CAR_Public/060601.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 108

                            Headlines

ALLIANZ LIFE: Minn. Court Grants Class Status to Consumer Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Suit in N.Y. Court Over Sales Incentives
ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Stock Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
AT&T CORP: Evidences in Wiretapping Lawsuit Revealed in Court
AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit

AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Okays Motion to Dismiss "Edgar" ERISA Suit
AVAYA INC: Named as Defendant in N.J. ERISA Violations Suit
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.J.
BOOKHAM INC: Final Approval for N.Y. Securities Suit Deal Mulled
CAREMARK RX: Transfer to E.D Pa. Sought for PBM Antitrust Cases

CERIDIAN CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit in Minn. Continues
CINCINNATI GAS: Certification Sought for Ohio Air Pollution Suit
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Province Gets Unlimited Time to File Defense
EV3 INC.: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Amended Complaint Filed in D.C. Stock Lawsuit

FLORIDA: Code Crackdown Suit Refiled in Broward Circuit Court
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: N.Y. Stock Suit Deal Awaits Final Approval
HAWAII: Supreme Court Hears Homeland Beneficiaries Lawsuit
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: June Trial Set for Spartanburg Suit Deal
INDIANA: No Hearing for Sexual Offenders' Visitation Rights Suit

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Court to Hear Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
MARTHA STEWART: Discovery Continues in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Eastpointe Police Settles Racial Profiling Lawsuit
MRS. GERRY'S: Recalls Salads on Risk of Bacterial Contamination
MURPHY OIL: La. Parish Council Opts Out of Suit Over Oil Spill

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Dismissal of Tex. Securities Suit Appealed
RTM OPERATING: June Hearing Set for Fla. ADA Lawsuit Settlement
SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face Borrowers' Lawsuit in Ohio
SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Suit in Ill.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Town Objects to Terms of $1.7B Settlement

SOUTH DAKOTA: ACLU Moves to Bar HEA Provision on Drug Charges
SWISHER INT'L: Completes HB Merger After Settling Del. Lawsuit
TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: Tex. Court Defers Arguments on "Lewis"
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Disclosure in 9/11 Detention Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Lighted Mirror Posing Shock Hazard

YAMAHA ELECTRONICS: Recalls Speakers with Faulty Mounting Clamps
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Working to Settle Paradyne IPO Suit in N.Y.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN TOWER: Lovell Stewart Files Securities Suit in Mass.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: June Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
NEWPARK RESOURCES: June Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
NEWPARK RESOURCES: June Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing


                            *********


ALLIANZ LIFE: Minn. Court Grants Class Status to Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District
granted class action status to the suit, "Castello, et al. v.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and LifeUSA
Insurance Company, Civil Action No. MC 03-20405."

Filed on Dec. 22, 2003, the class action was brought on behalf
of persons who purchased an Accumulator Cash Bonus Annuity or a
Cash Bonus Elite Annuity issued by Allianz Life Insurance
Company of North America or LifeUSA Insurance Company.  

Specifically excluded from the class are:

      -- the defendants;

      -- officers, directors or employees of any defendant;

      -- any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
         interest;

      -- the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys or
         assigns of any defendant;

      -- any federal, state or local government entity;

      -- any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over
         this matter and the staff and immediate family of any
         such judge, justice or judicial officer; and

      -- persons who own Cash Bonus Annuities only through ERISA
         plans.

Defendants records identify the plaintiffs as a policy owner of
a Cash Bonus Annuity or as the beneficiary of a Cash Bonus
Annuity where the policy owner or annuitant is deceased.

The named plaintiffs and class representatives are Ann Castello,
Helen M. Desmet, Regina M. Eicker, Vivian D. Wilber, Arthur L.
Roland, in his individual capacity and as representative of the
estate of Barbara F. Matthews-Roland, Jugurtha W. Glenn IV, in
his capacity as representative of the estate of John K. Miller
and as Trustee on behalf of the Miller Family Trust, and Irene
M. Rovinski.  

Plaintiffs have asserted claims against Allianz Life and LifeUSA
alleging that they violated Minnesota consumer protection
statutes by promising that the Cash Bonus Annuities would pay a
cash bonus, but never paying the promised cash bonus.  They also
allege that defendants' practices were wrongful because they
were directed toward senior citizens.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re Allianz Cash Bonus Annuity Litigation, c/o
         Analytics Incorporated, P.O. Box 2005, Chanhassen, MN
         55317-2005, Phone: 1-866-308-7609, Web site:
         http://www.allianzcashbonusannuitylitigation.com;

     (2) Charles N. Freiberg, Judith Z. Gold and Gordon W.
         Renneisen of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 Bush Street, Suite
         900, San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone: 415-772-6000,
         Fax: 415-772-6268, Web site:
         http://www.hellerehrman.com;and   

     (3) Richard A. Lockridge and Robert K. Shelquist of
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington
         Avenue, South Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone:
         612-339-6900, E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com and
         rkshelquist@locklaw.com.


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Suit in N.Y. Court Over Sales Incentives
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania law firm filed two complaints relating to
incentives that the American International Group Inc. provides
its financial advisors for marketing a limited number of shelf-
space funds, BestWire reports.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based law firm Schiffrin & Barroway filed
the complaints accusing the companies of steering clients to the
investment by providing extra payments to sales personnel for
such transactions.  The firm also said American International
failed to disclose the awards.  

Schiffrin & Barroway said the sales practices created
significant conflict of interests.  Sales of the shelf-space
funds increased defendants' overall profits, but diminished
investors' returns.

The suits seek class action status.  They were filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased WM and Scudder funds between Jun. 30,
2000 and Jun. 8, 2005 through one of six AIG subsidiaries:

     -- Royal Alliance Associates Inc.,
     -- SunAmerica Securities Inc.,
     -- FSC Securities Corp.,
     -- Sentra Securities Corp.,
     -- and Spelman & Co.,
     -- Advantage Capital Corp.

In June, the subsidiaries were among 15 companies fined a total
of $34 million by the National Association of Securities Dealers
for violating the Anti-Reciprocal Rule.  The rule prohibits
companies from favoring particular mutual funds in exchange for
brokerage commissions.  

American International was fined more than $1.1 million in
connection with the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange
for preferential treatment for certain mutual fund companies
(Class Action Reporter, May 3, 2006).


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Stock Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities class action against AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., according to the company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 4, 2001, a securities class action case was filed
against the company, certain of its current officers and
directors and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering (IPO).

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, as "Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc., et
al."

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the underwriters
of the company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the company's common stock in the
aftermarket as conditions to their purchasing shares in the
company's IPO.

The lawsuit further claimed that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.

For purposes of case management, the court consolidated this
case with lawsuits brought against approximately 300 other
companies, all alleging similar practices by the underwriters of
the companies' IPOs.

In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.

In addition, all participating issuer defendants will be
required to assign to the class members certain claims that the
company may have against the underwriters.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to give its
preliminary approval to the form of the documents, including the
notice of the settlement to be sent to class members.

On Sept. 1, 2005, after considering the underwriter defendants'
objections, the court issued an order preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement with the issuers in all respects.

The suit is "In re AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10901," related
to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21
MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stanley D Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         bernstein@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street,
         5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230,
         Fax: (212) 490-2022;

     (3) Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr. of Wolf, Haldenstein,
         Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New
         York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail:
         isquith@whafh.com; and

     (4) Saul Roffe of Sirota & Sirota, L.L.P., 110 Wall Street,
         New York, NY 10005, Phone: (212) 425-9055.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


AT&T CORP: Evidences in Wiretapping Lawsuit Revealed in Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Redacted portions of formerly sealed documents supporting
allegations that AT&T Corp. engaged in illegal surveillance of
the American people's communications were released on May 25,
according to Wired News.

