CAR_Public/060602.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 2, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 109

                            Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Fraud Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Named in Miss. Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Ontario Residents File Toxic-Tort Litigation
APPLERA CORP: Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Remains Pending
APPLERA CORP: Continues to Face Product Antitrust Suit in D.C.

ASTRAZENECA LLC: Faces $100M Suit in Canada Over Seroquel Drug
BAUSCH & LOMB: New Suit Over Contact Lens Solution Filed in Fla.
CHEMED CORP: Close to Finally Settling Illinois Plumbing Lawsuit
CINERGY CORP: Facing Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit in Miss.
CREDIT SUISSE: Wins Favorable Ruling in New York IPO Litigation

CROCUS INVESTMENT: $1M Settlement Proposed for Investors' Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Appeals Remand Decision for Calif. Wage Lawsuit
DRIVE TIME: Consumers Sue Over Release of Financial Information
E.I. DUPONT: Faces Suit in W.Va. Over Alleged C8 Contamination
E.I. DUPONT: Facing Lawsuit Over Defective Fire Safety Device

ENGELHARD CORP: N.J. Court Stays Consolidated Stockholder Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Nov. Trial Set for Mo. Loan Origination Fees Suit
FORD MOTOR: Facing ERISA Violations Litigation in E.D. Mich.
GLOBAL CROSSING: Sept. Hearing Set for Access Charge Settlement
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Settles Lawsuits Over Blackstone Acquisition

IRWIN HOME: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Ind. Court Orders Mailing of Notices in "Silke"
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ala. RESPA Case
IRWIN UNION: Continues to Face Pa. Consolidated CBNV Loans Suit
IRWIN UNION: "White" Plaintiffs Want Remand of Mass. Fees Suit

JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Milwaukee Journal Ad Lawsuit
LAWYERS PRIVATE: Plaintiffs in Mortgage Scheme Suit Get AU$392T
MASTERBUILT MANUFACTURING: Recalls Electric Smokers on Fire Risk
MCMORAN OIL: Settles Consolidated Stockholder Lawsuit for $17.5M
MEDIA COS: Calif. Court Approves DVD Labeling Suit Settlement

MERCK & CO: Reaches Tolling Agreement for Vioxx Lawsuit in La.
MERCK & CO: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss N.J. Vioxx Suits
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Units Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
WEST PUBLISHING: Calif. Court Certifies Suit Over Bar Review
WYETH: Appeals Ala. Court's Class Certification of DURACT Suit

ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Face N.J. Tellium Stock Suit


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Ins. Reserves $24.1M for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Confronts 555 Suits With 10T Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor's Claims Decrease to 3,600
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Accrues About $2.5M for Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Incurs About $1M of Unindemnified Costs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 29,385 Claims in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Deals With 125,700 Claims in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 16,700 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Mine Safety Appliances Drop to 290
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Deals With 303 Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Spends $9.1M for Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Zurn Industries Drop to 65,200
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Faces 224 Claims in 3 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Files $2.5M Claim to Recover Fees
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crowley Maritime Accrues $2.927M for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Tackles 375 Cases From Former Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bayer Faces Pending Cases in W. Va. & Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 114 Pending Suits in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Ind.'s Cases Rise to 380 in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Deal With Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Dismisses 40 Cases, Settles 25
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Contends With 122 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mirant Unit Contributes $1M for Indemnities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Claimant Seeks $300T from Hardie Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. Va. Couple Names 51 Defendants in Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Charges 2 Roofers for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Dockworkers May Sue UK Govt. for Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8 Osaka Locals Seek JPY240M in Suit v. Govt
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Senators Renew Efforts for Fund Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Revised Bill Allows 9/11 Victims to Claims


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
GMH COMMUNITIES: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit in Pa.
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Prominent Dentist Wants to be Lead Plaintiff
ST. JUDE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
XM SATELLITE: Yourman Alexander Files Securities Suit in D.C.


                            *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Md. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s motion seeking the dismissal of
the consolidated class action filed against it over alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), according to company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Feb. 31, 2006.

In February and March 2003, two putative class actions were
filed against the company, alleging that it and a senior manager
violated ERISA by:

     (1) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         plan beneficiaries regarding the energy trading
         business, among other things;

     (2) failing to diversify plan assets;

     (3) failing to monitor investment alternatives;

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest; and

     (5) violating fiduciary duties.

The ERISA cases were consolidated in the District of Maryland.
On Apr. 26, 2004, the plaintiffs in the ERISA cases filed an
amended complaint, adding a number of current and former
directors of the company as defendants and clarifying the nature
of their claims.

On Jun. 25, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs have opposed the motion and it
remains outstanding.

The suit is "Keesecker v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., case
no. 1:03-cv-00843-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Andre M. Davis.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas J. Hart of Slevin and Hart
PC, 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Ste. 450, Washington, DC 20036,
Phone: 12027978700, Fax: 12022348231, E-mail:
tjh@slevinhart.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Christa D. Haas, Groom Law Group Chtd., 1701
         Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
         12028570620, Fax: 12024594503, E-mail: cdh@groom.com;

    (ii) Gabrielle S. Moses of Venable Baetjer and Howard LLP,
         Two Hopkins Plz., Ste. 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201,
         Phone: 14102447400, Fax: 14102447742, E-mail:
         gsmoses@venable.com; and

   (iii) Bradley P. Smith and William J. Snipes of Sullivan and
         Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-2498,
         Phone: 12125581660, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:
         smithbr@sullcrom.com or snipesw@sullcrom.com.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Named in Miss. Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., along with numerous other companies with
coal-fired generation facilities and companies in other
industries, was named as defendant in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
on Apr. 19, 2006.

The suit was originally filed on Sept. 20, 2005 on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in Mississippi
who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina.  Plaintiffs allege that
the emission of greenhouse gases by defendants contributed to
global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and
plaintiffs' damages.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.  

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
         Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
         Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
         and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;

     (2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
         smwiles@smithfawer.com; and

     (3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
         Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
         8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Ontario Residents File Toxic-Tort Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC along with several companies,
continues to face toxic-tort purported class action filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all persons
residing in Ontario within the past six years (and/or their
family members or heirs).  

On Jun. 30, 2005, the company along with its regulated
subsidiary Monongahela Power Co. and its unregulated subsidiary
Allegheny Generating Co. (AGC), plus 18 other companies with
coal-fired generating plants, was named as defendants in the
suit.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants negligently failed to
prevent their generation facilities from emitting air pollutants
in such a manner as to cause death and multiple adverse health
effects, as well as economic damages, to the plaintiff class.

They are seeking damages in the approximate amount of Canadian
$49.1 billion (approximately $41.6 billion, assuming an exchange
rate of 1.18 Canadian dollars per U.S. dollar), along with
continuing damages in the amount of Canadian $4.1 billion per
year and punitive damages of Canadian $1.0 billion
(approximately $3.5 billion and $850 million, respectively,
assuming an exchange rate of 1.18 Canadian dollars per U.S.
dollar) along with such other relief as the Court deems just.

Allegheny Energy, Inc., the parent of AE Supply, Monongahela and
AGC said at its May 9 Securities and Exchange Commission Form
10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended Mar. 31, 2006 that it
has not yet been served with this lawsuit.


APPLERA CORP: Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and some of its officers continue to face a
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, according to the company's May 9, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Feb. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera
Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of
Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on Feb. 6, 2000.  In the
offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4
million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  

The suit was commenced with the filing of several complaints in
April and May 2000.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed
on Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to provide
patent protection to the company's genomic-based products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended
to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the
complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately
disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be
able to patent this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission,
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper.  
On Feb. 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class
action.


APPLERA CORP: Continues to Face Product Antitrust Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. continue to face a
purported class action filed by Molecular Diagnostics
Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, according to Applera's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006.  

The suit alleges anticompetitive conduct in connection with the
sale of Taq DNA polymerase and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-
related products.  It arose from the prosecution and enforcement
of U.S. Patent No 4,889,818.  This patent is assigned to
Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom the company has a commercial
relationship covering, among other things, this patent and the
sale of Taq DNA polymerase (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21,
2005).   

The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses,
injunctive relief, and other relief.   

The suit is "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed in the
U.S, District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
Henry H. Kennedy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul Thomas Gallagher, Michael Hausfeld and Brian A.
         Ratner of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C,
         1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500,
         Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax:
         (202) 408-4699, E-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com,
         mhausfeld@cmht.com and bratner@cmht.com; and

     (2) Scott E. Gant and William A. Isaacson of Boies,
         Schiller & Flexner, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite
         800, Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 237-2727, E-
         mail: sgant@bsfllp.com or wisaacson@bsfllp.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joanne M. Guerrera, David J. Lender, John E. Scribner
         and David Nelson Southard of Weil, Gotshal & Manges,
         L.L.P., 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 682-7153, Fax: 202-857-0939, E-mail:
         david.southard@weil.com; and

    (ii) Heather Holden Brooks, Cathy Hoffman, Hadrian R. Katz,
         Amy Elizabeth Ralph-Mudge, Joseph M. Ruggiero and Asim
         Varma of Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20004-1206, Phone: (202) 942-6309, Fax:
         (202) 942-5999, E-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com,
         cathy_hoffman@aporter.com, katzha@aporter.com,
         amy_mudge@aporter.com and asim_varma@aporter.com.


ASTRAZENECA LLC: Faces $100M Suit in Canada Over Seroquel Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
A citizen of Bois-des-Fillions, Quebec, is the representative
plaintiff in a national class action claiming more than
$100,000,000 in damages and interest on behalf of all citizens,
in Canada, who took the antipsychotic medication Seroquel(R) of
AstraZeneca PLC.

Forty-eight-year old Francois-Luc Lavallee alleges having
developed, among other problems, Type II diabetes after having
used this medication.  He also alleges AstraZeneca failed to
inform the public, health authorities and patients of the
serious health risks associated with this medication.

Mr. Lavallee is represented by Lauzon Belanger, a class action
firm in Canada, which works in close collaboration with McNally
Cuming Raymaker who represents claimants from Alberta, and
British Columbia, as well as Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor who
represents class members in Ontario.

Similar class suits have been filed in the U.S. and in Canada,
namely in Alberta and British Columbia.

Seroquel(R) has been prescribed to more than 8 million people
across the globe for various mental health problems such as
schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. This drug is a sales leader
in the atypical antipsychotic pharmaceutical market in the
United States and in Canada.

The suit is "Francois-Luc Lavallee v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals PLC and al., Case No. 500-06-000348-066" filed
in the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

For more information, visit: http://www.lauzonbelanger.qc.ca,or  
contact the firm's Member Services, Phone: 514-287-1000 or 1-
800-287-8587, E-mail: serviceauxmembres@lauzonbelanger.qc.ca.

For Ontario inquiries, contact REKO LLP, Phone: 416-362-1989, E-
mail: info@reko.ca, Web site: http://www.reko.ca.

In Western Canada, contact McNally Cuming Raymaker, Phone: (514)
287-1000 or 1-800-287-8587 (toll free), E-mail:
rfogel@mcnallycuming.com, Website: http://www.mcnallycuming.com.

For more details, contact Anna Vetere, of Lauzon Belanger Inc.,
Phone: (514) 287-1000 or 1-800-287-8587 (toll free).


BAUSCH & LOMB: New Suit Over Contact Lens Solution Filed in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hodkin Kopelowitz Ostrow Firm, P.A. filed a federal class
action in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, against Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who have used ReNu with
MoistureLoc contact lens solution.

A Bausch & Lomb product, ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens
solution, is being investigated for potential ties to a rare
fungal eye infection known as Fusarium Keratitis.

Hodkin Kopelowitz is already representing many users from across
the U.S. and Mexico who suffered eye infections from using the
solution, and expects to file a significant number of additional
cases in the future.

Rochelle Feld of Broward County, Florida, is the named plaintiff
in Hodkin Kopelowitz's federal class action.  She is filing an
individual suit and also brings this action on behalf of the
class.

Ms. Feld was using ReNu with MoistureLoc at the time she was
afflicted with a severe case of Fusarium Keratitis.  The
infection caused her serious complications, which forced her to
undergo extensive medical treatments including antibiotic and
steroid therapies, as well as continuous medical monitoring.  
Without effective treatment, she will be at risk for further
injury, including corneal surgery and even permanent vision
loss.

She is seeking more than $75,000 individually, and the amount in
controversy for the class exceeds $5 million.

Hodkin Kopelowitz also intends on filing an individual lawsuit
on behalf of a Tennessee resident, Michelle Moore, a mother of
three, whose husband is currently in Afghanistan fighting the
war against terrorism.  Moore has suffered from severe eye
infections, has had her cornea scraped and cultured and may
require a corneal transplant as a result of using ReNu with
MoistureLoc.

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

For more information, contact Tracy McTeague or Jennifer Clarin
Boardroom Communications, Inc, Phone: 954-370-8999, Contact via:
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/emailprcntct?id=A6B0E703B181EA53or  
call Toll-Free at 877-525-4100.


CHEMED CORP: Close to Finally Settling Illinois Plumbing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action over allegations that unlicensed
employees of Chemed Corp. performed certain Roto-Rooter plumbing
in Illinois are expected to seek final approval for a proposed
settlement this year, according to the company's May 9, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The suit is pending in the Third Judicial Circuit
Court of Madison County, Illinois.

