mathis Casey Kitchens & Gerel, LLP, 820 O'Keefe Ave.,
New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 581-4892.

Representing the defendant in both cases is Peter Shawn Kozinets
of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington St.,
Ste. 1600, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382, Phone: 602-257-5200, Fax:
602-257-5299, E-mail: pkozinets@steptoe.com.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Va. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action, "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.

Beginning Oct. 3, 2005, five purported class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia on behalf of persons who acquired the company's
common stock between Apr. 27, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2005.  The
actions purported to allege claims against the company and
certain of the company's officers for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  

On Jan. 10, 2006, the court issued an order:

     (1) consolidating the actions;

     (2) setting "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
         AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-
         701," as lead case for purposes of trial and all
         pretrial proceedings;

     (3) appointing Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI) as
         lead plaintiff and its choice of counsel as lead
         counsel; and

     (4) ordering that lead plaintiff file a consolidated
         amended complaint by Feb. 24, 2006.

On Feb. 24, 2006, ISBI filed the consolidated amended complaint,
which purports to allege claims on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased the company's common stock from Feb. 16,
2005 through Sept. 28, 2005.  

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants AMERIGROUP
Corp., Jeffrey L. McWaters, James G. Carlson, E. Paul Dunn, Jr.
and Kathleen K. Toth.  Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the company's financial statements, business, and
prospects.  Among other things, the consolidated amended
complaint seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fee and
costs.

On Mar. 27, 2006, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

The suit is "Illinois State Board of Investment v. AMERIGROUP
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under
Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge F. Bradford
Stillman.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500
         World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446-
         8600;

     (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento,
         PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA
         23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000; and

     (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580
         E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757)
         625-6787.

Representing the defendants is Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman &
Canoles, PC, 150 W. Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA 23510,
Phone: (757) 624-3000.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Off-Highway UVs to Repair Rear Brake Caliper
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Cat Inc. of Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is
recalling 2,120 Arctic Cat Prowler XT Off-Highway Utility
Vehicles.

The company said the rear brake caliper used on these units
could leak brake fluid, resulting in reduced braking ability at
the rear wheels.  The front wheel brakes are unaffected by this
condition.  There have been no reported incidents of loss of
braking.  No injuries have been reported.

The Prowler XT was produced in three colors: green, cat green
and red.  The vehicles have the words "Arctic Cat" printed on
each side of the cargo box and the name "Prowler XT" centered on
the front of the hood.  The affected units are all 2006 Prowler
XT vehicles with VIN range of 4UF06MPVO6T300001 through
4UF06MPV16T302369.  The VIN is located on the rear upper-frame
tube of the vehicle near the rear of the cargo box, and on the
registration materials the consumer received at the time of
purchase.  Consumers need only refer to the last six digits of
the VIN to determine if the vehicle is included in this recall.

Model numbers included in the recall:

Model               Model Number

Prowler XT Green         U2006P2S4BUSG
Prowler XT Cat Green   U2006P2S4BUSZ
Prowler XT Red         U2006P2S4BUSR

The model number is contained in the registration materials
received with the vehicle at the time of purchase.

Prowler XTs were manufactured in the U.S. and sold in Arctic Cat
dealerships nationwide from July 2005 through May 2006 for about
$9,000.

Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles immediately.

Consumers with a recalled Prowler XT are advised to contact
their local Arctic Cat ATV dealer to schedule a free repair.  
Registered owners have been notified about this recall by mail.  
If consumers are unsure whether their Prowler XT is affected,
they should contact Arctic Cat.

Picture of Arctic Cat Prowler XT:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06553.jpg

For more information, contact Arctic Cat, Phone: (800) 279-6851
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, Web site at
http://www.arctic-cat.com.


ARIZONA: Appeals Court Ruling Holds Orders on English Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Republican legislators and the state's top education official
have filed court papers reminding a federal judge his orders on
improvements in programs for students learning English are on
hold until an appeals court rules.

The Republican leaders of the House and Senate and
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne told U.S.
District Judge Raner Collins that a stay issued by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold key decisions he ordered,
according to Associated Press.

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  The deficiency effectively violated a
federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education,
the ruling said.  The state was fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for
missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program.  The
fine was increased to $1 million in January, resulting to a $21
million in total fines.  The fines were stopped when the latest
version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English
learning programs was passed into law on Mar. 2.

Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano considered the bill still
inadequate after vetoing three previous versions, but she
allowed it to become a law for Judge Collins to decide.  On Apr.
25, Judge Collins ruled that it still doesn't adequately fund
English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of
providing those programs, and doesn't explain the basis for
funding that it does provide.

Plaintiffs recently asked Judge Collins to urge the Legislature
to revisit the English learning programs for possible
improvements.  They want Judge Collins to either hold a hearing
to discuss the effects of the order, or clarify the order and
require compliance with a 2000 ruling.  In response, legislature
reminded Judge Collins his orders are on hold pending the
appeals court ruling.

The suit is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case
No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.

Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and
Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave.,
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790,
Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
jcardenas@lrlaw.com.  


BRAVO! DEVELOPMENT: Mich. Woman Sues Over Norovirus Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm Marler Clark in Seattle filed a lawsuit against
Bravo! Development, Inc., the owner of Bravo! Cucina Italiana
restaurant that was the source of a large norovirus outbreak in
early to mid May.

The suit was filed in Ingham County Circuit Court (Case no. 06-
609-NZ) on behalf of Pattie McNiel, an academic specialist at
the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State
University, who became ill with norovirus after eating at the
restaurant on May 7, 2006.

Ms. McNiel is represented by Marler Clark and Michael Heilmann,
a Southfield, Michigan, attorney.

"Restaurants have a responsibility to their customers to serve
them food that is safe to eat," said William Marler, managing
partner of Marler Clark.  "It is clear that Bravo management and
employees did not take the appropriate measures to ensure that
the food being served at the restaurant was safe."

Ingham County health officials are encouraging anybody who
experienced symptoms of norovirus after eating at Bravo between
May 3 and May 11 to report his or her illness to the Health
Department.

The Health Department reported that at least 360 individuals had
become ill as part of the outbreak.

"We have been contacted by several other people who became ill
as part of this outbreak," Mr. Marler continued.  "And we plan
to pursue claims on behalf of everyone who contacts our firm."

The attorneys at Marler Clark have been representing victims of
foodborne illness outbreaks since 1993, when William Marler
represented Brianne Kiner in her $15.6 million E. coli
settlement with Jack in the Box.

The firm has represented thousands of victims of E. coli,
Salmonella, norovirus, hepatitis A, and other foodborne illness
outbreaks.

For more information, contact Suzanne Schreck, Phone: (206) 346-
1879, Marler Clark on the Net: http://www.marlerclark.com/.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
dismissed certain claims in the consolidated class action
against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers,
directors and employees, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Since Jul. 2, 2004, 15 purported class action complaints have
been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health
Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively
referred to as the Cardinal Health ERISA actions.  These cases
include:

      -- "David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 643,"

      -- "Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,      
         Case No. 04 CV 668,"

      -- "James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 684,"

      -- "Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04 CV 722,"

      -- "Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 725,"

      -- "Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04 CV 736,"

      -- "Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. 04 CV 745,"

      -- "Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 746,"

      -- "Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 778,"

      -- "Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04 CV 789,"

      -- "Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 790,"

      -- "Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04 CV 803,"

      -- "Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 815,"

      -- "Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. (04 CV 828),"

      -- "Gint Baukus v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
         05 C2 101"

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor
Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the Syncor ESSOP,
and together with the 401(k) Plan, the Plans), and also on
behalf of the Plans themselves.

The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the
Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the
detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that
company stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative for the Plans' participants.

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions.

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health,
Inc. ERISA Litigation."

On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison
counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action.  

On Apr. 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended ERISA complaint naming the company, certain current and
former directors, officers and employees, the company's Employee
Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company as
defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  

On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The parties agreed to leave the motion for class
certification pending while the court considered a motion to
dismiss.

On Mar. 31, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company and with respect to
plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief.  The court denied the
remainder of the motion to dismiss filed by the company and
certain defendants.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James Edward Arnold, Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2,
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and  

     (2) George E. Barrett of Barrett Johnston & Parsley - 1,
         217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) J. Kevin Cogan, Jones Day, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd.,
         PO Box 165017, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-
         3939, Fax: 614-461-4198, Email: jcogan@jonesday.com;
         and

    (ii) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter -
         2, 65 E. State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215-
         4294, Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail:
         rsugarman@keglerbrown.com.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated Stock Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
dismissed certain claims in the consolidated securities class
action against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors.

Since Jul. 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's
securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints.  
They named the company and certain of its officers and
directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws.  
These cases include:

      -- "Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 575,"

      -- "Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04 CV 579,"

      -- "E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 597,"

      -- "David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc., Case No. 04 CV
          598,"

      -- "Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 604,"

      -- "John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 04 CV 635,"

      -- "Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 636,"

      -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04 CV 849,"

      -- "The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 831,"

      -- "First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 911"

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and
ending as late as Jul. 26, 2004.  

The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
results, prospects and condition.

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material
misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by the company
in connection with its acquisition of Bindley Western
Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.

The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and
other accounting and business model transition issues, including
reserve accounting.

The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an
artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the
proposed class period.  

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal
Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation."  On Jan. 26, 2005,
the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiff in
this consolidated action.

On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former
officers and employees and the company's external auditors as
defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with
respect to the company's external auditors and a former officer
and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and
the other individual defendants.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-575,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, (New York, NY), 10
         E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800-217-1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San
         Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com; and

     (3) John R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox &
         Garofoli LPA - 1, 1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900,
         Cleveland, OH 44115-1891, Phone: 216-621-8484, Fax:
         216-771-1632, E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com.

Representing the company are John M. Newman, Jr., Geoffrey J.
Ritts of Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue, North Point, 901 Lakeside
Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail:
jmnewman@jonesday.com or gjritts@jonesday.com.


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Continues for Antitrust Lawsuit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action against Caremark Rx,
Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS)
and two pharmacy benefit manager competitors in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

Two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, INC. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., initially filed the
suit on October 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.

The plaintiffs twice amended and restated their class action
complaint, most recently asserting two claims under a single
count purportedly arising under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted a motion filed by Caremark Rx and Caremark to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois pursuant to the terms of the pharmacy
services agreements between Caremark and the plaintiffs.

The court also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS to compel
arbitration of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant
to the pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs in this case filed a putative class
action arbitration demand with the American Arbitration
Association against AdvancePCS that is nearly identical to the
complaint pending in the Northern District of Illinois against
Caremark.

The demand purports to cover direct claims made against
AdvancePCS and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief
enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.  

The arbitration proceeding has been stayed by agreement of the
parties pending developments in the court case against Caremark
Rx and Caremark, which is in discovery.  

The plaintiffs are seeking three times actual monetary damages
and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust
violations.

The suit is "N. Jackson Pharm Inc., et al. v. Caremark RX Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05674,"filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Milton I.
Shadur.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew C. Allen, Russell J. Drake, Othni Lathram, Joe
         R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue North,
         P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: (205)
         328-9576;

     (2) Christopher W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie J.
         Lamb, Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017-2nd Avenue
         North #200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 324-
         4644;

     (3) Kathleen Currie Chavez, Chavez Law Firm, 1245 Executive
         Place, Suite F-100, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-
         4480;

     (4) Gregory C. Cook, Balch & Bingham, Post Office Box 306,
         Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: (205) 251-8100;

     (5) Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Foote, Meyers,
         Mielke, Flowers & Solano, 416 South Second Street,
         Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-6333;

     (6) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley S. Tropin, Kozyak Tropin &
         Throckmorton PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral
         Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-372-
         3508;

     (7) Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Weaver & Roth
         P.O. Box 1607, Decatur, AL 35602, Phone: (256) 353-
         6761; and

     (8) Edward K. Wood, Jr., Law Offices of Edward Kirk Wood
         P.O. Box 382434, Birmingham, AL 35238, Phone: (205)612-
         0243.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) W. Michael Atchison, Victor E. Grimm, Anthony C.
         Harlon, Starnes & Atchison, P.O. Box 598512,
         Birmingham, AL, 35259-8512, Phone: (205) 868-6000; and

     (2) Erik F. Dyhrkopp, Michael Edward Martinez, Scott M.
         Mendel, Paula W. Render, Michael Sennett, Bell, Boyd &
         Lloyd LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago,
         IL 60602-4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121.


CONMED CORP: Former CONMED Linvatec Sales Reps File Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONMED Corp. is defendant in a purported class action filed in
the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York on
behalf of a class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

On Apr. 7, 2006, the company received a copy of the complaint,
which alleges that the former sales representatives were
entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when
Linvatec Corp. restructured its distribution channels.  

The company believes that the maximum exposure is $2.5 to $3.0
million, not including any interest, fees or costs that might be
awarded if the five named plaintiffs were to prevail on their
own behalf as well as on behalf of all members of the purported
class.

Conmed Linvatec did not generally pay severance during the 2003
restructuring because the former sales representatives were
offered sales positions with Linvatec's new manufacturer's
representatives.

Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in the class
action, nearly all of Linvatec's former sales representatives
accepted such positions.

Four of the named plaintiffs also recently submitted formal
Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance,
and said claims have been forwarded to the plan administrator
for review and action.

Although the plan administrator has not completed her review, if
the plan administrator reaches the same determination that was
made in 2003, the company believes there would be no merit to
the claims asserted in the complaint, although there can be no
assurance that the company would prevail in the litigation.

The suit is "Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case
No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD,"filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York under Judge Neal P. McCurn
with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian
O'Neil Smith of Moukawsher, Walsh Law Firm, 21 Oak Street, Suite
209, Hartford, CT 06106, US, Phone: 860-278-7003 and 860-278-
7005, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com and
ismith@mwlawgroup.com.


DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. is defendant in a class action filed
in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the
state's labor laws.

In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the
Superior Court of California by one of its former employees that
worked for its California acute services program.  

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages,
defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu
of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.

DVA Renal is formerly Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It was acquired
by Davita Inc. in 2005.


DVA RENAL: Court Dismisses Medicare Suit, Compels Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
dismissed a purported class action against DVA Renal Healthcare,
Inc., formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.

On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities.  

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on
behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the
defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting
from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December
2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and
certain agencies of the U.S. Government.  

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  

The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co v. Gambro A
B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH,"filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge
Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill.  

Representing the plaintiff is Greg Murphy of Morain & Murphy,
6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225-
767-7151, Fax: 225-767-8995, E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com.

Representing the company is G. William Jarman of Kean Miller, et
al., (Baton Rouge), P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone:
225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133.


GRILL CONCEPTS: Servers File Suit in Calif. Over "Tip-Pooling"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed against Grill Concepts, Inc.
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles on Mar. 15, 2006.

The plaintiff, who is a server, and his fellow workers complain
that the company violated the labor code by having servers "tip
out" bartenders and expeditors a percentage of their tips to
these employees who provide no direct table service.  The
complaint labeled this act as "Tip-pooling."

The company has not yet been served with this complaint.  There
is a hearing scheduled in June to determine where the case will
be heard within the court system.


HANOVER DIRECT: Shareholder Abandons Plan to Take Firm Private
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct LLC's largest investor, Chelsey Direct LLC,
withdrew on May 26 an offer to buy out other public shareholders
of the company, according to NorthJersey.com.

The hedge fund told the company it dropped its plan to take the
company private due to "worsening operations" at Hanover, the
report said.  Hanover lost $1.8 million in the first quarter on
about $100 million in sales of home furnishings and clothing
through catalogs and online.

Hanover is facing a class action arising from the buyout
proposal.  The complaint, filed on Mar. 1, 2006 in Delaware
Chancery Court, named the company, Chelsey and the company's
directors as defendants.  The company has also been served with
a second complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, filed on Mar. 7,
2006, and a third complaint in Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, filed on Mar. 3, 2006, that were
substantially similar to the first complaint.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs challenge Chelsey's going
private proposal and alleged, among other things, that:

     -- the consideration to be paid is unfair and grossly  
        inadequate;  

     -- the Special Committee cannot be expected to act  
        independently;  

     -- Chelsey has manipulated the financial statements of the  
        company and its public statements in order to depress  
        the stock price of the company; and  

     -- the proposal would freeze out the purported class  
        members and capture the true value of the company for  
        Chelsey.   

Each of the plaintiffs seek class action certification,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission of the
transaction if the offer is consummated and unspecified damages.   

On Mar. 28, 2006 the Special Committee of the Board of
Directors, which had been appointed to review and evaluate the
proposal from Chelsey Direct to take the company private,
retained the investment banking firm of Houlihan Lokey Howard
and Zukin as its independent financial advisor to advise the  
Special Committee with respect to the fairness of the Chelsey
proposal.  The Special Committee directed company management to
provide Houlihan Lokey with full cooperation in all aspects of
its due diligence, a process, which commenced promptly after  
Houlihan Lokey was retained.

Hanover Direct, Inc. -- http://www.hanoverdirect.com-- offers a  
portfolio of home fashion and apparel catalogs and Internet Web
sites, including Domestications, The Company Store, Company
Kids, Silhouettes, International Male and Undergear.  The
company also manufactures Scandia Down branded comforters.


ICT GROUP: Distributes Cash Settlement of W.Va. Wage Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. distributed the settlement money for the class
action filed against it in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County,
West Virginia, alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

William Shingleton filed the suit in 1998, alleging that the
company and 12 current and former members of its management
violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act for
failure to pay promised signing and incentive bonuses and wage
increases, failure to compensate employees for short breaks or
"transition" periods, production hours worked and improper
deductions for the cost of purchasing telephone headsets.

On Mar. 1, 2005, the company announced a settlement with the
plaintiffs to this litigation.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the company agreed to pay $14.75 million to the
plaintiff class to settle all allegations relating to unpaid
wages, bonuses and other claims, as well as payments for
liquidated damages allowed by West Virginia law, plus interest.

On Jun. 27, 2005, the court approved the proposed settlement
agreement that was announced on Mar. 1, 2005.  In September
2005, the settlement was distributed to the class.  

Of the $14.75 million settlement payment that the company made,
$6.9 million was recovered from its insurance carriers during
2005.  

As of Dec. 31, 2005 and Mar. 31, 2006, there are no contingent
liabilities remaining associated with this litigation.


ICT GROUP: Settles Certain Ill., Calif. Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. has settled some of several class actions filed
against it and Time Warner, Inc. or America Online, alleging
violations of consumer protection laws.

The company is a co-defendant in 14 putative consumer class
actions filed in various state and federal courts during the
period from July 2003 to December 2004.

America Online is paying for the company's defense and agreed to
indemnify it against any costs or damages that it may incur as a
result of these lawsuits.  

All of these suits allege that America Online, a customer of the
company, violated consumer protection laws by charging members
for accounts they purportedly did not agree to create and that
America Online and the company violated consumer protection laws
in the handling of subscribers' calls seeking to cancel accounts
and obtain refunds of amounts paid for such accounts.

America Online contracted with the company to answer customer
service calls from America Online subscribers in accordance with
instructions provided by America Online.  

Nine of the lawsuits that were filed in, or removed to, federal
court were centralized in the Central District of California for
consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings pursuant to a
Feb. 27, 2005 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for St.
Clair County, Illinois.  The two remaining lawsuits, one of
which has been settled and dismissed with prejudice, as
described below, were filed in state courts.

On Apr. 5, 2005 America Online and the company signed a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel in the
Illinois Litigation on behalf of a putative national class of
all persons and entities who were charged or billed by or
through America Online or its agents, assigns, contracted
customer service providers, or other designees acting on behalf
of or through America Online, for services and/or goods without
their consent or authorization.

Consistent with America Online's agreement to indemnify the
company against any costs or damages that it may incur as a
result of these lawsuits, all settlement payments or services
under the settlement agreement will be paid or provided by
America Online.

On Apr. 7, 2005, the Circuit Court for St. Clair County,
Illinois certified the settlement class, which includes the
putative classes alleged in all of the cases discussed above,
and preliminarily approved the settlement.

In October 2005, the plaintiffs in the MDL Litigation agreed to
join the St. Clair County, Illinois settlement, and a revised
settlement agreement was signed on Oct. 21, 2005.  

A final approval order for the settlement was entered on Feb.
22, 2006 with all collateral proceedings concluded on Mar. 31,
2006.  Deadline to appeal was May 1, 2006.

In November 2005, a putative class action filed in California
Superior Court, Alameda County, was settled by agreement of the
parties, and the court subsequently issued a joint motion to
dismiss the matter with prejudice.

Consistent with America Online's agreement to indemnify the
company against any costs or damages that it may incur as a
result of these lawsuits, all costs and payments associated with
the settlement were paid by America Online.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Ind. ERISA Suit's Post-Trial Briefing Ends
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post-trial briefing for the purported class action filed against
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and its officers over alleged pension
laws violations ended on Apr. 20, 2006.

In April 2002, the company along with other defendants was named
in the class action.  On May 28, 2002, an amended complaint was
filed in the lawsuit.

The amended complaint asserts that the company and former
members of the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power &
Light Company thrift plan breached their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act by
investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of
IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by the company.

In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a
class action.  The court granted the motion for class
certification on Sept. 30, 2003.

On Oct. 31, 2003, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment on liability.  On Aug. 11, 2005, the court issued an
order denying the summary judgment motions, but striking one
defense asserted by defendants.

A trial addressing only the allegations of breach of fiduciary
duty began on Feb. 21, 2006 and concluded on Feb. 28, 2006.  
Post-trial briefing was completed on Apr. 20, 2006.

The suit is "Nelson, et al. v. Ipalco Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman, John R. Price,
Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594, E-mail:
steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com, nick@hagens-
berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Considers Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc. reports in its Securities and Exchange
Commission Form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended Mar.
31, 2006 that the consolidated securities class action filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California is now closed, after the deadline for plaintiffs
to appeal the affirmation of the dismissal of the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court expired.

During the quarter ended Mar. 31, 2002, a number of essentially
identical shareholder class actions were filed against the
company and certain of its officers and former officers
purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who purchased the
company's publicly traded securities between Apr. 12, 2001 and
Jun. 7, 2001.

In April 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate all of these actions.  In May 2002, the court
appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of
lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed in August
2002.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In March 2003, the court granted
defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May
2003.  

In March 2004, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss,
without leave to amend, and entered final judgment against
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs appealed.

In December 2005, after complete briefing and oral argument, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal and final judgment.  

The deadline for plaintiffs to appeal the Ninth Circuit's
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court expired recently.  The matter
is now closed.

The suit is "In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-00749,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.
Plaintiff firms named in complaint:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (San Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Phone:
         415.288.4545 and 800.449.4900, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: support@milberg.com.


KPMG LLP: Declares Knowledge of Payment Offer to Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
KPMG LLP lawyers in a class action over tax shelters filed
documents in court revealing that the lead plaintiff in the suit
was offered financial incentive to serve as lead plaintiff,
according to The New York Times.

Lawyers for KPMG -- whose $153 million proposed settlement with
investors over questionable tax shelters is brokered by Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP -- disclosed what it learned in a
letter to the judge.  The firm said it first knew of the
comments on May 23.

Milberg Weiss and two of its partners were recently indicted by
a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on charges that it paid
kickbacks to plaintiffs.

"This matter has absolutely nothing to do with the charges filed
against Milberg Weiss," said Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for
Melvyn Weiss, a co-founder of Milberg Weiss.

The lawyers for KPMG, Willkie Farr & Gallagher told the judge
that it was not expressing a view on the ultimate outcome of the
settlement, but that "in light of the Milberg Weiss indictment,"
it was alerting the court on what it had recently learned.

Milberg Weiss filed with the court a declaration by the lead
plaintiff Claude Gerald Harris.  Mr. Harris is one of dozen lead
plaintiffs in the proposed settlement with KPMG.

Mr. Harris said that "while these statements are largely true,
they are taken out of context."

In its letter, Willkie Farr said that it had no details about
the offer, including its size, who made it or whether it
confirmed any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Court Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh in
Newark, New Jersey said on Friday he will soon decide whether to
give final approval to the $154 million settlement.  He did not
indicate how or exactly when his ruling will come.

Case Background

The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which
helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to
be "abusive."  A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people,
including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG
tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown &
Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter
sales.

The settlement would compensation to former clients of KPMG and
Sidley Austin who participated in the tax shelters known as
Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former clients who
participated in a shelter called Short Option Strategy.

The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement
agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August.  Under
that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating
fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in
penalties.  However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face
criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms.

The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits
brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts
around the nation.  According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution
agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters
to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002.

The suit is "Simon et al.v. KPMG LLP et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
03189-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.  Representing
the plaintiffs are James E. Cecchi and Melissa E. Flax of
Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein, PC, 5
Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 994-1700,
Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com and
mflax@carellabyrne.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dennis J. Drasco of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC,
         103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone:
         (973) 403-9000, E-mail: ddrasco@lumlaw.com; and

     (2) Anthony J. Marchetta of Pitney Hardin, 200 Campus
         Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Phone: 973-966-8032,
         E-mail: amarchetta@pitneyhardin.com.


LOUISIANA: FEMA Defends Self in Texas Housing Aid Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) said in court
filings it is protected by a principle that blocks lawsuits
against government agencies in a response to a class action
filed against it over housing aid in Texas, KWTX.com reports.

FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for evacuated
families who were issued 12-month housing vouchers by local
governments.  An estimated 17,000 evacuated families are
affected.

Subsequently, a class action was filed against FEMA seeking to
stop the agency from withdrawing the housing support.  The suit
was filed on behalf of evacuees by Houston law firm Caddell &
Chapman in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  It alleges that FEMA failed to adjust its estimation of
fair-market rent or provide clear criteria for re-qualification,
whose renewal expires every three months.

In recent developments, FEMA has granted extensions to 11
jurisdictions in Texas that had been facing a May 31, 2006
cutoff in receiving the financial aid from the government.

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.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Calif. Sex Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. is defendant in a purported racial
discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court in
the Central District of California.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the
suit, alleging gender discrimination in connection with the
provision of service credit to a class of present and former
Lucent employees who were out of work because of maternity prior
to 1980.  The suit seeks the restoration of lost service credit
prior to Apr. 29, 1979, together with retroactive pension
payment adjustments, corrections of service records, back pay
and recovery of other damages and attorneys fees and costs.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lucent
Technologies, Case No. 2:04-cv-08168-RSWL-CT,"filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the EEOC are Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, Marcia L.
Mitchell, Jonathan T. Peck and William R. Tamayo of Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco District
Office, 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415-625-5658.

Representing the company are William J. Dritsas, Sarah N.
Chomiak, William J. Dritsas and Allegra R. Rich of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe St., Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
312-269-8259, 415-397-2823 and 312-269-8924.


MURPHY OIL: Wants to Share La. Oil Spill Blame with Army Corps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. indicated in court filings it hopes to
introduce evidence that a third party, the Army Corps of
Engineers, should be held partly responsible for a post-
Hurricane Katrina oil spill that is now subject of a class
action, the Dow Jones reports.

The Arkansas oil company argued that the flooding could not have
occurred had the New Orleans levee system held on.  It wants
that jurors to ultimately assign a percentage of liability to
the Army Corps, even though the agency isn't a formal party to
the litigation, legal experts said.  Such declaration could
lower Murphy's liability should it lose the case.

Judge Eldon Fallon said the court cannot yet make a conclusive
ruling without evidence in record, rejecting an initial effort
by plaintiffs attorneys to exclude the levee argument.  It is
understood the Army Corps has significant legal immunity.

The lawsuits stemmed from a leak at the company's site in Meraux
that dumped more than 25,000 barrels of crude oil into nearby
areas, including an estimated 18,000 homes, mostly in Chalmette,
Lousiana.  Under the class action, other people who sustained
damage caused by the oil spill may benefit from any settlement
or judgment against company, even if they are not listed as
parties in the 27 suits that were consolidated (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 10, 2006.)

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NETFLIX INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix Inc. entered into a settlement for the class action,
"Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-04-434884,"
pending in the California Superior Court for City and County of
San Francisco.

On Sept. 23, 2004, Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action against the
company.

The complaint asserts claims of, among other, false advertising,
unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract as well
as claims relating to the company's statements regarding DVD
delivery times.  

The company previously reported a tentative settlement.  On Mar.
8, 2006, the company entered into an amended settlement, which
received court approval on Apr. 28, 2006.

Under the terms of the amended settlement, Netflix subscribers
who were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005 and
were a member on Oct. 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a free
one-month upgrade in service level and Netflix subscribers who
were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005 and were
not a member on Oct. 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a free
one-month Netflix membership of either the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-
time unlimited program.

The company also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $2,528.  It estimates
the total cost of the settlement will be approximately $8,953
with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as
the number of former Netflix subscribers who will claim the
settlement benefit.

The suit is "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A Foreign Corp. et
al, Case No. CGC-04-434884."  Representing the plaintiffs are
Adam Gutride Law Offices of Adam Gutrride, 835 Douglass Street,
San Francisco, CA 94114, USA, Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth
Safire, 6467 California, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Phone:
(415) 876-4345.  

Representing the company is Keith Eggleton of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
USA, Phone: (650) 493-9300.

Fort more details, visit http://www.netflix.com/settlementor  
http://netflixsettlementsucks.com/.


OPPENHEIMERFUNDS: Brokers File Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Greenberg in conjunction with Mark Thierman, Blumenthal &
Markham and United Employees Law Group filed a class action
against OppenheimerFunds, claiming the brokerage firm is in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by classifying its
brokers as exempt from overtime.  The suit, Case No. 650100/06,
was filed in the Supreme Court, State of New York, New York
County.

Securities brokers allege that their pay is based on sales
commissions and that they are not guaranteed a salary, while the
brokerage house claims stock brokers are salaried employees
receiving a "guaranteed draw" each month.

"Stock and commodity brokers commonly work more than the
required 8 hours a day," says lawyer Walter Haines, "starting as
early as 6 a.m. and working well after 5 p.m., not to mention
weekends."

"Brokerage houses have long dodged their responsibilities to pay
their broker dealers for the grueling overtime hours they put
in," he added.  "It's time for them to pay up."

Other brokerage firms such as AG Edwards, Ameritrade, Amex
Securities, Bear Stearns, E-Trade, Goldman Sachs, Legg Mason,
Raymond James, and T-Rowe Price may be engaging in similar
behavior, a statement regarding the suit said.

For more information, call: 604-608-3435, or visit:
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/contact.html.


OREGON: 3 Men File Lawsuit Over Gresham Park Exclusion Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three homeless men filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court District of Oregon against the City of Gresham, alleging
the city's park exclusion ordinance is unconstitutional, the
Oregon.com reports.

On Feb. 7, the Gresham Police Department issued 90-day exclusion
notices to Jerome Andre, Lester Mayfield and David Miller for
unlawful camping after having been found sleeping in an area
known as "the swamp" about 120 feet from the Springwater Trail
in Gresham, Ed Johnson, an attorney with the Oregon Law Center
in Portland said.

According to Mr. Johnson, by kicking them out of all parks and
trails, the men were deprived of due process and of their First
Amendment rights to free speech and expression.

Because Gresham kicked the men out of the park and off the
trail, the men could not attend political rallies, free picnics,
car shows and other events.  By denying them access to the
Springwater Trail, the ordinance deprived them of easy travel
between Gresham and Portland, this according to Mr. Johnson.

The suit also alleges that the officers told the men that they
additionally were excluded from public libraries in Gresham,
which Johnson said is Multnomah County property.

In addition to getting the ordinance ruled unconstitutional, the
lawsuit seeks to have the exclusions removed from the men's
records and asks for compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as court costs and attorney fees.

The suit was filed on behalf of the three and "all others
similarly situated."

The suit is "Andre et al. v. City of Gresham, Case No. 3:06-cv-
00737-M", filed in the U.S. District Court District of Oregon
under Judge Michael W. Mosman.

Representing the plaintiffs are Edward Johnson and Spencer M.
Neal both of the Oregon Law Center State Support Unit, 921 S.W.
Washington Street, Suite 516, Portland, Oregon 97205, Phone:
(503) 473-8310 or (503)473-8325, Fax: (503) 295-0676, E-mail:
edjohnsonolc@yahoo.com and spencerneal@justice.com.


PIONEER COS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mercury Emission From La. Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Cos., Inc. is defendant in purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
over damages caused by mercury released from the company's St.
Gabriel chlor-alkali facility in 2004.

The suit was filed in October 2005 by 18 named plaintiffs in a
Louisiana state court under the caption, "Claude Frazier, et al.
v. Pioneer Americas, LLC and State of Louisiana through the
Department of Environmental Quality."  

Plaintiffs claim that they and a proposed class of approximately
500 people who live near the St. Gabriel facility were exposed
to mercury released from the facility for a two and one-half
month period as a result of the 2004 mercury vapor emissions
release.

The plaintiffs request compensatory damages for numerous medical
conditions that are alleged to have occurred or are likely to
occur as a result of the alleged mercury exposure.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the suit was removed to the U.S. District
Court in the Middle District of Louisiana, although the
plaintiffs have appealed this action.

The suit is "Frazier v. Pioneer Americas, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-01338-JJB-SCR,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with
referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Joseph Charles Possa of Tyler & Possa, APLC, 3225
Broussard, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225-343-8313, Fax: 344-
8353, E-mail: jpossa@tylerpossa.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bradley Charles Myers of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge,
         LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133,
         E-mail: brad.myers@keanmiller.com; and

     (2) William M. Hudson, III and Patrick Bayard McIntire of
         Oats & Hudson - Lafayette, 100 East Vermilion, Suite
         400, Lafayette, LA 70501, Phone: 337-233-1100, Fax:
         337-233-1178, E-mail: pmcintire@oatshudson.com.


RALPH LAUREN: Former Employees Allege Calif. Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Patrick R. Kitchin and Daniel Feder filed a
class action against Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. for alleged
violations of California labor and business laws.

The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court by four
former Polo employees, Ann Otsuka, Janis Keefe, Corrine Phipps
and Justin Kiser, who allege their former employer used fraud to
entice them to take their jobs and then subjected them to a
barrage of labor violations.

The former employees allege Polo promised them a reasonable
wage, rest breaks and humane treatment.  But, according to the
47-page complaint, Polo breached all of these promises.  The
four plaintiffs allege Polo required them to work many hours off
the clock without pay, failed to pay them overtime, failed to
permit them to take rest breaks, and kept them virtual prisoners
in locked stores after hours so they could be inspected for
stolen merchandise by managers.

According to the plaintiffs, Polo manipulated their payroll
records to record fewer hours than they had actually worked and
denied them premium overtime pay.  The pressure to sell was
intense, so Polo managers pressured employees to forgo rest
breaks so they spend more time making sales of Polo's high
priced fashions.

The four former employees seek unpaid wages, penalties and
punitive damages.  They will ask the court to certify the case
as a class action so they may pursue their claims on behalf of
all Polo employees in California.  They are also asking the
court to order Polo to stop engaging in the illegal employment
practices.

This is not the only employment class action pending against
Polo Ralph Lauren in California.

In 2002, a former San Francisco Polo employee brought a class
action against Polo for requiring employees to buy Polo clothes
to wear as a work uniform, an alleged violation of California
labor law.  Plaintiffs in that case, also represented by Patrick
Kitchin and Daniel Feder, have sought approval of a $1.5 million
settlement with Polo that, if approved by the United States
District Court in San Francisco on June 1, 2006, will result in
the payment of up to $3,000 in cash and full-value gift
certificates to long term Polo employees.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. is a publicly traded company, with net
revenues in 2005 of $3.3 billion.  Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation
designs, markets and sells apparel, home, accessories and
fragrances in over 270 retail stores, as well as department
stores worldwide.  In California, Polo operates 7 Ralph Lauren
stores and 17 Factory stores, and offers Polo products in 613
Department and Specialty stores.

For more information contact Patrick R. Kitchin, Law Office of
Patrick R. Kitchin, Phone: 415-677-9058, On the Net:
http://www.poloclassaction.com.


SALOMON SMITH: Calif. Supreme Court to Discuss Phone Taping Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court will deliberate on Jun. 1, 2006 on
the extent of Georgia's law regarding phone call recording in a
case filed by a California customer of Salomon Smith Barney
Inc., Associated Press reports.

The suit, which is seeking class action status, was filed after
Smith Barney played back portions of customer's phone
conversations with its brokers as defense in a suit over
investments.  Under California law, recording of telephone calls
requires the consent of both parties.  Investors claim the
secret recording is not only an invasion of privacy, but also an
unfair business practice.

But the brokers conversing with the California customer was in
Georgia, where it is allowed that only one party consent to the
taping.  

A California appeals court already said in 2004 that the
recordings did not constitute illegal invasion of privacy.

The plaintiffs' lawyer is Edward of Markun Zusman & Compton,
LLP, 465 California Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California
94104 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-438-4515, Fax: 415-434-
4505O.

The company's lawyer is Bill Alderman of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San
Francisco, California 94105 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-773-
5700, Fax: 415-773-5759.


SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL: Dialysis Patients File Negligence Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced against The Scarborough
Hospital on behalf of dialysis patients who may have been
infected with Hepatitis B and C.

On May 20, 2006, The Scarborough Hospital announced that there
was an outbreak of Hepatitis B and C among its dialysis
patients.

Approximately 400 people who received dialysis at The
Scarborough Hospital were notified by Toronto Public Health that
they are at risk for contracting Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.

The lawsuit alleges that The Scarborough Hospital, its staff and
employees were negligent because, among other things, it failed
to disinfect the equipment used in the dialysis unit, and it
failed to implement adequate infection control and safety
measures.

On May 23, 2006 Andrew Nosworthy of Scarborough, Ontario
commenced a lawsuit on behalf of all dialysis patients who
attended at The Scarborough Hospital for treatment.

Unfortunately, Mr. Nosworthy died on May 25, 2006.

The plaintiff is represented by Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C. of
Sutts, Strosberg LLP, a Windsor, Ontario law firm and Glyn Hotz
of Hotz Lawyers, a Toronto, Ontario law firm.  Both law firms
specialize in class actions.

For more information, visit http://www.hepatitisclassaction.com
or contact: Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., of Sutts, Strosberg LLP,
Phone: (519) 561-6296, Fax: (519) 561-6203, Website:
www.strosbergco.com; or Glyn Hotz, of Hotz Lawyers, Phone: (416)
590-7823, Fax: (416) 785-7904, Website:
http://www.hotzlawyers.com.


SPARK NETWORKS: Trial Extended for Business Law Breach Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The date of the bifurcated trial in the class action against
Spark Networks, PLC was continued to Jun. 12, 2006 and the time
for filing briefs and completing discovery has been extended.

On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action
complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code
section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating
service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged
dating service, the company is required to provide language in
contracts that allows:

      -- members to rescind their contracts within three days;

      -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the
         member dies during the term of the contract and/or; and
     
      -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of
         disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and/or
federal laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff is
seeking remedies including declaratory relief, restitution,
actual damages although not quantified, treble damages and/or
punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The case seeks to certify a nationwide class action based on
their complaints.  Because it is a class action, it was assigned
to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program.

A mediation occurred in Adelman in 2004 that did not result in a
settlement.  A post-mediation status conference was held on Jul.
16, 2004.  At that status conference, the court suggested that
the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue.  

The purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to
determine whether as a matter of law the California Dating
Services Act applies to the company.  

In this way, if the Court determines that the CDS Act is
inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and
class certification can be avoided.

The court has permitted limited discovery including document
requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted
to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the
parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the
court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of
the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial
has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed.  A
second mediation occurred in Adelman on Feb. 10, 2006.  

The mediation resumed on Feb.  23, 2006, but did not result in a
settlement.  The date of the bifurcated trial has been continued
to Jun. 12, 2006 and the time for filing briefs and completing
discovery has been extended.


STAR GAS: Awaits Conn. Court Decision in Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. is still awaiting the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut's decision to its motion
to dismiss a consolidated amended securities class action filed
against it.

The suit also names as defendants certain of the company's
subsidiaries and officers and directors.  Initially several
lawsuits were filed, each styled:

      -- "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
         01766-IBA, et al.,"

      -- "Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832,"
         (filed on 10/29/2004),

      -- "Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1791,"(filed on 10/22/2004),

      -- "Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1855,"(filed on 11/3/2004),

      -- "McCole, et al. v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.
         04-1859,"(filed on 11/3/2004),

      -- "Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785,"
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

      -- "Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803,"
         (filed on 10/25/3004),

      -- "Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815,"
         (filed on 10/27/2004),

      -- "Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star
         Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857,"(filed on
         11/3/2004),

      -- "Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807,"
         (filed on 10/26/2004),

      -- "White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837,"
         (filed on 10/9/2004),

      -- "Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856,"
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

      -- "Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865,"
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

      -- "Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884,"
         (filed on 11/9/2004),

      -- "Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1873,"(filed on 11/5/2004),

      -- "Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979,"
         (filed 11/22/04),

      -- "Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133,"
         (filed on 12/17/2004)

The action plaintiffs generally allege that the Partnership
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly failing to
disclose, among other things:

      -- problems with the restructuring of the company's
         dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto;

      -- that the company's heating oil division's business
         process improvement program was not generating the
         benefits allegedly claimed;

      -- that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit
         margins in its heating oil division;

      -- that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were
         not representative of its ability to pass on heating
         oil price increases; and

      -- that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts
         and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to
         obtain future financing was in jeopardy.

The class action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest against the defendants
jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses.

On Feb. 23, 2005, the court consolidated the class action
complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of
lead plaintiff.  On Apr. 8, 2005, the court appointed the lead
plaintiff.  Pursuant to the court's order, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on Jun. 20, 2005.  The
consolidated amended complaint named as defendant:

      -- Star Gas Partners, L.P.;

      -- Star Gas LLC;

      -- Irik Sevin;

      -- Audrey L. Sevin;

      -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.;

      -- Paul Biddelman;

      -- Ami Trauber;

      -- A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.;

      -- UBS Investment Bank; and

      -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.

The consolidated amended complaint added claims arising out of
two registration statements, the same transactions under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
defendants had until Aug. 19, 2005 to file an answer.

On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  

Plaintiffs filed their response to defendants' motions to
dismiss on or about Nov. 23, 2005 and defendants filed their
reply briefs on Dec. 20, 2005.  The motion is now pending
decision by the court.  In the interim, discovery in the matter
remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the
PSLRA.  

The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.    
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Jonathan F. Andres of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.,
         7733 Forsyth, Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone:
         314-862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail:
         andres@stlouislaw.com;

     (2) David L. Belt of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz,
         P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New Haven, CT
         06503-0606, Phone: 203-772-3100, Fax: 203-772-1691, E-
         mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com;

     (3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (4) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP,
         100 Park Ave., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-907-0869, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
         jbernstein@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Terence J. Gallagher, III of Day, Berry & Howard, One
         Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
         977-7300, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
         tjgallagher@dbh.com; and

    (ii) Elizabeth K. Andrews of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn - NH,
         205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936, New Haven, CT 06509-
         1910, Phone: 203-784-8200, Fax: 203-777-1181, E-mail:
         eandrews@tylercooper.com.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Stock Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action against Tripath Technology, Inc.

Beginning on Nov. 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed four separate
complaints purporting to be class actions alleging that the
company and certain of the company's present or former officers
and/or directors, Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, David Eichler and Graham
Wright, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs purported to represent a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Tripath
securities between Jan. 29, 2004 and Oct. 22, 2004.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
company and the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to financial results and with
respect to the company's business, prospects and operations in
the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, press releases and other disclosures.  

It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees, costs and such other relief as may be
awarded by the Court.

On Dec. 22, 2004, the court entered a stipulation and order
consolidating all of these complaints and ordering that the
defendants need not respond to any of these complaints until
after plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint.

On Jan. 4, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for the appointment of
lead plaintiff.  The court, by order dated Jan. 28, 2005,
appointed Robert Poteet as the sole lead plaintiff and approved
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as lead counsel.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the company entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the court on Jul. 12,
2005.  The settlement class consists of all persons who
purchased the securities of the company between Jan. 29, 2004
and Jun. 13, 2005, inclusive.

Under the terms of the stipulation, the parties agreed that the
issuance of 2.45 million shares of Tripath common stock, which
shall be exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10)
of the Securities Act, and a payment of $200,000 in cash would
dismiss the class action.  

The stipulation remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including without limitation final approval of the
Stipulation by the court, including a finding that the 2.45
million shares of Tripath common stock to be issued are exempt
from registration.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the court entered a Preliminary Order for
Notice and Hearing in Connection with Settlement Proceedings.

Following an Apr. 11, 2006 hearing, the court entered an order
and final judgment on Apr. 18, 2006, which finally approved the
settlement, awarded attorneys' fees and authorized the
reimbursement of expenses and entered judgment dismissing all of
the complaints on the merits and with prejudice in favor of the
defendants.  Approximately $1.8 million has been accrued for
this matter.

The suit is "In re: Tripath Technology Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C 04 4681 SBA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite
2750, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-
6710, Email: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.   

Representing the defendant is Gilbert R. Serota, Howard Rice
Nemerovski Canady Falk, Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor, San
Franciso, CA 94111-4065, Phone: 415-434-1600, Fax: 415-217-5910,
E-mail: gserota@hrice.com.


VALERO ENERGY: Seeks New Trial for Blue Island Refinery Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. filed motions for a new trial, remittitur
and judgment notwithstanding the Nov. 21, 2005 verdict in the
ten-year-old class action, "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining
Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703,"which was filed
in the Judicial Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois.

The company assumed this class action in the Premcor Inc.
Acquisition.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the company completed its merger
with Premcor.

The suit, filed Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to
the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of heavy
metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery on
Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary evacuation
of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes:

      -- persons purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994
         catalyst release, but with no permanent health effects;

      -- persons with medical expenses for dependents
         purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994 release;
         and  

      -- local residents claiming property damage or who have
         suffered loss of use and enjoyment of their property
         over a period of several years.

Following three weeks of trial, on Nov. 21, 2005, the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiffs of $80.1 million in
compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages.

In January 2006, the company filed motions for new trial,
remittitur and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing,
among other things, rampant misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel
and improper class certification.


VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento law firm Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff is the lead
counsel in a class action that accuses VeriSign Inc. of false
and misleading advertisement of its Internet-security software.

The suit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court in
February 2005 by Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP.  It
alleges that VeriSign sells two versions of its software at
different prices when there is no practical difference between
them.

It alleges unfair competition and seeks restitution for the
people or businesses that have purchased the software since
January 2001.  The softwares are Secure Sit Pro, which sells for
$895, and Secure Site, which sells for just $349.

The lawsuit is potentially worth more than $200 million,
according to MSNBC.  

Kevin Murphy, a California Superior Court judge, recently
allowed the suit to go ahead, saying the plaintiffs' allegations
that the firm engaged in false and misleading advertising about
Secure Site Pro merit legal proceedings (Class Action Reporter,
May 23, 2006).

Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff on the Net: http://www.kcrlegal.com/.


VERIZON MARYLAND: Court Okays $26M Settlement in Late Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 2 million Verizon Maryland Inc. customers will receive an
average credit of $7 million on their local telephone bills
under a final settlement of a class action over late fees, the
Baltimore Sun.com reports.

A circuit court granted final approval to a $26 million
settlement in March, ending a suit filed against the former Bell
Atlantic-Maryland in 1999.  Under the settlement, consumers will
receive $16.8 million, class action attorneys will get $6.1
million, while lawyers for the dissenting class action group
will receive $3.1 million.

The suit alleged the phone company's late fees exceeded the
state's legal limit of 6 percent a year then.  

The settlement provides for Verizon Maryland to grant phone
credit because it could not provide a breakdown of customers who
paid late fees during the period covered by the suit, according
to Kieron F. Quinn, who represents 10 plaintiffs opposed to the
settlement.

Eligible claimants include former and current customers who paid
late fees between 1996 and 2000.  Former customers who submitted
a claim will also receive a payment, according to the report.  
The company is entitled to keep any unclaimed settlement by
customers.  Verizon continues to deny wrongdoing.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Del. Over "Class C" Stock Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. faces a purported class action in
the Delaware Court of Chancery over its plan to create a new
"Class C" common stock.

On Apr. 11, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company and the members of its board of directors.  The
plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the annual meeting, to
invalidate the authorization of the "Class C" common stock and
the charter amendment, and to enjoin any issuance of "Class C"
shares.  

The court declined to hold a hearing on the plaintiff's request
for a preliminary injunction.  Instead, the court will hold a
trial on the plaintiff's claims in June 2006, after the annual
meeting is held.  

The company agreed not to implement the authorization of the
"Class C" stock or the charter amendment, if approved, prior to
the court's decision.

On May 1, 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
repeats most of the same claims.

Each share of "Class C" common stock would generally have terms
identical to a share of company's currently traded common stock
(which would be renamed Class A common stock), except with
respect to voting power.  Each share of Class C common stock
would have voting power equal to one-tenth of a vote when voting
together with other classes of stock on matters presented to
shareholders.  

The creation and issuance of "Class C" common stock requires
amendment to the company's Certificate of Incorporation.  The
company is seeking authorization of the "Class C" common stock
and does not have any current plans to issue the shares of
"Class C" stock.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 30, 2006
INFLUENCING DAMAGE AWARDS
Bridgeport CE
Westin Bonaventure Hotel, LA
Contact: 818-783-7156

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

June 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

June 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

June 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ESCALA GROUP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) between
Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006, inclusive.  The Complaint
alleges violations of both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that the company's business model was based on a fraud;

      -- specifically, that Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A.
         (Afinsa), Escala's majority shareholder, was
         overvaluing its stamp inventory in order to attract
         investors and paying its investors with money from
         newly arrived investors rather than generated revenue;

      -- that Afinsa's revenue was generated through fraudulent
         activities;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading.

On May 9, 2006, while the market was open, Escala announced that
Spanish judicial authorities, as part of what appeared to be an
investigation into the company's stamps-collectibles sector,
collected documents from Afinsa, Escala's majority shareholder.

In what the company believed was an extension of this process,
Spanish authorities also collected documents at Escala offices
in Madrid, during which time normal operations at these
locations were suspended.

The company also reported that it had been advised that certain
members of the board of directors of Afinsa, including Carlos de
Figueiredo, an Afinsa representative on Escala's board, were
being questioned.

Also on May 9, 2006, before the market closed, Spanish police
announced that they had arrested nine people in an anti-fraud
swoop.  Spanish police stated that the people under
investigation were suspected of pocketing a "substantial" amount
of the money that investors put into guaranteed-return funds run
by Forum Filatelico and Afinsa.

On this news, shares of Escala plummeted $19.77, or 61.78
percent, to close, on May 9, 2006, at $12.23 per share, on heavy
trading volume. Shares of Escala sank an additional $5.68, or
46.44 percent, the next day, to close, on May 10, 2006, at $6.55
per share, on heavy trading volume.

On May 11, 2006, Spanish authorities charged 11 people for their
involvement in the pyramid scheme, including 5 Afinsa
executives. On this news, shares of Escala dropped $2.21, or
33.74 percent, to close, on May 11, 2006, at $4.34 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may no later than Jul. 10, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff.

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.


XM SATELLITE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (XMSR) between
Jan. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of XM Radio securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
period, defendants recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose
to the public that XM Radio's huge expenditures in the fourth
quarter of 2005, defendants failed to disclose to the market
that XM Radio's cost of subscriber acquisition would rise to
extraordinary levels, leading to huge increases in XM's net
losses, which was in complete reversal of the trends of
declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses defendants
were reporting throughout the Class period.

On Feb. 16, 2006, XM Radio announced the company's fourth
quarter 2005 and year-end 2005 results, which disclosed the
truth about the skyrocketing level of XM Radio's subscriber
acquisition costs in the fourth quarter of 2005.  The market
reacted negatively to this news and on Feb. 17, 2006, XM Radio's
shares fell 13 percent to close at $21.96.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired XM Radio securities during the
Class period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired XM Radio
securities during the Class period, and either lost money on the
transaction or still hold the securities, you may wish to join
in the action to serve as lead plaintiff.

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

For more details, Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan Lee of Abbey
Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East, 39th Street, New
York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701
or E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *