CAR_Public/060606.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 6, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 111

                            Headlines

99c ONLY: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Calif.
ADVANCED DIGITAL: Faces Wash. Stockholder Suit Over Quantum Deal
ALBERTSON'S INC: Appeals Class Status Denial of Calif. Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Calif. WARN Violations Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC: Settles Ida. Lawsuit Over Sale to Supervalu

APPLIED SIGNAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
CLEAR CHANNEL: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Col. District Court
EMACHINES INC: Empire Merger Suit Trial to Proceed Within Months

GUAM: Governor Seals $90M Settlement in Tax Refunds Lawsuit
GUITAR CENTER: Calif. Court Approves $3.5M Labor Suit Settlement
GUITAR CENTER: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Fla. Operations
HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: Units Still Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Ill.
INDIANA: Suit Filed Over Limit on Sexual Offenders' Mobility

INTEL CORP: Submits Proposed Protective Order in Antitrust Suit
KPMG LLP: $154M Settlement of Tax Shelter Suit Gets Approval
LONGS DRUG: Calif. Court Sets June Trial for Employment Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: Judge Denies Injunction on FEMA's Housing Aid Cutoff
NORTHWESTERN ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Livonia Employees Lawsuit

ORTHO-MCNEIL: Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Over Contraceptive Patch
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Fla.
PATHMARK STORES: No Appeal Made for Del. Stock Suit's Dismissal
PORIRUA PSYCHIATRIC: Sued Over Alleged Maltreatment of Patients
POST PROPERTIES: Ga. Court Nixes Request to Review Settlement

PREMIUM STANDARD: Lawsuit Filed by Mo. Property Owners Continues
REFCO INC: BAWAG Agrees to $108M Settlement with Investors
STATION CASINOS: Judge to Hear Thunder Valley Workers Suit Today
THAXTON GROUP: Two Defendants Settle S.C. Suit Over Note Program
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Conn. Joins Suit Over CEO's Stock Options

UTSTARCOM INC: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
VALICERT INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Deal
VERISIGN INC: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
WACHOVIA BANK: Trust Beneficiary Sues Over Evergreen Investment

WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ga.
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ken.
WELLPOINT COS: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Discrimination Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KINDER MORGAN: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Suit in Tex.
KINDER MORGAN: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Kans.
PXRE GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
PXRE GROUP: Yourman Alexander Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
ST. JUDE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.


                            *********


99c ONLY: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
99c Only Stores has moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in a consolidated securities class action pending
against it in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to its May 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2005.

On June 15, 2004, David Harkness filed the class action against
the company and certain of its executive officers.  Mr.
Harkness, who seeks to represent all who purchased shares of the
company's common stock between March 11 and June 10, 2004,
alleges that the company's public statements during the class
period violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to adequately describe various aspects of the company's
operations and prospects.

Soon thereafter, several other alleged shareholders filed
complaints in the same court, making substantially the same
allegations against the same defendants and seeking to represent
the same putative class.

Three such plaintiffs, Joseph Boodaie, Morgan Boodaie and Samuel
Toovy, were designated "lead plaintiffs" pursuant to the Private
Securities Class Action Reform Act (PSLRA).  They filed a
consolidated amended complaint that superseded the various
complaints originally filed and contained an expanded class
period.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, in particular by failing to satisfy the pleading
standards of PSLRA.

By order dated March 30, 2005, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
April 29, 2005.  The defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint as well.

The suit is "David Harkness v. 99 Cents Only Stores, et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04273-PA-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Percy
Anderson with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph D. Ament, Conor R. Crowley and Carol V. Gilden
         of Much Shelist Freed Dennenberg Ament & Eiger, 191
         North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60606,
         Phone: 312-521-2000, Fax: 312-521-2100;

     (2) Elizabeth P. Lin and Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss
         Bershad and Schulman, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite
         4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-617-1200 and
         213-617-1200, Fax: 213-617-1975, E-mail:
         elin@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Lauren S. Antonino of Chitwood & Harley, 2300 Promenade
         II, 1230 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone:
         404-873-3900.

Representing the defendants are, Robert L. Dell Angelo and
George M. Garvey of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S Grand Ave.,
35th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-683-9100, Fax:
213-687-3702, E-mail: dellangelorl@mto.com.


ADVANCED DIGITAL: Faces Wash. Stockholder Suit Over Quantum Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Digital Information Corp. and its directors are
defendants in a purported shareholder class action in King
County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington in relation to the
proposed acquisition of the company by Quantum Corp.

Richard Carrigan on behalf of an alleged class of the company's
shareholders filed the suit on May 18, 2006.  

Plaintiff alleges, among others, that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed
acquisition, which was publicly announced on May 2, 2006.

The suit seeks to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed acquisition and other relief.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Appeals Class Status Denial of Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc.," has yet
to receive a ruling on its motion appealing the refusal of the
Superior Court of California for Alabama County to grant class
certification to the case, according to Albertson's May 31, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended May 4, 2006.

A grocery manager filed the suit, seeking recovery including
overtime pay based upon plaintiff's allegation that he and other
grocery managers were improperly classified as exempt under
California law.  Class certification was denied in June 2005 and
plaintiffs have appealed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).


ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Calif. WARN Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. continues to face a class action, "Joanne Kay
Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al.," which was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, according to
Albertson's May 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 4,
2006.

The suit alleges that the company and its subsidiaries, Lucky
Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees their
final paychecks in an untimely manner.  The suit seeks statutory
penalties.  

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Settles Ida. Lawsuit Over Sale to Supervalu
------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's, Inc. settled a purported class action pending in
Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the
County of Ada over a definitive agreement to sell the company.

On Jan. 22, 2006, the company entered into a series of
agreements providing for the sale of Albertson's to Supervalu
Inc., CVS Corp. and a consortium of investors including Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P., Kimco Realty Corp., Lubert-Adler
Management, Inc., Klaff Realty, L.P. and Schottenstein Stores
Corp. (Cerberus Group).  

As a result of a series of transactions provided for under the
agreements, Albertsons' stockholders stand to ultimately be
entitled to receive $20.35 in cash and 0.182 shares of Supervalu
common stock for each share of Albertson's common stock that
they held before the transactions.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for
the County of Ada, naming Albertsons and its directors as
defendants.

The action, "Christopher Carmona v. Henry Bryant et al., No. CV-
OC-0601251," which was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho and subsequently remanded to Idaho state
court, challenges the agreements entered into in connection with
the transactions.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that company and its
directors, violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or
aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
including by failing to value Albertsons properly and by
ignoring conflicts of interest.

Among other things, the complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the completion of the
transactions.

On May 18, 2006, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding for a full settlement with the plaintiff.


APPLIED SIGNAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Applied Signal Technology, Inc., which was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, are
appealing the dismissal of their case.

On March 11 and July 19, 2005, purported securities class
actions were filed against the company.  Later, these suits were
consolidated as, "In re Applied Signal Technology Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:05-cv-1027 (SBA)."

The amended consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the company's company's
securities from Aug. 24, 2004 to Feb. 22, 2005.

The complaints name the company, its chief executive officer,
and its chief financial officer as defendants, and allege that
false and misleading statements regarding the company were
issued during the class period.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and
entered judgment in defendants' favor.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on March 23, 2006.  The
company said any future unfavorable outcome of the litigation
could have an adverse impact on the company's business,
financial condition, and results of operation.

The suit is "In Re: Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01027," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, 2125 Oak
         Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, Phone:
         (925) 945-0200, Fax: (925) 945-8792, E-mail:
         info@bramsonplutzik.com; and

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


CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Caliper Technologies Corp.

Starting June 7, 2001, the company and three of its officers and
directors -- David V. Milligan, Daniel L. Kisner and James L.
Knighton -- were named as defendants in three securities class
actions.

The cases were later consolidated as, "In re Caliper
Technologies Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5072 (SAS) (GBD)."  Similar
complaints were filed against approximately 300 other public
companies that conducted IPO's of their common stock during the
late 1990s.

On Aug. 8, 2001, the IPO lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before U.S. Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern
District of New York.  Together, those cases are denominated,
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No.
21 MC 92(SAS)."  

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
alleging claims against Caliper and the individual defendants
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, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The consolidated amended complaint also names certain
underwriters of Caliper's December 1999 initial public offering
of common stock.  It alleges that these underwriters charged
excessive, undisclosed commissions to investors and entered into
improper agreements with investors relating to aftermarket
transactions.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of money damages.  Caliper
and the other issuers named as defendants in the IPO lawsuits
moved on July 15, 2002, to dismiss all claims on multiple
grounds.

By a stipulation and order dated Oct. 9, 2002, the claims
against Messrs. Milligan, Kisner and Knighton were dismissed
without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss all claims against it.  Plaintiffs were not given the
right to re-plead the claims against the company.  The time to
appeal the dismissal has not yet expired.  

In May 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuers and their insurers setting forth
the terms of a settlement that would result in the termination
of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the issuers and
individual defendants named in the IPO lawsuits.

On July 7, 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Caliper
board of directors approved the settlement terms described in
that Memorandum of Understanding, which was subsequently set
forth in definitive settlement agreement among the settling
parties.

On Feb. 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to certain
modifications.  

The parties agreed to those modifications, and on Aug. 31, 2005,
Judge Scheindlin issued an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement as modified and certifying settlement classes.

The fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement was
held on April 24, 2006.  As of May 9, 2006, Judge Scheindlin had
not issued any order regarding the court's decision with respect
to the final approval of the settlement.  

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


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. is defendant in multiple
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Initially, a shareholder class action was filed on Feb. 17, 2006
against the company, Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and
Richard E. Goodrich.  The suit is "Welmon v. Chicago Bridge &
Iron Co. NV, et al., Case No. 06 CV 1283."

The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and
were damaged thereby.

The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and
alleges, among others, that the company materially overstated
its financial results during the class period by misapplying
percentage-of-completion accounting and did not follow the
company's publicly stated revenue recognition policies.

Since the initial lawsuit, eleven other suits containing
substantially similar allegations and with similar, but not
exactly the same, class periods have been filed and have been
consolidated in the Southern District of New York.

Under the initial scheduling order, a single consolidated
amended complaint is to be filed on or before June 19, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-
JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Catherine A. Torell of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY
         10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail:
         ctorell@cmht.com;

     (2) Samuel Howard Rudman 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: srudman@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Arthur N. Abbey of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, US,
         Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
         aabbey@abbeygardy.com; and

     (4) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-907-0878, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mai:
         ebelfi@labaton.com.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Col. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications Inc. and its former concert
promotion arm Live Nation Inc. are facing a class action over
allegations the companies curtailed concert competition and
jacked up ticket prices in violation of antitrust laws, Reuters
reports.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court District of Colorado,
alleges that Clear Channel limited radio airtime for musicians
who used competing concert promoters and inflating musicians'
fees.

The company faced investigation from the Justice Department in
July 2003 to December 2005 on allegations it is tying radio
airplay and the use of concert venues to musicians' use of the
companies' concert promotion services.

The lawsuit said the investigation was discontinued because
Clear Channel agreed to spin off Live Nation to become a
separately owned company.  However, Live Nation and Clear
Channel Communications Inc. both continue to be dominated by the
same individuals.

The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages on behalf
of all buyers of tickets to concerts promoted by the defendants
from June 1998 to December 2005 in Colorado, parts of Utah, New
Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming and Nebraska.

The suit is "Hammer v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01047-REB," filed in the U.S. District
Court District of Colorado under Judge Robert E. Blackburn.
Representing the plaintiffs are Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and
Charles Walter Lilley of Charles Lilley & Associates, P.C., 1600
Stout Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax:
03-298-8975, E-mail: kjch@lilleylaw.com and
clilley@lilleylaw.com.


EMACHINES INC: Empire Merger Suit Trial to Proceed Within Months
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April trial for the shareholder class action, "Dvorchak v.
eMachines, Inc., et al.," which was filed in California State
Superior Court, County of Orange, has been moved to the second
half of 2006.

The suit, filed against eMachines and others in November 2001,
relates to a plan to privatize the company through a merger with
Empire Acquisition Corp.  The merger was consummated after a
court denied a requested injunction on Dec. 27, 2001.

After the merger, plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or rescission relating to the
negotiations for and terms of the merger through allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duties by eMachines, its board members
prior to the merger, and certain of its officers.  The court
certified the suit Aug. 25, 2003.

Dispositive motions filed by the defendants were heard and
denied by the court in August 2004 and August 2005.  The trial
is currently anticipated to occur in the second half of 2006.  
It was previously set to start Apr. 3, 2006.


GUAM: Governor Seals $90M Settlement in Tax Refunds Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Felix Camacho has signed a $90 million agreement to settle
a suit against the government over tax refunds it owes under the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Pacific Daily News reports.

Settlement talks that ensued after class actions were filed
against the government by Julie Babauta Santos, Charmaine
Torres, and Mary Grace Simpao with Christina Naputi in 2004
originally contemplated a $60 million payment of the $120
million owed to taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to 1998.  
It was entered into by Attorney General Douglas Moylan and then-
acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan.  But Gov. Felix Camacho did not
approve of the settlement.  He increased the settlement to $90
million, specifying this will come from 15% of the money set
aside for tax refunds each year.  

Earlier this year, District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez granted
Gov. Camacho's request for global mediation.  Negotiations
resulted to a deal with lawyers representing Ms. Santos and Ms.
Torres.  But lawyers representing Ms. Naputi and Ms. Simpao
disagreed, and have asked the court to move forward with the
lawsuit and select a lead counsel.

Gov. Camacho said one of the big changes in the settlement is
that the payments will begin as soon as the court gives
preliminary approval, instead of waiting for final court
approval.

"What this means is we can start making EITC payments to the
recipients as early as this summer," he said.  

Gov. Camacho's lawyer, Daniel Benjamin, said the new settlement
also calls for the payment of what still is owed for the 1997
tax year.

"We're gonna put aside money from future refunds to make
payments.  So this payment plan might take over eight years to
complete," Rev and Tax Director Art Ilagan said.  According to
him, when payments begin, checks will be written to those who
filed for the tax credit but were not paid for 1997 and 1998.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike
Philips, and James Canto.


GUITAR CENTER: Calif. Court Approves $3.5M Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court has granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of two purported class actions
accusing Guitar Center Inc. of failing to document and enforce
break-time and lunchtime periods for hourly retail store
employees in the State of California.

On Oct. 13, 2004, a putative class action entitled "Carlos
Rodriguez v. The Guitar Center, Inc. [sic], Case No. GC322958,"
was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of
all hourly retail store employees within the State of California
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).

On Dec. 15, 2004, a putative class action, "James McClain et al.
v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc., Case No. BC326002," was filed in
the same court on behalf of all hourly retail store employees
within the State of California.  Among others, the lawsuits
allege that the company improperly failed to document and
enforce break-time and lunchtime periods for such employees.  
The suit sought an unspecified amount of damages, penalties and
attorneys' fees (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).  

In March 2006, the court granted its preliminary approval of the
proposed class settlement that the company had reached with the
other parties on Dec. 15, 2005.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company will
make cash payments of up to $3.5 million to fully resolve claims
by eligible class members, including payments to class members
and payments for plaintiff attorneys' fees and the costs of a
third-party administrator.


GUITAR CENTER: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Fla. Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center, Inc. and its chief executive officer were named
defendants in a purported class action alleging violations of
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),
several antitrust laws and trade practices.

On Nov. 29, 2005, a case was filed against company and other
defendants, including its chief executive officer.  The
complaint specifically asserts violations of RICO and a
corresponding Florida statute, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, Section 2 of the Clayton Act (as amended by the
Robinson-Patman Act), the Antidumping Act of 1916, the Florida
Antitrust Act of 1980, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, as well as tortious interference with
business relationship under Florida law and civil conspiracy
under Florida law.

The violations are in connection with the claimed inability of
Ace Pro Sound and Recording, L.L.C. to obtain vendor lines for
its store.

The complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of all
current and former retail sellers of musical instruments and/or
sound equipment and/or recording equipment with stores located
in geographical regions in the U.S. wherein some or all of the
defendants have carried on business, and seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On March 6, 2006, defendants, jointly and separately, filed
responsive pleadings comprised of four motions to dismiss and a
motion to strike.  

On or about March 21, 2006, plaintiff sought leave of the court
to file an amended complaint, which was granted by the court.
Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on April 10, 2006.

The amended complaint abandoned an alleged violation of the
Antidumping Act of 1916, and now asserts, among other things,
additional common law violations.  

The suit is "Ace Pro Sound and v. Albertson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-23098," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael L. Feinstein of Michael
L. Feinstein, P.A., 888 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida 33301, (Broward Co.), Phone: 954-767-9662,
Fax: 954-527-0848.

Representing the company is Douglas E. Ede of The Law Offices of
Salas, Ede, Peterson & Lage, L.L.C., 6333 Sunset Drive, Miami,
Florida 33143, Phone: (305) 663-0000, Fax: (305) 663-0989, E-
mail: dede@sepllaw.com, Web site: http://www.sepllaw.com.


HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: Units Still Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poly Implant Protheses, S.A. (PIP) and PIP/USA, Inc., both
subsidiaries of Heritage Worldwide, Inc., have until May 26,
2006 to respond to the third amended consolidated complaint in
the class action, "Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA,
Inc., Case No. 03CH07239."  The suit is pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery.

In November of 2003, Jessica Fischer Schnebel and 15 other women
commenced the putative class action against PIP, PIP/USA, Inc.
and III Acquisition Corp. d/b/a PIP America.

The third amended consolidated class action complaint contains
counts alleging product liability, breach of the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and a
contract claim alleging third-party beneficiary status.

Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and attorneys
fees and costs are sought.  Motions to dismiss filed by PIP and
PIP America remains pending and discovery is underway.  The
plaintiffs have not sought to date to certify any putative
class.

PIP's response to the third amended consolidated class action
complaint is due on May 26, 2006.  The company's U.S.
distributor tendered this case to PIP, for defense and indemnity
pursuant to the distributor agreement.


INDIANA: Suit Filed Over Limit on Sexual Offenders' Mobility
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana (ACLU) filed a
complaint seeking class action status against a new ordinance
that bans sexual offenders from coming within 1,000 feet of
public places where children are present, the Associated Press
reports.

ACLU filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on
behalf of six sexual offenders.  The plaintiffs allege the new
ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, violates their rights to
vote and attend church and prevents them from freely traveling
on streets and highways.

They are seeking temporary and permanent injunctions barring the
city from enforcing the new law.

The ordinance was cleared by the City-County Council on May 15
and took effect immediately.  The law includes an exception that
permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are
with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.

Violation of the ordinance carries fines of up to $2,500.

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


INTEL CORP: Submits Proposed Protective Order in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a an anti-trust suit against Intel Corp. have
submitted a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and [Proposed]
Protective Order before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Farnan,
Jr., according to the Inquirer.

Several lawsuits accusing Intel Corp. of monopolizing the market
for microprocessors, which are used to power personal computers,
were combined into one case in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Bloomberg News reported earlier (Class
Action Reporter, May 6, 2006).

Initially, the company faced approximately 79 separate class
actions filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern
District of California, Southern District of California and the
District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas
and Tennessee state courts (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2006).

The suits allege various consumer damages, including that
arising from paying higher prices for the company's
microprocessors.  They also allege violations similar to a
complaint filed by Sunnyvale, California-based Advanced Micro
Devices (AMD) against the company (Class Action Reporter, March
7, 2006).

In June 2005, AMD filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware alleging that the company and its
Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of
the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions
Code, including providing secret and discriminatory discounts
and rebates and intentionally interfering with prospective
business advantages of AMD, (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2006).

AMD's complaint sought unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the
Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against the
company's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2006).

In the now-consolidated suit, filed April 28, 2006, more than 50
P.C. buyers from New York to California are asking for class
action status, a jury trial and unspecified damages and
restitution.  They accuse the Santa Clara, California-based
company of trying to "stifle and eliminate competition" so it
could "charge inflated prices."

In recent developments, a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement
and [Proposed] Protective Order was submitted to the court after
20 firms that Intel and AMD subpoenaed raised objections.  The
two remain in disagreement on several points in the order,
according to the report.

To see the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and [Proposed]
Protective Order, visit:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ab3

The suit is "In re Intel Corp. Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:05-md-01717-JJF," is now before U.S. District Judge Joseph
Farnan Jr. On April 20, the judge stated that the suit by
AMD will be tried first, in 2008.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 263-0594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com;  

     (2) R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine
         St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, US, Phone:
         415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail:
         rick@saveri.com; and

     (3) Michael P. Lehmann of The Furth Firm, LLP, 225 Bush
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104,
         Sonoma County Office, 10300 Chalk Hill Road,
         Healdsburg, California 95448, Phone: (415) 433-2070,
         Fax: (415) 982-2076, E-mail: mplehmann@furth.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) David Mark Balabanian and Joy K. Fuyuno of Bingham
         McCutchen, LLP, Three Embarcadero Center, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-4067, US, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-
         mail: david.balabanian@bingham.com and
         joy.fuyuno@bingham.com; and

    (ii) Jef Feibelman of Burch Porter & Johnson, 130 N. Court
         Ave., Memphis, TN 38103, US, Phone: 901-524-5000, E-
         mail: jfeibelman@bpjlaw.com.


KPMG LLP: $154M Settlement of Tax Shelter Suit Gets Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark, New Jersey gave
final approval to a $153.9 million settlement that a law firm
and accounting firm KPMG LLP have reached with about 200 former
clients who used its tax shelters, the AP WorldStream reports.

Under the settlement, about 200 clients would get $153.9
million, which would cover transaction costs for the tax
shelters, but not back taxes and penalties.  The average payout
would be $825,000.  The class action lawyers would get $24.6
million.

KPMG was forced to revise a proposed settlement in April after
more than 60 investors chose not to join.  The original $195
settlement was slated to go to court for final approval on Feb.
24, 2006, but U.S. District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark,
New Jersey rescheduled the hearing to give time for revisions.
The investors who opted out of the deal was down to 55 in April,
according to the Wall Street Journal (Class Action Reporter, May
1, 2006).

Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

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


LONGS DRUG: Calif. Court Sets June Trial for Employment Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 23, 2006 trial has been set for the California class
action, "Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.," filed
against Longs Drug Stores Corp.

The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County on Oct. 13, 2004.  It was certified
as a class action on July 19, 2005.  

The suit alleges that the company's employment application
violates California Labor Code Section 432.8 by inquiring about
criminal convictions within the last seven years, without
providing an exception for misdemeanor marijuana convictions
more than two years old.

The plaintiff sought to recover statutory damages and attorneys'
fees for him and all similarly situated individuals who applied
for employment with the company during the class period.  


LOUISIANA: Judge Denies Injunction on FEMA's Housing Aid Cutoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner has denied a request for
a restraining order against the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's plan to cut off housing aid for Hurricane Katrina
victims, the Desastres.org reports.

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

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

On May 31, as Judge Hittner denied the restraining order, he
ordered FEMA to expedite consideration of voucher extensions for
those evacuees.

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

The suit is "Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Case  
No. 4:06-cv-01709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of Texas under Judge David Hittner.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A. Caddell of Caddell and  
Chapman, 1331 Lamar Ste 1070, Houston, TX 77010-3027, Phone:  
713-751-0400, Fax: 713-751-0906.


NORTHWESTERN ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Livonia Employees Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corp. d/b/a NorthWestern Energy reached a
memorandum of understanding to settle the city of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System putative shareholder class action
and derivative lawsuit filed in November 2005.

After limited confirmatory discovery, the parties will present a
settlement agreement to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Dakota for preliminary approval.  Once received, notice
will be sent to all class members informing them of the terms of
the settlement, their right to object and notice of the final
hearing to approve the settlement.

The plaintiffs' lawyers will also have the right to seek an
award of attorneys' fees from the federal court at which
NorthWestern would object to any such award.  Once approved, the
lawsuit filed by the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System would be dismissed.

NorthWestern and its board of directors, who were named as
defendants, as part of the settlement continue to deny the
plaintiff's allegations related to the company's response to
various unsolicited acquisition offers in 2005.

The preliminary agreement notes that NorthWestern will redeem
the existing Stockholder Rights Plan either following
stockholder approval of the Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Babcock & Brown Infrastructure (BBI) or upon termination of the
Merger Agreement with BBI -- whichever occurs first.

The Board may adopt a new stockholder rights plan if the
company's stockholders approve adoption of such a plan in
advance or, in the event that circumstances require timely
implementation of such a plan, the Board seeks and receives
approval from stockholders within 12 months after adoption.

The settlement does not confer a financial award to either party
and NorthWestern will contest any request for reimbursement of
legal fees or other expenses related to this case.

Harbinger Master Capital Fund had previously dismissed its
intervention in the City of Livonia lawsuit and its lawsuit
filed in Delaware.

For more information, contact Claudia Rapkoch of NorthWestern
Energy, Phone: 1-866-622-8081, E-mail:
claudia.rapkoch@northwestern.com.

The suit is styled, "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System v. Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under
Judge Lawrence L. Piersol.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Randall J. Baron and Darren J.
Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
231-1058, Fax: 231-7423; and Timothy J. Dougherty of Dougherty &
Dougherty, P.O. Box 1004, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004, Phone:
335-8586.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Filiberto Agusti, Scott T. Bielicki, David F. Rifkind
         and Andrew Sloniewsky of Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, 1330
         Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:
         202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and 202-429-
         6759, E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com,
         sbielicki@steptoe.com, drifkind@steptoe.com and
         asloniewsky@steptoe.com; and

     (2) Roberto Antonio Lange of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz &
         Smith, P.O. Box 1030, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030,
         Phone: 336-2880, Fax: 335-3639, E-mail:
         rlange@dehs.com.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Over Contraceptive Patch
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashcraft & Gerel LLP and Seeger Weiss LLP filed a suit against
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. on behalf of the family of a
17-year-old Ortho Evra user who suffered a stroke resulting in
her death in August 2004.  The suit was filed on May 18, 2006 in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.

According to Michelle Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP Laurie
Swanson had been using Ortho Evra for approximately four months
prior to her stroke.

Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP states, "This is one of
the saddest cases I've been involved with.  This was a sweet 17-
year-old girl.  This shouldn't have happened and Johnson &
Johnson and Ortho McNeil must be held accountable."  Ortho
McNeil is a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc.

Ortho Evra is a patch placed on the skin that releases the same
two hormones employed by regular birth control pills.  However,
the patch varies from the pill in that the hormones in the patch
are released slowly over time, unlike the hormones in the pill
that are released upon digestion.

Women who use the Ortho Evra patch may be exposed to
approximately 60% more of the hormone estrogen than women who
use traditional birth control pills.  High levels of the
estrogen hormone in the bloodstream have been linked to the
formation of blood clots in the legs and the lungs, which can
lead to more serious problems including heart attacks and
strokes.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.  In
the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time that
women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen (Class Action
Reporter, May 23, 2006).

For more information, contact:

     (1) Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq. Of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP,
         Phone: (202) 783-6400, E-mail: mparf@aol.com, Web site:
         http://www.ashcraftandgerel.com/lawyers.html#Parfittor
         http://www.ashcraftandgerel.com/.

     (2) Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Of Seeger Weiss LLP, Phone:
         (877) 541-3273 or (212) 584-0700, E-mail:
         cseeger@seegerweiss.com, Web site:
         http://www.seegerweiss.com/.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paincare Holdings, Inc. is defendant in multiple securities
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the company, as well as the company's chief executive
officer and chief financial officer.  The complaint is, "Mould
v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00362-JA-
DAB."

Mr. Mould alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the company's financial statements, which appear
to relate principally to the company's previously announced
intention to restate certain past financial statements.  

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and purports to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
from Aug. 27, 2002 to March 15, 2006.

Eight additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before
the same court, which recite similar allegations.

The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale &
Vianale, LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431,
Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107, Fax: 561/392-4775, E-mail: e-
file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the company is Bruce J. Berman of McDermott, Will &
Emery, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33131-4336,
Phone: 305/358-3500, Fax: 305/347-6500, E-mail: bberman@mwe.com.


PATHMARK STORES: No Appeal Made for Del. Stock Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The period within which plaintiff in the securities class action
against Pathmark Stores, Inc. and its directors could appeal the
dismissal of the case by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware has expired on April 2006.

On Jun. 15, 2005, Rick Hartman, a stockholder in the company,
filed a suit asserting on behalf of a purported class of
stockholders, allegations that defendants issued materially
false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the
securities purchase agreement the company entered into on March
23, 2005.

The deal was between the company, a group of investors led by
The Yucaipa Companies LLC and certain investment funds
affiliated with Yucaipa.

The complaint additionally asserts a claim against the company
directors, as individual defendants, for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with the purchase agreement.  It
thus seeks an award for damages for the alleged wrongdoings
asserted in the complaint.

On Aug. 19, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On Mar. 8, 2006, the court issued an opinion
dismissing the complaint in its entirety -- the proxy statement
claims with prejudice, and the breach of fiduciary duty claims
without prejudice.

The time within which the plaintiff could appeal the court's
judgment expired on April 2006 without a response from the
plaintiff.

The suit is "Hartman v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00403-JJF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is Elizabeth M. McGeever of
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., 1310 King St., P.O. Box 1328
Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 888-6500, E-mail:
emmcgeever@prickett.com.

Representing the defendants is William M. Lafferty of Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, 1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box
1347, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 658-9200, E-mail:
wlafferty@mnat.com.


PORIRUA PSYCHIATRIC: Sued Over Alleged Maltreatment of Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former patients at Porirua Psychiatric Hospital, who alleged
mental, physical, and sexual abuse at the institution, are
calling on the police to investigate their claims, according to
Onenews.

The group of 300 former patients has already begun a class
action over the alleged maltreatment they suffered from former
staff members almost 40 years ago.  According to the report, the
Child Youth and Family has handed the claimants' files to the
police.

Claimants are asking compensation for allegations of physical,
mental and sometimes sexual violence they've been subject to as
children.


POST PROPERTIES: Ga. Court Nixes Request to Review Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court denied a request by an alleged Post
Properties, Inc. shareholder to review the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia's approval of the settlement of
the shareholder derivative and purported class action against
members of the company's board of directors and the company.

On May 5, 2003, the company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action was filed against members
of the board of directors of the company and the company as a
nominal defendant.

This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 2, 2003 and alleged various breaches of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the company and
sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain
information by the defendants.  It complaint also sought to
compel the defendants to undertake various actions to facilitate
a sale of the company.

On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary
expedited discovery.  On May 13, 2003, the company received
notice that a similar shareholder derivative and purported class
action was filed against certain members of the board of
directors of the company and against the company as a nominal
defendant.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the
defendants.  Plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as
appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation.

The estimated legal and settlement costs, not covered by
insurance, associated with the expected resolution of the
lawsuits were recorded in 2003 as a component of a proxy contest
and related costs charge.

An alleged company shareholder, who had filed a separate
purported derivative and direct action against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, appealed the Superior
Court's orders approving the settlement, overruling the
shareholder's objection to the settlement denying the
shareholder's motion to intervene, and dismissing the litigation
with prejudice.

In November 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
orders.  In December 2005, the alleged company shareholder asked
the Georgia Supreme Court to review the case.  

In April 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court denied review, and the
alleged company shareholder has indicated that he will seek
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.


PREMIUM STANDARD: Lawsuit Filed by Mo. Property Owners Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Standard Farms, Inc. continues to face a class action in
the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri over alleged
property damages in the area, according to the company's May 31,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 25, 2006.  

The suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Kansas City, Missouri.  The action seeks to create a
class of plaintiffs living within 10 miles of the company's
farms in northern Missouri, including contract grower farms, who
are alleged to have suffered interference with their right to
use and have quiet enjoyment of their respective properties.  
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.

The company later removed this case to the U.S. District Court
in Kansas City, Missouri (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2005).

The suit is "Herrold et al. v. Contigroup Companies, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:04-cv-00618-GAF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge Gary A.
Fenner.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Tammy R. Dodson, Donnamarie
Landsberg, Charles F. Speer of Speer Law Firm, 104 West 9th
Street, Suite 305, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: (816) 472-3560,
Fax: (816) 421-2150, E-mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com,
dlandsberg@speerlawfirm.com or cspeer@speerlawfirm.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Mark D. Anstoetter of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP-Grand,
         2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
         Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail:
         manstoetter@shb.com; and

     (2) Kirk J. Goza, Goza & Honnold, LLC, 1100 Main Street,
         Suite 2630, Kansas City, MO 64148-2355, Phone: (816)
         512-2171, Fax: (816) 512-2172, E-mail:
         kgoza@gohonlaw.com.


REFCO INC: BAWAG Agrees to $108M Settlement with Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
Austrian bank BAWAG P.S.K. Group agreed to settle with
institutional investors who are lead plaintiffs in an ongoing
securities fraud class action stemming from the bank's role in
the collapse of U.S. futures broker Refco Inc.

BAWAG's settlement comes as the bank agreed to a $675 million
global payment announced by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York to resolve a federal investigation of BAWAG
for its part in the Refco scandal.

BAWAG has agreed to pay $108 million to Refco stock and bond
purchasers, with the possibility of an additional $32 million
depending on a possible future sale of the bank.  The payments
will settle investor claims arising from BAWAG's participation
in a scheme to conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in
related party receivables on Refco's balance sheet.

This scheme enabled Refco to complete a $600 million bond
offering in August 2004, and a $583 million initial public
offering in August 2005, and caused investors to pay excessive
prices for Refco's securities in subsequent open market
transactions.

A week after reporting a previously undisclosed $430 million
debt by its former CEO Phillip Bennett, Refco filed for
bankruptcy last Oct. 17 in the Southern District of New York.
Following its bankruptcy, Refco's futures business was sold to a
unit of Britain's Man Group PLC.

Lead plaintiffs in the class action are Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC, a Refco bond purchaser, and RH Capital
Associates LLC, an equity purchaser.

The investors are jointly represented by leading securities and
corporate governance law firms Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The plaintiffs have agreed that a portion of BAWAG's obligations
can be satisfied by payments received from a restitution fund
established by the U.S. Attorney for victims of the Refco fraud.

Under the agreement, BAWAG is obligated to pay the entire $108
million to the extent that payments from any restitution fund
fall short.  The settlement is subject to approval by Federal
Judge Gerard E. Lynch in New York, who is overseeing the Refco
securities litigation.

The settlement with BAWAG comes less than four months after lead
plaintiffs were appointed in February, a remarkably swift
resolution in a securities litigation.  In fact, defendants had
until July 10 to submit their motions to dismiss the case.

"We are very pleased with BAWAG's agreement to so quickly settle
claims arising from its part in the Refco debacle," said Grant &
Eisenhofer named partner Stuart M. Grant.  "This is a positive
first step in providing compensation to investors who were
scammed by Refco's management and directors, along with its
financial advisors, auditor and other professionals."

John P. (Sean) Coffey of Bernstein Litowitz, added, "In addition
to a terrific monetary recovery, the settlement requires BAWAG
to cooperate fully with our ongoing prosecution against other
defendants.  This is already aiding our efforts in that regard."

Only months after Refco went public last fall, the company
collapsed when it was disclosed that Mr. Bennett had hidden a
$430 million loan from the company's books.  BAWAG's role in the
scandal became evident after reports that the bank gave Mr.
Bennett a $420 million loan just before the previously
unreported debts became public.  Mr. Bennett was indicted on
eight felony counts, including making false filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and conspiracy to commit
securities fraud.

In addition to Mr. Bennett and Refco's former board of
directors, the remaining defendants in the securities class
action include:

     -- the company's former auditor Grant Thornton LLP;
     -- its majority owner private equity firm Thomas H. Lee
        Partners L.P.; and
     -- several investment banks that sold Refco securities to
        public investors, including Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse
        and Bank of America.

The suit is "Mazur et al v. Refco, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-08626-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Christopher Browne of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
         Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: 212-554-1398, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-
         mail: JohnB@blbglaw.com;

     (2) Stuart M. Grant, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 45
         Rockefeller Center, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10111,
         Phone: (646) 722-8500, Fax: (646) 722-8501, E-mail:
         sgrant@gelaw.com;

    (3) John Patrick Coffey of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
        Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
        10019, Phone: 212-554-1409, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-mail:
        sean@blbglaw.com;

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

     (5) Ramzi Abadou 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;

     (7) George Theodore Peters of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: (212)- 545-4611, Fax: (212)-545-4758, E-mail:
         peters@whafh.com; and

     (8) Shelley Thompson of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-907-0700, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
         sthompson@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bruce Roger Braun of Winston & Strawn LLP (IL), 35 West
         Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-5600,
         Fax: (312)-558-5700, E-mail: bbraun@winston.com;

     (2) Greg A. Danilow of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP(NYC), 767
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, Phone: 2123108000,
         Fax: 2128333148, E-mail: greg.danilow@weil.com;

     (3) Michael Laurence Feinberg of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
         (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212)- 937-7415, Fax: (212)-230-8888, E-mail:
          michael.feinberg@wilmerhale.com;

     (4) Stuart I. Friedman of Friedman & Wittenstein, P.C., 600
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 750-
         8700, Fax: (212) 223-8394, E-mail:
         sfriedman@friedmanwittenstein.com;

    (5) Helen Byung-Son Kim of Baker & Hostetler LLP (LA), 333
        S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA 90071,
        Phone: (213)-975-1611, Fax: (213)-975-1740, E-mail:
        hkim@bakerlaw.com;

     (6) Rachel Marissa Korenblat of Morvillo, Abramowitz,
         Grand, Iason & Silberberg, P.C., 565 Fifth Avenue, New
         York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-880-9525, Fax: (212)-856-
         9494, E-mail: rkorenblat@magislaw.com;

     (7) Holly Kay Kulka of Heller Ehrman, White & McAuliffe,
         LLP (NYC), Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square, New
         York, NY 10036-6524, Phone: 212-832-8300, Fax: 212-763-
         7600, E-mail: hkulka@hewm.com;

     (8) Richard Edward Nathan of Nathan Law Office, 123 South
         June Street, Los Angeles, CA 90004, Phone: (323)-931-
         8080, Fax: (323)-931-8008, E-mail: renathan@att.net;
         and

     (9) Melinda Marie Sarafa of Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein,
         Taylor & Kolker, LLP (NYC), 1114 Avenue of the
         Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 704-9600,
         Fax: (212) 704-4256, E-mail: msarafa@zuckerman.com.


STATION CASINOS: Judge to Hear Thunder Valley Workers Suit Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge will today, June 6, 2006, hear arguments in a case filed
by seven women against their former employer Thunder Valley
Casino in western Placer County, California.

The plaintiffs allege they were victims of sexual harassment and
job discrimination as employees at the casino, owned by the
Untied Auburn Indian Community.  Also named in the suit, filed
in Placer Superior Court, is casino manager, Curtis Broome.

In November, a Placer County court commissioner dismissed the
plaintiffs' claim on grounds that the tribe's status as a
sovereign nation exempts it from state and federal employment
law.

At a hearing today, plaintiffs will pursue their suit against
Station Casinos Inc., the Nevada-based corporation that manages
Thunder Valley, as the women's non-Indian employer.  The judge
will decide whether to uphold the sovereign nation exclusion, or
let the case proceed.

The complaint contends that fewer than five Indians are employed
at Thunder Valley, and that the casino pays 24 percent of its
net income to Station as a management fee.

The plaintiffs are Corinn Medina, Cheryl Dalton, Sundi Lyons,
Cynthia Walden, Kathy Robillard, Amarissa Dillhyon and Elizabeth
Ward.  They are residents of Placer and Sacramento counties.  
All worked at the casino in 2003 and 2004.  They are alleging a
variety of allegations, including sexual harassment, age
discrimination and wrongful dismissal.

Their suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, including
punitive and exemplary damages "in an amount commensurate with
defendants' ability to pay and to deter future conduct."

Debra Smith, an attorney with Equal Rights Advocates in San
Francisco, is lawyer for the former employees.


THAXTON GROUP: Two Defendants Settle S.C. Suit Over Note Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bagnell & Eason, LLP and McGowan, Hood, Felder & Johnson
announce the pendency of a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina against The
Thaxton Group, Inc. and its subordinated note program.

The court has certified a class action against two defendants in
that litigation.  The plaintiffs have agreed to settle with
those two defendants, Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P., and
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC.

The settlement class consists of all holders of subordinated
notes of The Thaxton Group, Inc. as of Oct. 17, 2003 and all
assignees of any rights or claims of such persons to the extent
of the assignment.

This proposed partial settlement will provide up to $9,350,000
additional funds to Thaxton for the sole purpose of paying
claims of subordinated note holders or their assignees.  This is
a partial settlement that will resolve claims involving the two
settling defendants.

Litigation will continue as to the remaining defendant, Finova
Capital Corporation.  However, this remaining litigation against
Finova is not being pursued on a classwide basis.  Only
individuals expressly named as plaintiffs in the litigation
against Finova can recover any benefits of the litigation.  The
court has granted preliminary approval of this settlement and
the settlement class but still has to decide whether to grant
final approval.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
court will hold a hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the
G. Ross Anderson, Jr. Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 315 South McDuffie Street, 2nd Floor, Anderson, SC
29624.  

More information, visit http://www.ThaxtonClassAction.com.

The suit is "In re: The Thaxton Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No.: 8:04-cv-02612-GRA," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina under
Judge G Ross Anderson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gilbert Scott Bagnell of Bagnell and Eason, PO Box
         11852, Columbia, SC 29211-1852, Phone: 803-748-1333,
         Fax: 803-748-1300, E-mail:
         gilbagnell@bagnellandeason.com;

     (2) Erica Busch of Moses & Singer LLP, 1301 Avenue of the
         Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)554-7879,
         Fax: (212)554-7700, E-mail: ebusch@mosessinger.com;

     (3) William C Cleveland of Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, PO
         Box 999, Charleston, SC 29402, Phone: 843-722-3400,
         Fax: 843-723-7398, E-mail: wcleveland@bmsmlaw.com;

     (4) John A Hagins, Jr of Covington Patrick Hagins Stern
         and Lewis, P.O. Box 2343, Greenville, SC 29602, Phone:
         864-242-9000, Fax: 864-233-9777, E-mail:
         jhagins@cphsl.com;

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

     (6) Gary W Poliakoff of Poliakoff and Associates, PO Box
         1571, Spartanburg, SC 29304, Phone: 864-582-5472, Fax:
         864-582-7280, E-mail: atty@gpoliakoff.com; and

     (7) Julia G Young of Young Law Trial Attorneys, 1331
         Richland St., Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803-931-0011,
         Fax: 803-931-3040, E-mail: jyoung@younglawsc.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James C Adams, II of Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey
         and Leonard, PO Box 26000, Greensboro, NC 27420, Phone:
         336-373-8850, E-mail: jadams@brookspierce.com;

     (2) Allen Jackson Barnes of Sowell Gray Stepp and Laffitte,
         PO Box 11449, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-929-1400,
         Fax: 803-929-0336, E-mail: jbarnes@sowell.com;

     (3) J Edward Bradley of Wilson Moore Taylor and Thomas, PO
         Box 5709, West Columbia, SC 29171, Phone: 803-796-9160,
         Fax: 803-791-8410, E-mail: ward@granbylaw.com;

     (4) R Paul Childress, Jr of Childress Gould and Russell, PO
         Box 6357, Richmond, VA 23230, Phone: 804-288-4007, E-
         mail: pchildress@cgrpc.com;

     (5) Steven Edward Farrar of Leatherwood Walker Todd and
         Mann, PO Box 87, Greenville, SC 29602, Phone: 864-242-
         6440, Fax: 864-240-2477, e-mail: sfarrar@lwtm.com;

     (6) Elizabeth Van Doren Gray of Sowell Gray Stepp and
         Laffitte, PO Box 11449, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-
         231-7827, Fax: 803-231-7877, E-mail: egray@sowell.com;

     (7) Edwin Russell Jeter of Jeter and Williams, PO Box 7425,
         Columbia, SC 29202, Phone: 803-765-0600, Fax: 803-765-
         0619, E-mail: ejeter@jeterandwilliams.com;

     (8) Thomas Morgan Larkin of Leatherwood Walker Todd and
         Mann, PO Box 87, Greenville, SC 29602, Phone: 864-242-
         6440, E-mail: tlarkin@lwtm.com; and

     (9) Thomas E Lydon of McAngus Goudelock and Courie, PO Box
         12519, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-779-2300, Fax:
         803-748-0526, E-mail: tlydon@mgclaw.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Conn. Joins Suit Over CEO's Stock Options
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut's attorney general has joined a lawsuit accusing
UnitedHealth Group Inc. of manipulating stock options to enrich
company Chief Executive William McGuire, according to Bestwire
Services.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, is suing on
behalf of Connecticut State Treasurer Denise Nappier, the
principal fiduciary of the $23 billion state pension fund, which
holds 381,000 shares of UnitedHealth stock.  

UnitedHealth is facing several lawsuits filed over its stock-
option practices by public pension funds from Ohio, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana.  The suits are lodged in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against
current and former board members of UnitedHealth.

Recently, the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio and the
Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio brought a derivative and
class action against the company.  The two funds hold over  
five million shares of UnitedHealth stock.  

The pension funds are represented by shareholder and corporate
governance law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.  In addition to Dr.
McGuire, a former pulmonologist who became UnitedHealth's chief
executive in 1991, defendants include:

     -- current and former UnitedHealth board members, including  
        former U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale;

     -- former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean;  

     -- former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna  
        Shalala, and  

     -- current UnitedHealth president and chief operating  
        officer Stephen Hemsley.

Over the last several months, UnitedHealth has been under
increasing scrutiny for possible violation of securities laws in
granting Dr. McGuire propitiously-timed options that have
translated into $1.2 billion of compensation.  

The suit is "Public Employees' Retirement System of Ohio et al.  
v. McGuire et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02094-PAM-JSM," filed in the  
U.S. District Court of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson
with referral to Janie S. Mayeron.

Representing the plaintiffs is James R. Behrenbrinker, Attorney
at Law, 200 Lakes & Plains Bldg., 842 Raymond Ave., St Paul, MN
55114, Phone: 651-649-0695, Fax: 651-251-1183, E-mail:
jbehrenbrinker@jrb-law.net.


UTSTARCOM INC: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint was filed in the purported securities
class action against UTStarcom, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class actions
alleging federal securities violations were filed against the
company and various officers and directors.

The actions were later consolidated.  The lead plaintiffs in the
case filed a first amended consolidated complaint on July 26,
2005.

The first amended complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and was brought on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock after
April 16, 2003 and before Sept. 20, 2004.

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.

In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are also
suing Banc of America Securities LLC and Softbank.  Plaintiffs'
complaint seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified amount.

The suit is "In Re: UTStarcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-04908," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbin, Phone: 415.288.4545 and 206.749.5544, Fax:
415.288.4534 and 206.749.9978, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com.


VALICERT INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Valicert, Inc.

In December 2001, certain plaintiffs filed a class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the company,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suit is "In
re Valicert, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 01-CV-10889 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The operative amended complaint was brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from the
date of its July 27, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) through
Dec. 6, 2000.  It named as defendants the company, its former
chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, as well as
an investment banking firm that served as an underwriter for the
IPO.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the IPO did not disclose that:

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

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

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages.  

Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the court issued a ruling on all defendants'
motions to dismiss, denying the company's motion to dismiss the
claims under the Securities Act of 1933, but granting the
company's motion to dismiss the claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In June 2003, company accepted a settlement proposal presented
to all issuer defendants in this case.  Under the proposed
settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims
against the Valicert Defendants in exchange for a contingent
payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all the consolidated
cases, and the assignment or surrender of control to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.

Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all of the cases.

If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is
required under the guaranty, the company would be responsible to
pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of
the deductible retention under its insurance policy, which is
$500,000.

The timing and amount of payments that the company could be
required to make under the proposed settlement will depend on
several factors, principally the timing and amount of any
payment required by the insurers pursuant to the $1 billion
guaranty.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval of the Court,
which cannot be assured.  In April 2006 the court held a hearing
on the proposed settlement but has not yet issued a ruling on
the issue.  

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


VERISIGN INC: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted in part and denied in part VeriSign, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint in the consolidated
securities class action pending against the company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.

Beginning May of 2002, several class actions were filed against
the company.  The actions were later consolidated as, "In re
VeriSign, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW
(HRL)," on July 26, 2002.  

The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased company stock from
Jan. 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2002.

On April 14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
complaint.  

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
was substantially identical to the amended consolidated
complaint except that it purported to add a claim under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a subclass
of persons who acquired shares of VeriSign pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus filed Oct. 10, 2001 and
amended Oct. 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet Holdings,
Inc. by VeriSign.

Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint was dismissed
by the court on Nov. 2, 2005 for failure to adequately plead
loss causation.  Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint on
December 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  

On April 6, 2006, that motion was granted in part and denied in
part.  Plaintiffs had until May 12, 2006 to file an amended
complaint.

The suit is "In re: Verisign Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:02-cv-02270-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com;

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

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

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

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

Representing the defendants is O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San
Francisco, CA 94111-3344, Phone: 415-984-8900, Fax: 415-984-
8701.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viisage Technology, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Viisage, Bernard C. Bailey, William K. Aulet, former
chief financial officer, and Denis K. Berube and other members
of the company's board of directors.

These suits were later consolidated into one action, as "In re:
Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-
10438-MLW."  The so-called Turnberry Group has been designated
as lead plaintiff and its counsel has been designated as lead
counsel.

The amended consolidated complaint, filed in February 2006,
alleges violations of the federal securities laws by the company
and certain of its officers and directors.  It arose out of
purported misstatements and omissions in its U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings related to the litigation involving
the Georgia drivers' license contract and related to its
reported material weaknesses in internal controls over financial
reporting.  The misstatements and omissions allegedly
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock from May
12, 2004 to March 2, 2005.

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss this case.

The consolidated suit is "In re: Viisage Technology Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com;

     (2) Alan L. Kovacs of Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs, 2001
         Beacon Street, Suite 106, Boston, MA 02135, Phone: 617-
         964-1177, Fax: 617-332-1223, E-mail:
         alankovacs@yahoo.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey C. Block and Leslie R. Stern of Berman
         DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty
         Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-
         8300, Fax: 617-542-1194 and 617-542-1154, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com and lstern@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants is Mitchell H. Kaplan of Choate,
Hall & Stewart, Two International Place, 100-150 Oliver Street,
Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-248-5000, Fax: 617-248-4000, E-
mail: mkaplan@choate.com.


WACHOVIA BANK: Trust Beneficiary Sues Over Evergreen Investment
---------------------------------------------------------------
A beneficiary of a fiduciary account formally overseen by
Wachovia Bank, N.A., has filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the bank, its
parent, Wachovia Corp. and various subsidiaries.

The complaint raised by Ralph Brooks, Jr. concerns the bank's
investment of assets held in the bank's fiduciary accounts in
its proprietary mutual funds, the Evergreen Funds.  It also
concerns "sweep fees" charges on these accounts for computerized
transfer of funds within the accounts.

Also named as defendants are:

     -- Evergreen Investment Services, Inc.,
     -- Evergreen Investment Management Company, LLC and
     -- Evergreen Distributors, Inc.

The claims in the complaint are brought under and pursuant to
sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933; section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as
common law claims of breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract.  The complaint also seeks recovery of the defendants'
unjust enrichment.

The class in this litigation consists of all beneficiaries of
fiduciary accounts for which the bank was corporate fiduciary
whose assets were invested by the bank in Evergreen Funds.  As
such, members of the class include beneficiaries of trusts,
estates, employee benefit plans for which Wachovia is or was the
trustee, executor, personal representative, administrator, etc.

In 1988, when the plaintiff was six years old, he was shot and
crippled for life near his home in North Philadelphia.  In the
wake of such shooting, The Philadelphia Daily News and Power 99
radio station (WUSL-FM) publicized plaintiff's plight and began
to raise funds for his benefit.  Ultimately, funds were raised
and deposited with a predecessor of Wachovia Bank and a trust
account was established for plaintiff's benefit with $81,700.

Mr. Brooks claims that the bank improperly used the assets in
his and other fiduciary accounts to buy shares of the various
captive Evergreen Funds for these accounts despite the
availability of other mutual funds, such as those offered by the
Vanguard Group or Fidelity Investments which were well-managed,
had good reputations and had lower expenses than the Evergreen
Funds.  He also claims that because the Bank incurred no
expenses in "sweeping" fiduciary accounts such as his, the
Bank's "sweep fees" were unreasonable and, as with other charges
to his account, "double dipping."

The complaint alleges that the bank, with the active
participation of the other defendants and the Trustees of the
Evergreen Funds, distributed various Evergreen Funds
prospectuses that misrepresented material facts and/or omitted
material facts as to, among others, the conflicts of interest
between and among the other defendants, the expenses that would
be absorbed by the beneficiaries of the affected fiduciary
accounts and the failure of the Trustees of the Evergreen Funds
to seek advisory and administrative services in the best
interests of the holders of Evergreen Funds shares.

A copy of the complaint may be obtained from the court or by
contacting plaintiffs' counsel, Richard D. Greenfield, Esq.,
Greenfield & Goodman, LLC, 7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601,
Phone: (410) 745-4149, E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net; or Ann
Miller, 834 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone:
(215) 238-0468, E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com.

Plaintiff in the suit are those who purchased shares of any
Evergreen Funds mutual funds, including money market or cash
reserves mutual funds, through a fiduciary account handled by
the bank or one of its predecessors.

The bank's predecessor include First National in Palm Beach,
CoreStates Bank, Philadelphia National Bank, First Union Bank,
Signet Bank, Boca Raton First National Bank, SouthTrust Bank.

Deadline to file as lead plaintiff is Aug. 1, 2006.

The suit is "Brooks et al. v. Wachovia Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00955-JG", filed in the U.S.  District Court Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.

Representing the plaintiffs are Richard D. Greenfield of
Greenfield & Goodman LLC, 7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601,
Phone: 410-745-4149, E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.com; and Ann
Miller of Ann Miller, LLC, 834 Chestnut St., Suite 206,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-238-0468, Fax: 215-574-0699,
E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com.

Representing the defendants are Elizabeth F. Abrams of Reed
Smith LLP, 2500 One Liberty Place, 1650 market St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-851-8855, E-mail:
eabrams@reedsmith.com; and Mary J. Hackett of Reed, Smith, Shaw
& Mc Clay, 435 Sixth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15230, 435 Sixth Ave.,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action,
"Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to the
company's June 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 30, 2006.

The suit, which alleges gender discrimination, was filed on Oct.
16, 2001 on behalf of female Wal-Mart Associates who were
participants in the Associates Health and Welfare Plan at any
time from March 8, 2001 to the present and who were using
prescription contraceptives (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11,
2005).

Plaintiffs sought an amendment of the plan to include coverage
for prescription contraceptives, back pay for all members in the
form of reimbursement of the cost of prescription
contraceptives, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).
  
The complaint alleges that the company's Health Plan violates
Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination in that
the Health Plan's Reproductive Systems provision does not
provide coverage for prescription contraceptives (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).

The class was certified on Aug. 23, 2002.  On Sept. 30, 2003,
the court denied the company's motion to reconsider that ruling
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).

The suit is "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, case no. 1:01-cv-02755-
JEC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge Julie E. Carnes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk E. Chapman, Douglas J. Hoffman, Janine L. Pollack,
         Jennifer Templeton Schirmer, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York,
         NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300;

     (2) George Albert Stein, Office of George Albert Stein,
         1355 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 150, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: 404-881-6500; and

     (3) Sigmund Wissner-Gross, Heller Horowitz & Feit, 292
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-685-
         7600.

Representing the company are Mark A. Casciari, Allen William
Groves, Alissa Lipson and Antonia-Anna R. Palmer of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803,
Phone: 312-346-8000, E-mail: agroves@seyfarth.com or
apalmer@seyfarth.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ken.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The suit was brought on behalf of Janice Smith and all other
females who made application or transfer requests at the London,
Kentucky, Distribution Center from 1995 to the present, and who
were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for
which they applied.

Plaintiffs seek back pay for those females not selected for hire
or transfer during the relevant time period.  It also seeks
injunctive and prospective affirmative relief.  

The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on
gender are in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act as amended.  

The suit is "EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, case no. 3:01-cv-
00065-JMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky under Judge Joseph M. Hood.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Michelle Eisele, E. Paige
Freitag, Gwendolyn Young Reams, and Laurie A. Young of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite
1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-4203, Phone: 317-226-7949, Fax:
317-226-5571.  

Representing the company is Kathryn A. Quesenberry of Woodward,
Hobson & Fulton, LLP, 101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City
Tower, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-581-8025, Fax: 502-581-
8111, E-mail: kquesenberry@whf-law.com.


WELLPOINT COS: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Karen Feldman, former female top-level executive and Dental
Director for WellPoint Companies Inc., filed a lawsuit against
the company for allegations that she was discriminated against
and retaliated against because of her whistle blowing
activities.  The suit seeks millions of dollars in damages.

In the lawsuit, Dr. Feldman claims WellPoint discriminates
against female employees in promotions, compensation and job
assignments in violation of California's Fair Employment and
Housing Act.

The suit also charges that WellPoint terminated Dr. Feldman
after she contacted Connecticut State Government Officials to
find out whether certain billing practices of WellPoint
comported with state and federal law.

According to the suit, WellPoint terminated Dr. Feldman after
discovering she contacted the Director of the Connecticut
Medicaid Dental Program to inquire whether certain "special
deals" the company had made with certain dentists to provide
dental work to some Medicaid recipients and not to others was
legal under state and federal law.

After discovering Dr. Feldman's whistle blowing activities,
WellPoint terminated Dr. Feldman, just four days after she had
received praise and a bonus for her performance, and filled her
position with a less qualified man who lacks legally required
credentials to do the job.

The suit claims that WellPoint continues to use Dr. Feldman's
name in its filings with state regulatory agencies even though
she has not worked there since March of 2006.

WellPoint claims on its Web site that one in 9 Americans
receives coverage for their medical care through WellPoint's
Health Plans.

WellPoint is a Blue Cross or Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee in
14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,
Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

For more information visit http://www.handal-law.comor contact  
Pamela C. Chalk, Phone: (619) 544-6400, E-mail: pchalk@handal-
law.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


KINDER MORGAN: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Suit in Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action in the
Circuit Court of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of owners of
the common stock of Kinder Morgan, Inc.

The complaint alleges Richard D. Kinder, the chairman and chief
executive of Kinder Morgan, together with other members of
management, and investment partners Goldman Sachs Capital
Partners, American International Group, Inc., The Carlyle Group
and Riverstone Holdings LLC, has submitted a proposal to acquire
all of the outstanding common stock of Kinder Morgan at a price
of $100 per share in cash.

The complaint alleges that the price of $100.00 per share
offered to the class members is unconscionable, unfair and
grossly inadequate consideration and has been the object of
manipulation because, among other things:

      -- the intrinsic value of the stock of KMI is materially
         in excess of $100.00 per share, giving due
         consideration to the possibilities of growth and
         profitability of KMI in light of its business, earnings
         and earnings power, present and future;

      -- the $100.00 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public stockholders of KMI;
         and

      -- the $100.00 per share price is not the result of arm's
         length negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by KMI
         to "cap" the market price of KMI stock, as part of a
         plan for defendants to obtain complete ownership of KMI
         assets and business at the lowest possible price.

For more details, Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull & Lifshitz,
LLP, Phone: (212) 213-6222, Fax: (212) 213-9405, E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html.


KINDER MORGAN: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Kans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP filed a class action on behalf of holders
of the common stock of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI).

The action, entitled, Hodge v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al., is
pending in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, and
names as defendants the company, and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of their
fiduciary obligations to the company's shareholders because
certain members of management are seeking to take the company
private at an inadequate and unfair price and Kinder Morgan's
directors have failed to announce any active auction or open
bidding procedures best calculated to maximize shareholder
value.

For more details, contact Robert I. Harwood, Esq. and Samuel K.
Rosen, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th
Floor New York, New York 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
rharwood@whesq.com and srosen@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.


PXRE GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP filed a class
action against PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities
from July 28, 2005 to Feb. 16, 2006, both dates inclusive.  

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Pomerantz reminds investors that
July 3, 2006 is the deadline to move the court for appointment
as lead plaintiff for the class.  

PXRE, based in Pembroke, Bermuda, is a worldwide provider of
catastrophe reinsurance products and services.  The complaint
alleges that:

      -- that the company concealed from investors the full
         impact on its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and
         Wilma;

      -- that, in fact, the company's cost of the three
         hurricanes had doubled to an estimated $758 million to
         $788 million;

      -- that the magnitude of the loss would cause the company
         to lose key financial-strength and credit ratings;

      -- that the company concealed the losses in order to
         complete a $114 million secondary offering and raise
         more than $350 million from an offering of perpetual
         preferred shares; and  

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
         statements with respect to its loss estimates for the
         2005 hurricane season lacked in all reasonable basis.

The complaint further alleges that on Feb. 16, 2006, after the
close of the market, PXRE shocked investors when it announced
that it would be increasing its estimates of the net pre-tax
impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by an amount
between $281 million to $311 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005.  By the end of the day, PXRE shares fell $7.85 per share,
or over 65%, on high trading volume, to close at $4.05 per
share.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888)
476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


PXRE GROUP: Yourman Alexander Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) from
July 28, 2005 to Feb. 16, 2006, inclusive.

Also included are those who purchased their securities in a
secondary offering on Oct. 3, 2005.  The matter is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning the true financial condition of PXRE.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose:

      -- the full financial impact on the company's insurance
         business concerning hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
         Wilma;

      -- that the financial cost to PXRE concerning these
         hurricanes had doubled to an estimated $758 million to
         $788 million;

      -- that the magnitude of the loss would seriously effect
         PXRE's financial condition and that it would lose key
         credit ratings from A.M. Best;

      -- that the company concealed the losses in order to
         complete a $114 million secondary offering and raise
         more than $350 million from an offering of perpetual
         preferred shares; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements during the Class Period with respect to its
         loss estimates for the 2005 hurricane season were
         unreasonable when made.  

It is also alleged that when the true financial condition of the
company was revealed on Feb. 16, 2006, shares of PXRE fell
approximately 65%, from $7.85 to $4.05 per share.

The deadline to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is July
3, 2006.

For more details, contact Vahn Alexander of Yourman Alexander &
Parekh, LLP, Phone: (800) 725-6020, E-mail:
valexander@yaplaw.com, Web site: http://www.yaplaw.com.


ST. JUDE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. (STJ) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical securities
between Jan. 25, 2006 and April 4, 2006, inclusive.  The
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

St. Jude Medical is a Minnesota corporation, which maintains its
principal office in St. Paul, Minnesota.  The company engages in
the development, manufacture, and distribution of cardiovascular
medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management,
cardiac surgery, cardiology, and atrial fibrillation therapy
areas and implantable neuromodulation devices, including
implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded but failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

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

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

On April 4, 2006, the company issued a press release, pointing
to an unexpected decline in sales for the company's ICDs.  As a
result of this news, the price of St. Jude Medical shares fell
more than $5 per share or over 12%, on unusually high volume,
falling from $41.30 per share on April 4, 2006 to close at
$36.25 per share on April 5, 2006.

Interested parties have until June 9, 2006 to move the court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888)
476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.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  * * *