---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 110

                            Headlines

ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Stock Lawsuit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Texas Insurance Scoring Lawsuit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Wins Favorable Ruling in Auto Repair Lawsuit
AMERICREDIT CORP: Asks Dismissal of Tex. Consolidated Stock Suit
AMSOUTH BANK: Faces Lawsuit in Ala. Over Regions Bank Merger

CARNIVAL CORP: Settles Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Fla. for $6.25M
GRAFTECH INT'L: Plaintiffs Withdrew Complaint in Del. Stock Suit
GUAM: Challenges Court Order Awarding Retirees COLA Increases
HARRIS SCARFE: Aussie Firm Reaches Settlement with Shareholders
JDS UNIPHASE: Aug. 13 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit

JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Court Okays Class Notice for Zelman Lawsuit
MESTEK INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Suit Over Privatization
NEBRASKA: Suit Over Phone Surcharge Continues in High Court
NEW YORK: Appeals Court Dumps Suit Over 1997 City Park Arrest
NEW YORK: Suit Filed Over Fines in Dec. Transport Workers Strike

PARMALAT SPA: Investors File Amended Complaint in S.D.N.Y
PHILIP MORRIS: High Court to Review $80M Penalty in "Williams"
PHONE COMPANIES: Face Wiretapping Suit in Mich. Federal Court
QUANTUM CORP: DLT IV Tape Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 20
QUEEN MARY: Faces Suit Over Alleged Fake Items in Monroe Exhibit

REFCO COMMODITY: Faces Suit Over Alleged Financial Mismanagement
ROYAL AHOLD: Stock, ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 16
SALOMON SMITH: Calif. High Court Hears Arguments in Phone Suit
ST. JUDE: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Minn.
ST. JUDE: Faces Suits in Canada Over Silzone Coated Heart Valves

ST. JUDE: Minn. Court Hears Oral Arguments on Silzone Lawsuit
SUMMIT PROPERTIES: N.C. Court Approves Investor Suit Settlement
PANTRY INC: N.C. Court Mulls Partial Dismissal of Barton Case
TYCO INT'L: Continues to Face Ill. Suit Over Mallinckrodt Deal
TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Mulls Class Certification for "Newby"

TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit
TYCO INT'L: Dismissal of Amended Complaint in "Ezra" Appealed
TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Nixes Summary Judgment Motion in MDL-1335
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Calif. Stock Suit's Dismissal Appealed
WASHINGTON GROUP: Continues to Face La. Suits Over Levee Failure

WISCONSIN AUTO: High Court Favors Plaintiff in Auto Loan Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN TOWER: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Mass.
AMERICAN TOWER: Yourman Alexander Files Securities Suit in Mass.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Susman Godfrey Files Stock Suit in Calif.


                            *********


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of St. Jude
Medical, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action pending against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, according to the
company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

In late May 2005, the court granted an order consolidating three
previously filed cases which sought class action status for
claims asserted against Advanced Neuromodulation and certain of
the individuals who were serving as the company's officers and
directors at that time.  The suits were filed on behalf of
purchasers of Advanced Neuromodulation securities between Apr.
24, 2003 and Feb. 16, 2005, inclusive.

The court also granted an order appointing lead and liaison
counsel and appointing the lead plaintiff in the class action.  

The suits each alleged that Advanced Neuromodulation violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements to the market regarding the company's financial
performance throughout the class period.  The statements
allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Advanced Neuromodulation's securities.

In particular, the claims alleged that improper marketing and
sales practices accounted for Advanced Neuromodulation's revenue
growth.  The company made a public announcement on Feb. 17, 2005
that the company had received a subpoena from the Office of the
Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services,
requesting documents related to sales and marketing,
reimbursement, Medicare and Medicaid billing and other business
practices.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses of litigation.  No class has been certified
at this time.

On September 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  By agreement with the plaintiffs, Advanced
Neuromodulation filed its motion to dismiss on Jan. 13, 2006.  

The suit is "PLA LLC v. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00078-RAS-DDB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under Judge Richard A.
Schell.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger F. Claxton, Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney, L.B.
         103 #700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax:
         12149530583, E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net;

     (2) Elton Joe Kendall, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, 3232
         McKinney Ave, Suite 700, Dallas, Tx 75201, Phone:
         214/744-3000, Fax: 12147443015, E-mail:
         jkendall@provostumphrey.com; and

     (3) Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya Saxena, and Peter E.
         Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200
         Town Center Circle, Suite 600 Tower 1, Boca Raton, FL
         33486, Phone: 561/361-5000, Fax: 15613678400, E-mail:
         cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com,
         pseidman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the company is Gerard G. Pecht of Fulbright &
Jaworski - Houston, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100, Houston, TX
77010, Phone: 713/651-5160, Fax: 17136515246, E-mail:
gpecht@fulbright.com.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Texas Insurance Scoring Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas Fred Biery
preliminarily approved a settlement agreement in the insurance
scoring lawsuit filed against Allstate Insurance Co.

Allstate will take these actions under the terms of the
settlement:

     -- Allstate will roll-out a new insurance scoring
        algorithm;

     -- In states where Allstate uses information from credit
        reports to rate policies, Allstate will provide its
        customers with the opportunity to have an insurance
        policy priced using its new insurance scoring algorithm;

     -- Allstate will make its new insurance scoring algorithm
        publicly available;

     -- Allstate will deliver a comprehensive credit education
        program to class members, which provides valuable
        information, including the many different types of
        business transactions where information from credit
        reports is used today and how class members can improve
        their credit position;

     -- Allstate will adopt an appeals program under which all
        customers who experience extraordinary events that
        negatively impact their credit history information can
        potentially obtain premium reductions;

     -- Allstate will increase the substantial percentage of its
        national media spend devoted to targeted multicultural
        marketing in its continued efforts to make the widest
        range of consumers aware of its insurance products; and

     -- Class members will be entitled to apply for a one-time
        monetary payment.  Eligibility for this payment will be
        determined based on a comparison of the insurance
        scoring group assigned to his or her Allstate policy and
        the insurance scoring group assigned under the insurance
        scoring algorithm that will be implemented pursuant to
        this Settlement.

"We are very pleased with this settlement," said Michael
Trevino, a spokesperson for Allstate Insurance Company.  "During
the discovery phase of this case, the parties undertook court
ordered settlement negotiations.  Although confident in our
position, Allstate was presented with an opportunity to resolve
this case on terms that we consider to be fair and appropriate.  

"By achieving this settlement Allstate is able to avoid the
burden and expense of continued litigation and is therefore able
to continue to focus its efforts on providing insurance policies
to consumers -- including minority consumers -- at competitive
prices.  This is good for Allstate and its customers.

"Ultimately, the court must give final approval to the
settlement, including the benefits being conferred to individual
class members, which we believe will be viewed as fair and
reasonable given their breadth and value."

The case, filed in 2001 in U.S. District Court, Western District
of Texas San Antonio division, was brought by seven individual
Allstate customers seeking to represent a nationwide class of
African-American and Hispanic individuals who were issued
automobile and/or homeowners insurance policies by Allstate-
affiliated companies.

The plaintiffs claim that they were discriminated against in
violation of federal civil rights laws, including the Fair
Housing Act, by allegedly being charged higher premiums based on
Allstate's use of information from their credit reports.  The
court has made no rulings on the merits of any of plaintiff's
claims, and Allstate denies that it in any way discriminates
against minorities in the pricing of insurance policies.

The suit is "DeHoyos, et al v. Allstate Corp., et al., Case No.
5:01-cv-01010-FB", filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas under Judge Fred Biery.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard Fenton and Jeffrey Lennard of Sonnenshein, Nath
         & Rosenthal, 8000 Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker,
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, Fax: (312)
         876-7934;

     (2) Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6048, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         (312) 861-2391, Fax: 312/660-0194;

     (3) Roger D. Higgins of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, 700
         N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-2832,
         Phone: (214) 871-8200, Fax: 214/871-8209;

     (4) Maryanne Lyons of Baker & Botts, LLP, 3000 One Shell
         Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713)
         229-1255, Fax: 713/229-1522;

     (5) Rod Phelan of Baker & Botts, 800 Trammell Crow Center,
         2001 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75201-8001, Fax: 214/661-
         4609, E-mail: rod.phelan@bakerbotts.com;

     (6) Tony P. Rosenstein of Baker & Botts, 3000 One Shell
         Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713)
         229-1582, Fax: 713/229-7782, E-mail:
         tony.rosenstein@bakerbotts.com; and

     (7) Kevin M. Sadler of Baker Botts, LLP, 98 San Jacinto
         Blvd. Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701-4039, Phone:(512)
         322-2500, Fax: 512/322-2501, E-mail:
         kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Beusse, Brownlee, Bowdoin & Wolter,
         390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2500, Orlando, FL 32801, \
         Phone: (407) 926-7713, Fax: 407/926-7720;

     (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &
         Balint, P.C., 4041 N. Central, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ
         85012-3311, Phone: (602)274-1100, Fax: 602/274-1199, E-
         mail: afriedman@bffb.com;

     (3) W. Christian Hoyer of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, &
         Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, Suite 550, 4830  
         West Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609, Fax: 813/286-4174;

     (4) Robert Q. Keith of Keith & Weber, P.C., 1450 Cypress
         Valley Ranch, Cypress Mill, TX 78663-8619, Fax:
         830/825-3457;

     (5) John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax:
         619/231-7423;

     (6) Ron Parry of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, PSC, 441
         Garrard Street, Covington, KY 41011, Phone: (859)291-
         9000, Fax: (859)291-9300;

     (7) Daniel J.T. Sciano of Tinsman & Houser, 700 N. St.
         Mary's St., 1400 One Riverwalk Place, San Antonio, TX
         78205, Phone: (210) 225-3121, Fax: 210/225-6235, E-
         mail: dsciano@tsslawyers.com; and

      (8) Joe R. Whatley of Whatley Drake LLC, 2323 2nd Avene
          North Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)328-9576, Fax:
          205/328-9669.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Wins Favorable Ruling in Auto Repair Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court's Fifth District in Mt. Vernon
affirmed a jury verdict favoring Allstate Insurance in a suit
over payments of car repairs after an accident, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed in St. Clair County by lead plaintiffs
Michael and Tiffany Sims of East St. Louis, Illinois.  The
plaintiffs demanded that Allstate Insurance compensate
policyholders for the drop in value of their vehicles after
Allstate paid for repairs.  

Defense attorney H. Sinclair Kerr had argued that Allstate was
obligated only to repair a vehicle to "substantially the same
condition" it was in before the accident.  

In 2004, an Illinois jury dismissed the class action, saying
Allstate is only responsible for repair costs to the vehicle.

The suit had asked about $300 million in compensation.  It
covered 387,000 Allstate policyholders from 29 states, and
concerns vehicles that were damaged between June 1996 and
February 2001.
  
Representing the plaintiffs is Atty. Judy Cates of Carr, Korein,
Tillery, Kunin, Montroy, Cates & Glass, East St. Louis,
Illinois 62201, U.S.A. by Phone: (618) 274-0434 by Fax:
(618) 274-8369 or by E-Mail: rcarr@legal-matters.com


AMERICREDIT CORP: Asks Dismissal of Tex. Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriCredit Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the consolidated class action filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
according to the company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Mar. 31, 2006.

In fiscal year 2003, several complaints were filed by
shareholders against the company and certain of the company's
officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaints were in connection with
the company's secondary public offering of common stock on Oct.
1, 2002.

These complaints were later consolidated into one action,
"Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The
plaintiff in "Pierce" seeks class action status.  

In "Pierce", the plaintiff claims, among others, that deferments
were improperly granted by the company to avoid delinquency
triggers in securitization transactions and enhance cash flows
and to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency
percentages, thereby causing the company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.

The plaintiff also alleges that the company's registration
statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make other statements in the registration statement
not misleading.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court issued an order that the company
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss should be
partially granted and partially denied and that the plaintiff
should be given one final opportunity to re-plead the complaint
only as to those claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act
of 1933.

The court dismissed the claims alleging violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to the court's order, on Oct. 28, 2005, the plaintiff
filed a second amended consolidated complaint concerning the
Securities Act of 1933 claims.  The company filed a motion to
dismiss this second amended complaint.

The suit is "In Re: AmeriCredit Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-026," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Terry R. Means.  

Plaintiffs firms named in complaint:

      (1) Emerson Poynter, LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock,
          AR, 72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
          tanya@emersonfirm.com; and

      (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
          Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
          201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
          info@glancylaw.com.


AMSOUTH BANK: Faces Lawsuit in Ala. Over Regions Bank Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
An AmSouth Bancorp shareholder filed a suit, which is seeking
class-action status, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama to stop the proposed merger between AmSouth
and Regions Financial Corp, WSFA12 reports.

According to a press release last month, Regions Financial and
AmSouth planned a merger that will result to the loss of 3,700.  
The banks will combine to form the 10th largest bank in the U.S.
after their $9.8 billion deal is completed.  The merged company
will keep the Regions name.  It will have assets of $140
billion.  Cost-saving is the main reason for the merger.

Jason Tucker finds the merger unfair and says it is a breach of
responsibility by the board.

The suit cites AmSouth Chief Executive Dowd Ritter and the
Birmingham-based company's eight other directors as architects
of "a hopelessly flawed process" that subverts the interests of
shareholders.

According to Mr. Tucker's suit, the combination will leave
AmSouth shareholders with 38 percent of the new company, and
nothing else.  The bigger bank, Regions Financial, will
essentially absorb AmSouth by the terms of the deal, the suit
said.

The suit asks the court to stop the AmSouth-Regions stock swap,
which is set to close in the fourth quarter.  Under the
agreement, Chief Executive Ritter will hold the same position in
the new company.  Regions' Chief Executive Officer Jack Moore
would be the company's chairman.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Richard
Paul Rouco and Peter H. Burke all of Whatley Drake, L.L.C., 2323
2nd Avenue North, P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-
0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, Fax: 205-328-9669.


CARNIVAL CORP: Settles Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Fla. for $6.25M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corp. agreed to pay $6.25 million to settle a class
action filed against the cruise line by seafaring workers who
alleged that Carnival failed to pay the workers' full wages,
including overtime.

The settlement also requires Carnival to provide additional
disclosure in its contracts regarding how tips are treated as
overtime compensation, and to operate a grievance and
arbitration procedure for wage claims.  Carnival denies
liability in the pending litigation.

Commenting on the settlement, plaintiffs' attorney Tucker
Ronzetti, of Miami law firm Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, said,
"We are pleased that the parties have been able to resolve this
dispute in a way that provides substantial relief to the
seafaring workers."

In April 2005, six Carnival Cruise Lines crewmembers launched a
class suit against the Miami-based company for unpaid overtime.  
The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida, sought as much as millions of dollars in
back pay, penalty wages and interest for current and former
crewmembers (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 11, 2005).

The suit alleged that the crewmembers typically worked 12- and
14-hour days, but were not paid for work in excess of 10 hours a
day or 70 hours per week.  The six-crew members from Nicaragua,
Romania, Bulgaria and India work onboard four Carnival Cruise
Lines ships as waiters, galley stewards and cabin attendants and
are represented by Julio Ayala, the attorney with the Crewmember
and Maritime Advocacy Center in Miami.

To see motion for preliminary approval, visit:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a8d

Claim Form: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a8e

The suit is "Roxana Maria Borcea, Cipran Ciraru, Tihomir
Danchev, Atul Kanade v. Carnival Corp., d/b/a Carnival Cruise
LInes, Inc., Case No.05-22968-Civ-Cooke/Kline," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti of
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.
(http://www.kttlaw.com/carnival/,2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-372-
1800, Telecopier: 305-372-3508.


GRAFTECH INT'L: Plaintiffs Withdrew Complaint in Del. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Spinney v. Graftech
International Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00133-KAJ,"
voluntarily withdrew their complaint against Graftech
International, Ltd.

On Mar. 1, 2006, the company was served with a complaint
commencing a securities class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware.

The complaint alleged that the company and certain officers
violated federal securities law by making false statements or
failing to disclose adverse facts, in or in relation to press
releases issued by the company on Nov. 3, 2005, about its
graphite electrode pricing power, its cost-cutting measures, the
market for its non-graphite product lines, its forecasting
ability, its internal controls and corporate compliance, and its
restructuring activities and charges.

The proposed class consists of all persons who purchased the
company's securities from Nov. 3, 2005 until Feb. 8, 2006.  The
complaint seeks, among others, to recover damages resulting from
the alleged violations.

On Mar. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the
complaint.

The suit is "Spinney v. Graftech International Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00133-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware under Judge Kent A. Jordan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Brian D. Long of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 919 North Market Street, Suite 980,
Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 984-0597, Fax: (302) 984-
0870, E-mail: blong@milbergweiss.com.


GUAM: Challenges Court Order Awarding Retirees COLA Increases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guam has filed a motion challenging court-ordered retroactive
increases in cost-of-living allowances to government retirees,
the Pacific Daily News reports.

The government lodged a challenge, instead of complying to an
order to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees,
according to plaintiffs' lawyer Mike Philipps.

In March, Superior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas ordered
the governor to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees,
and provide that information by May 31.  

The governor's office said in a press release it wants to
"ensure that everything is done right."

An earlier Class Action Reporter story stated that lawyers for
the class action are in disagreement over the base year for the
computation of payments.

The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order
for the award, said it is 1990.  On the other hand, the
retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the
court.

The COLA increases were due to more than 4,000 retirees for the
years 1990 and 1995.  Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling,
determined that the formula for most of the payout will be based
on the consumer price index of 1988.  The lawsuit was filed in
1993 and based on a law that was implemented in 1988 but
repealed in 1995.

Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and
$100 million, according to the report.

Representing the government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP,
Suite 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive,
Tamuning 96913, Guam, Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223,
Web site: http://www.guamlawoffice.com.


HARRIS SCARFE: Aussie Firm Reaches Settlement with Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
An out-of-court settlement had been reached in a class action
filed by shareholders of department store chain Harris Scarfe,
which collapsed with millions of debts years back, the
shareholders' lawyer, Peter Humphries, told The Advertiser.

The suit was filed by retiree Eleanor Guglielmin in federal
court in Australia four years ago on behalf of shareholders who
lost money in the company's receivership.  Harris Scarfe had
debts of $150 million when it went under in 2001.

Some 4,500 shareholders are expected to receive a notice
informing them of the settlement early this month, the report
said.

Harris Scarfe was bought out in 2003 and is operating under new
management.

For more information, contact Mr. Humphries, E-mail:
phumphries@dbh.com.au.


JDS UNIPHASE: Aug. 13 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Northern District of California set
an Aug. 13, 2007 trial for the consolidated securities class
action against JDS Uniphase Corp.

Litigation under the federal securities laws has been pending
against the company and certain former and current officers and
directors since Mar. 27, 2002.

On Jul. 26, 2002, the court consolidated all the securities
actions then filed in or transferred to that court under the
title, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. C-02-1486 CW."  It also appointed the Connecticut
Retirement Plans and Trust Funds or Connecticut's Treasurer's
office (CTO) as lead plaintiff.

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation, C-02-1486 (N.D. Cal.)," purports to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the company's
securities from Oct. 28, 1999, through Jul. 26, 2001, as well as
on behalf of subclasses consisting of those who acquired the
company's common stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL
Ltd.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning demand for the company's products,
improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Mufler, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  Defendants
subsequently filed answers denying liability for the claims
asserted against them.

At a case management conference on Jul. 15, 2005, the court
ordered the parties to mediate.  Pursuant to the court's order,
the parties appeared at mediation sessions on Nov. 29, 2005, and
Mar. 28, 2006, before the Hon. Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) and
Catherine Yanni, but did not succeed in resolving their
differences.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the court held a case management conference.  
At that conference the Court ordered the fact discovery be
completed by Sept. 29, 2006, and that expert discovery be
completed by Jan. 29, 2007.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the court granted CTO's motion for class
certification.  On Jan. 23, 2006, CTO's moved for approval of
its proposed plan for providing notice of class certification to
members of the Plaintiff class.

On Apr. 6, 2006, the court granted CTO's motion for approval of
its proposed plan for providing notice of class certification to
members of the Plaintiff class.  Discovery is ongoing.  

The next case management conference is scheduled for May 4,
2007, and trial is set to begin on Aug. 13, 2007.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral
to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Reed R. Kathrein and Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
         415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058, Fax: 415-288-4534 and
         619-231-7423, E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com and
         e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) John Frith Stewart of Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay,
         Janes & Ber, 1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main
         Street, Louisville, KY 40202-4251, Phone: 502-568-5600.

Representing the defendants are, Philip T. Besirof and Jordan
David Eth of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 425 Market St., San
Francisco, CA, Phone: 94105-2482, Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-
268-7522, E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com and jeth@mofo.com.


JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Court Okays Class Notice for Zelman Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved the proposed form and method of class notice by
plaintiffs in a purported securities class action against JDS
Uniphase Corp.

The suit, "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. C-02-4656," was
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of debt
securities that were allegedly linked to the price of the
company's common stock.  

The Zelman complaint alleges that an investment bank issued the
debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001 through
July 26, 2001.  It names the company and several of its former
officers and directors as defendants, alleges violations of the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, and
seeks unspecified damages.

On Aug. 26, 2005, defendants answered the complaint.  On Nov.
16, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which defendants had not opposed.

At a case management conference on Nov. 18, 2005, the court
ordered that discovery in the Zelman action proceed according to
the same schedule as discovery, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp.
Securities Litigation, C-02-1486," which is pending in the same
court.

On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of their proposed form and method of class notice,
which defendants had not opposed.  No trial date has been set.

The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04656," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan G. Kupfer of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 455 Market
         Street, Suite 1810, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415-972-8160, Fax: 415-972-8166, E-mail:
         skupfer@glancylaw.com; and

     (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830
         Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-371-6600, Fax: 212-751-2540, E-mail:
         ipress@kmslaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Holly H. Tambling of Morrison &
Foerster, LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482,
Phone: 415 268-7000, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail:
Htambling@mofo.com.


MESTEK INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Suit Over Privatization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mestek Inc. signed a memorandum of understanding to settle a
shareholder class action that threatened to hold up its move to
privatize, the Republican Reports.

The company agreed to change some of the terms of the deal to
take Mestek private, except for the price per share to be paid
to smaller shareholders, which is set at $15.24.

Mestek said it will ask shareholder permission to go private
this summer, citing the regulatory costs of remaining a public
firm.  The deal would pay off smaller shareholders, leaving
those with more than 2,000 shares as owners of part of a newly
privatized firm.

The company said it would agree to make the deal contingent on
approval by a majority of the shareholders not affiliated
directly with chairman John E. Reed and his son, who together
own a controlling stake in Mestek.

The settlement would also require other parts of the deal to
require approval by both a majority of the board of directors as
a whole and the majority of independent directors.

Any settlement would require approval of the Hampden County
Superior Court in Massachusetts.

The class action was filed by company shareholder Alan Kahn,
represented by James S. Notis of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &  
Paradis, in April over allegations it was unfair and designed
only to enrich the its top two stockholders.  The suit also
names the company's directors as defendants (Class Action
Reporter, April 28, 2006).

The suit charges that the company would pay the cost of buying
out the small shareholders, with the result that the Reeds would
control a greater percentage of the company's shares without
expending any of their own money.

In addition, the suit also charges that the remaining
shareholders would suffer, since it would be more difficult to
trade their shares, resulting in a "liquidity discount" on the
prices they could get.
  
According to the suit, most going-private transactions, unlike
the company plan, "management and the majority shareholder
obtain outside financing to fund a single price per share to be
paid to all shareholders."

In April, the company announced a plan to cease being publicly
traded and go private.  The plan, developed by a special
committee of directors appointed by Mr. Reed, would cash out
shareholders with fewer than 2,000 shares at $15.24 per share, a
21 percent premium over the closing price of the stock the last
trading day before the plan was announced.

Shareholders with more than 2,000 shares would continue to own
the stock, but it would undergo a 1-for-2000 reverse stock split
and be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, trading only
on the "over the counter" market.

For more details, James S. Notis of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &  
Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
(212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701.


NEBRASKA: Suit Over Phone Surcharge Continues in High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The state Supreme Court heard on May 30 a suit seeking to
declare a monthly fee charged to telephone customers in Nebraska
as illegal tax, Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed in 2002 by lawyer David Domina on behalf of
three people.  It alleged that a 7 percent surcharge on
telephone service ordered by the state Public Service Commission
in 1999 was not approved by the Legislature, and is thus
unconstitutional.  It also said the phone companies were wrongly
using it to build and upgrade systems.

The fees, which were paid into the Universal Service Fund, were
intended to subsidize rural phone service.  More than $349
million has been collected so far, according to the report.

The surcharge is collected on basic telephone rates and any
additional services, as well as in-state long-distance calls,
but not to Internet service or long-distance calls outside the
state.

For more information, contact Mr. Domina of Domina Law pc LLO,
2425 South 144th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68144-3267 (Douglas
Co.), Phone: 402-493-4100, Fax: 402-493-9782.


NEW YORK: Appeals Court Dumps Suit Over 1997 City Park Arrest
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has rejected a
class action filed by a homeless man who was arrested for
sleeping in a cardboard box in a New York city park in 1997, The
New York Times reports.

Doughlas H. Lasdon, founder of non-profit law firm Urban Justice
Center, filed the suit on behalf of Augustine Betancourt,
against the city of New York in 1997.  Mr. Betancourt and 24
others were arrested for sleeping in Collect Pond Park on Feb.
28, 1997.

The suit challenged the policy enforced by the administration of
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who took office in 1994, of allowing
the police to arrest -- in accordance with a sanitation
regulation -- homeless people for sleeping in cardboard boxes in
public places.  It claimed the policy was too broad and vague to
be constitutionally valid, that police arrested people without
probable cause, and that victims were unreasonably strip-
searched.

In 2000, a judge upheld the law.  Mr. Lasdon and another lawyer,
Eric S. Twiste, appealed.  The city subsequently settled the
strip-search claim separately in 2004 by paying Mr. Betancourt
$15,000.  But on May 18, the court upheld the order dismissing
the suit.


NEW YORK: Suit Filed Over Fines in Dec. Transport Workers Strike
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three bus and subway workers filed a suit in Brooklyn Supreme
Court on May 30 protesting the penalty imposed for their
participation in an illegal strike in December, the City News
reports.

The suit, seeking class action status, claims the penalty for
thousands of their colleagues were too harsh, the report said.  
It was more than what is provided under the state's Taylor Law.

The strike, which began on Dec. 30, was the culmination of the
battle between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the
Transport Workers Union Local 100 over health benefits, wages,
retirement and pensions.  It suspended transportation in New
York for 60 hours just before Christmas, and broke Taylor Law
that prohibits city and state employee strikes.

Recently, a judge came up with a plan to fine the union $209,000
a month for the violation.  The union will be allowed to
continue automatically deducting dues from members' paychecks
until the fine is paid, according to 1010 Wins.

The judge ordered the fine after finding that the union was in
contempt of court during the strike.  Under the plan, TWU must
pay the city 12 monthly installments totaling $2.5 million
starting June.  The union is appealing the fines.


PARMALAT SPA: Investors File Amended Complaint in S.D.N.Y
---------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer and Cohen Milstein, law firms leading a
securities class action against Parmalat Spa, filed a fresh
motion seeking permission to amend their complaint to assert
claims against Parmalat S.p.A., the entity that recently emerged
from Extraordinary Administration Proceedings, akin to U.S.
bankruptcy, in Italy.

Until recently, the class plaintiffs were prevented from filing
claims against Parmalat Finanziaria and its subsidiaries and
affiliates (Old Parmalat) due to a stay issued in the Italian
bankruptcy proceedings against all creditors, including class
plaintiffs, and also a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S.
bankruptcy court against all creditors and class plaintiffs.  
The newly filed complaint allows Parmalat investors who lost
billions of dollars in the dairy giant's fraud-soaked collapse
to seek claims against the company itself.

In October 2005, the court in Parma, Italy issued a decree
approving a "composition" or agreement with Old Parmalat's
creditors causing Parmalat S.p.A. to formally succeed Old
Parmalat and triggering the transfer of Old Parmalat's assets
and liabilities to New Parmalat.

Thus, unlike U.S. bankruptcy, Parmalat S.p.A., or "New Parmalat"
did not get a "fresh start" with its pre-petition debts being
discharged.  Rather, it emerged with the assets and liabilities
of its predecessor companies that were not discharged in the
Extraordinary Administration.  

In its first official prospectus, New Parmalat recognized that
plaintiffs in the U.S. securities class action could assert
claims against it in the U.S.  For these reasons, lead
plaintiffs moved for leave to assert federal securities fraud
claims against New Parmalat based on the actions of Old Parmalat
and its officers, directors, statutory auditors and others prior
to Extraordinary Administration.

The amended complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Grant & Eisenhofer represents
Parmalat shareholders, including U.K.-based Hermes Focused Asset
Management Europe Ltd.  Law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C. represents Parmalat's former bondholders.

"Our new filing is an important milestone in this case -- for
the first time since the rapid implosion of Parmalat nearly
three years ago, investors have the opportunity and the right to
seek compensation from the company itself, an option that was
not available while Parmalat was in bankruptcy proceedings in
Italy," said Stuart Grant, name partner at Grant & Eisenhofer.

As alleged in the original securities fraud complaint, during
the class period -- Jan. 5, 1999 through Dec. 18, 2003, and thus
prior to the Extraordinary Administration, -- those individuals,
along with Old Parmalat's banks and accounting firms, structured
and participated in a panoply of fraudulent schemes designed to
hide Old Parmalat's growing debts to third parties and
artificially inflate its assets, revenues and ultimately, the
market prices of its securities.

The scheme culminated in Old Parmalat's financial collapse when
it was revealed that the company's total consolidated debt had
been understated by nearly $10 billion and its total net assets,
or shareholder equity, had been overstated by $16.4 billion.  
Parmalat, an international food and dairy company, filed for
bankruptcy in Italy in December 2003.

The amended complaint also contains new allegations against
accounting Grant Thornton LLP, which had previously been
dismissed from the case, showing that it controlled its U.S.
affiliate, defendant Grant Thornton International, which had
participated in the fraud.

Plaintiffs also amended their claims against Credit Suisse First
Boston, now known as Credit Suisse.  They added new claims
against related entities:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston International, now known as
        Credit Suisse International,

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Limited, now known
        as Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, and

     -- Credit Suisse Group,

for their direct participation in, or control of entities that
participated in, the fraud.

A copy of Parmalat's 412-Page Third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint is available for free at:

                  http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a8f

The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:04-cv-00030-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Coughlin of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
         Lerach, L.L.P., 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545;

     (2) Joshua Seth Devore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500,
         Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202)408-4600, Fax:
         (202)-408-4699, E-mail: jdevore@cmht.com;

     (3) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA (DE), Chase
         Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington,
         DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100,
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com; and

     (4) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 58 South Service Road,
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Christopher Moore Brubaker of Kittredge Donley Elson
         Fullem & Emb (PA), 400 Market Street, Suite 200,
         Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215)-829-9900, Fax:
         (215)-829-9888, E-mail: cbrubaker@kdefe.com;

     (2) Donald C. Moss of Moss & Moss, L.L.P., 170 East 61st
         Street, New York, NY 10021, Phone: (212) 644-1000;

     (3) Norina I. Edelman of Sidley Austin LLP(Washington),
         1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202-
         736-8739, Fax: (202)-736-8711, E-mail:
         nedelman@sidley.com;  

     (4) Dana Leigh Post of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel,
         LLP, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: (212) 839-5667, Fax: (212) 839-5599, E-mail:
         dpost@sidley.com;

     (5) Howard A. Ellins of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-450-
         4248, Fax: (212)-450-5548, E-mail: ellins@dpw.com;

     (6) Dennis Eugene. Glazer of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-450-
         4900 Fax: (212)-450-3900, E-mail:
         dennis.glazer@dpw.com;

     (7) Loren Kieve of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
         Hedges, 50 California Street, 22nd Flr., San Francisco,
         CA 94104-2543, Phone: (415) 875-6320, Fax: (415) 875-
         6700, E-mail: lorenkieve@quinnemanuel.com; and

     (8) Mark Adam Kirsch of Clifford Chance US, LLP(NYC!), 31
         West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6131, Phone: (212)
         878-8192, Fax: (212) 878-8375, E-mail:
         mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: High Court to Review $80M Penalty in "Williams"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear during the fall an appeal by
tobacco company Philip Morris on an $80 million judgment against
it in a product liability suit, CNN reports.

Oral arguments on whether the fine was excessive will likely be
held in November or early December, according to the report.

The suit was filed by the family of Jesse Williams who died of
lung cancer in 1997.  A jury found Mr. Williams and Philip
Morris equally at fault for the illness.  It ordered an award of
$800,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive
damages against the company.

A trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $32 million, but
the order was reversed by the Oregon Supreme Court.  

With interest, the award is now about $130 million, according to
Bloomberg News, citing Philip Morris' court filing.

The suit is Philip Morris v. Williams, 05-1256.


PHONE COMPANIES: Face Wiretapping Suit in Mich. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four West Michigan phone customers filed a suit against six
phone telephone companies for alleged violation of Michigan's
state and federal wiretapping statutes, according to Woodtv.com.  
The companies are accused of illegally allowing the National
Security Agency to access customer phone conversations.

The suit was filed by Christopher and Rebecca Yowtz of
Coopersville, Ryan Halbower of Traverse City and Joan DuBois of
West Olive in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan.  Defendants are:

     -- AT&T Corp.,
     -- Cellular One,
     -- Charter Communication,
     -- MCI Inc.,
     -- Transworld Network Corp.
     -- Verizon Wireless

The suit is " Dubois et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No. 5:06-
cv-00085-RHB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan under Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Todd C. Barnes of George & Sipes
156 E Market St., Ste. 600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 U.S., Phone:
(317) 637-6071.


QUANTUM CORP: DLT IV Tape Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco will hold a fairness hearing on Jun. 20, 2006, 9:30
a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Franx Inc. v.
Quantum, Corp., Case No. CGC-03-423301."

The proposed settlement resolves a class action against:

     -- Quantum Corp.,
     -- Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,
     -- Maxell Corp. of America (collectively Maxell),
     -- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.,
     -- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. (collectively Fuji)

about DLT IV tapes, which are a type of magnetic tape storage
used to backup data for business and computer users.

The lawsuit claims that defendants agreed to keep Imation Corp.
from entering the market to sell DLT IV tapes, causing the
prices for those tapes to be higher than they should have been.  
Defendants deny the claims made in the lawsuit, deny that anyone
was harmed in relation to the claims, and have asserted a number
of defenses.

The settlement will provide free DLT IV tapes to California
residents and businesses that purchased DLT IV tapes, excluding
Imation-certified Black Watch Digital Linear Tape IV brand, at
any time from Aug. 5, 1999 to May 30, 2002 for home or office
use (i.e., not for resale) from within the state of California.

The hearing will be at the Civic Center Courthouse, 400
McAllister St., San Francisco, California 94102-4514.  

Deadline to file exclusion in the settlement is May 30, 2006.

For more details, contact DLT IV Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 1816, Faribault, MN 55021-1864, Phone: 1-866-216-0278, Web
site: http://www.tapedrivesettlement.com;and Aaron Darsky, Esq.  
or Robert C. Schubert, Esq. of Schubert & Reed, LLP, Three
Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:  
(415) 788-4220, Fax: (415) 788-0161, E-mail: adarsky@schubert-
reed.com and rak@katriellaw.com, Web site: http://www.schubert-
reed.com.


QUEEN MARY: Faces Suit Over Alleged Fake Items in Monroe Exhibit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Queen Mary Ocean Liner and the curator of "Marilyn Monroe:
The Exhibit," aboard the ship are defendants in a class action,
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Prestelegram.com reports.

The lawsuit challenges the authenticity of the items in the
exhibit and demands monetary damages for everyone who has
purchased a ticket to the exhibit.

The complaint claims Robert Otto, the exhibit's curator, knew
that the items he purchased and displayed were fake and did not
personally belong to Marilyn Monroe.

Named as defendants in the suit are the RMS Foundation Inc.,
which operates the Queen Mary; Robert Otto, the exhibit's
curator; and Mark A. Roesler, CEO of CMG Worldwide, which
manages the estate of Marilyn Monroe.

The plaintiffs in the case are Ernest Cunningham, author of "The
Ultimate Marilyn," and Emily Sadjady, a Los Angeles-based Monroe
collector.

According to George Braunstein, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, the lawsuit aims to give the public back their money.

Joseph Prevratil, head of the RMS Foundation, said he hasn't
seen the lawsuit and wouldn't comment.  But he said Mr. Otto
told him the items are authentic and that he has documentation
to prove it.  He added that the Queen Mary has an
indemnification agreement with Mr. Otto protecting it against
any lawsuits related to the exhibit.

Mr. Roesler of CMG also said he hasn't seen the lawsuit and
would not comment.  But he said that CMG does not have a
contractual or financial arrangement with the exhibit and does
not have a relationship with the Queen Mary or Mr. Otto in
connection with the exhibit.

The exhibit, which opened Nov. 10 and closes June 15, consists
of about 800 items and has a $22.95 admission price.  It
promised to display such material as Ms. Monroe's sweaters, blue
jeans, bathing suit, lingerie, objects from her marriage to Joe
DiMaggio, evening gowns, jewelry, sunglasses, shoes and hand-
held mirrors.  

For more information, contact George Gregory Braunstein, 11601
Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2440, Los Angeles, California.


REFCO COMMODITY: Faces Suit Over Alleged Financial Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Refco Commodity Management Inc. of Chicago and IDS Futures Corp.
of Minneapolis are facing a lawsuit seeking the return of
investors' money, the Chicago Business reports.

The suit was filed by Gary Franzen in U.S. District Court on
June 1.  It accuses the companies of mishandling investment
funds by handing over millions of dollars to Refco Capital
Markets Ltd. despite its financial instability.  Plaintiff's
lawyer Shawn Collins said more than $1 billion was missing in
the fund.  

Refco Commodity Management and IDS Futures were co-general
partners of the IDS Futures LP fund, according to the lawsuit.

Lawyers are seeking class action status on behalf of individuals
who invested money into JWH Global Trust, IDS Managed Futures LP
and IDS Managed Futures II LP funds on Oct. 17.

Refco Commodity Management Inc. and Refco Capital Markets are
affiliated with New York-based Refco Inc., which collapsed in
October 2005.

For more information, contact Mr. Collins of The Collins Law
Firm, P.C., Naperville, Illinois (DuPage & Will Cos.), Web site:
http://collinslaw.com.


ROYAL AHOLD: Stock, ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on June 16, 2006 for the proposed $1.1
billion settlement in the matter: "In re Royal Ahold Securities
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL 1539."  The case was brought on
behalf of all Royal Ahold investors who bought or received as a
dividend the company's common stock or American Depository
Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23, 2003.

Any objections must be made before May 12, 2006.  Claims forms
must be submitted by Aug. 18, 2006.

For more details, call 1-888-410-0027 (North America), 00 800
1020 4060 (Europe, Hong Kong & Japan), 0011 800 1020 4060
(Australia) and +1-914-906-4864 (Other Countries); or visit:
http://www.aholdsettlement.com/us/home.php3and  
http://www.royalaholdsecuritieslitigation.com/.


SALOMON SMITH: Calif. High Court Hears Arguments in Phone Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court justices who heard oral arguments
on a telephone privacy case on Jun. 1 suggested it is unlawful
for callers outside the state to secretly tape phone
conversations without the Californian party's consent even if
such act is legal in the state where the other party resides.

According to Foxreno.com, a majority of the justices suggested
that California's 1967 privacy statute should require out-of-
state callers to obtain a Californian's permission to tape a
call, even when its legal in the other state to record the
conversation secretly.

Justices who heard the arguments in the case against Salomon
Smith Barney Inc. were Carol Corrigan, Ming Chin, Kathryn Mickle
Werdegar and Chief Justice Ronal George.

The suit, which is seeking class action status, was filed after
Smith Barney played back portions of customer's phone
conversations with its brokers as defense in a suit over
investments.

Investors claim the secret recording is not only an invasion of
privacy, but also an unfair business practice.   The state's
Invasion of Privacy Act allows criminal fines of up to $2,500 or
jail terms up to a year.  Victims may also sue violators.

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

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

Meanwhile, in a brief submitted to the court, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce said Congress requires only one person on a
telephone line to consent to a recording.  While the states are
free to adopt more restrictive privacy laws, federal legislation
should prevail when there is a conflict, the chamber said.

A ruling from the court is expected within 90 days.

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

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


ST. JUDE: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is a defendant in several purported
securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

In April and May 2006, three shareholders, each purporting to
act on behalf of a class of purchasers from Jan. 25 through Apr.
4, 2006, separately sued the company and certain officers,
alleging that the company made materially false and misleading
statements during the class period relating to financial
performance, projected earnings guidance, and projected sales of
implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief, as
well as attorneys' fees.  A lead plaintiff has not yet been
appointed and no date has been set for preliminary motions.  

The first identified complaint is "Paskowitz, et al. v. St. Jude
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01379," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James
M. Rosenbaum

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax:
         212-684-519, E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com;

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

     (3) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;
  
     (4) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

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

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

     (7) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


ST. JUDE: Faces Suits in Canada Over Silzone Coated Heart Valves
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is defendant in several purported class
actions in Canada over its recalled mechanical heart valves that
incorporates Silzone coating.

There are four class actions and one individual case pending
against the company.  In one such case in Ontario, the court
certified that a class action may proceed involving Silzone
patients.

The company's request for leave to appeal the rulings on
certification was rejected, and the trial of the initial phase
of this matter is now scheduled for September 2007.

A second case seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed
pending resolution of the other Ontario action, and a case
seeking class action in British Columbia is also proceeding but
is in its early stages.

A court in the Province of Quebec has certified a class action,
and that matter is proceeding in accordance with the orders in
that court.


ST. JUDE: Minn. Court Hears Oral Arguments on Silzone Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota heard oral
arguments on issues in the consolidated Silzone heart valves
products liability litigation against St. Jude Medical, Inc.

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  It later began
marketing heart valve repair products incorporating Silzon
coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to the company's voluntary field action, the company
has been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who
received a product with Silzone coating and, as of Apr. 21,
2006, such cases are pending in the United States, Canada,
United Kingdom, Ireland and France.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all replacement heart valve patients receive.
Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

In 2001, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL) ruled that certain lawsuits filed in U.S. federal district
court involving products with Silzone coating should be part of
MDL proceedings under the supervision of Judge John Tunheim of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

As a result, actions in federal court involving products with
Silzone coating have been and will likely continue to be
transferred to Judge Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The District Court ruled against the company on the issue of
preemption and found that the plaintiffs' causes of action were
not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act.  The company sought
to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined that
it would not review the ruling at that point in the proceedings.

Certain plaintiffs requested the District Court to allow some
cases to proceed as class actions.  The first complaint seeking
class-action status was served upon the company on Apr. 27, 2000
and all eight original class-action complaints were consolidated
into one case by the district court on Oct. 22, 2001.

One proposed class in the consolidated complaint seeks
injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring.  A second
class in the consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of monetary damages.

In response to the requests of the claimants in these cases, the
district court issued several rulings concerning class action
certification.  The company requested the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals to review the district dclass certification orders.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's class certification rulings.  More
specifically, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the District Court
erred in certifying a consumer protection class seeking damages
based on Minnesota's consumer protection statutes, and required
the District Court in further proceedings to conduct a thorough
conflicts-of-law analysis as to each plaintiff class member
before applying Minnesota law.

In addition, in its Oct. 12, 2005 opinion, the Eighth Circuit
also ruled that the district court's certification of a medical
monitoring class was an abuse of discretion and thus reversed
the district court's certification of a medical monitoring class
involving the products with Silzone coating.

The parties have submitted briefs to the district court
providing their analysis concerning next steps in the
proceedings, including analysis on the conflicts-of-law issue
mentioned above.  Oral argument concerning the issues that were
briefed occurred on Apr. 26, 2006.

The suit is "In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., Silzone Heart Valves
Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1396, Master Docket No. 01-
md-1396 (JRT)."

For more details, visit:
http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/Tunheim_Mdl/index.htm.


SUMMIT PROPERTIES: N.C. Court Approves Investor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina has approved the settlement of a purported class action
against Summit Properties, Inc., Camden Property Trust, and
members of the company's board of directors.

On Oct. 6, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the
State of North Carolina, County of Mecklenburg, by an alleged
company stockholder.

The complaint principally alleges that the merger of Camden and
company and the acts of its directors constitute a breach of the
Summit defendants' fiduciary duties to company stockholders.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit sought, among other things:

      -- a declaration that each defendant has committed or
         aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty to the
         Summit stockholders;

      -- to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the merger;

      -- to rescind the merger in the event that it is
         consummated;

      -- an order to permit a stockholders' committee to ensure
         an unspecified "fair procedure, adequate procedural
         safe-guards and independent input by plaintiff" in
         connection with any transaction for Summit shares;

      -- unspecified compensatory damages; and

      -- attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 3, 2004, Camden removed the suit to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, and filed an
answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment denying the
plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the parties to the action executed a
stipulation of settlement.  Under the terms of the stipulation,
the defendants admit to no wrongdoing or fault.

The stipulation contemplates a dismissal of all claims with
prejudice and a release in favor of all defendants of any and
all claims related to the merger that have been or could have
been asserted by the plaintiffs or any members of the putative
class.

In connection with negotiations relating to the stipulation, the
parties agreed to include, and have included, in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger additional
disclosures regarding the merger.

The stipulation of settlement is subject to the customary
conditions, including final court approval of the settlement.  

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court approved the settlement, and in
accordance with the settlement, it dismissed the action with
prejudice and awarded the class counsel $383,000 in fees and
expenses.  Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, Camden, as
successor to company, paid such fees on May 1, 2006.

The suit is "Krantz v. Summit Properties In, et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00558," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Graham Mullen.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Bruce M. Simpson of James of
McElroy & Diehl, 600 S. College St. Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone:
704/372-9870, Fax: 333-5508.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) John O. Farley, Stephen D. Poss of Goodwin Proctor,
         LLP, Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617/570-
         1000, Fax: 523-1231; and

     (2) George V. Hanna, III, Moore & Van Allen, 100 No. Tryon
         St., Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28202-4003, Phone:
         704/331-1000, Fax: 331-1159.


PANTRY INC: N.C. Court Mulls Partial Dismissal of Barton Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss parts of the
amended complaint in the purported class action against The
Pantry, Inc., according to the company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark,
Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden,
LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly situated
v. The Pantry, Inc."

The suit was filed in June 2004 seeking class action status.  It
asserted claims on behalf of the company's North Carolina
present and former employees for unpaid wages under North
Carolina Wage and Hour laws.  

Originally filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth County, State
of North Carolina, the suit also sought an injunction against
any unlawful practices, damages, liquidated damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On Aug. 17, 2004, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  On Jul. 18,
2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting certain
additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of present and former store employees in the southeastern
United States.  It added one additional named plaintiff, Chester
Charneski.  

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which is presently pending
before the federal district court.

The company filed a motion to dismiss parts of the amended
complaint on Aug. 23, 2005.  The court has not yet ruled on that
motion.

The suit is "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. 1:04-
cv-00748-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert M. Elliot and J. Griffin Morgan of Elliot Pishko
         Morgan, P.A., 426 Old Salem Road, Winston-Salem, NC
         27101, Phone: 336-724-2828, Fax: 336-714-4499, E-mail:
         rmelliot@epmlaw.com; and

     (2) Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP, 757 Third
         Ave., 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-
         5640.  
        
Representing the company are Kimberly Jo Korando, Kirk Alan
Parry, Jr., Carl N. Patterson, Kerry A. Shad, Donald Hugh Tucker
of Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, POB 2611,
Raleigh NC 27602-2611, Phone: 919-821-6671, Fax: 919-821-6800,
E-mail: kkorando@smithlaw.com, aparry@smithlaw.com,
cpatterson@smithlaw.com, kshad@smithlaw.com,
dtucker@smithlaw.com.


TYCO INT'L: Continues to Face Ill. Suit Over Mallinckrodt Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action in relation to the merger between Tyco
International, Inc. and Mallinckrodt, Inc. continues in the
Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois.

On Mar. 10, 2005, plaintiff Lionel I. Brazen filed an amended
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois purporting to represent a class of purchasers who
exchanged shares of Mallinckrodt, Inc. common stock for shares
of the company's common stock pursuant to the Joint Proxy
Statement and Prospectus, and the Registration Statement in
which it was included, in connection with the Oct. 17, 2000
merger of the company and Mallinckrodt.

Plaintiff names as defendants the company and certain of its
former executives and asserts causes of action under Section 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The amended class action complaint alleges that the defendants
made statements in the Registration Statement and the Joint
Proxy Statement and Prospectus that were materially false and
misleading and failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the business and operations of the company.

On Apr. 21, 2005, the company moved in the Circuit Court for
Cook County, Illinois to dismiss or stay or, in the alternative,
to strike the class allegations.  On Jul. 22, 2005, the court
denied the company's motion.

Also, on Jul. 22, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss
individual defendants Michael A. Ashcroft, Joshua M. Berman,
Richard S. Bodman, John F. Fort, III, Stephen W. Foss, James S.
Pasman Jr., W. Peter Slusser and Frank E. Walsh, Jr.

On Aug. 2, 2005, the company filed a motion for a finding
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a), which was denied on Aug.
16, 2005.  On Aug. 19, 2005, the company filed an interlocutory
appeal of the Circuit Court for Cook County Illinois' Jul. 22,
2005 memorandum and order.

On Dec. 27, 2005, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
Judicial District, denied the company's interlocutory appeal.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the company filed a petition for leave to
appeal the decision of the appellate court, but that petition
was denied.  On Jan. 6, 2006, the plaintiff filed a renewed
motion for class certification, which was granted.  On Feb. 14,
2006, the company filed its answer to the complaint.


TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Mulls Class Certification for "Newby"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
yet to rule on Mark Newby's motion for class certification of
the case "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md-
01335-PB."  

Initially, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted one plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff in "Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.," an action
originally filed on Jul. 28, 2003 and "O'Loughlin v. Tyco
International Ltd.," an action originally filed on Sept. 26,
2003.

On Dec. 13, 2004, lead plaintiff Mark Newby filed a consolidated
securities class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of purchasers of TyCom securities between Jul. 26, 2000
and Dec. 17, 2001.  

Plaintiff names as defendants the company, TyCom, Ltd., Goldman
Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
and Citigroup Inc., (the underwriters) along with certain former
company and TyCom executives.

The complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the company, TyCom, Goldman
Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and certain former the company
and TyCom executives.

The complaint alleges the TyCom registration statement and
prospectus relating to the sale of TyCom securities were
inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose facts necessary to
make the registration statement and prospectus not misleading.

Further, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among other things,
executive compensation, the company's and TyCom's finances and
TyCom's business prospects.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the company moved to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action complaint.  On Sept. 2, 2005, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted in part
and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss allegations
that the TyCom registration statement and prospectus were
misleading to the extent that they failed to disclose alleged
looting of Tyco by former senior executives, accounting fraud,
analyst conflicts and the participation by James Brennan in the
offering, because plaintiff failed to plead that those alleged
omissions were disclosed during the class period, with a
resultant drop in the value of TyCom stock.  However, the court
denied the company's motion to dismiss with respect to other
allegations.  

On Sept. 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's Sept. 2, 2005 ruling with respect to Goldman
Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
and Citigroup Inc.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the court held that the Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and
Citigroup Inc. should remain in the case on the claim concerning
TyCom's business prospects, but that the Section 11 claim
related to alleged looting of Tyco by former senior executives
was dismissed as to both the Tyco defendants and the
underwriters because the affirmative defense of lack of loss
causation was apparent on the face of the complaint.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the company and TyCom answered the
consolidated securities class action complaint.  On Mar. 8,
2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which
is still pending.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, Mdl-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John F. Harnes, Darren T. Kaplan, Gregory E. Keller,
         Mary Kathryn King and Jill Asch Levenson of Chitwood
         Harley Harnes, LLP, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
         St., Ste 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404 873-3900,
         E-mail: jfharnes@chitwoodlaw.com,
         dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com, gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com,
         kking@chitwoodlaw.com and jlevenson@chitwoodlaw.com;

     (2) Mark L. Mallory of Mallory & Friedman, PLLC, 8 Green
         St., Concord, NH 03301, Phone: 228-2277, E-mail:
         mark@malloryandfriedman.com;

     (3) Renee L. Karalian and Michael A. Schwartz of Wolf
         Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022-6601,
         212 759-4600, E-mail: rkaralian@wolfpopper.com and
         mschwartz@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Mulls Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
yet to rule on Tyco International, Inc. and certain defendants'
motion opposing class certification of the consolidated class
action alleging pension laws violations, according to the
company's May 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

The company and certain of its current and former employees,
officers and directors, were named as defendants in eight class
actions brought under of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire and the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the six remaining
actions to that court later on.  

Thus, all eight actions are now consolidated in the District
Court in New Hampshire, falling under the Multidistrict
Litigation, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.
1:02-md-01335-PB."

The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of the Tyco
International (US) Inc. Retirement Savings and Investment Plans
and the participants therein.

On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire denied, without prejudice, the company's motion to
dismiss certain additional individual defendants from the
action.

On Jan. 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Jan. 27, 2005, the company answered the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's Jan. 12, 2005
order, insofar as it related to the Tyco International (US) Inc.
Retirement Committee.  On May 25, 2005, the court denied the
motion for reconsideration.

On Jul. 11, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The motion
is still pending.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, Mdl-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the ERISA plaintiffs is Kenneth G. Bouchard
Bouchard & Kleinman, PA, 1 Merrill Drive, Ste. 6, Hampton, NH
03842-1968, Phone: 603 926-9333, E-mail:
kbouchard@bestnhlaw.com.
  
Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: Dismissal of Amended Complaint in "Ezra" Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a Multidistrict Litigation against Tyco
International Ltd. have filed a notice to appeal a dismissal of
their amended complaint, according to the company's May 9, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Mar. 31, 2006.

On May 28, 2003, a class action complaint, "Ezra Charitable
Trust v. Tyco International Ltd.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire under the caption, "In Re Tyco International
Securities Litigation, 1:02-md-01335-PB."  Thereafter, the
company moved to dismiss the complaint.

On Dec. 22, 2004, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint.  The
proposed amendment asserts causes of action under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the company and Edward Breen, its
current chief executive officer, and seeks to add as defendants
David FitzPatrick, its former chief financial officer, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, its former independent auditors.

As against defendants Messrs. Breen and FitzPatrick, the
complaint asserts a cause of action under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

On Mar. 25, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire granted plaintiff's motion to amend.  Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint that day.

On Mar. 28, 2005, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the original complaint, without prejudice to the defendants'
ability to move against the amended complaint.

On Apr. 25, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.  On Sept. 2, 2005, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire entered a
memorandum and Order dismissing the amended complaint.

On Oct. 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice to appeal in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire and briefing
has begun.

The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Biron L. Bedard of Cook & Molan,
PA, PO Box 1465, Concord, NH 03302-1465, Phone: 603 225-3323, E-
mail: blb@cooknmolan.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


TYCO INT'L: N.H. Court Nixes Summary Judgment Motion in MDL-1335
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment in the
consolidated securities class action against Tyco International,
Ltd.

Initially, the company and certain of its former directors and
officers were named as defendants in over 40 securities class
actions.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
most of the securities class actions for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New
Hampshire securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International,
Ltd., Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335,
Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," a consolidated securities
class action complaint against the company certain of the
company's former directors and officers and its former auditors.  
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

As to the company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Claims against the
company's former directors and officers are also asserted under
Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among others:

      -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed
         acquisitions;

      -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;

      -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,
         promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings
         performance;

      -- compensation of certain of the company's former
         executives;

      -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal
         benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate
         transactions;

      -- their sales of Tyco shares;

      -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and

      -- the criminal investigation of the company's former
         chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs sought class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

On Mar. 31, 2003, the company made a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  The other defendants moved
to dismiss shortly thereafter (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16,
2006).  

On Oct. 14, 2004, the court granted the company's motion, in
part, and denied it in part.  The court granted the company's
motion to dismiss Count II of the Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleging a violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).  

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss Count I
alleging a violation of Section10 (b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Counts V and VI alleging violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16,
2006).

In addition, the court granted former director Michael
Ashcroft's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Counts III and IV alleging a
violation of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, respectively, and Count VII alleging a violation of
Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

On Jan. 7, 2005, the company answered the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint.  On Jan. 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs made
a motion for class certification, which the company opposed on
Jul. 22, 2005.  The motion is still pending.

On Jul. 5, 2005, the company moved for revision of the court's
Oct. 14, 2004 order in light of a change in law, insofar as the
order denied the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint for failure to plead loss causation.  On Dec. 2, 2005,
the court denied the company's motion.  

On Apr. 4, 2006 plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary
judgment that was denied.

The suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.
1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Vicki K. Andreadis of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, One
         Battery Park Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212 837-
         6000, E-mail: andreadi@hugheshubbard.com;

     (2) Francis P. Barron of Cravath Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825
         8th Ave., New York, NY 10019-7475, Phone: 212 474-1000,
         E-mail: fbarron@cravath.com;

     (3) Gregory A. Blue of Morgenstern Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885
         Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212 750-
         6776, E-mail: gblue@mjbllc.com;

     (4) R. Matthew Cairns of Ransmeier & Spellman, PO Box 600,
         Concord, NH 03302-0600, Phone: 603 228-0477, Fax: 603
         224-2780, E-mail: matt@ranspell.com; and  

     (5) William L. Chapman of Orr & Reno, PA, One Eagle Sq., PO
         Box 3550, Concord, NH 03302-3550, Phone: 603 224-2381,
         E-mail: wlc@orr-reno.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
         McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
         Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
         eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
         bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;  

    (ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;

   (iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and

    (iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
         200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
         Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Calif. Stock Suit's Dismissal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear on
Jun. 9, 2006 oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of all claims in a securities class against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Since Jul. 25, 2002, multiple class actions were filed against
the company and some of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California.  

The suits alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to Jul. 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the company's stock.

Lawsuits generally claim that the company issued false and
misleading statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales
figures (based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its
operations in Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings
and sales of the company's Photonics division.  

Plaintiffs generally seek to recover compensatory damages,
including interest.

All actions were later consolidated to the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California.  On Jun. 24, 2004, the court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as to the "channel
stuffing" claim.  

A stipulation to the dismissal of all the claims against the
company was also made.  The plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
seeking review of the dismissal of the claims against the
company.  Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit in this matter
is set for Jun. 9, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-00701," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Abraham & Associates of One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New
         York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.714.244, Fax: 212.279365,
         E-mail: Larryl@abrahamlaw.com; and

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Carl Alan Roth, Eric S. Waxman
and Peder Kristian Batalden of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom, 300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144,
Phone: 213-687-5000, E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com.


WASHINGTON GROUP: Continues to Face La. Suits Over Levee Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. is one of many defendants
in several class actions pending in Louisiana State and Federal
courts in relation to the alleged failure of the New Orleans
Levee in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

From July 1999 through May 2005, the company performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) on the
east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (Industrial
Canal) in New Orleans, Louisiana (Task Order 26).  All the work
performed by the company and its subcontractors was directed,
supervised and approved by the USACOE.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane flooded the east bank of
the Industrial Canal and overtopped the Industrial Canal levee
floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the
City.

In the wake of that hurricane, multiple personal injury and
property damage class actions were filed in Louisiana state and
federal court naming the company as one of numerous defendants
including The City of New Orleans, the Board of Commissioners
for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer St. Paul
Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees and
assert their claims under the federal Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 12(d)(2).  

The alleged class of plaintiffs are all residents and property
owners of the Parishes of Orleans and Jefferson in the State of
Louisiana "who incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls along
the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, and the
Industrial Canal...in the wake of Hurricane Katrina."

In all of the lawsuits to date, the only specific allegation
against the company is that it "contracted to level and clear
abandoned industrial sites along the Industrial Canal between
the floodwall and the canal" and plaintiffs believe "the use of
heavy vehicles and/or other heavy construction equipment along
the Industrial Canal between the floodwall and the canal damaged
the levee and/or floodwall and caused and/or contributed [to]
the...breach in the levee and/or floodwall."

Plaintiffs also allege damages as high as $200 billion and
demand attorneys' fees and costs.  


WISCONSIN AUTO: High Court Favors Plaintiff in Auto Loan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a clause in an auto
title loan contract of Wisconsin Auto Title Loans Inc. that
forces the borrower to resolve disputes through arbitration is
invalid, Gazette Xtra reports.

The ruling arose out of a class action filed by Kenneth Jones,
who borrowed $800 from the company in December 2001 using the
title to his car as collateral.  

Under the agreement, Mr. Jones is to pay back $1,197 in a single
payment in January 2002.  But Mr. Jones failed to pay the entire
loan back by the deadline, prompting the company to apply a
daily interest rate of $7.84.  By May 2002, Mr. Jones' loan
totaled $1,627.  Later that month the company began proceedings
to repossess his car.

Mr. Jones filed a class action counterclaim arguing the
agreement was unconscionable under state statutes.  A Milwaukee
County judge and state appeals court panel agreed with him.  The
loan company appealed to the Supreme Court.

In late May, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote for the
majority in saying that the contract which allows the state to
go to court to decide disputes while leaving Mr. Jones with
arbitration as the only option is too broad and one-sided.  The
judge said arbitration would limit the remedies Jones could win
in court.  


                   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 Hartford mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group (parent company is defendant
American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from Jun. 30,
2000 through Jun. 8, 2005, inclusive.

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

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

The Shelf-Space Funds included 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 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.


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 NationsFunds
mutual funds from the AIG Advisor Group (parent company is
defendant American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from
Jun. 30, 2000 through Jun. 8, 2005, inclusive.

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

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

The Shelf-Space Funds included 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 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.


AMERICAN TOWER: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a suit seeking class
action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares and/or sold put contracts of American Tower Corp. (AMT)
between Feb. 1, 2006 and May 24, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning American Tower's financial results in U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.

Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
that:

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

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

As a result of the activities, shares of American Tower fell to
$30.30 on May 24, 2006.

Interested parties have no later than Jul. 31, 2006 to request
that the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


AMERICAN TOWER: Yourman Alexander Files Securities Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of American Tower Corp. (AMT)
between Feb. 1, 2006 through May 24, 2006, inclusive.  The
matter is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to present the true financial
condition of American.  

It is alleged that the company's financial statements were false
and misleading because insiders of American were engaged in
self-dealing through the backdating of options which were
granted to them at a favorable price.

It is further alleged that as a result of the foregoing,
American misstated its earnings and expenses to the investing
community. The complaint also claims that once these activities
were disclosed, shares of American fell to $30.30 per share on
May 24, 2006.

The deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff appointment is on 31,
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.  


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Susman Godfrey Files Stock Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey, L.L.P. filed a class action against Vitesse
Semiconductor Corp. (VTSS) and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

The action is on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of Vitesse between
Jan. 28, 2003 and Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive, for alleged
securities law violations.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial statements, including its accounting for product
returns as well as the dating of executive stock option grants.
It is alleged that as a result, the price of the company's
securities was inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming
investors.

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

For more details, contact Steven Sklaver, Esq. of Susman
Godfrey, L.L.P., Phone: 310-789-3123, E-mail:
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com, Web site:
http://www.susmangodfrey.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  * * *