Customer Robert Harris filed the suit on behalf of a class of
customers in 32 states that allegedly paid for plumbing work
performed by unlicensed employees.  Plaintiff also moved for
partial summary judgment on grounds the licensed apprentice
plumber who installed his faucet did not work under the direct
personal supervision of a licensed master plumber.

On Jun. 19, 2002, a trial judge certified an Illinois-only
plaintiffs class and granted summary judgment for the named
party plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding violation of
the Illinois Plumbing License Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, through Roto-Rooter's representation of the licensed
apprentice as a plumber.  The court has not yet ruled on
certification of a class in the remaining 31 states.

In December 2004, the company reached a tentative resolution of
this matter with the plaintiff.  The court has preliminarily
approved the settlement.  The company expects the parties to
request final approval during 2006.   


CINERGY CORP: Facing Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinergy Corp. was named on Apr. 19 as defendant in the third
amended complaint of purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Plaintiffs claim that the company, along with numerous other
utilities, oil companies, coal companies and chemical companies,
is liable for damages relating to losses suffered by victims of
Hurricane Katrina.  

They further claim that the greenhouse gas emissions from the
company, and others contributed to the frequency and intensity
of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.  

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
company, Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
         Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
         Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
         and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;

     (2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
         smwiles@smithfawer.com; and

     (3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
         Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
         8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.


CREDIT SUISSE: Wins Favorable Ruling in New York IPO Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court
ruling clearing Credit Suisse Group Inc. from allegations of
fraud in underwriting several initial public offerings in the
1990s, Reuters reports.

Credit Suisse helped Efficient Networks Inc., eMachines Inc.,
Lightspan Partnership Inc., Tanning Technology Corp. and
Tumbleweed Communications Corp. go public in the late 1990s
technology boom.  The company is accused of understating these
companies' financial forecasts, while simultaneously reminding
investors of potential positive developments.

Previously, a lower court dismissed the allegations of fraud
against Credit Suisse and the issuers.

In recent developments, the three-judge panel ruled that the
investment bank did not defraud investors by the alleged
creation of artificial momentum in shares of some companies.

On Apr. 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints alleging various violations of the federal securities
laws resulting from alleged material omissions and misstatements
in registration statements and prospectuses for the IPOs and, in
some cases, follow-on offerings, and with respect to
transactions in the aftermarket for those offerings.

The complaints contained allegations that the registration
statements and prospectuses either omitted or misrepresented
material information about commissions paid to investment banks
and aftermarket transactions by certain customers that received
allocations of shares in the IPOs.  

The complaints also alleged that misleading analyst reports were
issued to support the issuers' allegedly manipulated stock price
and that such reports failed to disclose the alleged allocation
practices or that analysts were allegedly subject to conflicts
of interest (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 28, 2005).

The suit is "In re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.  
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:  
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,  
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,  
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New  
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:  
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,  
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:  
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270  
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:  
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:  
         newyork@whafh.com.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: $1M Settlement Proposed for Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd. and Bernie Bellan, representative
plaintiffs in the Crocus Investment Fund class action, have
proposed a $1 million settlement for the suit.

The settlement is contingent on court approval, and on the
latest GrowthWorks' offer to merge Crocus Investment Fund into
GrowthWorks Canadian Fund.

Crocus Investment stopped trading in December 2004 amid
allegations of over-inflated share value.

"In our latest offer we addressed all of the receiver's issues
and attached the Memo of Understanding regarding the proposed
settlement of the class action []," said David Levi, President
and chief executive officer of GrowthWorks.

The proposed litigation settlement only deals with the liability
of the Crocus Investment Fund, and does not cover the liability
of any of the other defendants in the class action.

The partial settlement would facilitate the GrowthWorks'
purchase, which will allow monies in the Fund to be paid out to
shareholders.  It also allows the class action to continue
against all other defendants including the Crocus Investment
Fund directors, officers, underwriters, auditor, the Manitoba
Securities Commission and the Government of Manitoba.

"We believe this is a good deal for shareholders.  Our goal is
to recover every last penny of shareholder money.  This deal
enables us to get shareholders some money now, and strengthens
our lawsuit to recover more money for them later.  We understand
that for many Crocus shareholders, their investments in Crocus
were an important part of their savings," said David Klein,
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Crocus class action.

"By eliminating the largest liability of Crocus, we have created
a way for shareholders to realize value on their shareholdings
and yet preserve their rights against parties who may be liable
to Crocus for past actions.  If the GrowthWorks merger offer is
accepted and closed, Crocus shareholders could then realize most
of the value they have in Crocus without waiting for a
cumbersome court process to be finalized," said Mr. Levi.

Highlights of the settlement, if adopted, include:

     -- The Crocus class action will be settled against the
        Crocus Investment Fund, and court orders issued
        preventing other defendants from making claims against
        the Crocus Investment Fund's assets, so that monies in
        the Fund can be paid to shareholders;

     -- The Crocus Investment Fund will agree to provide all
        possible assistance to the plaintiffs in the class
        action, and will make available all necessary evidence
        to assist the plaintiffs with their claims against the
        remaining defendants; and

     -- A $1 million litigation fund will be created, to cover
        expenses in the class action, thereby assisting the
        plaintiffs in recovering maximum value from the other
        defendants.  Any monies left in the litigation fund at
        the conclusion of the case will be available for
        distribution to shareholders.

GrowthWorks is waiting for the Receiver's response to its latest
offer.

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 (Class Action Reporter, May
10, 2006).

Venture capital fund manager GrowthWorks refers to affiliates of
GrowthWorks Ltd. and includes GrowthWorks Capital Ltd., manager
of the Working Opportunity Fund (EVCC) Ltd., GrowthWorks WV
Management Ltd., manager of GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd. and
GrowthWorks Commercialization Fund Ltd., and GrowthWorks
Atlantic Ltd., manager of GrowthWorks Atlantic Venture Fund Ltd.  
Effective Nov. 29, 2005, GrowthWorks Canadian Fund completed a
merger by purchasing the assets of GrowthWorks Opportunity Fund
Ltd., Canadian Science and Technology Growth Fund Inc. and
Capital Alliance Ventures Inc. in exchange for Class A shares
distributed to former shareholders of each of those investment
funds.

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.  


CROSS COUNTRY: Appeals Remand Decision for Calif. Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. are appealing
to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit a decision
that remanded a purported class action over labor law violations
that was filed against the companies in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

On Aug. 26, 2003, a purported class action, "Theodora Cossack,
et al. v. Cross Country TravCorps and Cross Country Nurses,
Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Orange.

Plaintiffs plead causes of action for:

      -- violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200, et. seq;

      -- violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et.
         seq;

      -- recovery of unpaid wages and penalties;

      -- conversion;

      -- breach of contract;

      -- common counts - work, labor, services provided; and

      -- common counts - money had and received.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated allege that defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  They specifically claim that defendants:

      -- failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by
         California law;

      -- failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which
         overtime hours are to be compensated;

      -- failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a
         workday;

      -- scheduled some of its employees on an alternative
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional
         compensation when those employees did not work such
         alternative workweek, as scheduled; and

      -- failed to pay employees for the minimum hours
         defendants had promised them.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the Superior Court of the state of California
granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add causes of
actions alleging defendant's failure to pay for missed meal
periods and rest breaks.

Although Cross Country Nurses, Inc. was previously dismissed
from the action upon defendants' motion for summary judgment
plaintiffs have erroneously included Cross Country Nurses, Inc.
in the caption and allegations of the amended complaint they
filed.

On Mar. 10, 2006, defendants removed this putative class action
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Orange County.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the case be remanded
to state court, which was granted on Apr. 28, 2006.  Defendants
previously said it would appeal the motion to the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit by May 5, 2006.    

Plaintiffs are seeking:

      -- an order enjoining defendants from engaging in the
         practices challenged in the complaint;

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies
         defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and
         their purported class);

      -- for pre-judgment interest; for certain penalties
         provided for by the California Labor Code; and

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has yet to certify the suit as class action.

The suit is "Cossack et al.v. Cross Country Travelcorps, et al.,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00266-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph Antonelli of Joseph Antonelli Law Offices, 1000
         Lakes Drive, Suite 450, West Covina, CA 91790, Phone:
         626-917-6228, E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com;

     (2) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670
         Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
         Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com;

Representing the defendants are, Enzo Der Boghossian, Arthur F.
Silbergeld and Michael H. Weiss of Proskauer Rose, 2049 Century
Park East, 32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206, Phone: 310-
557-2900, E-mail: asilbergeld@proskauer.com and
mweiss@proskauer.com.


DRIVE TIME: Consumers Sue Over Release of Financial Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several Los Angeles consumers have filed a class action against
used-car dealer Drive Time, formerly known as Ugly Ducking, for
allegedly leaking their credit applications, which included
their social security numbers and other private information, to
unauthorized outside parties.

In connection with an investigation of a different case
involving alleged misconduct by auto insurance brokers, the La
Crescenta, California firm of Brennan, Wiener & Associates (BWA)
alleges that Drive Time had, for some years, leaked these
confidential credit applications in large numbers to insurance
brokers for the purpose of placing auto insurance.  The affected
consumers had no idea that this was happening.

"My clients are understandably outraged," commented Robert F.
Brennan, lead counsel for the plaintiff class.  So far, Brennan
has collected several files from the insurance brokers with
Drive Time credit applications in them.

"With the Choicepoint scandal and so many other related
instances, businesses which get a consumer's social security
number must learn to keep it safe and secure, under lock and key
and accessible only to authorized personnel.  They can't be
spreading around this information, even if it does make money
for them directly or indirectly.  The opportunity for identity
theft and for other misuses of a consumer's personal information
is just too great in this day and age."

The class members have filed a class action in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, Cheryl Long, an Individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly aggrieved by defendants' conduct as
alleged herein versus Drive Time, a California Business Entity;
Ugly Ducking, a California Business Entity, et al., Case. No. BC
352 692.

Brennan, Wiener on the Net: http://www.socallemonlaw.com/


E.I. DUPONT: Faces Suit in W.Va. Over Alleged C8 Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and company is facing a new lawsuit
seeking class action status on behalf of Parkersburg, West
Virginia residents for alleged contamination of drinking water
with perfluorinated chemicals, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are William R. Rhodes, Russell
H. Miller and Valori Mace, represented by Harry Deitzler.

The suit asks the court to make DuPont pay for the medical
monitoring of Parkersburg residents.

Last year, Dupont agreed to pay $343 million to a similar
lawsuit filed by residents of Southeastern Ohio and West
Virginia.  Parkersburg's residents were not included in the
class because tests of the city's water couldn't detect C8 at
measurable levels.  Recently, new tests showed perfluorooctanoic
acid (C8) in Parkersburg drinking water at 65 parts per
trillion.

DuPont uses C8 to help make Teflon and other stain- and water-
resistant coatings for pots, pans, clothes and carpets.  While
tests have linked C8 to cancers in lab animals, researchers are
still studying its effects in humans.

Plaintiffs' lawyer is Harry Deitzler of Hill, Peterson, Carper,
Bee & Deitzler, P.L.L.C. (http://www.hpcbd.com/).


E.I. DUPONT: Facing Lawsuit Over Defective Fire Safety Device
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston law firm McClanahan & Clearman filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. and
one of the company's Canadian subsidiaries, over a plan to
provide prorated refunds to customers who purchased potentially
hazardous fire safety devices that were recently recalled.

Vancouver, British Columbia-based Brookdale International
Systems Inc., a division of DuPont Canada, said that it was
recalling nearly 300,000 EVAC-U8 and EVAC+ emergency escape
smoke hoods in April after tests showed the products did not
work properly, potentially exposing users to carbon monoxide and
other airborne toxins.

The single use, personal air filtration systems were marketed as
being effective for escaping fires and other smoke emergencies,
promising customers 15 min. of protection from smoke and other
toxins.  Each unit was sold with either a five- or eight-year
shelf-life warranty.  In announcing the recall, however,
Brookdale offered only to refund the prorated value left on the
warranty.

"The shelf-life of a defective product should not be a deciding
factor in issuing refunds," says Scott Clearman of McClanahan &
Clearman, who is seeking class-action status for every customer
who purchased the devices.  "Whether one of these hoods was
purchased five days or five years ago doesn't change the fact
that using it can leave trusting consumers in a dangerous
predicament.  Customers should not be penalized because they
were lucky enough not to discover first-hand that these products
do not work as advertised."

In 2002, Brookdale offered full refunds on more than 27,000
hoods purchased by customers who mistakenly believed they would
be effective against tear gas or chemical weapons.

Four years later, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
issued a "Suspend Use" advisory on Mar. 8, 2006.  The EVAC- U8
and EVAC+ hoods were sold on Web sites, by safety products
retailers, in catalogs and at travel stores for $75 to $150.

For more information, contact Mike Androvett, Phone: 800-559-
4534, E-mail: mike@legalpr.com.


ENGELHARD CORP: N.J. Court Stays Consolidated Stockholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Superior Court for Mercer County issued an order
with a statement of reasons, which essentially places a stay on
a consolidated stockholder action against Engelhard Corp.

On Jan.  4, 2006, Scott Sebastian, who alleges that he is a
stockholder of the company, commenced a purported class action
on behalf of the stockholders of the company against the company
and all of its directors in the Chancery Division of the New
Jersey Superior Court for Middlesex County.

The complaint claims the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their response to a proposal by
chemical company BASF Group to acquire the firm.  It seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

On Jan.  4, 2006, Hindy Silver, who alleges that she is a
stockholder of the company, commenced a purported class action
on behalf of the stockholders of the company against the company
and all of its directors in the Chancery Division of the New
Jersey Superior Court for Mercer County.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their response to BASF's
proposal to acquire the company and seeks injunctive relief and
an accounting.

On Jan.  17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the Sebastian and Silver
actions moved to transfer the Sebastian action to the New Jersey
Superior Court for Mercer County and to consolidate the two
actions in that Court.  The defendants cross-moved to stay the
New Jersey actions until the Delaware actions, described below,
have been resolved or, in the alternative, to dismiss the New
Jersey actions for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs
moved for expedited discovery.

Plaintiffs opposed defendants' cross-motions and requested leave
to file an amended complaint if the court was inclined to grant
defendants' motion to dismiss.  

The proposed amended complaint adds, among other things,
allegations that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the company with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fails to
disclose material information that the proposed amended
complaint alleges is needed by Engelhard shareholders to be able
to make an informed decision concerning whether to tender their
shares to BASF.  It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages.

Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery
and motion to amend their complaint.  Argument on all motions
and cross-motions was held on Feb. 9, 2006 in the New Jersey
Superior Court for Mercer County.  

The court stated that the motion to consolidate would be granted
and took the other matters under advisement.  On Feb. 7, 2006
the court issued an order with a statement of reasons.

The order granted plaintiffs' motion to:

     -- transfer the Sebastian action to the court and to
        consolidate it with the Silver action;

     -- granted defendants' motion to stay the consolidated
        actions pending disposition in the action, "In re:
        Engelhard Corp. Shareholders Litigation,
        Consolidated C.A. No. 1871-N," which was filed in the
        Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County and; in
        view of the stay

     -- denied both defendants' motion to dismiss and
        plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery without  
        prejudice.


FIRST HORIZON: Nov. Trial Set for Mo. Loan Origination Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Jackson County, Missouri set a tentative
November 2006 trial for the class action filed against First
Horizon National Corp.'s subsidiary First Horizon Home Loans.

The suit was filed in November 2000.  It concerns the charging
of certain loan origination fees, including fees permitted by
Kansas law, but allegedly restricted or not permitted by
Missouri law, when First Horizon Home Loans or its predecessor,
McGuire Mortgage Co., made certain second-lien mortgage loans.  
Among other relief, plaintiffs seek a refund of fees, a
repayment and forgiveness of loan interest, punitive damages,
and loan rescission.

In response to pre-trial motions, the court has ruled that
Missouri law governs the loan transactions and has certified a
statewide class action involving approximately 4,000 loans.

Discovery is ongoing and additional pre-trial motions are
pending.  Trial is currently scheduled for November 2006.


FORD MOTOR: Facing ERISA Violations Litigation in E.D. Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. and several of its current or former employees
and officers are defendants in a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

Filed on Apr. 7, 2006 the suit alleges that the defendants
violated ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage funds
held in employee savings plans sponsored by company.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege, among other claims, that
defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants
by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option
in the savings plans.  

The defendants deny the plaintiffs' allegations.

The suit is "Lennie, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case
No. 4:06-cv-11722-PVG-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Paul V. Gadola with
referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.   

Representing the plaintiffs are, Jayson E. Blake, David H. Fink
and E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, (Rochester), 950 W.
University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307, Phone: 248-
841-2200, Fax: 248-652-2852, E-mail: jeb@millershea.com,
dhf@millershea.com and epm@millerlawpc.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robert N. Eccles and Gary S. Tell of O'Melveny & Myers,
         (Washington), 1625 Eye St., NW Washington, DC 20006-
         4001, Phone: 202-383-5315, Fax: 202-383-5414, E-mail:
         beccles@omm.com;

     (2) Kathleen A. Lang of Dickinson Wright, (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI 48226-3425,
         Phone: 313-223-3500, Fax: 313-223-3771, E-mail:
         klang@dickinsonwright.com.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Sept. Hearing Set for Access Charge Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter: "In re Global Crossing
Access Charge Litigation, Case No. 04 MD 1630 (GEL)."

The case was brought all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Global Crossing Limited common stock between
Dec. 9, 2003 and Oct. 8, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged
thereby.

The hearing shall be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch
in Courtroom 6B of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, The Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

The court sets forth the deadlines for exercising each of these
options, including the Aug. 16, 2006 deadline for mailing Proofs
of Claim, the Sept. 1, 2006 deadline for requesting exclusion
from the class and the Sept. 7, 2006 deadline for filing any
objections to the proposed settlement agreement or any
application for attorneys' fees and expenses.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Global Crossing Access Charge Litigation c/o Gilardi &
         Co., LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8040, San
         Rafael, CA 94912-8040, Phone: (800) 447-7657;

     (2) William S. Lerach, Keith F. Park and Darren J. Robbins
         of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, California
         92101-4297, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-1058 and
         800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site:
         http://www.lerachlaw.com;and

     (3) David Kessler and Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor,
         Pennsylvania 19087, (Delaware Co.), Phone: 610-667-
         7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, Web site:
         http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Settles Lawsuits Over Blackstone Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthMarkets, Inc. said that parties in purported class actions
challenging the acquisition of the company by a group of private
equity firms led by The Blackstone Group reached an agreement
that fully and finally resolved the cases pending in state
courts in Texas and Oklahoma.

Initially, the company and individual members of its Board of
Directors were named as defendants in two purported class
actions challenging its acquisition.  These suits are:  

      -- "In Re: UICI Shareholder Litigation, pending in the
         District Court of Dallas County, Texas, E-101st
         Judicial District, as Consolidated Cause No. 05-09693,"
         and

      -- "Scott v. UICI, et al. pending in the District Court of
         Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-
         7731."

The petitions generally challenge the price that was paid in the
proposed transaction and the process leading up to the
transaction.  They generally sought unspecified compensatory
monetary damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the
transaction.

On Feb. 14, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2006, the parties executed and
delivered separate memoranda of understanding, pursuant to which
the parties agreed to fully and finally resolve the cases.

Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the company agreed
to include certain modifications to the disclosure contained in
the Prospectus/Proxy Statement, dated Feb. 28, 2006, mailed to
shareholders in connection with the consideration of the merger
and to not oppose plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees in
an aggregate amount not greater than $1.05 million.

In addition, The Blackstone Group agreed, in the event the
termination fee became payable pursuant to the terms of the
merger agreement, to unilaterally waive its right to receive any
portion of the termination fee in excess of $50 million.


IRWIN HOME: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity
Corp. and Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company," are appealing to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the dismissal of
their case against two Irwin Financial Corp. subsidiaries.

The suit was filed on Aug. 12, 2005, alleging the defendants
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by using or
obtaining plaintiffs' consumer reports for credit transactions
not initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did not receive
firm offers of credit.  The plaintiffs also allege that the
company failed to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures as
required by the FCRA.  The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, statutory damages of $1,000 per each separate
violation and punitive damages for alleged willful violations of
the FCRA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2005.  On Oct.
18, 2005, the company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim.

In response to the defendants' motion, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.  
Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit on Apr. 13, 2006.

The suit is "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-03289-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin, Douglas Bowdoin, P.A., 255 South
         Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
         407-422-0025, Fax: 407-843-2448, E-mail:
         dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Gail Killefer, 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300, San
         Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/362-8640, e-mail:
         gkillefer@aol.com; and

     (3) Kathleen Clark Knight, Terry A. Smiljanich, James,
         Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, 4830 W. Kennedy Blvd.,
         Suite 550 Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100 x4214,
         Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com or
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Virginia W. Barnhart, J. Preston Turner of Pope &
         Hughes, P.A., 29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 110,
         Towson, MD 21204, Phone: 410-494-7777, Fax: 410-494-
         1658, E-mail: virginia.barnhart@popehughes.com or
         jpturner@popehughes.com; and

    (ii) Tomio B. Narita, Wineberg Simmonds & Narita, 44
         Montgomery St., Ste 3880, San Francisco, CA 94104-4811,
         Phone: (415) 352-2200, Fax: (415) 352-2222, E-mail:
         tnarita@wsnlaw.com.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Ind. Court Orders Mailing of Notices in "Silke"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Superior Court for Marion County ordered the mailing
of class notices for the suit, "Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corp.,"
which was filed against Irwin Mortgage Corp., formerly Inland
Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.

The complaint, which named the company as a defendant in April
2003, alleges that the company charged a document preparation
fee in violation of Indiana law for services performed by
clerical personnel in completing legal documents related to
mortgage loans.

The company filed an answer on Jun. 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on Oct. 27, 2003.  On Jun. 18, 2004, the court
certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana borrowers who
were allegedly charged the fee by the company at any time after
Apr. 14, 1997.  This date was later clarified by stipulation of
the parties to be Apr. 17, 1997.

In November 2004, the court heard arguments on the company's
motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion seeking to
send out class notice.  On Feb. 23, 2006, the court ordered that
class notice be mailed.  


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ala. RESPA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage
Corp.," are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit, the dismissal of the case by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

Since it was filed back in April 1996, the plaintiffs obtained
class action status for their complaint alleging that the
company violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA) relating to it's payment of broker fees to mortgage
brokers.

In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld
the district court's certification of the class.  However, in
October 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) issued a policy statement that explicitly disagreed with
the 11th Circuit's interpretation of RESPA in upholding class
certification.

Subsequent to the HUD policy statement, the 11th Circuit decided
a RESPA case similar to the company's, concluding the trial
court had abused its discretion in certifying the class.  The
11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in effect, overruling
its previous decision upholding class certification in the
company's case.

On Feb. 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama dismissed this case, by granting the motions
of the company, to decertify the class and for summary judgment,
and by denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Irwin Mortgage is formerly Inland Mortgage Corp., an indirect
subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp.

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case
No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, David J. Guin and Tammy McClendon
         of Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC, Two North Twentieth
         Building, North 20th Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 226-2282, Fax: 226-226-2357, E-mail:
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, davidg@dglawfirm.com and
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com

     (2) Richard S. Gordon and Kieron F. Quinn of Quinn Gordon &
         Wolf, 40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408, Baltimore,
         MD 21204-4803, Phone: 1-410-825-2300, Fax: 1-410-825-
         0066.

Representing the company are:

     (i) David S. Hay, Janel E. LaBoda, Alan Hall Maclin, J.
         Patrick McDavitt, Robert J. Pratte and Margaret K.
         Savage of Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South
         8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 1-612-977-
         8400, Fax: 1-612-977-8650; and

    (ii) Sarah Y. Larson, Alexander J. Marshall III and Cathy S.
         Wright of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, AmSouth Harbert
         Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham,
         AL 35203-2618, Phone: 254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail:
         slarson@mcglaw.com.


IRWIN UNION: Continues to Face Pa. Consolidated CBNV Loans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a subsidiary of Irwin Financial
Corp., is defendant in a consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in
connection with loans the company purchased from Community Bank
of Northern Virginia (CBNV), according to Irwin Financial's May
9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Feb. 31, 2006.

Initially several suits were filed against the company in both
federal and state courts.  These suits are:

      -- "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company;"

      -- "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia;"

      -- "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et
         al.," and

      -- "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al."

"Hobson" was filed on Jul. 30, 2004 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended on Aug. 30,
2004, the Hobson complaint, seeks certification of both a
plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs' class to
consist of all persons who obtained loans from CBNV and whose
loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.  

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

On Oct. 12, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Hobson claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.

"Kossler," was originally filed in July 2002 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The
company was added as a defendant in December 2004.

The Kossler complaint seeks certification of a plaintiffs' class
and seeks to void the mortgage loans as illegal contracts.  It
also seeks recovery against the company for alleged RESPA
violations and for conversion.  

On Sept. 9, 2005, the Kossler plaintiffs filed a third amended
class action complaint.  On Oct. 21, 2005, the company filed a
renewed motion seeking to dismiss the Kossler action.

Plaintiffs in "Hobson" and "Kossler" claim that CBNV was
allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of
its charter by certain third parties who charged high fees,
which were not representative of the services rendered and not
properly disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees.

The loans in question are allegedly high cost/high interest
loans under Section 32 of HOEPA.  Plaintiffs also allege illegal
kickbacks and fee splitting.  

In "Hobson," plaintiffs allege that the company was aware of
CBNV's alleged arrangement when it purchased the loans and that
it participated in a RICO enterprise and conspiracy related to
the loans.  Because the company bought the loans from Community
Bank, the Hobson plaintiffs are alleging that Irwin has assignee
liability under HOEPA.

If the Hobson and Kossler plaintiffs are successful in
establishing a class and prevailing at trial, possible RESPA
remedies could include treble damages for each service for which
there was an unearned fee, kickback or overvalued service.  

Other possible damages in "Hobson" could include TILA remedies,
such as rescission, actual damages, statutory damages not to
exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the
creditor, and attorneys' fees and costs; possible HOEPA remedies
could include the refunding of all closing costs, finance
charges and fees paid by the borrower; RICO remedies could
include treble plaintiffs' actually proved damages.

In addition, the Hobson plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
punitive damages.  Under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and RICO, statutory
remedies include recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.  Other
possible damages in "Kossler" could include the refunding of all
origination fees paid by the plaintiffs.

"Chatfield" and "Ransom," which both names the company along
with CBNV as defendants were filed on Jun. 9, 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Frederick County, Maryland.  The cases involve
mortgage loans the company purchased from CBNV.

On Jul. 16, 2004, both of these lawsuits were removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
complaints allege that the plaintiffs did not receive
disclosures required under HOEPA and TILA.  They also allege
violations of Maryland law because the plaintiffs were allegedly
charged or contracted for a prepayment penalty fee.

The company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that CBNV, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers.

Under the loan purchase agreements between the company and CBNV,
Irwin has the right to demand repurchase of the mortgage loans
and to seek indemnification from Community for the claims in
these lawsuits.  

On Sept. 17, 2004, the company made a demand for indemnification
and a defense to "Hobson," "Chatfield," and, "Ransom."  CBNV
denied this request as premature.

In response to a motion by the company, the Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated "Hobson," "Chatfield" and
"Ransom" with "Kossler" in the Western District of Pennsylvania
for all pretrial proceedings.

The consolidated suit is "Davis, et al. v. Community Bank of
Northern Virginia, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-01201-GLL, (formerly
Kossler)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Gary L. Lancaster.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric G. Calhoun of Lawson, Fields, McCue, Lee &
         Campbell, 14135 Midway Road, Suite 250, Addison, TX
         75001, Phone: (972) 490-0808;

     (2) R. Bruce Carlson of Caron, McCormick, Gordon &
         Constants, 201 Route 17 North, 2nd Floor, Rutherford,
         NJ 07070, Phone: (412) 749-1667, E-mail:
         bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com;

     (3) Michael E. McCarthy, 2500 Lawyers Building, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-1288; and

     (4) R. Hoyt Rowell, III of Ness, Motley, Loadholt,
         Richardson & Poole, P.O. Box 1792, Mt. Pleasant, SC
         29465, Phone: (843) 216-9471.

Representing the company is Larry K. Elliott of Cohen & Grigsby,
11 Stanwix Street, 15th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1319, Phone:
(412) 297-4962, E-mail: lelliott@cohenlaw.com.


IRWIN UNION: "White" Plaintiffs Want Remand of Mass. Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "White et al v. Irwin
Union Bank and Trust Company, et al.," filed a motion with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking
to remand their action against Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co.
and Irwin Home Equity Corp. back to state court.

On Jan. 5, 2006, the two subsidiaries of Irwin Financial Corp.
were named as defendants in litigation in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants charged or caused
plaintiffs to pay certain fees, costs and other charges that
were excessive or illegal under Maryland law in connection with
loans made to plaintiffs by the defendants.

They seek certification of a class consisting of Maryland
residents who received mortgage loans from Irwin secured by real
property in the State of Maryland and who claim injury due to
Irwin's lending practices.

In addition, plaintiffs are seeking damages under the Maryland
Mortgage Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
for, among others:

      -- relief from further interest payments on their loans;
     
      -- reimbursement of interest, charges, fees and costs
         already paid, including prepayment penalties paid by
         the class;

      -- and damages of three times the amount of all allegedly
         excessive or illegal charges paid; and

      -- plus attorneys' fees, expenses and costs.

In the alternative, the plaintiffs seek arbitration as provided
for in their mortgage notes.  

On Feb. 17, 2006, defendants filed a notice of removal and
removed the case from state to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  On Feb. 17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action back to state court.  

The suit is "White et al v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00429-JFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge J. Frederick
Motz.  

Representing the plaintiffs is John A. Pica, Jr. of Law Offices
of Peter G. Angelos, PC, 100 N. Charles St., 20th Fl.,
Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 14106492000, Fax: 14106492150, E-
mail: johnpica28@hotmail.com.

Representing the defendants is John Preston Turner of Pope and
Hughes, PA, 29 W. Susquehanna Ave., Ste. 110, Towson, MD 21204,
Phone: 14104947777, Fax: 14104941658, E-mail:
jpturner@popehughes.com.


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Milwaukee Journal Ad Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shorewest Realtors, Inc. and Journal Sentinel, Inc., a
subsidiary of Journal Communications, Inc. have agreed to settle
a lawsuit brought by Shorewest over the circulation of the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Although Journal Sentinel and its counsel continue to believe
the claims lack merit, and Shorewest and its counsel continue to
believe the claims have merit, by agreeing to a settlement, the
parties avoid the costs and risks of additional litigation on
terms that are mutually agreeable.

The settlement is on behalf of a proposed class of advertisers
similar to Shorewest who placed ads in the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2005.

If the settlement is approved by the court after a public
hearing, members of the proposed class will be eligible under
the settlement to receive a credit to be used toward future
advertising in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Both parties are pleased to put the litigation behind them and
look forward to continuing their successful long-term business
relationship.

                        Case Background

Shorewest Realtors filed a class action against the Journal
Sentinel in April 2005 on behalf of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
advertisers, alleging that the newspaper improperly inflated its
circulation numbers from 1996 on.  Shorewest sought disgorgement
or restitution by Journal Sentinel of alleged improperly
collected charges, with interest, plus an unspecified amount of
damages.

On Jul. 20, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin
granted in part Journal Sentinel's motion to dismiss the class
suit.

On Oct. 10, 2005, the court ruled on the amended motion to
dismiss.  The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims based on
breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing and allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their other
claims.

Journal Sentinel publishes the flagship Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel newspaper as well as a range of other print and
electronic products, primarily serving southeast Wisconsin
people and businesses.

In addition to the daily and Sunday newspaper, Journal Sentinel
produces Web products and services through its Journal
Interactive division, including JSOnline.com and
PackerInsider.com.

The company also offers direct mail and database marketing
services, and the addition of a new printing facility in 2003
led to Journal Sentinel's recent entry to the business of
commercial printing.

For more information, contact Sara Leuchter- Journal (Investor
Relations), Phone: 414-224-2633, E-mail:
swilkins@journalcommunications.com


LAWYERS PRIVATE: Plaintiffs in Mortgage Scheme Suit Get AU$392T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court of Brisbane, Australia awarded 37 Queensland
investors, mostly retired, AU$392,509.25 in compensation for
money lost in a failed solicitor's mortgage scheme, the
Queensland Business Review reports.

In 2003, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
(ASIC) commenced civil proceedings against Lawyers Private
Mortgages Pty Ltd., a nominee company of the Brisbane legal firm
McCarthy Durie Ryan Neil Solicitors, and the firms' partners,
Jonathan McCarthy, Bruce Durie, Philip Ryan and Ian Neil.  The
suit was filed on behalf of investors involved in a solicitors'
mortgage scheme that the defendants promoted and managed.

ASIC's application was for damages, interest and costs relating
to breaches of contract, negligence, breach of trust and alleged
contraventions of the Corporations Act in relation to their
promotion and management of the scheme (Troubled Company
Reporter-Asia Pacific, Dec. 16, 2003).

The McCarthy Durie partners were directors of the nominee
company, Lawyers Private Mortgages, which provided a loan of
AU$1.4 million to Rivett Project Results Pty Ltd in July 1999.  

Rivett was the developer of the Yandina Greens Retired Folks
Village Pensioner Accommodation at Yandina, Queensland.  
Investors contributed the money for the loan as an investment
through Lawyers Private Mortgages, and were promised an annual
return of 9.25 percent.  The majority of the investors were
retired, and relatively inexperienced in investment situations.  

In March 2000, the loan defaulted and Jessup and Partners of
Townsville were subsequently appointed as liquidator to wind up
the scheme together with other McCarthy Durie Ryan schemes.

The federal court found that the company made misleading
statements as well as negligent misstatements when they promoted
the mortgage schemes of McCarthy Durie Ryan to investors.  It
also discovered that the company stated in its investment
summary a higher valuation of the assets of Rivett Project.


MASTERBUILT MANUFACTURING: Recalls Electric Smokers on Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masterbuilt Manufacturing Inc. of Columbus Georgia, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 10,700 electric smokehouse smokers.

The company said smoldering wood chips used in the wood chip box
can ignite into flames when the door of the unit is opened,
posing a risk of burn injuries to users and property damage to
nearby combustibles.

Masterbuilt has received two reports of units that were damaged
as a result of wood chip flare-ups. No injuries or property
damage were reported.

The smokers cook food slowly at lower temperatures and use wood
chips to produce smoke inside the unit for flavor. Wood chips
are placed inside the smoker and heated using an electric burner
element to produce smoldering coals. The electric smokehouse
model ESQ30B has a black powder coated outer shell with the
Masterbuilt Electric Smokehouse logo on the front door. The
electric smokehouse model ESQ30S has a stainless steel outer
shell with the Masterbuilt Electric Smokehouse logo on the front
door. The model number is located on a metal plate on the back
of the unit.

The smokers are manufactured in China and are being sold in
sporting goods stores nationwide from July 2005 through May 2006
for between $200 and $250.

Consumers are advised to stop using these smokers immediately,
and contact the firm to receive free repair kit.

For more information, contact Masterbuilt, Phone: (800) 489-
1581, On the Net: http://www.masterbuilt.com.


MCMORAN OIL: Settles Consolidated Stockholder Lawsuit for $17.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
McMoRan Exploration Co. paid $17.5 million in March to settle a
consolidated shareholder class action over its 1998 merger with
Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas Co.

The suits, filed in Delaware Court of Chancery, are:

      -- "Daniel W. Krasner v. James R. Moffett; Ren L.
         Latiolais; J. Terrell Brown; Thomas D. Clark, Jr.; B.M.
         Rankin, Jr.; Richard C. Adkerson; Robert M. Wohleber;
         Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas
         Co., Civ. Act. No. 16729-NC"; and

      -- "Gregory J. Sheffield and Moise Katz v. Richard C.
         Adkerson, J. Terrell Brown, Thomas D. Clark, Jr., Ren
         L. Latiolais, James R. Moffett, B.M. Rankin, Jr.,
         Robert M. Wohleber and McMoRan Exploration Co."

These lawsuits were consolidated in January 1999.  The complaint
alleges that Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s directors breached
their fiduciary duty to Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s
stockholders in connection with the combination of Freeport-
McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2005).

The plaintiffs claim that the directors failed to take actions
that were necessary to obtain the true value of Freeport-McMoRan
Sulphur Inc.  The plaintiffs also claim that McMoRan Oil & Gas
Co. knowingly aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the other defendants (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2005).

In September 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision and in
June 2003, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2005).

The lawsuit was certified as a class action.  Fact discovery was
later completed (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2005).

In February 2005 the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment and oral argument on this motion was held in April 2005
(Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2005).

In December 2005, the company announced that it reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this class
action litigation.  

While the company believe that the 1998 merger transaction was
properly considered by the boards of directors of Freeport-
McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. and was
substantially and procedurally fair to the shareholders of both
companies, it believes that this settlement is in the best
interests of the company and its shareholders and eliminates the
risk, burden and expense of further litigation.  

In accordance with the terms of the settlement, the company paid
$17.5 million in cash into a settlement fund in March 2006, the
plaintiffs have provided a complete release of all claims, and
the Delaware litigation has been dismissed with prejudice.  

The company's insurance carriers have or are expected to fund
$5.1 million of the company's settlement costs.  


MEDIA COS: Calif. Court Approves DVD Labeling Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court has preliminarily approved
the settlement of the case, "Boltz v. Buena Vista Home
Entertainment, Inc., et al. Case No. BC 323842."

The suit is a class action alleging that certain motion picture
producers and distributors misled consumers by inaccurately
describing the nature of the closed captioning and/or subtitling
provided on their DVDs.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that:

     -- Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.,
     -- The Walt Disney Company,
     -- Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,
     -- Warner Home Video Inc.,
     -- Universal Studios Home Entertainment LLC,
     -- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.,
     -- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment LLC,
     -- Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.,
     -- Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Inc., and
     -- Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. (the Settling Companies)

misled consumers by displaying a captioning symbol or stating
"captioning," "captioned," "subtitled" or "subtitling" on
certain DVD packaging when the main feature presentation was
captioned, closed captioned, or subtitled but some or all of the
DVD "bonus material" was not.

The Settling Companies have denied liability, but have agreed to
settle this action to avoid litigation by, in the future,
providing:

     * captioning or closed captioning of bonus material on
       major categories of DVDs they distribute over the next
       five (5) years,

     * paying $275,000 to certain non-profit organizations
       dedicated to advocacy for deaf and hard-of-hearing
       persons, and

     * paying attorneys' fees and costs (including any incentive
       award to named plaintiff) up to $1,300,000

in exchange for the release of claims, as more fully specified
in the settlement agreements.

The proposed settlement affects and includes these U.S.
residents:

     -- all persons with any hearing loss who, before Apr. 27,
        2006, have purchased, rented or otherwise obtained a
        VHS, Laser Disk, DVD, or other home video product
        produced and/or distributed by any of the Settling
        Companies (Home Video Product), or on whose behalf such
        a Home Video Product was so obtained; and

     -- all other persons who, within the Class Period,
        purchased, rented or otherwise obtained such a Home
        Video Product or on whose behalf such a Home Video
        Product was so obtained for use with or with the
        expectation that it contained captioning or closed
        captioning.

                      Fairness Hearing Date

A hearing to determine whether the court should grant final
approval of the settlement and the amount of any award of
attorneys' fees and costs, including any incentive award to
named plaintiff, will be held before Judge Anthony J. Mohr, in
Department 309, Central Civil West Courthouse, 600 S.
Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005, at 10:00
a.m. on Aug. 28, 2006.

For more details of the settlement, vist:
http://www.dvdcclabelingclasssettlement.com.

For exclusion requests write to The Garden City Group, Inc. at
P.O. Box 91041, Seattle, WA 98111-9141, referencing "DVD 'CC'
Labeling Class Settlement", which must be postmarked not later
than midnight of Jul. 14, 2006.

For more details on exclusion requests, visit
http://www.dvdcclabelingclasssettlement.com.

Counsel for the class are:

     (1) Robert W. Mills, Esq., and Harry Shulman, Esq., The
         Mills Law Firm, 145 Marina Boulevard, San Rafael,
         California 94901; and

     (2) Robert M. Bramson, Esq. of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
         Birkhaeuser, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120,
         Walnut Creek, California 94598.

Counsel for Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. and the
Walt Disney Company are M. Randall Oppenheimer, Esq., Marc
Feinstein, Esq., Jennifer E. Laser, Esq. of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90067.

Counsel for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Warner
Home Video Inc. are Kathyleen A. O'Brien, Esq. and J. Manena
Bishop, Esq. of Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024.

COUNSEL for Universal Studios Home Entertainment LLC are Gail
Migdal Title, Esq., Kristin L. Holland, Esq. of Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600, Los Angeles,
California 90067.

Counsel for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. and Metrogoldwyn-
Mayer Home Entertainment LLC are Robert M. Schwartz, Esq. and
Drew E. Breuder, Esq. of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 1999 Avenue of
the Stars, Seventh Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.

Counsel for Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Sony Pictures
Home Entertainment Inc., and Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. are Robert
M. Schwartz, Esq. and Drew E. Breuder, Esq. of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90067.


MERCK & CO: Reaches Tolling Agreement for Vioxx Lawsuit in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. entered into a tolling agreement with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the action, "In re Vioxx
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
MDL-1657."

The agreement establishes a procedure to halt the running of the
statute of limitations (tolling) as to certain categories of
claims allegedly arising from the use of Vioxx by non-New Jersey
citizens, according to the company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Feb. 31, 2006.  

The suit is currently pending before Judge Eldon E. Fallon of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in several
federal and state product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims, as well as putative class actions, with
respect to Vioxx.

As of Feb. 31, 2006, the company has been served or is aware
that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 11,500
lawsuits, which include approximately 23,350 plaintiff groups,
alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of Vioxx.

Of these lawsuits, approximately 5,175 lawsuits representing
approximately 14,850 plaintiff groups are or are slated to be in
the federal Multidistrict litigation (MDL) and approximately
5,250 lawsuits representing approximately 5,250 plaintiff groups
are included in a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey Superior
Court before Judge Carol E. Higbee.

Certain of these lawsuits include allegations regarding
gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular events, thrombotic
events or kidney damage.

The company has also been named as a defendant in approximately
190 putative class actions alleging personal injuries or
seeking:

      -- medical monitoring as a result of the putative class
         members' use of Vioxx;

      -- disgorgement of certain profits under common law unjust
         enrichment theories, and/or; and

      -- various remedies under state consumer fraud and fair
         business practice statutes, including recovering the
         cost of Vioxx purchased by individuals and third-party
         payors such as union health plans.

The actions filed in the state courts of California, Texas, New
Jersey, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, respectively, have been
transferred to a single judge in each state for coordinated
proceedings.
  
On Feb. 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) transferred all Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits pending
in federal courts nationwide into one MDL for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings.  The MDL has been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana before
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon.
  
Judge Fallon has indicated that he intends to try a series of
cases between November 2005 and 2006, in these categories:

      -- heart attack with short term use;

      -- heart attack with long term use;

      -- stroke; and

      -- cardiovascular injury involving a prescription written
         after April 2002 when the labeling for Vioxx was
         revised to include the results of the VIGOR trial.
   
The company has entered into a tolling agreement with the MDL
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee that establishes a procedure to
halt the running of the statute of limitations as to certain
categories of claims allegedly arising from the use of Vioxx by
non-New Jersey citizens.

The Tolling Agreement applies to individuals who have not filed
lawsuits and may or may not eventually file lawsuits and only to
those claimants who seek to toll claims alleging injuries
resulting from a thrombotic cardiovascular event that results in
a myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke.

The Tolling Agreement provides counsel additional time to
evaluate potential claims.  The Tolling Agreement requires any
tolled claims to be filed in federal court.  As of Feb. 31,
2006, approximately 4,450 claimants had entered into Tolling
Agreements.

For more details, visit: http://vioxx.laed.uscourts.gov/.


MERCK & CO: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss N.J. Vioxx Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on Merck & Co., Inc.'s motions to dismiss certain
complaints in its securities, derivative & Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) litigation, according to the
company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Feb. 31, 2006.

The company, along with various of its current and former
officers and directors, are defendants in a number of putative
Vioxx class actions and individual lawsuits filed in (or removed
to) federal court by shareholders under the federal securities
laws.

All of the cases, along with related lawsuits, have been
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in a
nationwide MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings (Shareholder
MDL).

Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx securities lawsuits for
all purposes.  On Jun. 9, 2005, plaintiffs in the Vioxx
securities lawsuits filed a fourth consolidated and amended
class action complaint superseding prior complaints in the
various cases.  

Plaintiffs request certification of a class of purchasers of
company stock between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29, 2004.  The
Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.

It also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the Securities and
Exchange Act against certain defendants relating to their sales
of Merck stock.  In addition, the complaint includes allegations
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 that
certain defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in
a registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in
connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.  

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which
is pending.
  
The company also faces a number of putative class actions that
were filed against it and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in federal court on behalf of certain of
the company's current and former employees who are participants
in certain of the company's retirement plans asserting claims
under ERISA.

The lawsuits make similar allegations to the allegations
contained in the Vioxx securities Lawsuits and claim that the
defendants breached their duties as plan fiduciaries.

The JPML has transferred all Vioxx ERISA lawsuits to the
shareholder MDL.  Judge Chesler consolidated the Vioxx ERISA
lawsuits for all purposes.  A consolidated and amended complaint
was filed in the Vioxx ERISA lawsuits on Aug. 2, 2005.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which
is pending.

The consolidated suit is "In re Merck & Co., Inc., Securities,
Derivative & 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1658, Master Docket No.
3:05-cv-1151-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.   

Representing the some of the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Irma Lois Netting of Lemmon Law Firm, LLC, 650 Poydras
         Street, Suite 2335, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (985)
         783-6789, Fax: (985) 783-1333, E-mail:
         irma@lemmonlawfirm.com;

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

     (4) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com;

     (5) Russell W. Rosen of Rosen Preminger & Bloom, 708 Third
         Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         682-1900, E-mail: rrosen@rpblawny.com; and

     (6) David M. Taus of The Law Offices Of Francis J. De Vito,
         661 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Phone: (201)
         487-7575, E-mail: timmy35@aol.com.

Representing the company John N. Poulos of Hughes Hubbard &
Reed, LLP, 101 Hudson Street, Suite 3601, Jersey City, NJ 07302-
3918, Phone: (201) 536-9220, E-mail: poulos@hugheshubbard.com.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Units Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. and some of its subsidiaries are
defendants in a purported class action in Los Angeles Superior
Court, alleging violations of various California Labor Code
sections and applicable wage orders.

On Nov. 1, 2005, the company's management company and several of
its facilities located in California, including Inland Valley
Medical Center, Rancho Springs Medical Center, Del Amo Hospital
and Corona Regional Medical Center were named defendants in a
wage and hour suit, "Lasko-Hoellinger, et al v. UHS of Delaware,
Inc., et al."

While two of the four original plaintiffs in that case
voluntarily requested that they be dismissed as plaintiffs from
the lawsuit, the remaining two plaintiffs are seeking to have
the matter certified as a class action.  

The remaining plaintiffs are alleging, among other things, that
they are entitled to recover damages from the Hospitals for
missed breaks and other alleged violations of various California
Labor Code sections and applicable wage orders for a period of
at least one year prior to the filing of the case.

The hospitals denied liability and are defending the case, which
was yet to be certified as a class action by the court.


WEST PUBLISHING: Calif. Court Certifies Suit Over Bar Review
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California certified a nationwide class
action against BAR/BRI bar review and The West Publishing Corp.
and Kaplan, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The class is comprised of all persons who purchased a bar review
course from BAR/BRI Bar Review from August 1997.

The suit, filed in May 2005 by former law students in
California, Michigan and Louisiana, accuses defendant West
Publishing Corp., d/b/a BAR/BRI of violating the federal
antitrust laws and conspiring with defendant Kaplan, Inc. to
prevent competition in the market for full-service bar review
courses.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have.  The class action is scheduled for trial in
September 2006.

For more information, contact Dan Drachler, Phone: +1-206-223-
2053, E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com or Robert Schachter, Phone: +1-
212-223-3900, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com.

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al v. West Publishing Corporation
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc", filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eliot G Disner of Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200, Fax: 310-315-8210;

     (2) Noah E Jussim of McGuire Woods, 1800 Century Park East,
         8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (3) Sidney K Kanazawa of Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket,
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90067, Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail:
         skanazawa@vsblaw.com;

     (4) Tracy Evans Moyer of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (5) Colleen M Regan of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail: cregan@vsblaw.com; and

     (5) Joanna Shally of Shearman and Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4700.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Edward A Klein of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine &
         Regenstreif, 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
         90024-3503, Phone: 310-500-3500;

     (2) Stuart N Senator of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S Grand
         Ave, 35th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-
         683-9100, E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com;

     (3) Lee Scott Taylor of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 South
         Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90071-1560;

     (4) Jeffrey A LeVee of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street,
         50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939,
         E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com;

     (5) Courtney M Schaberg of Jones Day, 555 South Flower
         Street, 50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         489-3939, E-mail: cmschaberg@jonesday.com; and

     (6) Brian A Sun of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street, 50th
         Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939, E-
         mail: basun@jonesday.com.


WYETH: Appeals Ala. Court's Class Certification of DURACT Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth is appealing the Circuit Court of Alabama, Jefferson
County's class certification of a putative class action
involving DURACT, its non-narcotic analgesic pain reliever,
which was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 1998.

The putative class action asking compensation for economic
damages is "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al. v.
Wyeth, CV-03-6046."

On Feb. 27, 2006, the Circuit Court of Alabama, Jefferson
County, certified the nationwide class of third-party payers
seeking such economic damages and the recovery of monies paid by
such entities for DURACT that was not used by their insureds as
of the date DURACT was withdrawn from the market.  The company
is appealing the Circuit Court's decision.


ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Face N.J. Tellium Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhone Technologies, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Tellium, Inc., which the
company acquired in November 2003.  The information emerged at
Zhone's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003,
numerous class action securities complaints were filed against
Tellium.

On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing
all of the actions was filed.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Tellium and its then-current directors and
executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements
or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating
to the securities offered in the initial public offering.

The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or
intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or
omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including
compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law
or equity.

On Mar. 31, 2004, the court granted Tellium's and the
underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint.  On May 14,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended
complaint.

On Jun. 25, 2004, the company, as Tellium's successor-in-
interest, and the underwriters again moved to dismiss the
complaint.  

On Jun. 30, 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
but denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that portion of the
court's Jun. 30, 2005 decision dismissing their claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On Aug. 26, 2005, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

The suit is "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with
referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.  

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

Representing the defendants is Joseph T. Boccassini of Mccarter
& English, LLP, Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street,
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070, E-
mail: jboccassini@mccarter.com.  

        
                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Ins. Reserves $24.1M for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group Inc., formerly Allmerica Financial
Corporation, has reserved US$24.1 million for estimated asbestos
and environmental liability at March 31, 2006. The actuarial
point estimate for those claims is at US$20.3 million.

At December 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$24.4 million in
net reserves, for which the actuarial point estimate was at
US$20.5 million.

Ending loss and loss adjustment expenses reserves for all direct
business written by Hanover's property and casualty firms
related to asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort
liability were US$24.1 million at March 31, 2006 and US$24.3
million at December 31, 2005.

Net of reinsurance for those reserves was US$16.9 million at
March 31, 2006 and US$16.2 million at December 31, 2005.

At March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, the Company has
established loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for
assumed reinsurance and pool business with asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$49.2
million.

Renamed in late 2005, The Hanover Insurance Group Inc. provides
personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers'
compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance coverage
through its Citizens and Hanover subsidiaries. The Company is
based in Worcester, Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Confronts 555 Suits With 10T Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corp.'s subsidiaries, Entergy Gulf States Inc., Entergy
Louisiana LLC, Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy New Orleans
Inc., face about 555 asbestos and hazardous waste lawsuits
involving about 10,000 claims, according to Entergy's Annual
Report filed on Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Multidefendant suits have been filed in federal and state courts
in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by contractor employees in
the 1950-1980 timeframe against the four subsidiaries as
premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged
exposure to asbestos or other hazardous material.

The Company's subsidiaries faced about 480 asbestos and
hazardous waste suits involving about 10,000 claims. (Class
Action Reporter, November 18, 2005)

Class action and other suits have been filed in state and
federal courts seeking damages from Entergy Louisiana and
Entergy New Orleans caused by the disposal of hazardous waste
and for asbestos-related disease allegedly from exposure on
Entergy Louisiana's and Entergy New Orleans' premises.

Based in New Orleans, Louisiana, Entergy Corp.'s utility units
distribute electricity to 2.7 million customers in Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The Company also provides
natural gas to nearly 240,000 customers in Louisiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor's Claims Decrease to 3,600
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products Inc.'s outstanding asbestos-related
claims, which the Company assumed when it acquired a brake
business, decreased to about 3,600 cases at March 31, 2006.

At December 31, 2005, the Company had about 4,500 outstanding
asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2006)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it sold in
March 1998. When the Company acquired the business, it assumed
future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing products made by the business' seller.

The Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims
filed on or after September 1, 2001. Its ultimate exposure will
depend upon the number of claims filed against it on or after
September 1, 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense.

In the 2006-1st quarter, the Company settled a number of cases.
The Company expects the outstanding cases to increase gradually
due to recent legislation in certain states mandating minimum
medical criteria before a case can be heard.

Since its inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2006,
the amounts paid for settled claims are about US$3.9 million.

Based in Long Island City, New York, Standard Motor Products
Inc. manufactures engine management and air-conditioning
replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket. Among the
Company's customers are auto parts warehouse distributors such
as CARQUEST and NAPA and major auto parts retailers such as
Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Accrues About $2.5M for Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation accrued about US$2.5 million for
asbestos-related lawsuits at both March 31, 2006 and December
31, 2005, according to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in suits
alleging exposure to asbestos in Company products. At March 31,
2006, the Company listed about 7,800 non-maritime claims and
33,300 maritime asbestos claims outstanding.

At December 31, 2005, there were about 9,300 non-maritime claims
and 33,300 maritime asbestos claims. In 2005, there were about
90 new non-maritime suits and 100 new maritime claims filed.
About 7,000 non-maritime claims, mostly from Mississippi, were
dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed. No maritime claims
were dismissed during 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March 31,
2006)

Based in Highland Heights, Kentucky, General Cable Corp. makes
aluminum, copper, and fiber-optic wire and cable products.
General Cable has three segments: industrial and specialty,
energy, and communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Incurs About $1M of Unindemnified Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide Corporation, as of March 31, 2006, has incurred or
expects to incur about US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-
related costs, as to which it either has received or expects to
receive about US$700,000 in insurance reimbursements.

In 1995, a subsidiary of Mafco Consolidated Group Inc., M&F
Worldwide and two subsidiaries of M&F Worldwide entered into a
transfer agreement. Pneumo Abex Corp., with its successor in
interest Pneumo Abex LLC, then a M&F subsidiary, retained the
assets and liabilities relating to the Company's former Abex NWL
Aerospace Division, as well as certain contingent liabilities
and the related assets, including its historical insurance and
indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement requires such subsidiary of MCG to
undertake certain obligations with respect to certain categories
of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including
environmental claims, retained by Pneumo Abex.

Before 1988, a former M&F subsidiary made certain asbestos-
containing friction products. Pneumo Abex co-defended against
personal injury suits claiming damages relating to asbestos
exposure.

In the indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc., formerly
known as Whitman Corp., is liable for all the remaining
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through
August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted.

In connection with the sale by Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries
Inc. assumed responsibility for all asbestos-related claims
asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not
indemnified by PepsiAmericas.

Federal-Mogul Corp. bought Friction Products in October 1998. In
October 2001, Friction Products filed a petition under Chapter
11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing its
indemnity obligations to the Company. Cooper Industries
guarantees performance of Friction Products' indemnity
obligation.

After Friction Products' filing, the Company confirmed that
Cooper Industries would fulfill the Friction Products' indemnity
obligations to the extent that they are no longer being
performed by Friction Products.

Based in New York City, New York, M&F Worldwide Corp., operates
as a flavorings maker. It makes licorice extract used for candy
and as a tobacco additive. The Company has expanded into the
security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke
American Checks from Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 29,385 Claims in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc. recorded about 29,385 unresolved asbestos-related
claims, of which about 990 were premises claims and the rest
were products claims.

The Company noted about 2,460 unpaid claims, which have been
settled or are subject to a settlement agreement. As of March
31, 2006, there were about 565 claims, which have either been
dismissed without payment or are in the process of being
dismissed without payment.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company had about 29,875 unresolved
claims, of which about 995 were premises claims and the rest
were product liability claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 10,
2006)

Between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006, the Company received
about 760 new claims. In the same period, the Company spent
about US$7.8 million on these matters, including US$5.9 million
in settlement payments and about US$1.9 million for defense
costs.

Effective August 23, 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to insurance policies by underwriters at
Lloyd's, London, and reinsured by Equitas Ltd. and related
entities. Equitas paid US$30 million to the Company and placed
US$67 million into a trust set up to reimburse the Company for a
portion of the costs incurred by the Company to defend and
resolve certain asbestos claims.

The Company continues to reimburse itself from the trust for a
portion of the monies spent to defend and resolve certain
asbestos claims. As of March 31, 2006, US$49.8 million remains
in the trust.

Effective October 8, 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to certain insurance policies issued by
various insurance firm operating in the London insurance market,
and by one insurance company located in the U.S. The insurers
agreed to place into trust over a four-year period commencing in
January 2005 and ending in 2008 monies, which will ultimately
total about US$102.2 million.

As of March 31, 2006, US$68.5 million of the US$102.2 million
has been placed into the trust, of which US$31.1 million remains
in the trust.

Effective October 13, 2004, the Company reached a settlement
agreement with the balance of its solvent excess insurers where
a significant portion of the costs incurred by the Company with
respect to future asbestos product liability claims will be
reimbursed, subject to those claims meeting certain qualifying
criteria.  

The Company adjusted its accrual for present and future
potential claims before anticipated insurance recoveries at
December 31, 2005 to US$270.0 million.

The Wilmington, Delaware-based Company's total asbestos-related
liabilities is US$264.1 million as of March 31, 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Deals With 125,700 Claims in 1Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. noted, at March 31, 2006, about
125,700 claims pending against it alleging asbestos-linked
diseases from exposure to Company-made products or to asbestos-
containing materials in its facilities.

At December 31, 2005, the Company had about 125,500 asbestos-
related liability claims. (Class Action Reporter, February 24,
2006)

During the 2006-1st quarter, about 900 new claims were filed
against the Company and about 700 were settled or dismissed. In
the same period, the Company and its insurance carriers spent
US$4 million on asbestos defense and claim resolution.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 38,100 claims. The
sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments
totaled about US$237 million through March 31, 2006 and US$233
million through December 31, 2005.

The Company had recorded liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims totaling US$104 million at March 31, 2006 and
December 31, 2005. The portion of the liability linked with
unasserted asbestos claims was US$31 million at March 31, 2006
and December 31, 2005. The Company's liability with respect to
asserted claims and related defense costs was US$73 million at
March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company had recorded an asbestos
claims-related receivable of US$54 million, compared to US$53
million at December 31, 2005.

At March 31, 2006, the Company stated that it had at least
US$176 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos
products claims. A portion of the availability of the excess
level policies is included in the US$54 million insurance
receivable recorded at March 31, 2006.

The Company also had about US$20 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through agreements at March 31, 2006.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. makes
tires. Other products include automotive hoses, belts, and
industrial chemicals. The Company operates about 90 plants
worldwide, and runs nearly 1,700 retail tire and auto centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 16,700 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had about 16,700 open asbestos-
related claims at the end of the 2006-1st quarter, with about
315 claims settled or dismissed.

During the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's gross settlement and
defense cost for claims was US$2,156,000. Insurers paid all
settlement and defense costs.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components in some products of certain
Company subsidiaries, which co-defend in cases filed in state
and federal courts.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have an arrangement
with insurers responsible for most of its historical primary and
some umbrella insurance coverage for asbestos liability. Under
the arrangement, the paying insurers claim monetary
responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based
on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation
formulas, for most of the asbestos liabilities.

The Company incurred uninsured legal costs related to advice on
certain matters pertaining to these asbestos cases including
insurance litigation, case management and other issues. Those
costs amounted to about US$178,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and US$193,000 for the three months ended March
31, 2005.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. makes
metal products. Its forged steel rolls unit makes forged
hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The
air and liquid processing segment makes centrifugal pumps for
refrigeration and power generation, finned-tube heat-exchange
coils, and air-handling systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Mine Safety Appliances Drop to 290
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Co. is a defendant in about 2,900
lawsuits involving respiratory protection products, which the
Company allegedly made and distributed. Ten percent allege that
plaintiffs have asbestosis and other combined injuries.

These suits represent a total of about 25,000 plaintiffs. About
90 percent of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging they
suffer from silicosis.

According to the March 10, 2006 and November 11, 2005 Class
Action Reporter editions, the Company faced about 300 asbestos-
related respiratory suits.

These suits allege that these conditions resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or made by the
Company. In recent years there has been an increase in the
number of asserted claims that could involve the Company.

The Company is unable to determine its potential maximum
liability for these claims, in part because the defendants in
these suits are numerous, and the claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Mine Safety Appliances Co.
makes protective equipment for miners and workers in the fire
service, construction, and homeland security industries. The
Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks,
and head protection gear. Mine Safety draws about 15 percent of
its sales from the U.S. military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Deals With 303 Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. faces 303 personal injury liability
cases alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other
substances, according to the Company's Quarterly report for the
period ending March 31, 2006, delivered to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2006.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company has been named as a co-
defendant in about 309 personal injury liability cases alleging
exposure to asbestos and other substances. (Class Action
Reporter, March 31, 2006)

The cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of
these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages.

Based in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Bucyrus International Inc.
provides replacement parts and services, which accounts for more
than 70% of sales, to the surface mining industry. Bucyrus also
makes large excavation machinery used for surface mining.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Spends $9.1M for Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. has recorded, during the second
quarter of fiscal 2006, about US$9.1 million, which represented
a portion of its past defense costs for asbestos claims from one
insurance carrier.

The insurance carrier has agreed to cover most of the Company's
defense costs in the future, subject to policy limits. The
carrier has also agreed to cover a portion of the Company's
future costs.

The Company has been named a defendant in cases citing injuries
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, based on the
Company's use of vermiculite in certain of its products. The
complaints in these cases are not specific about the plaintiffs'
contacts with the Company or its products.

In each case, the Company is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seeks damages from the Company alone. The Company
continues to pursue insurance coverage for a number of cases.

Based in Marysville, Ohio, Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., formerly The
Scotts Co., manufactures and markets horticultural and turf
products. Its garden and indoor plant care items include grass
seeds, fertilizers, herbicides, potting soils, and related
tools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Zurn Industries Drop to 65,200
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacuzzi Brands Inc.'s subsidiary, Zurn Industries Inc., noted
that it had about 65,200 asbestos-related claims pending against
it as of March 31, 3006, compared to 69,900 as of September 30,
2005.

During the 2006-2nd quarter, about 1,400 new asbestos claims
were filed against Zurn. During the first half of 2006, about
3,400 new claims were filed. During the 2005-2nd quarter, 4,400
new asbestos claims were filed. During the first half of 2005,
6,600 new claims were filed.

The pending claims against Zurn as of March 31, 2006 were
included in about 8,200 suits, in which Zurn and an average of
100 other firms are named as defendants, and which allege
damages of about US$11 billion against all defendants.

During the 2006-2nd quarter, about 14,100 claims were paid or
pending payment and about 2,400 claims were dismissed or pending
dismissal. During the first half of 2006, about 14,200 claims
were paid or pending payment and about 4,900 claims were
dismissed or pending dismissal.

During the 2005-2nd quarter, about 14,100 claims were paid or
pending payment and about 6,500 claims were dismissed or pending
dismissal. During the first half of 2005, about 16,200 claims
were paid or pending payment and about 7,100 claims were
dismissed or pending dismissal.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim in the 1980s, Zurn has
paid or dismissed or agreed to settle or dismiss about 124,400
asbestos claims including dismissals or agreements to dismiss of
about 29,200 of such claims through March 31, 2006.

Zurn stated that its available insurance to cover its potential
asbestos liability as of March 31, 2006 is about US$289 million.
As of March 31, 2006 and September 30, 2005, Zurn recorded a
receivable from its insurance carriers of US$153 million, which
corresponds to the amount of Zurn's potential asbestos liability
that is covered by available insurance.

West Palm Beach, Florida-based Jacuzzi Brands Inc. manufactures
and distributes bath and plumbing products. The Company sells
its products worldwide, although the U.S. accounts for almost
three-fourths of sales. The Company acquired Zurn Industries in
June 1998.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Faces 224 Claims in 3 States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had about 224 pending asbestos-related claims
as of April 2, 2006, compared to 215 pending claims at January
1, 2006, in which most of the claims are pending in Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.

As of October 2, 2005, the Company had about 212 pending claims,
primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi, compared
to 232 claims at January 2, 2005. (Class Action Reporter,
November 11, 2005)

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, the Company made some limited products, which had
encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to
industrial users. The Company stopped the production of these
products in 1987.

In many cases, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they have any
compensable loss as a result of exposure to the Company's
asbestos-containing products.

Cases involving the Company name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants.
The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims.

In the 2006-1st quarter, the Company was able to have about 22
claims dismissed and settled 6 claims. For the full year 2005,
about 99 claims were dismissed and 12 were settled.

Most costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers,
including the majority of costs associated with the small number
of cases that have been settled. Payments related to those
settlements totaled an aggregate of less than US$1 million in
the 2006-1st quarter and US$4.4 million in all of 2005.

Based in Rogers, Connecticut, the Company's products include
printed circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial
laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications,
mobile radios, and direct broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Files $2.5M Claim to Recover Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc. has filed a late claim in the amount of US$2.5
million in the Federal-Mogul Corporation bankruptcy proceedings
to recover attorney's fees paid for the defense of asbestos-
related claims, according to Magnetek's quarterly report for the
period ending April 1, 2006, delivered to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2006.

The Company has been named as a co-defendant in asbestos-related
lawsuits associated with business operations acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's
ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-
containing products.

With respect to these claims, the Company is either indemnified
against liability for asbestos-related claims or that it has no
liability for these claims. The Company seeks dismissal from
these proceedings, and has also tendered the defense of these
cases to the insurers of the previously acquired businesses and
is awaiting their response.  

Based in Los Angeles, California, Magnetek Inc. makes embedded
power components such as AC/DC switching power supplies, battery
chargers, rectifiers, and interconnect devices used in
communications, consumer products, industrial automation,
information technology, and transportation applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crowley Maritime Accrues $2.927M for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corporation, at March 31, 2006, accrued
US$2,927,000 as its best estimate of the liability for pending
asbestos and toxic claims and recorded a receivable from its
insurers of US$1,133,000 related to asbestos litigation.

The Company is named as a co-defendant in about 16,000 maritime
asbestos cases and other toxic tort cases, most of which were
filed in the Federal Courts in Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit,
Michigan.

Filed on behalf of a seaman or his representative, each of the
cases alleged injury or illness based on exposure to asbestos or
other toxic substances. The cases set forth claims based on the
theory of negligence under the Jones Act and on the theory of
unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law.

During the 2006-1st quarter, the Company noted 25 claims filed
against it and settled one claim. During the same period, the
Company settled a total of US$2,000, with the average settlement
at US$2,000. The Company paid US$145,000 for legal fees and
received insurance proceeds of US$5,000.

A Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order dated July
29, 1991 transferred all Ohio and Michigan cases transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pretrial processing.

On May 1, 1996, the cases were dismissed subject to future
reinstatement. About 31 Ohio and Michigan claims, which name one
or more Company entities as defendants, have been reinstated but
the plaintiffs' attorneys are not actively pursuing the cases.

The Company is a co-defendant in about 91 asbestosis or other
toxic cases pending in jurisdictions other than the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. These jurisdictions include state and
federal courts in Northern California, Oregon, Texas, Louisiana,
Florida, Maryland and New York. These cases have allegations of
injury like those alleged in the Multidistrict Litigation cases.

Based in Oakland, California, Crowley Maritime Corp.'s Liner
Services unit provides scheduled transportation of containers,
trailers, and other cargo, mainly between ports in the US, the
Caribbean, and Latin America, plus logistics services. Other
units transport oil and chemical products and oil field
equipment and provide ship escort services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Tackles 375 Cases From Former Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation, through its former McKesson Chemical Co.
division, is named in about 375 cases involving the alleged
distribution of asbestos, according to McKesson's Annual Report
filed on Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

These cases involve either single or multiple plaintiffs
claiming personal injuries and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.

By an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the 1986
sale of McKesson Chemical Co. to what is now called Univar USA
Inc., the Company has tendered these actions to Univar.

Univar has raised questions concerning the extent of its
obligations under the agreement, and while Univar continues to
defend the Company in many of these cases, it has been rejecting
the Company's tenders of new cases since February 2005. The
Company stated that Univar remains obligated for all tendered
cases under the terms of the agreement.

Based in San Francisco, California, McKesson Corp. distributes
pharmaceuticals in the U.S. The Company operates in three
segments: pharmaceutical distribution, Medical-Surgical unit,
and Provider Technologies segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bayer Faces Pending Cases in W. Va. & Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer AG co-defends in premises asbestos-related cases, most of
which are pending in West Virginia and Texas courts, according
to a regulatory filing submitted to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The cases allege that Bayer employed contractors at industrial
sites where plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos and injured.
Plaintiffs contend that Bayer failed to warn or protect them
from the known asbestos hazards in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

A Bayer subsidiary in the U.S. also is the legal successor to
entities that sold asbestos-containing products from the 1940s
until 1976 and is named as a defendant in asbestos-related
litigation. Bayer is and has been fully indemnified for its
costs with respect to this litigation by Union Carbide Corp.

Union Carbide continues to accept Bayer's tender of these cases,
and it defends and settles them in Bayer's name, in its own name
and in the name of the several predecessor firms to Bayer.

Based in Leverkusen, Germany, Bayer AG makes health care
products, agricultural products, and specialty materials. The
Company operates in the U.S. through Bayer Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 114 Pending Suits in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s utility unit Indianapolis Power &
Light Co. was named a defendant in about 114 asbestos-related
lawsuits, as of March 31, 2006. As of December 31, 2005, IPL was
named in about 109 pending suits.

The suits allege personal injury or wrongful death from exposure
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products formerly located in
IPL power plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been filed on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.

IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these
claims. Counsel, who is retained by insurers writing policies
applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged, is defending these cases.

IPL has settled a number of asbestos-related suits for minimal
amounts. Settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised of
proceeds from one or more insurers along with comparatively
smaller contributions by IPL.

Based in Indianapolis, Indiana, IPALCO Enterprises Inc., through
IPL, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to nearly
460,000 customers in central Indiana. IPALCO is a unit of
independent power producer The AES Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Ind.'s Cases Rise to 380 in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corporation's subsidiary Park-Ohio Industries
Inc., at March 31, 2006, faces about 380 cases asserting claims
on behalf of about 10,000 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

These asbestos cases relate to production and sale of asbestos-
containing products and allege theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

At December 31, 2005, the Company co-defends in about 325 cases
asserting claims on behalf of about 10,000 plaintiffs alleging
personal injury resulting from asbestos exposure. (Class Action
Reporter, March 31, 2006)

In the cases, plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a
specified amount, typically a minimum amount enough to start
jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed.
Jurisdictional minimums range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

There are four asbestos cases involving 21 plaintiffs that plead
specified damages. In the four cases, the plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product made or sold by the Company or its
subsidiaries.

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Inc., through Park-
Ohio Industries and its subsidiaries, provides logistics
services and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto,
semiconductor, and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Deal With Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation face personal injury
actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  

An excess of 70 cases are pending against D/C on the mainland
U.S. and are allegedly based on D/C's prior business operations.  

On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a suit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corp. The suit, Case No. 04433669, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center.  

In the eight-count suit for declaratory relief, reimbursement
and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other
relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an
insurance firm to whom D/C has tendered for defense and
indemnity personal injury suits based on exposure to asbestos
containing products.  

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.  

D/C has filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.  

In February 2006, D/C merged into a newly formed Illinois
limited liability company named D/C Distribution, LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Dismisses 40 Cases, Settles 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mestek Inc. had over 40 asbestos-related cases dismissed without
payment and settled about 25 cases for a minimal amount,
according to Mestek's Quarterly Report for the period ending
March 31, 2006, on Form 10-Q, delivered to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2006.

The total requested damages of the cases amounted to more than
US$3 billion.

The Company faces over 300 asbestos-related suits, and in the
past three-months has been named in about 12 new suits each
month, primarily in a Texas county where numerous asbestos-
related actions have been filed against numerous defendants.

These suits seek to establish liability against the Company as
successor to firms that may have made, sold or distributed
asbestos-related products, and who are currently in existence
and defending thousands of asbestos related cases.

The Company may also be facing such suits because it sells and
distributes boilers, an industry that has been historically
linked with asbestos-related products.

Headquartered in Westfield, Massachusetts, Mestek Inc. makes
heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning products, which
comprises about 75 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Contends With 122 Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant in about 122 asbestos-
related exposure suits as of March 31, 2006, according to
IntriCon's Quarterly Report for the period ending March 31,
2006, on Form 10-Q, delivered to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2006.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company faced about 122 suits, in
which the plaintiffs alleged that they may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases from exposure to asbestos products or
asbestos-containing equipment sold by one or more named
defendants. (Class Action Reporter, March 24, 2006)

The Company is unable to determine whether any of the complaints
state valid claims against it. The insurance carrier has told
the Company that the primary policy for the period July 1, 1972
to July 1, 1975 has been used and that the carrier will no
longer defend under that policy.  

The Company has requested that the carrier substantiate its
position. The Company has contacted representatives of the
Company's excess insurance carrier for some or all of this
period.  

Based in Arden Hills, Minnesota, IntriCon Corp., through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, development, engineering,
and making of microminiaturized medical and electronic products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mirant Unit Contributes $1M for Indemnities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirant Corporation's wholly owned indirect subsidiary, Mirant
Mid-Atlantic LLC, recognized a non-cash capital contribution of
US$1 million in the 2006-1st quarter for indemnity obligations
to Potomac Electric Power Co.

As part of the PEPCO purchase, Mirant agreed to indemnify PEPCO
for certain liabilities arising in lawsuits filed after December
19, 2000, even if they relate to incidents occurring prior to
that date, with certain qualifications.

Since the acquisition, PEPCO has notified Mirant of more than
100 asbestos cases, distributed among three Maryland
jurisdictions (Prince George's County, Baltimore City and
Baltimore County), as to which it claims a right of indemnity.

Under the Plan, these indemnity obligations, arising under the
Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement with PEPCO, became the
obligations of Mirant Power Purchase.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Mirant Corp. is a North American
wholesale energy marketer that operates power plants with about
18,000 MW of fossil-fueled capacity in North America, Asia, and
the Caribbean. The Company markets electricity, natural gas, and
other commodities and offers risk management services.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Claimant Seeks $300T from Hardie Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Hurley, an Oamaru, New Zealand native, seeks $300,000 out of
James Hardie Industries NV's agreed $3.5 billion to compensate
Australian victims of asbestos-related diseases, One News
reports.

If successful, Mr. Hurley would pave the way for other New
Zealand compensation payments.

In 2005, Mr. Hurley was diagnosed as having cancer of the lung
lining. He blames his condition on the asbestos made by Hardie's
New South Wales plants, which was imported into New Zealand.

Mr. Hurley claims he was exposed while working as a carpenter
for de Geest's, a local firm, in the early 1970s. The firm built
pre-fabricated homes for the Ministry of Works to house hydro
workers. The company was required by the Ministry to use
asbestos products.

In New Zealand, only workers exposed to asbestos after April
2002 are eligible for lump-sum payments. Otherwise they get just
$67 a week from the Accident Compensation Corporation.

However, Mr. Hurley's case is different because he plans to sue
in Australia for products used here.

A 2004 report into asbestos use in New Zealand found that the
use of the product peaked in the 1960s and 1970s and 20 percent
to 40 percent of all adult men were likely to have had some
exposure to it during their working life.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. Va. Couple Names 51 Defendants in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carroll and Eunice Stone, a West Virginia couple, sued 51
defendants in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed May 19 in
Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record reports.

Of the 51 defendants, A&I Co., Atlas Industries, Nitro
Industrial Coverings, Ohio Valley Insulating Co., S&S
Manufacturer and Vimasco Corp. are listed as West Virginia
firms.

Attorney John Skaggs, of Charleston law firm The Calwell
Practice, represents the Stones in Case No. 06-C-965. A visiting
judge will be assigned the case.

Mr. Stone worked as a laborer and pipe fitter at various plants
owned and operated by defendants identified as premises owners.

The complaint states, "Defendant was required to handle and did
handle and use asbestos products. Defendant was required to and
did remove asbestos insulation from piping and other
structures."

The Stones seek compensatory and punitive damages and Mrs. Stone
is suing for loss of consortium.


Asbestos dust and fibers are known to cause lung diseases like
asbestosis and mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Charges 2 Roofers for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration charged
two Toledo, Ohio-based roof installers for improper and
inadequate procedures for removing asbestos shingles, The Toledo
Blade reports.

OSHA indicted Steve Lance and R.B. Roofing after a March
inspection at the Lutheran Home of Mercy job site in Williston,
Ohio. The Agency proposed fines of more than US$25,000 each.

The Agency said the problems resulted in workers being
overexposed to the dangerous material.

Mr. Lance was named for 26 violations, including 24 serious and
one willful. The fines amounted to US$31,750. The willful
violation was for employees working more than 13 feet above the
ground without proper guardrails, safety nets, or other systems
to prevent a fall.

R.B. Roofing was cited for 26 serious and one other violation,
with total fines of US$28,500. The violations included the
employer not providing workers with correctly outfitted air-
purifying respirators.

OSHA gave each firm 15 days to answer to the findings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Dockworkers May Sue UK Govt. for Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two former dockworkers may sue the UK Government for
compensation over asbestos-related illnesses, in a lawsuit that
could pave the way for hundreds of more claims, Times Online
reports.

The High Court ruling was given in cases filed by Winifred Rice
whose husband Edward died of mesothelioma in 2000 and Robert
Thompson who still suffers from asbestos-related illness.

Kevin Johnson, the claimants solicitor at John Pickering and
Partners, said, "This decision will help other dockers and their
families to bring claims for compensation without them having to
identify individual shipping companies, many of whom no longer
exist."

The Court ruled that the Department for Trade and Industry was
partially responsible for the health and safety of dockworkers
in England and Wales in the 1950s and 1960s.

Mr. Justice Silber said that labor boards at the ports, which
organized the dockers' work, were not entitled to pass on all
responsibility to the shipping firms that carried the asbestos
cargo.

The DTI, which assumed responsibility for the National Dock
Labor Board after it was disbanded in 1967, will file for
appeal. The DTI, represented by Davies Arnold Cooper, argued
that the dock board was not an employer, but that it simply
arranged labor for shipping firms.

Lawyers said any docker who worked under the labor board and can
demonstrate a medical condition resulting from asbestos exposure
may now be able to bring a case. Families of workers who have
since died will also be able to sue with lawyers predicting
claims running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8 Osaka Locals Seek JPY240M in Suit v. Govt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eight people in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, sued the Japanese
Central Government in the Osaka District Court and demanded
JPY240 million in compensation, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Among the plaintiffs are sufferers and relatives of people who
died of asbestos-related illnesses. The plaintiffs claim the
Government failed to regulate asbestos, despite being aware that
it was hazardous since nearly 70 years ago.

Three of the eight people represented by the plaintiffs have
died. Six worked at asbestos-handling plants in Sennan and
Hannan, Osaka Prefecture, and two lived near factories.

Three of the eight suffer from asbestosis and other illnesses
and are not eligible for Government aid offered under a law that
was implemented in March 2006. The law covers sufferers of
mesothelioma and lung cancer caused by asbestos. The other five
plaintiffs were recognized as eligible or are preparing to claim
for workers compensation.

Since Japan banned the use and import of asbestos in 2004, while
other countries took similar steps in the 1980s, the plaintiffs
accused the Government of negligence.

This is Japan's first asbestos-related class-action suit since
June 2005, when machine manufacturer Kubota Corporation revealed
that residents who lived near its former Kanzaki factory in
Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, have suffered asbestos-related
health problems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Senators Renew Efforts for Fund Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senators Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and
Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, renew their drive to secure
Senate passage of the proposed US$140 billion asbestos trust
fund bill, The Hill reports.

The legislation, in which the basic purpose has not changed,
proposes the creation of a fund, backed by companies and
insurance firms that would dole out compensation to asbestos
exposure victims. Victims seek compensation through the courts.

Specter and Leahy sought to update the bill to address some
issues raised during the February floor debate. The revised bill
includes a new formula to set how much smaller firms would have
to pay into the fund.

Some medium-size and small firms have complained that the
original version would have cost them more than simply dealing
with any asbestos-related suits they face.

Several conservative Republicans, like Budget Committee Chairman
Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, worry that when the
trust fund runs out, the Government will be left to pick up the
tab.

While Sen. Specter has earned the approval of Majority Leader
Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, the chances of asbestos
returning to the floor remain slim.

Among Sen. Specter's challenges is meeting the conditions Sen.
Frist has placed on the bill's return. When the earlier version
failed to overcome a budgetary point of order raised by
conservatives in February, Sen. Frist said there was only a
slight chance the Senate would reconsider the bill.

Sen. Frist specified that Sen. Specter and Sen. Leahy would need
to produce a letter signed by 60 senators promising to vote
against the point of order and in favor of the underlying
legislation.

Original bill supporters quickly embraced the new version and
issued statements laced with compliments for Sen. Specter and
Sen. Leahy and exclamations of optimism that revising the
legislation would get it over the 60-vote threshold it has
failed to meet.

According to an Asbestos Alliance statement from National
Association of Manufacturers Executive Vice President, Michael
Baroody, "This indicates that the long-awaited and necessary
solution to the asbestos-litigation crisis is still within our
grasp this year."

The business group is the leading force behind the Alliance,
which includes the few companies or their successors that
actually made asbestos products.

In Sen. Specter's account to the Bloomberg news service, he
expects that the changes made to the bill will attract one or
two more votes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Revised Bill Allows 9/11 Victims to Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senators Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and
Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said that they had expanded
the proposed US$140 billion asbestos trust fund bill to include
access to payments for people sickened by asbestos as a result
of disasters like hurricanes or the September 11, 2001 attacks,
Reuters reports.

Sen. Specter and Sen. Leahy said they hoped to bring the
expanded version to the Senate floor in the coming months.

In a statement issued by his office, Sen. Leahy said, "We
specifically provided for access to the trust fund for victims
who were exposed to asbestos during the attacks on the World
Trade Center and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

Sen. Specter and Sen. Leahy's bill removes from the courts the
claims filed by people sickened from asbestos exposure. The
claims would be paid by a fund, to be backed by asbestos
defendant firms and their insurers. The highest individual
award, US$1.075 million, would go to mesothelioma victims.

Asbestos victims' groups say the collapse of the World Trade
Center towers in the 9/11 attacks released asbestos fibers into
the atmosphere, and that many of the rescue and recovery workers
who responded are suffering from respiratory ailments.

Sen. Specter said the amended bill would also tighten medical
criteria for filing claims, let existing asbestos bankruptcy
trusts pay claims during the fund's startup, and ease the burden
on smaller firms required to contribute to the fund.

Asbestos was used in building materials, auto parts and other
products for decades, but is linked to cancer and other
diseases. Hundreds of thousands of injury claims have driven
over 70 firms into bankruptcy.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GMH COMMUNITIES: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., filed a securities
fraud class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against GMH Communities Trust
(GCT) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
purchasers of GMH's securities during the period between Oct.
28, 2004 and Feb. 10, 2006 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading financial statements in a scheme to inflate the
earnings of the company and issued dividends in violation of
loan covenants in order to drive the price of its stock higher.

The higher stock price allowed the company to sell a secondary
offering in October 2005 on more favorable terms.  Defendants
portrayed the company as a growing real estate investment trust
in a particular niche market, student and marketing housing and
military housing, paying high dividends.

Unbeknownst to the market, the company's strong earnings were
the result of an accounting fraud.  As part of the company's
closing of its books on fiscal year 2005, the GMH's chief
financial officer wrote to the Audit Committee indicating that
there were problems with the "tone at the top" of company's
management.

In response to the letter, the Audit Committee conducted an
investigation which indicated, among other things, material
weaknesses in internal controls, pressure by key executives on
the accounting function and the need for adjustments in the
financial statements in current and prior accounting periods.

In addition, the company's issuance of $0.91 in 2005 dividends
exceeded the 110% of fund from operations per share limitation
under the loan covenants of its credit facility.  The stock
dropped 23% on the news from a close of $16.83 on Feb. 10 to
close at $12.90 on Feb. 13.

On Feb. 31, 2006, the company announced the continued delay in
filing its 2005 annual report and that it expected to restate
its prior previously reported financial results due to improper
capitalization of expenses and the improper timing of
recognition of revenue and expenses.

Since the initial disclosure of the audit committee
investigation, the company has lost almost $224 million in
market capitalization, closing at $11.21 on Apr. 3, 2006
following the Feb. 31, 2006 disclosure.

Interested parties may no later than Jun. 2, 2006, move for
appointment as a Lead Plaintiff.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Robin
Switzenbaum, Esq. and Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations
Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-5715, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net.  



NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Prominent Dentist Wants to be Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
The founder of Long Island Based Oral Medicine Today intends to
file motion for lead plaintiff in the securities class action
against Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: NATR).  
The suit is now pending in the United District Court for the
District of Utah.

Pursuant to the guidelines established under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on Jun. 2, 2006, Dr.
Jan Gilbert, a New York-based doctor of dental medicine, will
move the court to grant his application to be appointed lead
plaintiff in this action.  

Dr. Gilbert has retained New Orleans-based class action
securities law firm Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) to serve as
lead counsel and to recover losses related to shareholders'
investment in Nature's Sunshine.

Dr. Jan Gilbert is both a significant shareholder of the company
and a prominent member of the New York medical community and
founder of the leading company devoted to nutrition for dental
health and general health.

According to Dr. Gilbert, "Because the company did not reveal
its true financial and operational condition, and because
Nature's Sunshine failed to implement considered, ethical
decisions, shareholders must now take action.  I encourage other
significant shareholders who purchased shares during the class
period and sustained significant losses, to join me in moving
the court to serve as Lead Plaintiff."

Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner at KGS also stated, "We applaud the
participation of leading investors such as Dr. Gilbert for
taking a role in protecting the rights of investors.  Serving as
Lead Plaintiff is a very important role, yet it does not require
a substantial time commitment.  We, too, encourage others who
may have lost significant amounts of their investment in
Nature's Sunshine products to call KGS as soon as possible."

For more information contact Lewis Kahn KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400 (Toll Free) ext. 100, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.

ST. JUDE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (STJ)
between Jan. 25, 2006 and Apr. 4, 2006.

The complaint charges St. Jude Medical and certain of the
company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

Among others, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning St. Jude Medical's business and operations
caused the company's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

St. Jude Medical engages develops, manufactures and distributes
cardiovascular medical devices for cardiac rhythm management and
implantable neuromodulation devices, including implantable
cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded but failed to disclose that:

      -- company reports tracking 2005 growth in the sales of
         ICDs of between 62% and 92% were erroneous, false and
         misleading;

      -- there was no objective reason to communicate the
         "competitiveness" of St. Jude Medical's ICD product
         portfolio and program, given the true patterns and
         trends in the marketplace for sales of ICDs;

      -- as a result of the stuffing of the company's
         distribution channels with inventory, the company had
         effectively pushed 2006 revenues from ICD sales into
         the fourth quarter of 2005;

      -- base salary and bonus compensation awarded to the
         company's officers, including defendants, was
         dramatically increased, as a direct result of the shift
         of revenues from ICD sales between quarters resulting
         from the company's channel-stuffing activities; and

      -- stock sales by company insiders, including defendants,
         met with artificially inflated prices, as a direct
         result of the shift of revenues from ICD sales between
         quarters resulting from the company's channel-stuffing
         activities.

On Apr. 4, 2006, St. Jude Medical issued a press release,
pointing to an unexpected decline in sales for the company's
ICDs.  As a result of this news, the price of St. Jude Medical
shares fell 12.2%, on unusually high volume, falling from $41.30
per share on Apr. 4, 2006 to close at $36.25 per share on Apr.
5, 2006 -- a one-day drop of $5.05 per share -- on volume of
51.6 million shares, which was nearly thirteen times the average
daily trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jun. 9,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff,

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.


XM SATELLITE: Yourman Alexander Files Securities Suit in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of XM Satellite Radio
Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:XMSR) on Jul. 28, 2005 through Feb. 15,
2006, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning the financial condition of XM.  

For example, it is alleged that defendants misrepresented XM's
ability to reduce the costs of its new subscribers as it reached
its goal of 6 million subscribers by year-end 2005.

It is further alleged that XM's cost of subscriber acquisition
rose to extraordinary levels, which led to enormous increases in
XM's net losses.

Furthermore, it is alleged that a number of company insiders
sold significant portions of their XM stock for millions of
dollars, thereby taking advantage of the artificial inflation of
the company's securities.

The complaint also states that when the true financial condition
of the company was revealed on Feb. 16, 2006, the price of XM's
common stock fell 13% to close at $21.96 per share. Since that
time, the price of XM stock has continued to decline, closing at
$14.42 per share on May 31, 2006.

The deadline to file for lead plaintiff appointment is Jul. 3,
2006.

For more details, contact Vahn Alexander of Yourman Alexander &
Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach,
California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020, E-mail:
valexander@yaplaw.com, Web site: http://www.yaplaw.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  * * *