The papers included a declaration written by Mark Klein, a
former AT&T technician.  It also included several snapshots of
an alleged secret switching center of AT&T in San Francisco.  
Mr. Klein provided the sworn affidavit and three other documents
to Electronic Frontier Foundation to support it in a class
action against the company.  

These evidences, along with a motion asking for a preliminary
injunction against the alleged spying, were originally filed by
EFF under seal with the court.  The newly released documents
also revealed the existence of a former employee who was cleared
by the NSA to work in the room.  The employee was later laid off
as part of a downsizing, the report said.  

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

AT&T wanted only attorneys and not the public in the courtroom
to protect trade secrets.  But Judge Walker said that "carefully
dealing with questions about trade secrets in an open courtroom  
'is not unprecedented,'" the CNET News.com reports (Class Action
Reporter, May 19, 2006).

The judge also ruled that a set of internal AT&T documents
supporting Electronic Frontier Foundation's allegations in the
suit filed in January may be used in the case.  He instructed
the company to work with EFF on redacting portions of the sealed
documents so that part of it can be publicly disclosed.  

The evidence appears to describe a secret room established in
AT&T's main switching centers through which Internet and voice
traffic flows, giving NSA full access to the company's networks,
according to the report.

A redacted brief filed in its defense by AT&T on May 25, as well
as a brief filed by the federal government constitutes the
company's support to an argument that the case should be
dismissed to protect sensitive information for security reasons.

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

To view Mr. Klein's affidavit, visit:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a3d

To view EFF's preliminary injunction, visit:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a3e

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

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

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

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

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


AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on Avaya, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action against the company and certain of its
officers.

In April and May of 2005, purported class actions were filed,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The actions
purport to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Oct. 5, 2004 to Apr. 19, 2005.  On Oct. 5,
2004, Avaya signed an agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany GmbH.

The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the company relating to the cost of the Tenovis integration,
the disruption caused by changes in the delivery of the
company's products to the market and reductions in the demand
for the company products in the U.S., and that based on the
foregoing the company  had no basis to project the company's
stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.

The company has been served with a number of these complaints.
No class has been certified in the actions.  The complaints seek
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.  

In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in October 2005.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order issue by the district court, defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in December 2005.

The suit is "Charatz v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
02319-MLC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper with referral
to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Andrew Robert Jacobs of Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com; and

     (3) James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
         LLC, 475 White Horse Pike, Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909,
         Phone: (856) 858-1770, Fax: (856) 858-7012, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com.

Representing the defendants are Robert T. Egan and Joseph A.
Martin of Archer & Greiner, PC, One Centennial Square,
Haddonffield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 795-2121, E-mail:
regan@archerlaw.com and jmartin@archerlaw.com.


AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Okays Motion to Dismiss "Edgar" ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
the amended complaint in the class action, "Edgar v. Avaya,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-03598-SRC-JJH," which was filed
against Avaya, Inc. and certain of its officers, employees and
members of the board of directors.

On July 2005, a purported class action was filed against the
company that alleges violations of certain laws under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  

On Oct. 17, 2005, an amended purported class action was filed
against the company and certain of its officers, employees and
members of the board.

Like the initial complaint, the amended complain purports to be
filed on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the
Avaya Inc. Savings Plan, the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for
Salaried Employees and the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for the
Variable Workforce (the Plans) from Oct. 5, 2004 to Jul. 20,
2005.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to participants
and beneficiaries of the Plans and failed to act in the
interests of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries in
offering Avaya common stock as an investment option, purchasing
Avaya common stock for the Plans and communicating information
to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries.  No class has been
certified in the action.  

The complaint seeks a monetary payment to the plans to make them
whole for the alleged breaches, costs and attorneys' fees.  
Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the district court,
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in December 2005.

In an order and opinion dated Apr. 24, 2006, the district court
judge granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety.

The suit is "Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
03598-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.  

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

Representing the defendants is Joseph A. Martin of Archer &
Greiner, PC, One Centennial Square, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
Phone: (856) 795-2121, E-mail: jmartin@archerlaw.com.


AVAYA INC: Named as Defendant in N.J. ERISA Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc., certain employees and the Pension and Employee
Benefits Investment Committee face a purported class action
pending in the U.S. District Court, District Court of New
Jersey, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

In April 2006, a purported class action was filed, alleging that
defendants violated ERISA by including in:

     --  the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for Salaried Employees,

     -- the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan, and

     -- the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for the Variable Workforce
        (Plans)

investment options for the Lucent Technologies Inc. Stock Fund
and the Avaya Inc. Stock Fund for the period of October 2000 to
April 2003.

The complaint asserts, among other things:

      -- that during the alleged class period defendants
         breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
         violating ERISA's provisions against prohibited
         transactions;

      -- offering the Lucent Fund and Avaya Fund imprudently as
         investment options;

      -- failing properly to monitor the funds; and,

      -- failing properly to monitor the actions of other plan
         fiduciaries, thus causing the Plans to suffer damages.

The complaint seeks monetary relief on behalf of the Plans and
its participants, and also seeks injunctive relief and costs,
including attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Ward v. Avaya, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01721-
MLC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper with referral to Judge
Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs is Adam T. Savett of Mehri & Skalet,
1300 19th Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
202-822-4600, E-mail: asavett@findjustice.com.


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In October 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc.
between Apr. 29, 2004 and Jun. 29, 2005.

At least four additional putative class actions were also filed
against the company and certain of its officers, all pleading
essentially the same allegations.

In an order entered on Dec. 19, 2005, the court consolidated
these cases.  By order dated Mar. 2, 2006, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs and approved co-lead counsel.

The complaints filed allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The suit is "Midtown Partners, Inc. v. Barrier Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-04926-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 236 Tillou
         Road, South Orange, NJ 07079, Phone: (973) 313-1887, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and

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

Representing the defendants is Robert Alan White of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08540,
Phone: (609) 919-6600, E-mail: rwhite@morganlewis.com.


BOOKHAM INC: Final Approval for N.Y. Securities Suit Deal Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to finally approve the proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities class action against two subsidiaries of
Bookham, Inc., according to the company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

On Jun. 26, 2001, a putative securities class action, "Lanter v.
New Focus, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5822," was filed
against, and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Also named, as defendants were Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
Chase Securities, Inc., U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and
CIBC World Markets Corp. (Underwriter Defendants), the
underwriters in New Focus' initial public offering.  

Three subsequent lawsuits were filed containing substantially
similar allegations.  These complaints have been consolidated.

On Apr. 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, described below, naming as defendants the individual
defendants and the Underwriter Defendants.

On Nov. 7, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Bookham Technology plc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bookham,
Inc., and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On Apr. 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint names as defendants Bookham Technology
plc, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,
Inc., two of the underwriters of Bookham Technology plc's
initial public offering in April 2000, and Andrew G. Rickman,
Stephen J. Cockrell and David Simpson, each of whom was an
officer and/or director at the time of the initial public
offering.

The amended complaint asserts claims under certain provisions of
the securities laws of the U.S.  It alleges, among other things,
that the prospectuses for Bookham Technology plc's and New
Focus's initial public offerings were materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters in connection with the offerings, and in not
disclosing certain alleged arrangements among the underwriters
and initial purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of
Bookham Technology plc, or common stock, in the case of New
Focus, from the underwriters.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees, interest and other expenses.  In
the alternative, it asks rescission for those class members who
no longer hold ordinary shares, in the case of Bookham
Technology plc or common stock, in the case of New Focus.

In July 2002, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion was denied as to Bookham
Technology plc and New Focus in February 2003.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action.  

Special committees of the board of directors authorized the
companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company.  

Under the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the related
cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of
certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion and order
preliminarily approving the settlement provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.

The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the scope of
the bar order, and on Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public
hearing on its fairness on Apr. 24, 2006.  The judge has yet to
enter a decision on this hearing.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


CAREMARK RX: Transfer to E.D Pa. Sought for PBM Antitrust Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc. said that plaintiffs in a putative class
action led by Brady Enterprises, Inc. filed a motion under a
Pharmacy Benefit Manager antitrust suit seeking to have similar
cases filed against the company transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs in the class action brought by:

     -- Brady Enterprises, Inc.,

     -- Charlotte J. Lopacki, d/b/a Budget Drug,

     -- Heritage Pharmacy,

     -- the Pharmacy Freedom Fund, and

     -- the National Community Pharmacists Association

against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, seeking to have a number of cases in
other courts brought by other plaintiffs and against different
defendants transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The two cases against Caremark RX Inc.that are subject to the
motion are:

      -- "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;
         and

     -- "Bellevue Drug Co., et al. v. Advance PCS, et al., Case
         No. 2:03-cv-04731-ER,"filed in the U.S District Court
         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


CERIDIAN CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit in Minn. Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceridian Corp. continues to face a consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for District of Minnesota,
according to company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Mar. 31, 2006.

Since Aug. 6, 2004, six shareholder lawsuits were filed against
the company and certain executive officers.  These suits were
consolidated into a single case as, "In re Ceridian Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-03704 MJD-JGL."

This consolidated suit purports to be a class action filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of the company between Apr. 17, 2003 and Mar. 17, 2005,
inclusive.  It alleges claims against the company and certain of
its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures
made by Ceridian regarding its financial performance, and in
particular Ceridian's accounting for revenue and expenses,
accounting for capitalization, accounting for derivatives,
accounting for long-term leases, and accounting for trademarks.
Plaintiffs allege, in essence, that the company's series of
restatements constituted a violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit is "In Re: Ceridian Corp Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:97-cv-02044-MJD-JGL," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Minnesota under Judge Michael J. Davis.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A., 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower,
         222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55402, Phone:
         612.339.730;

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

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
         CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534;

     (4) 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

     (5) Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C., Philadelphia, PA,
         Phone: 800.993.3233, E-mail: sfprpc@op.net.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Craig W. Gagnon, Michael E. Keyes, Oppenheimer Wolff &
         Donnelly LLP, 3300 Plz VII Bldg, 45 S 7th St Ste 3300,
         Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 607-7000, Fax: 612-607-
         7100, E-mail: cgagnon@oppenheimer.com or
         mkeyes@oppenheimer.com;

    (ii) Gregory Paul Joseph, Joseph Law Office, 805 3rd Ave
         31st Fl, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-407-1200, Fax:
         1-212-407-1280 (fax), E-mail: gjoseph@josephnyc.com;

   (iii) Amy J. Longo, O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dt
         17th Fl, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-760-9600,
         Fax: 1-949-823-6994; and

    (iv) Ann Curme Shaw, Ceridian Corp, 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd
         Mpls, MN 55425, Phone: 952-853-4210, Fax: 952-853-3413,
         E-mail: ann.c.shaw@ceridian.com.


CINCINNATI GAS: Certification Sought for Ohio Air Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' request for class certification of a
lawsuit filed against Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., alleging
violations of the Clean Air Act.

In November 2004, a citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the
town adjacent to the company's Zimmer Station filed the suit,
which seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against the
company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the Ohio
State Implementation Plan, and Ohio laws against nuisance and
common law nuisance.

Plaintiffs have filed a number of additional notices of intent
to sue and two lawsuits raising claims similar to those in the
original claim.  One lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds
and the remaining two have been consolidated.  They recently
filed a motion for class certification, which is fully briefed
and is awaiting ruling.  

The suit is "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric company, case
no. 1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Susan J. Dlott.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Paul Alley and John Charles
Greiner of Graydon Head & Ritchey - 1, 2500 Chamber Center
Drive, PO Box 17070, Suite 300, Ft Mitchell, KY 41017, Phone:
859-282-8800, E-mail: palley@graydon.com, and
jgreiner@graydon.com.

Representing the company are Louis Francis Gilligan, Keating
Muething & Klekamp - 1, One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6523, E-
mail: lgilligan@kmklaw.com; and Ariane Johnson, Cinergy
Services, Inc., 1000 East Main Street, Plainfield, IN 46168.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Province Gets Unlimited Time to File Defense
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's New Democratic Party government requested and received
an extension to answer a suit filed against it by a group of
Crocus Investment Fund shareholders, according to The Winnipeg
Sun.  The party got an undetermined amount of time to respond to
the suit after requesting an extension to a May 29 deadline.

Earlier, plaintiffs in the suit added the province of Manitoba
in Canada as defendant in a $150 million class action against
the company, the CBC News reports (Class Action Reporter, May
10, 2006).  

The suit alleges, among others, that the province "did not
properly enforce the Crocus Act," and that provincial officials
"deliberately ignored multiple warning signs regarding the
management of the Crocus Fund."  Crocus Investment stopped
trading in December 2004 amid allegations of over-inflated share
value.

Shareholders in the fund initially filed a $200 million lawsuit
against the fund itself, the Manitoba Securities Commission and
17 individuals, including former senior officers of the fund and
former members of Crocus's board of directors.  The claims have
not been proven in a court of law.

Representing the investors are David Klein (lead lawyer) of
David Klein, Klein Lyons, Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1, Phone: (604) 874-7171; Jay Prober; and
Norman Boudreau.


EV3 INC.: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------------
ev3, Inc. faces a purported stockholder class action in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in relation to its
proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of its majority-owned subsidiary, Micro Therapeutics,
Inc., that it does not already own.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action
purportedly on behalf of MTI's minority shareholders was filed
against MTI, MTI's directors and the company challenging the
previously announced exchange offer with MTI.

The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted
a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.  It sought an
injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with MTI
or, if the transaction were to be completed, rescission of the
transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified damages, costs
and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with MTI.


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Amended Complaint Filed in D.C. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated shareholder
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia against Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae).

The suit that generally alleges that the company and certain
former officers and directors made false and misleading
statements in violation of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain accounting policies and practices.

Discovery has recently commenced in the consolidated shareholder
class action following the denial of the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

In addition the company is also a defendant in two related opt-
out cases that were filed by institutional investors seeking to
proceed independently of the putative class of shareholders in
the consolidated shareholder class action.

The court has consolidated the opt-out cases as part of the
consolidated shareholder class action, but the opt-out
plaintiffs have filed motions objecting to the consolidation of
the lawsuits.

On Apr. 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed an amended complaint that adds purchasers of
publicly traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put
options to the putative class, and extends the end of the
putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:

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

      (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite
          500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:
          202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
          lawinfo@cmht.com; and

      (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513
          Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,
          Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax:
          513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com.


FLORIDA: Code Crackdown Suit Refiled in Broward Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Aid attorney Sharon Bourassa is seeking class status for a
suit refilled against Fort Lauderdale, claiming its city code
enforcement practices are illegal, racially motivated and "mean
spirited", the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

Ms. Bourassa filed the suit in Broward Circuit Court.  The suit
contends that the city's Code Enforcement Department uses
selective enforcement and its notices are a violation of
residents' due process.
  
According to Ms. Bourassa about 1,400 property owners in
northwest Fort Lauderdale have been victimized by the
enforcement of the Neighborhood Enhancement Action Team program
in late 2004.  The program cites city code violations, such as
patchy lawns, derelict cars, junk stored outside or missing
address numerals in houses.

In March, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages dismissed a
class action filed against Fort Lauderdale's code enforcement
practices in black neighborhoods.  The judge said the
plaintiffs' code violations were not similar enough.  But she
left open the possibility that it can be amended and refilled
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 31, 2006).

Ms. Bourassa amended the suit and refiled it last month.  The
city is trying to have the new lawsuit dismissed as well, and
Ms. Bourassa filed a response to that motion recently.

For more information, contact Ms. Bourassa, Legal Aid Serv. of
Broward Co., Inc., 609 SW 1st Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Florida
(Broward Co.).


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: N.Y. Stock Suit Deal Awaits Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Foundry Networks, Inc., said that the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York has yet to grant final
approval to the proposed settlement of a consolidated securities
class action against it.

The company was a defendant in a class action filed on Nov. 27,
2001 on behalf of purchasers of its common stock alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  

The case was captioned,  "In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10640 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The case is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock from Sept. 27, 1999 to Dec.
6, 2000.  The operative amended complaint names as defendants,
the company and three of its officers, including the company's
chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and
investment banking firms that served as underwriters for the
company's initial public offering in September 1999.

The amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the initial public offering (IPO)
failed to disclose that:

      -- the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
         commissions to be paid to the underwriters, and

      -- the underwriters arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  Similar allegations were made in
lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions to
dismiss.  In ruling on motions to dismiss, the court must treat
the allegations in the complaint as if they were true solely for
purposes of deciding the motions.

The motion was denied as to claims under the Securities Act of
1933 in the case involving the company.  The same ruling was
made in all but ten of the other cases.  The court dismissed the
claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the company and one of the individual defendants
and dismissed all of the Section 20(a) "control person" claims.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims
against the company's remaining individual defendants on the
basis that those defendants allegedly sold the company's stock
following the IPO.  The stock sale allegations were found
sufficient for pleading purposes.  

A similar ruling was made with respect to 62 individual
defendants in the other cases.  In 2004, the company accepted a
settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants.  

Under the terms of this settlement, the plaintiffs are to
dismiss and release all claims against the company officials in
exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases and for the assignment or surrender of control of
certain claims the company may have against the underwriters.

The settlement requires approval by the court.  In September
2005, the court granted preliminary approval to the terms of the
settlement. The settlement must receive final approval from the
court following notice to class members and an opportunity for
them and others affected by the settlement to object.

On Apr. 24, 2006 the court conducted a fairness hearing on the
settlement and heard arguments from both the plaintiffs and
issuers in favor of the settlement as well as from both the
underwriter defendants and three individual objectors against
the settlement.

The court did not issue a decision after hearing the argument
and there is no assurance that the settlement will receive final
approval.  While final settlement approval between the
plaintiffs and the issuers is pending, litigation between the
plaintiffs and underwriters continues to proceed.

The suit is "In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10640," related
to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21
MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter G.A. Safirstein of Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119-1065, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the company are, Timothy J. Chorvat, C. John Koch
and Gianni P. Servodidio of Jenner & Block, LLP, Phone: (312)
923-2994, (312) 923-2678 and (212)-891-1620, Fax: (312) 840-
7394, (312) 840-7678 and (212)-891-1699, E-mail: gps@jenner.com.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


HAWAII: Supreme Court Hears Homeland Beneficiaries Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court heard on May 29 arguments by Native
Hawaiians asking leave to sue the state for claims against the
Hawaiian Home Lands trust.  A ruling is expected to take at
least a month, according to The HawaiiChannel.com.

About 2,700 homelands beneficiaries were denied properties after
the state shut down the claims process in 1999.  Among those who
talked about his claim in the court is Jimmy Aweau.

If the high court rules in favor of the beneficiaries,
plaintiffs still have to go back to circuit court to demand
compensation for these "serious breaches of trust," according to
attorney Carl Varaday.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: June Trial Set for Spartanburg Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "Spartanburg Regional Health Services District, Inc. v.
Hillenbrand Industries, Civil Action No. 7:03-2141-HFF."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
rented any Hill-Rom, Inc./Hill-Rom Co., Inc. and/or Support
Systems International products in North America during the
period from Jan. 1, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006.

The hearing will be held on Jun. 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in the
second-floor courtroom of the Donald S. Russell Federal
Building, 201 Magnolia St., Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Any exclusions or objections to the settlement must be filed by
Apr. 17, 2006.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Spartanburg Settlement, P.O. Box 9000, #6394
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-967-8683, Web
         site: http://www.spartanburgclassaction.com/;

     (2) John Gressette Felder of Felder and McGee, P.O. Box
         346, Saint Matthews, SC 29135, Phone: 803-874-1430,
         Fax: 803-655-7167, E-mail: johngfelder@sc.rr.com;

     (3) John Gressette Felder, Jr. of McGowan Hood and Felder,
         3710 Landmark Drive, Suite 114, Columbia, SC 29204,
         Phone: 803-327-7800, Fax: 803-328-5656, E-mail:
         jfelder@mcgowanhood.com;

     (4) IS Leevy Johnson of Johnson Toal and Battiste, P.O. Box
         1431, Columbia, SC 29202, Phone: 803-252-9700, Fax:
         803-252-9102, E-mail: islj@jtbpa.com; and

     (5) Chad A. McGowan of McGowan Hood Felder and Johnson,
         1539 Healthcare Drive, Rock Hill, SC 29732, Phone: 803-
         327-7800, Fax: 803-328-5656, E-mail:
         cmcgowan@mcgowanhood.com.


INDIANA: No Hearing for Sexual Offenders' Visitation Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a suit challenging the
legality of a state policy that prohibits inmates charged of
sexual offense to children from receiving visits by minors,
Associated Press reports.

The Indiana Department of Correction imposed the policy in 2001.  
A year later, the rule was amended to allow some visits under
certain conditions.  The DOC said the restriction is necessary
because sex offenders are at high risk of repeating the crime
and often know their victims

The American Civil Liberties Union-Indiana filed a class action
over the policy saying it violated prisoners' constitutional
right to maintain family relationship, among others.

An Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the policy.  In November, the
Indiana Supreme Court allowed the decision to stand without
ruling on the case, prompting the plaintiffs to take the case to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit was initially filed with a female plaintiff, on appeal,
the lead plaintiff was changed to a male inmate who had been
part of the class.

ACLU-Indiana on the Net: http://www.iclu.org.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Court to Hear Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hear on Jul. 21, 2006 LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against the company.

In December 2003, April 2005 and June 2005, six purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.  The suits allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  These
actions were since consolidated into a single proceeding as, "In
Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On Jan. 27, 2006, the lead plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended and consolidated complaint.  This complaint purports to
be a class action seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who acquired the company's Class A common stock from
Jul. 24, 2003 to Oct. 18, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the company to
make false and misleading statements about the company's
business and forecasts about Leapfrog's financial performance,
that certain of the company's individual officers and directors
sold portions of their stock holdings while in the possession of
adverse, non-public information, and that certain of the
company's financial statements were false and misleading.

On Mar. 27, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint.  The motion is to be heard
on Jul. 21, 2006.  Discovery has not commenced and a trial date
has not been set.

The suit is "In Re: LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-05421," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, (CA),
         425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA,
         94104, Phone: 415.433.3200, Fax: 415.433.6382;

     (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
         (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite
         500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:
         202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
         lawinfo@cmht.com; and

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, Phone:
         415.288.4545 and 206.749.5544, Fax: 415.288.4534 and
         206.749.9978, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com.


MARTHA STEWART: Discovery Continues in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors, according to the
company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

On Feb. 3, 2003, the company was named as a defendant in a
consolidated and amended class action complaint filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of persons who
purchased common stock in the company between Jan. 8, 2002 and
Oct. 2, 2002.

The consolidated suit is captioned, "In re Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)."
Besides the company, it also names Martha Stewart and seven of
its other present or former officers, Gregory R. Blatt, Sharon
L. Patrick, and five other company officers, as defendants.

All such individuals other than Martha Stewart are collectively
referred to herein as the Individual Defendants.  The action
consolidated seven class actions previously filed in the
Southern District of New York.

The claims in the consolidated class action complaint arose out
of Ms. Stewart's sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock
on Dec. 27, 2001.  The plaintiffs assert violations of Sections
10(b) (and rules promulgated thereunder), 20(a) and 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the company, Ms. Stewart and the
individual defendants omitted material information and made
statements about Ms. Stewart's sale that were materially false
and misleading.  

They also allege that, as a result of these false and misleading
statements, the market price of the company's stock was inflated
during the putative class periods and dropped after the alleged
falsity of the statements became public.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the individual defendants traded
MSO stock while in possession of material non-public
information, but as explained below, all such allegations have
been dismissed.

The consolidated class action complaint seeks certification as a
class action, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further
relief as determined by the court.

By stipulation of the parties, and an order of the court entered
Nov. 10, 2003, all claims asserted in the consolidated class
action complaint pursuant to Section 20A (Insider Trading) of
the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants,
and all remaining claims against the individual defendants,
other than Mr. Blatt and Ms. Patrick, were dismissed without
prejudice.

On May 19, 2003, the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint was denied.  The matter
remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

The suit "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case. 02-CV-6273 (JES)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E.
Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Craig Finkel of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, E-
         mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com;

     (2) Salvatore Jo Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,
         NY 10119, Phone: 212-554-1538, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: SGraziano@blbglaw.com; and

     (3) Mark David Smilow of Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025,
         Fax: (212) 682-3010, E-mail: msmilow@weisslurie.com.

Representing the defendants are Gregory Arthur Markel and Martin
L. Seidel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, (NYC), One
World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone: (212) 504-
6112 and 212-504-5643, Fax: (212) 504-6666 and 212-504-6387, E-
mail: greg.markel@cwt.com and martin.seidel@cwt.com.


MICHIGAN: Eastpointe Police Settles Racial Profiling Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Eastpointe will pay $160,000 to settle a racial
profiling lawsuit brought in 1998 on behalf of teenage black
bicyclists against the Eastpointe Police Department, the Detroit
Free Press reports.

U.S. District Judge John O'Meara's dismissed the case in 2003.  
But the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling
in recent months on concerns about potential Fourth Amendment
violations.  The appeals court determined there was enough
evidence of racial discrimination and illegal searches by the
police department to take the case to a jury trial.

The suit was filed on behalf of black youths from Detroit who
said police violated their constitutional rights by unfairly
stopping and searching them as they rode their bikes.  It
included 21 plaintiffs.

The city did not admit wrongdoing by the police.  City attorney
Tim Ferrand said the settlement was more a strategic decision,
than an admission of guilt, because the costs associated with
continuing the litigation exceeded the cost of settling it.

The suit is "Bennett, et al.v. Eastpointe City, et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-70036-JCO", filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michgan under Judge John Corbett O'Meara.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles H. Chomet of Kelman, Loria, (Detroit), 2300
         First National Building, 660 Woodward Avenue, Detroit,
         MI 48226-3588, Phone: 313-961-7363, E-mail:
         cchomet@kelmanloria.com;

     (2) Kary L. Moss of American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
         Michigan, 60 W. Hancock, Detroit, MI 48201, Phone: 313-
         578-6800, Fax: 313-578-6800;

     (3) Delphia T. Simpson of American Civil Liberties Union
         Fund of Michigan, 60 W. Hancock, Detroit, MI 48201,
         Phone: 313-578-6800, Fax: 313-578-6800; and

     (4) Michael J. Steinberg of American Civil Liberties Union
         Fund of Michigan, 60 W. Hancock, Detroit, MI 48201,
         Phone: 313-578-6800, E-mail: msteinberg@aclumich.org.


MRS. GERRY'S: Recalls Salads on Risk of Bacterial Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Gerry's Kitchen, Inc. of Albert Lea, Minnesota recalled
approximately 54,000 pounds of salads because it has the
potential to be contaminated with harmful bacteria.

The company said one of their suppliers provided them with an
ingredient that was not processed in a manner to prevent the
growth of harmful bacteria.  No illnesses have been reported to
date.

The products have been sold under the brands Mrs. Gerry's,
SYSCO, Knowlan's (Festival), Spoon River, and Fareway.

Products and pack sizes listed below are those affected:

Product                          Pack Size        Code Date

Gourmet Potato Salad             2-12 lb.         6/8/2006
Macaroni Salad                   2-5 lb.          6/11/2006
Macaroni Salad                   2-12 lb.         6/11/2006
White Macaroni                   2-5 lb.          6/18/2006
White Macaroni                   4-40 oz.         6/18/2006
White Macaroni                   12-14 oz.        6/18/2006
Deviled Egg Potato Salad         2-5 lb.          6/18/2006
New York Style Potato Salad      2-5 lb.          6/11/2006
New York Style Potato Salad      12-14 oz.        6/11/2006
Spoon River Potato Salad         2-12 lb.         6/11/2006
Supreme Seafood                  2-4 lb.          6/11/2006
Sysco B&B Supreme Seafood        2-4 lb.          6/11/2006
Summer Fresh Pasta               2-5 lb.          6/12/2006
Sysco B&B Summer Fresh Pasta     2-5 lb.          6/12/2006
Summer Fresh Pasta               12-14 oz.        6/12/2006
Sour Kream & Cheese Mac          2-5 lb.          6/9/2006
Sour Kream & Cheese Mac          12-14 oz.        6/9/2006
Deli Fresh Macaroni              2-11 lb.         6/19/2006
Sysco B&B Deli Fresh Macaroni    2-11 lb.         6/19/2006
Deli Fresh Macaroni              4-40 oz.         6/19/2006
Deli Fresh Macaroni              12-14 oz.        6/19/2006
Knowlan's Homestyle Potato Salad 2-12 lb.         6/10/2006
Shell Macaroni                   2-12 lb.         6/10/2006
Shell Macaroni                   2-5 lb.          6/10/2006
Shell Macaroni                   12-14 oz.        6/10/2006
Smoked Turkey Jarlsberg Kit      2 kits           6/13/2006
Rigatoni Pasta Base              2-5 lb.          6/13/2006
King Krab Salad                  2-5 lb.          6/10/2006
Seafood Royale                   2-5 lb.          6/13/2006
Sysco B&B Seafood Royale         2-5 lb.          6/13/2006
Seafood Royale                   12-10 oz.        6/13/2006
Tuna Salad                       2-5 lb.          6/27/2006
Tuna Salad                       2-5 lb.          7/2/2006
Tuna Salad                       2-5 lb.          7/8/2006
Tuna Salad                       2-5 lb.          7/11/2006
Tuna Salad                       12-14 oz.        6/27/2006
Tuna Salad                       2-14 oz.         7/2/2006
Tuna Salad                       12-14 oz.        7/7/2006
Ham Salad                        2-5 lb.          6/6/06
Ham Salad                        2-5 lb.          6/12/06
Ham Salad                        2-5 lb.          6/13/06
Ham Salad                        2-5 lb.          6/17/06
Ham Salad                        2-5 lb.          6/21/06
Ham Salad                        12-14 oz.        6/6/06
Ham Salad                        12-14 oz.        6/11/06
Ham Salad                        12-14 oz.        6/16/06
Fareway Potato Salad             35 lb.           6/13/06
Fareway Potato Salad             2-5 lb.          6/13/06
Fareway Potato Salad             4-3 lb.          6/13/06

Affected products were distributed to a few distributors in the
states of Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Maine,
Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and reached consumers
through a variety of distribution avenues including retail
stores, foodservice and wholesale distributors.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact Mrs. Gerry's Kitchen, Inc. at 800-642-
9662.


MURPHY OIL: La. Parish Council Opts Out of Suit Over Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Bernard Parish Council in Louisiana decided not to take
part in class action filed against Murphy Oil Corp. over an oil
leak in Meraux, The Times Picayune reports.

"Government may have different damages than the homeowners, so
our problems may not be resolved in the ordinary course of a
class action," said Alan Abadie, executive counsel to Parish
President Henry Rodriguez.

The council's decision not to join the lawsuit came during a
special meeting on May 29.  

According to Joey DiFatta, council vice chairman, the parish
would do better opting out of the litigation and reserving the
right for its own litigation in the event Murphy fails to clean
public property.

The parish owns 12 public facilities in the land included in the
lawsuit as potentially damaged.  The suit 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 original 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 in January (Class
Action Reporter, Apr. 10, 2006.)

In February U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon issued a ruling
that established an opt-out procedures.  Under the new ruling,
potential claimants must opt out of the suit before Jun. 1.  
Trial is to begin Oct. 2, 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.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Dismissal of Tex. Securities Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. and certain current and former
executive officers are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit the dismissal with prejudice of all claims
in their case by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

The company and its former chief executive officers and its
current chief financial officer are defendants in a lawsuit
originally filed on Apr. 21, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.  The plaintiff is Francis
Layher, for himself and on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities
between May 5, 2003 and Feb. 23, 2004.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks an order determining that the
action may proceed as a class action, awarding compensatory
damages in favor of the plaintiff and the other class members in
an unspecified amount, and reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and September of
2004 in the same court by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy
J. Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig and
G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially
similar damages.

All of these lawsuits were transferred to a single judge and
consolidated into a single action.  Lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel have been appointed and the consolidated complaint was
filed on Dec. 20, 2004, which, among other things, extended the
putative class period to Oct. 18, 2004.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The
company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted on Sept. 30,
2005.

The District Court also granted plaintiffs the right to amend
their complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct.
31, 2005.

On Mar. 20, 2006, the District Court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice all of the claims against the company and the
individual defendants.  The District Court has not yet entered a
final judgment.

On Apr. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the
decision of the District Court to dismiss the complaint to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The suit is "In Re: Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00844," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C.
Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins - San Diego, 655 W Broadway, Suite
         1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/231-1058, Fax:
         619/231-7423;

     (2) Joe Kendall of Provost Umphrey Law Firm - Dallas, 3232
         McKinney Ave., Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone:
         214/744-3000, Fax: 214/744-3015, E-mail:
         Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com; and

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

Representing the defendants is Karen L. Hirschman of Vinson &
Elkins - Dallas, 3700 Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Ave.,
Dallas, TX 75201-2975, Phone: 214/220-7795, Fax: 214/220-7716,
E-mail: khirschman@velaw.com.


RTM OPERATING: June Hearing Set for Fla. ADA Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on June 14, 2006, 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "Access Now, Inc. and Christ
Soter Tavantis, et al. v. RTM Operating company d/b/a Arby's
Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 02-23374-CIV-
Martinez/Bandstra."

The case involves all persons:

     -- who have qualified, qualify, or will qualify as having a
        "disability," as that term is defined by the American
        with Disabilities Act (ADA), and

     -- who have been or will be a guest, customer, patron,
        visitor or otherwise, and who have been, are, or will be
        denied full and equal access to or have been, are, or
        will be discriminated against under title iii of the ADA
        or regulations promulgated thereunder, or similar
        federal, state, or local law, rule, order, or ordinance
        (excluding claims for all damages, other than statutory
        damages), because of their "disability," at or in
        connection with:  

        * all restaurants doing business as "Arby's" now or
          hereafter owned and/or

        * operated by defendant RTM Operating Company, Inc., or

        * its affiliated companies, which are located in the
          50 states in the U.S. of America and the District of
          Columbia.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jose E. Martinez,
U.S. District Judge, in Dade County, Florida at the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N.
Miami Ave., Miami, Florida 33128.

Any objections to the settlement must be made by May 29, 2006.  

For more details contact:

     (1) Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country Club Drive #1522,
         Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059, Fax 305-
         574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site:
         http://www.adaaccessnow.org;and

     (2) Rosen & Switkes, PL, Phone: 305-534-4757 and 954-653-
         0457, Fax: 305-538-5504 and 305-538-5504, E-mail:
         jentin@rosenandswitkes.com, Web site:
         http://www.rosenandswitkes.com/classactions/index.html.


SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face Borrowers' Lawsuit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Capital, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action in
the Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, entitled,
"Jumar Hooks and Diane Felder, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. CV 05 574577."

The plaintiffs filed this case on Oct. 12, 2005 as a class
action, alleging, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
Ohio borrowers, that a subsidiary of the company engaged in
unlawful practices in originating and servicing the plaintiffs'
loans.  

The plaintiffs seek certification as a class and a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs for money damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  

The company revealed no significant developments in this legal
proceeding in its report for the quarter ended Mar. 31, 2006.


SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Capital, Inc., is defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The plaintiff filed the case as a class action on Aug. 10, 2005,
alleging violation of FCRA in connection with the use of pre-
approved offers of credit by the company's subsidiary, America's
MoneyLine, Inc.

The company revealed no significant developments in this legal
proceeding in its report for the quarter ended Mar. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Cechini v. America's Moneyline, Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-04570," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Daniel A. Edelman and James O.
Latturner of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South
LaSalle Street, Phone: 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com and
jlatturner@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendants are, David Luther Hartsell and
Kristin Henrichs Sculli of McGuireWoods, LLP, 77 West Wacker
Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60601-7567, Phone: (312) 849-
8100, E-mail: dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com and
ksculli@mcguirewoods.com.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Town Objects to Terms of $1.7B Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The town of Signal Hill in California filed objection to a
proposed $1.7 billion settlement of an antitrust class action
against Sempra Energy that gives Long Beach authority over money
for distribution to ratepayers, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The settlement arose out of price-gouging claims against the
company during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.  It provides that
Long Beach would get $6 million, and take control of an
estimated $13 million fund designated for 500,000 ratepayers of
Long Beach Energy in both Long Beach and Signal Hill.  The
settlement was agreed in early January.

Signal Hill's objection refers to a similar settlement with
Houston-based El Paso Corp. that allegedly resulted to a lesser
compensation for the town's Long Beach Energy ratepayers than
what was provided.  The 2003 settlement was supposed to split a
$7.5 million award for Long Beach Energy ratepayers from Long
Beach and Signal Hill.

A hearing for the proposed settlement is set Jun. 8 in San Diego
Superior Court.

The suit is referred to as the Continental Forge litigation.  It
consists of class action and individual antitrust and unfair
competition lawsuits consolidated in San Diego Superior Court,
allege that Sempra Energy and the California Utilities, along
with El Paso and several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to
control natural gas and electricity markets (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 1, 2006).    

Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and
electric consumers served by the California investor-owned
utilities.  The settlement of Continental Forge would also
include the settlement of class action price reporting
litigation, consisting of antitrust and unfair competition
lawsuits coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging
that Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported
natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and
engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions.    

A second settlement agreement relates to class action brought by
the Nevada Attorney General in Nevada Clark County District  
Court and involves virtually identical allegations to those in
the Continental Forge litigation.    

Long Beach's lawyer is Brian McMahon, 550 South Hope Street,
Suite 2000, Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 (Los Angeles
Co.), Phone: 213-532-2190, Fax: 213-532-2020.


SOUTH DAKOTA: ACLU Moves to Bar HEA Provision on Drug Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wolf, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union,
filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota seeking an order that would immediately bar the
Department of Education from enforcing a provision of the Higher
Education Act that denies financial aid to students convicted of
a drug offense.

The aid elimination penalty has blocked aid to approximately
200,000 would-be students since its enactment in 2000.

Both the current motion asking the court to halt enforcement of
the law and the ACLU's initial legal complaint, filed Mar. 22,
argue that the aid elimination penalty violates students'
constitutional rights and disproportionately affects low-income
students who cannot independently afford the cost of post-
secondary education.  The Department of Education also filed a
motion asking the court to dismiss the ACLU's constitutional
challenge.

The ACLU's legal papers point out that the aid elimination
penalty unconstitutionally punishes people twice for the same
offense, violating the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  According to the ACLU, the
ban also irrationally designates a class of people, those with
drug convictions, as unworthy of educational aid, violating the
equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment's due process
clause.  Part of the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment
protects Americans from federal government overreach.

The ACLU's class action is brought on behalf of the thousands of
students nationwide impacted by the penalty, including the
national organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy, as well
as three individuals denied aid under the provision.

ACLU's current motion for a preliminary injunction:
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/25690lgl20060526.html

Case background, including the initial ACLU complaint:
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/24713prs20060322.html.

The suit is "Students for Sensible Drug Policy Foundation et al.  
v. Spellings," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Ronald Arthur Wager of Bantz, Gosch & Cremer,  
L.L.C. PO Box 970, Aberdeen, SD 57402-0970, Phone: 225-2232;  
Fax: 225-2497; E-mail: rwager@bantzlaw.com.


SWISHER INT'L: Completes HB Merger After Settling Del. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher International, Inc. completed its previously announced
merger with HB Merger Sub, Inc., following the final settlement
of a stockholder class action in Delaware state court whereby
former Swisher International stockholders who had previously
tendered their shares of common stock in a tender offer will
receive $4 per share.

Under the merger agreement, Swisher International stockholders,
other than HB Fairview, are entitled to receive a cash payment
of $7 per share of common stock.

As a result of the merger, Swisher International is now a wholly
owned subsidiary of HB Fairview.

In March, Swisher International shareholders adopted a plan of
merger with HB Fairview Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and HB Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of HB Fairview (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 20, 2006)

The merger agreement was entered into in connection with a
proposed settlement of a purported stockholder class action
pending in Delaware state court.  Completion of the merger is
contingent upon court approval of that settlement.  

Swisher International has been deleted from NASDAQ and will no
longer trade its stock over the counter on the pink sheets
(SWSH.PK).

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, the paying agent, will
mail to those stockholders of record a letter of transmittal and
instructions for receiving payment of the merger consideration.

Swisher International, Inc. -- http://www.swisher.com/-- offers    
hygiene services and products to businesses across the country.   
For more information, contact Thomas C. Byrne, Phone: +1-954-
713-1160, E-mail: tbyrne@newrivercapital.com.


TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: Tex. Court Defers Arguments on "Lewis"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Dallas County, Texas granted a request to
postpone a May 3 oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal to the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against Trustreet
Properties, Inc.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund, LLC,
two limited partners in the Income Funds, filed a class action
on behalf of the limited partners of the Income Funds against:

     -- Trustreet Properties, Inc.,
   
     -- CNL Restaurant Properties, Inc. (CNLRP),

     -- the Income Funds,

     -- the general partners of the Income Funds,

     -- CNL Restaurant Investments, Inc., and

     -- CNL Restaurant Capital Corp.

in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. 05-
00083).

The complaint alleged that the general partners of the Income
Funds breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed mergers between the Income Funds and subsidiaries of
the operating partnership of the company and that the company
and CNLRP aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  

It further alleged that the Income Funds' general partners
violated provisions of the Income Funds' partnership agreements
and demanded an accounting as to the affairs of the Income
Funds.  

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and exemplary
damages and equitable relief, including an injunction of the
Mergers.

On Apr. 26, 2005, a supplemental plea to jurisdiction hearing
was held with a ruling expected May 13, 2005.  On May 2, 2005,
the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add allegations that the
general partners of the Income Funds, with CNLRP and U.S.
Restaurant Properties, Inc., prepared and distributed a false
and misleading final proxy statement filing to the limited
partners of the Income Funds and the shareholders of CNLRP and
USRP.  

On May 26, 2005, the court entered a final order dismissing
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On Jun. 22,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the order of
dismissal.  

On Sept. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an appellant's brief.  At
the same time, the company and the other defendants filed their
Brief of Appellees'.  

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Appellants' Reply
Brief.  The court scheduled oral argument on the appeal for May
3, 2006.  

The court recently granted a request for postponement of oral
argument on the appeal that was originally scheduled for May 3,
2006.  It has not yet set a new date.


UNITED STATES: Judge Orders Disclosure in 9/11 Detention Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Gold in Brooklyn ordered government
employees involved in a suit over post-Sept. 11 detentions to
disclose information of any government monitoring of
conversations between the detainees and their attorneys,
Associated Press reports.

Judge Gold has given the Department of Justice employees three
weeks to comply.  He said the order applied only to people
involved in the lawsuit.  

The judge order is a response to a motion filed by the Center
for Constitutional Rights asking the government to disclose
information that could prove plaintiff's telephone, e-mail or
other communication are being monitored in the U.S. since the
plaintiff left the country.

The center is representing plaintiffs in the suit alleging
detainees were jailed on basis of their race or religion and
physically abused at a federal lockup in Brooklyn.  Plaintiffs
claim they were held for months without evidence linking them to
terrorism.

The suit is asking restitution for plaintiffs and an order
prohibiting "preventive detention" by the government.

Defendants in the suit include Attorney General John Ashcroft
and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Lighted Mirror Posing Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is
recalling about 110,000 Simply Basic Lighted Mirror.

The company said exposed wires inside the mirror could pose an
electrical shock hazard to the user when they touch the mirror.
No injuries were reported.

The lighted mirror is double-sided and has three touch control
settings.  It has a metal stand with a brushed silver-colored
finish.  The mirror is 6.5 inches in diameter and has regular
side and a magnified side.  Model number DK-00118/H-1698-0 is on
the bottom of the mirror's base.  "Touch lighting with 3
settings" is printed on a white sticker on the top of the
mirror's base.

These lighted mirrors were manufactured in China and are sold in
Wal-Mart stores nationwide from August 2005 through April 2006
for about $15.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
mirror and return it to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

Picture of the recalled mirror:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06171.jpg

For more information, contact Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between
7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.walmartstores.com


YAMAHA ELECTRONICS: Recalls Speakers with Faulty Mounting Clamps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Electronics Corporation, of Buena Park, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission,
is recalling about 4,300 units of Yamaha In-Ceiling and In-Wall
Speakers.

The company said mounting clamps on some speakers can break
causing the speaker to fall.  Falling speakers could possibly
hit consumers.

Yamaha has received 14 reports of falling speakers.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled models are the In-Ceiling Speaker, NS-IW360C, which
is round; and the In-Wall Speaker, NS-IW660, which is
rectangular.  Both models have a white rim and grill, and black
interior.  Each individual speaker has a unique serial number.
The model and serial numbers appear both on the box and on the
speakers.

These are the recalled serial numbers:

Name of Product            Model #    Serial Numbers
Yamaha In-Ceiling Speaker    NS-IW360C  523601 through 526800  
                                        600001 through 604400
Yamaha In-Wall Speaker       NS-IW660   500001 through 501000

These speakers were manufactured in China and are being sold at
audiovisual and electronic entertainment stores nationwide from
January 2006 through March 2006 for about $180 (NS-IW360C) or
$350 (NS-IW660).

Consumers are advised to Yamaha to determine whether their
speakers are subject to this recall, and if so, could be advised
how to get free replacement speakers.

Picture of NS-IW360C In-Ceiling Speaker:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06172a.jpg

Picture of NS-IW660 In-Wall Speaker:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06172b.jpg

For additional information, contact Yamaha at (800) 609-2624
between 8 am and 4 pm PT any day, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.yamaha.com/yecor e-mail Yamaha at  
yecsupport@yamaha.com


ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Working to Settle Paradyne IPO Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhone Technologies, Inc. is involved in a settlement of a
consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Paradyne Networks, Inc., whose acquisition was completed by the
company on Sept. 1, 2005, according Zhone's May 9, 2006 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

A purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in
December 2001 in the U.S District Court in the Southern District
of New York against Paradyne, Paradyne's then-current directors
and executive officers, and each of the underwriters who
participated in Paradyne's initial public offering (IPO) and
follow-on offerings.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Paradyne
offerings, the underwriter defendants charged excessive
commissions, inflated transaction fees not disclosed in the
applicable registration statements and allocated shares of the
Paradyne offerings to favored customers in exchange for
purported promises by such customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket, thereby allegedly inflating the
market price for the Paradyne offerings.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the
purported class for the losses suffered during the class period.
This action has been consolidated with hundreds of other
securities class actions commenced against more than 300
companies (collectively, the Issuer Defendants) and
approximately 40 investment banks in which the plaintiffs make
substantially similar allegations as those made against Paradyne
with respect to the initial public offerings and/or follow-on
offerings at issue in those other cases.

All of these actions have been consolidated under the caption,
"In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."

In 2003, the Issuer Defendants participated in a global
settlement among the plaintiffs and the insurance companies that
provided directors' and officers' insurance coverage to the
Issuer Defendants.  

The settlement agreements provide for the Issuer Defendants,
including Paradyne, to be fully released and dismissed from the
IPO Actions.  

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, Paradyne is not
required to make any cash payment to the plaintiffs.  Although
the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreements, the
preliminary approval is subject to a future final settlement
order, after notice of settlement has been provided to class
members and they have been afforded the opportunity to oppose or
opt out of the settlement.  There can be no assurance that these
conditions for final settlement will be satisfied.

The suit is "In re Paradyne Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10797-SAS," related
to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stanley D. Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         bernstein@bernlieb.com; and

     (2) Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212 594 5300, Fax: 212 868 1229, E-mail:
         mweiss@milberg.com.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN TOWER: Lovell Stewart Files Securities Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, initiated a class action
complaint, as amended, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all who purchased shares
and/or sold put contracts of American Tower Corporation (AMT)
between Feb. 1, 2006 through May 24, 2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that American Tower and two of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act).  American Tower is a wireless and
broadcast communications infrastructure company that is located
in Boston, Massachusetts.

According to the amended complaint, the defendants allegedly
made materially false and misleading statements about American
Tower's financial results during the Class Period, that were in
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, causing
American Tower to trade at artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint states that defendants allegedly
failed to disclose that:

      -- insiders of the company were engaged in self-dealing
         involving the backdating of options granted to them to
         receive a favorable price; and

      -- the company misstated its earnings and expenses as a
         result of option backdating.

In addition, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants
falsely stated that they had complied with the reporting
requirements of the SEC and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

As an alleged result of the above-mentioned alleged fraudulent
activities, shares of American Tower dropped from $34.76 on May
11, 2006 to $30.30 on May 24, 2006.

Interested parties may request that the Court appoint them as
lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from May 30, 2006.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell or Imtiaz A.
Siddiqui of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, Phone: 212-608-1900,
Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: lshllp@lshllp.com.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: June Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors in
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (FFH) that Jun. 12, 2006 is the
deadline to ask the Court to appoint lead plaintiff for the
class.

Pomerantz filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against the company and
certain of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company from Mar. 24, 2004 to Mar. 21, 2006, both
dates inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that:

     -- the company's current reserve accounts were understated;

     -- the company over-utilized aggressive off-balance sheet
        funding mechanisms;

     -- the company improperly accounted finite reinsurance
        contracts;

     -- as a consequence of the above, the company's reported
        earnings were materially inflated throughout the class
        period; and

     -- defendants consistently downplayed the seriousness of
        regulatory inquiries and subpoenas issued against the
        company.

On Mar. 22, 2006, Fairfax announced that U.S. securities
regulators issued subpoenas to third parties (including the
company's independent auditor and a shareholder) in an ongoing
probe into certain financial transactions, including
nontraditional insurance or reinsurance product transactions. On
this news, shares of Fairfax fell $16.97 per share or 12.96
percent, to close at $113.93 per shares.

Shareholders outside the U.S. may also join the action,
regardless of where they live or which exchange was used to
purchase the securities.

For more information on this complaint, contact Teresa L. Webb
or Carolyn S. Moskowitz of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone:
888.476.6529 or 888.4-POMLAW (Toll Free), E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com or csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com


NEWPARK RESOURCES: June Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross reminds investors of
Newpark Resources (NYSE:NR) that Jun. 20, 2006 is the deadline
for investors to ask the court to appoint lead plaintiff for the
class.

Pomerantz filed a class action against the company and certain
of its officers on behalf of purchasers of Newpark securities
during the period from Feb. 28, 2005 to Apr. 13, 2006, both
dates inclusive.  The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The irregularities involve "the processing and payment of
invoice by Soloco Texas, LP," a company subsidiary.

Furthermore, the company announced that it "has not yet been
determined whether all or a portion of these payments is
recoverable."

As a result of the internal investigation, the company placed
the Chairman and CEO of Newpark Environmental Water Services,
LLC, and an officer of Soloco Texas, LP on administrative leave.

In response to these revelations, on Apr. 17, 2006, Newpark's
common stock fell $1.28 per share, losing over 17% of its value
in one day on extremely high volume of close to 5 million shares
traded, to close at $6.14 per share.

Shareholders outside the U.S. may also join the action,
regardless of where they live or which exchange was used to
purchase the securities.

Newpark is headquartered in Metairie, Louisiana. The company
provides fluids management, environmental, and oilfield services
to the oil and gas exploration and production industries.  The
complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants'
internal controls and accounting practices during the Class
Period were flawed and deficient.  As a result of these
deficiencies, the company was forced to announce on Apr. 17,
2006, the commencement of an internal investigation by its Audit
Committee into accounting irregularities and other possible
violations.

For more information on this complaint, contact Teresa L. Webb
or Carolyn S, Moskowitz of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: (888) 476-
6529 or (888) 4-POMLAW (Toll Free), E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: June Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is representing
shareholders of Newpark Resources, Inc., informs all persons and
institutions who purchased securities of Newpark Resources, Inc.
(NYSE:NR) between Feb. 28, 2005 and Apr. 16, 2006, inclusive
that they only have until Jun. 20, 2006 to move to be a lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

The complaint charges Newpark and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Newpark's business and operations caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Newpark were materially false and
misleading when made because the company failed to disclose
irregularities with the processing and payment of invoices by
the company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP. As a result,
defendants' Class Period statements concerning Newpark's
operations and financial performance were materially false and
misleading.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits,
and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

On Apr. 17, 2006, Newpark issued a press release announcing a
company investigation into the processing and payment of
invoices at Soloco Texas, LP, and that Newpark's CFO and former
CEO had been placed on administrative leave pending the
completion of the investigation. This news shocked the market,
causing shares of Newpark to plummet that same day by $1.28 per
share, to close on Apr. 17, 2006, at $6.14 per share - more than
17% below the previous day's close, which was before disclosure
of the invoice irregularities and consequent investigation.

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

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and          
Lionel Z. Glancy, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com,
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *