CAR_Public/060616.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 119

                            Headlines

BISSELL APARTMENTS: Amended Complaint in Ill. Mold Suit Filed
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: July 24 Trial Set for Stock Suit Settlement
CANADA: Soldier Sues Over Harm of Defoliant Spraying in Gagetown
CANADA: Saskatchewan Loses Appeal to Decertify Pension Lawsuit
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Pricing Suit Settlement Opposed

CENDANT CORP: ABI Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 24
DANKA BUSINESS: Tenn. Court Mulls Summary Judgment for "Edwards"
E.I. DUPONT: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Alleged Water Contamination
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Thai Migrant Workers Allege Contract Violations
GREAT WOLF: Wis. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit Over IPO

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Suits Over Pentium 4 Chip
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Lawsuits in Canada Over "Smart Chip"
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Idaho
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Court Approves Spartanburg Settlement

INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Court to Junk Customers' Lawsuit
ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Operation Subject of Multi-Million Dollar Suits
K. HOVNANIAN: N.J. Couple Files Suit Over Construction Problems
NURSING HOMES: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Business Practices
OHIO: Court Certifies Suit Over Lake Erie Shoreline Boundaries

ORBITZ INC: Contract Breach Claim Dismissed in Taxes, Fees Suit
PFIZER INC: Changes Label for Drug Used to Slow Vision Loss
PHILIP MORRIS: Wins Favorable Ruling in Ohio "Light" Lawsuit
QVC INC: Recalls Electronic Pressure Cookers Due to Burn Hazard
SATMAR HASIDIM: Order Against Synagogue Construction Overturned

SEMPRA ENERGY: Superior Court Okays Natural Gas Suit Settlement
SUREBEAM CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 17
SWISS-AMERICAN: Recalls Porter Cheese for Possible Health Risks
TEXAS: Williamson County Sued Over Indigents' Defense Rights
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: N.H. Judge Certifies Class in Stock Suit

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Plaintiff Objects to $12M Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Ky. Doctor Sues Store Over Fake Designer Bags
YUM BRANDS: Unit Sued in D.C. for Alleged Unhealthful Practices


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $23.3M Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Files 6th Reorganization Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Takes On Claims v. Riley Stoker
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $26.3M Liabilities at 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $172.7M for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Faces Suits With 116T Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Reserves $161.2Mil for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Inc. Resolves 330,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Continues to Face Respirator Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Reserves EUR1.197Bil for Claims in 2005

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Acquires Hilco's Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Faces 1,692 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maine Court Clears ABI in Cleanup Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Incurs $276T Abatement Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Says 4Q Results Changed by Provision

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Notes $7.5Mil for Liabilities in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Faces Suit Filed by ACE, Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Notes 493 Pending Cases at 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 W.Va. Couples Sue Companies for Injuries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Sides with W.R. Grace in Montana Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA ENRGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set End of Month
CSK AUTO: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
INFOSONICS CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Calif.
INFOSONICS CORP: Shalov Stone Files Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set this Month

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in N.J.


                            *********


BISSELL APARTMENTS: Amended Complaint in Ill. Mold Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois property owner Kesha Manning, who had proposed a class
action over mold at the Bissell Apartments in Venice, amended
her complaint against the apartments' owners, instead of
identifying anything that the mold damaged, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

On April 7, 2006, Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian
ordered her to make a list of personal property that mold
damaged, but through June 7, 2006 she had sent the court no
list.

Back in April 2005, Ms. Manning sued BA-2003 Limited Partnership
and Independent Management Services, the owners of The Bissel
Apartments.

The suit was filed on behalf of Ms. Manning and her two minor
children plus Claude Taylor all as lead plaintiffs against
owners.  Brought by Lanny Darr of the Alton law firm of
Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, the suit also identifies
additional plaintiffs who are "similarly situated" (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

It specifically alleges that the apartments had mold and fungal
growth penicillium and cladosporiumo on surfaces and structures
of the building that make up the complex located at 1400 Klein
Ave.  According to the complaint, the defendants breached a duty
under Illinois law to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance
of the Bissel complex (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

The defense moved to dismiss the case twice, first on argument
that Ms. Manning failed to attach a lease to her complaint, then
on failure of plaintiff to prosecute.  Each time, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

In February 2006, Mr. Darr filed another amended complaint.  
Defense attorney Troy Bozarth responded -- as in the second
motion to dismiss -- that plaintiffs refused to disclose the
property they claimed was damaged.

Judge Matoesian thus ordered a list of damaged property.  But
instead of furnishing a list, Mr. Darr again moved to amend his
complaint so he could add a new party.  The judge granted that
motion.

In Ms. Manning's third amended complaint she sued not only BA-
2003 and Independent Management Services, but also Bissell
Apartments Limited.  Mr. Darr wrote that BA-2003 bought the
property from Bissell Apartments Limited in 2004.

For more details, contact Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr,
L.T.D., Suite 415, 307 Henry Street, Alton, IL 62002-6326,
Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-2318, Web site:
http://sbkdlaw.com/;or defense attorney Matthew Jacober of  
Jenkins & Kling, P.C., 10 South Brentwood, Suite 200, St. Louis,
Missouri 63105 (Independent City), Phone: 314-721-2525,
Telecopier: 314-721-5525.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: July 24 Trial Set for Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County will
hold a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "In Re Cablevision Systems
Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 05-009752."

The suit was brought on behalf of all record and beneficial
owners of Cablevision Systems Corp. NY Group Class A common
stock from June 19, 2005, until April 24, 2006, including any
and all of their successors in interest, representatives,
trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or
transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity
acting for or on behalf, or claiming under any them, and each of
them.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stephen Bucarla,
Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Part B, Room 3021
at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
Courthouse, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Minneola, New York 11501.

Deadline for submitting exclusions from the settlement is on
July 14, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In Re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholders
         Litigation, P.O. Box 9000 #6440, Merrick, NY 11500-900,
         Phone: 800-961-8348;

     (2) Karin E. Fisch of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701, E-mail:
         kfisch@abbeyspanier.com, Web site:
         http://www.a-g-s.com/;
     (3) U. Seth Ottensoser of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         1 (877) 779-1414 and (212) 779-1414, Fax: (800) 863-
         0598 and (212) 779-3218; and

     (4) Benjamin Y. Kaufman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
         York 10119, (New York Co.), Phone: 212-594-5300, Web
         site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.


CANADA: Soldier Sues Over Harm of Defoliant Spraying in Gagetown
----------------------------------------------------------------
A soldier is launching a class action against the federal
government over toxic chemical spraying at CFB Gagetown in New
Brunswick, Canada, according to The Winnepeg Sun.

Doug Ward is seeking general, aggravated and punitive damages on
behalf of all individuals and their estates who have suffered
"or expect to suffer" medical ailments as a result of toxic
defoliant spraying at the base between 1956 and 1984.  Mr. Ward
was stationed in Gagetown for three years starting in 1974.  He
said he was not provided with special protective gear at the
time of his training at the field.


CANADA: Saskatchewan Loses Appeal to Decertify Pension Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saskatchewan Court of Appeals Judge Gene Anne Smith dismissed a
motion by the province of Saskatchewan to decertify a multi-
million dollar class action filed against it by a group of
retired government employees, CBC News reports.

In March, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Catherine Dawson
granted class action status to the suit.  The certification
opens it up to about 10,000 current and former employees of the
provincial government and surviving spouse, who alleged the
government failed to contribute its share to an employee pension
plan.

Plaintiffs are retirees belonging to the Public Service
Superannuation Plan.  They say the government was supposed to
contribute to their pension plan on a 50:50 basis.  But they
said that the government contributed in only about CA$3 million
to their plan while employees contributed around CA$102 million
between 1927 and 1978.

Alfred Zimmerman, Ronald Morgan and Francis Charles May are
spearheading the suit.  Mr. Zimmerman of Fort Qu'Appelle retired
in the late 1980s.  One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs is
Gord J. Kuski Gordon, Q.C. Managing Partner of McDougall Gauley,
700 Royal Bank Building, 2010-11th Avenue Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 0J3 (Regina Jud. Centre), Phone: 306-757-1641, Fax: 306-359-
0785.


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Pricing Suit Settlement Opposed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A day after not-for-profit hospital giant Catholic Healthcare
West announced a proposed settlement of a lawsuit on hospital
price gouging, the Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a national
advocacy group that educates and assists the uninsured, vowed to
oppose the proposed settlement and work to insure that the
brokered deal "utterly collapses" if changes are not made.

According to K.B. Forbes, Executive Director of the Consejo,
Catholic Healthcare failed to inform the media that another
class suit is still pending and that there is organized
opposition to this sham of a settlement.

"Obviously, some trial lawyers appear to be working in collusion
with CHW not for the benefit of the uninsured," Mr. Forbes said.

Catholic Healthcare's proposed settlement designs a discount
program for the uninsured that would exclude anyone who had had
or could have qualified for health insurance 24 months prior to
when emergency hospital services were rendered, the group said
in a statement.  Catholic Healthcare's discount program would
also exclude residents who do not live in 478 specific Zip Codes
in California, Arizona, and Nevada.

"In essence, 99 percent of the uninsured would be excluded," Mr.
Forbes stated.

Mr. Forbes also took CHW and their "trial lawyer stooges" to
task for failing to tell the media that their proposed
settlement hearing was postponed last week to July 12 after
lawyers of another class action on hospital billing against
Catholic Healthcare successfully argued for the delay.

In a foolish legal move, Catholic Healthcare lawyers attempted
to have a gag order placed against Consejo de Latinos Unidos
requesting that the court case of hospital price gouging not be
"tried in the press" at the court hearing on June 8.  The judge
unequivocally rejected Catholic Healthcare's motion citing
constitutional and first amendment concerns.

The Consejo believes Catholic Healthcare should charge all
uninsured patients, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income, a
fair and reasonable price, like an HMO.  Currently, hospitals
charge the uninsured four or five times more than what they
would accept as payment in full from an insurance company.

Mr. Forbes added, "We would be willing to support a settlement
if some of these ridiculous barriers were removed, a fair
pricing structure was included, and third-party verification and
enforcement of the pricing plan were included.  If not, we will
vigorously oppose this deal until it utterly collapses."

In 2003, Consejo was credited by The Wall Street Journal with "a
big win" after forcing the nation's second largest for-profit
hospital chain, Tenet Healthcare, to end price-gouging against
uninsured patients.  Tenet now offers the uninsured the same
discounted prices as insured patients.

                         The Settlement

The settlement, which will be considered for preliminary
approval before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A.
Kramer on July 12, 2006, resolves the plaintiffs' and class
members' claims against Catholic Healthcare and its affiliated
hospitals (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2006).  

As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to
make a claim for refunds or deductions from their prior hospital
bills pursuant to discounted pricing and collections policies
benefiting uninsured patients during the class period.  In
addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain its
uninsured pricing and collections policies going forward for at
least four years, among other things.

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T.
Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of
uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare hospitals in
California, Nevada and Arizona, alleging that Defendant Catholic
Healthcare charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair
prices for medical treatment and services given at Catholic
Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and
unfair collections practices.  Defendant denies wrongdoing and
liability in the case.

                         Proposed Class

The proposed class includes all persons who:

     -- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare
        West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of
        preliminary settlement approval;

     -- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and

     -- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household
        income in the calendar year in which they received
        hospital services.

The suit is "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare West."  Counsel for
named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid Backstrom of the
Scruggs Law Firm.  More information about the settlement can be
found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm.

For more information, contact Dave Mohel, of the Consejo de
Latinos Unidos, Phone: +1-703-548-1160.


CENDANT CORP: ABI Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $26,000,000 settlement in the matter: "P. Schoenfeld
Asset Management, LLC, et al. v. Cendant Corp., Walter A.
Forbes, E. Kirk Shelton, Cosmo Corigliano, Christopher McLeod
and Ernst & Young, LLP, Case No. 2:98-cv-04734-WHW-SDW."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of American Bankers Insurance Group,
Inc. (ABI) common stock from Jan. 27, 2998 through and including
Oct. 13, 1998.

The hearing will be held before the Hon. William H. Walls,
U.S.D.J., at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Bldg. and U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 4D, at 50 Walnut St., Newark, New Jersey.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by June 30, 2006.  Deadline for the submission of a proof
of claim is on Aug. 24, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) ABI/Cendant Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims
         Administrator, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, N.Y. 11753-
         8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
         site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;and  

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


DANKA BUSINESS: Tenn. Court Mulls Summary Judgment for "Edwards"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has
yet to rule on Danka Business Systems, PLC's petition to grant
summary judgment in its favor in the putative class action
complaint, "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Danka
Industries, Inc., et al., including American Business Credit
Corp., Defendants."  

Served to the company on June 2003, the suit alleges claims of
breach of contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade
Protection Act, and injunctive relief.  

The claim was filed in the state court in Tennessee, and the
company later removed the claim to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which the
company opposed.  For its part, the company has filed a motion
for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed.

While the amount sought in the complaint is in excess of
$75,000, the company said at its 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March
31, 2006 that it cannot yet estimate potential exposure.

The suit is "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-00575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Charles P. Yezbak, III, 144
Second Avenue North, Suite 200, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone:
(615) 250-2000, Fax: (615) 250-2020, E-mail:
yezbak@yezbaklaw.com.  

Representing the Company are:

     (1) Thomas B. Hatch, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 2800
         LaSalle Plaza, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: (612)
         349-8500; and

     (2) Andrew J. Pulliam, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, 2525 West
         End Avenue, Suite 1500, Nashville, TN 37203-1423,
         Phone: (615) 244-0020, E-mail: apulliam@wyattfirm.com.


E.I. DUPONT: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Alleged Water Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsville resident Donald Coles filed a new class action in
state Superior Court against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
over contamination of drinking water with perfluorinated
chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

The suit alleged that the Chambers Works Plant in Deepwater, New
Jersey released PFOA and related perfluorinated chemicals into
groundwater tapped by utilities in Pennsville Township and
Pennsgrove.

It seeks medical testing for residents, a community-wide water
filtration system and punitive damages.

Mr. Coles' suit is the second suit brought against the company
since April alleging that DuPont's Chambers Works plant
contaminated nearby water supplies with PFOA, a chemical used in
the manufacture of Teflon.

A similar suit was filed in April in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, on behalf of individuals who claim
to have consumed, for at least one year, drinking water from a
source containing more than 0.05 parts per billion of
perfluorinated chemicals allegedly released from the plant.  The
suit is "Rowe, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01810-RBK-AMD" (Class Action Reporter, May 26,
2006).

PFOA is under intense federal scrutiny, triggered by concerns
the chemical resists breakdowns, accumulates in the
environmental and tissues and can potentially cause cancer and
other illnesses.

An advisory panel to the Environmental Protection Agency
recently recommended listing the chemical as a likely
carcinogen.

The New Jersey suit was filed by attorney Philip Stephen Fuoco
of 24 Wilkins Pl. Haddonfield, New Jersey (Camden Co.).


GLOBAL HORIZONS: Thai Migrant Workers Allege Contract Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle law firm Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Withey Coluccio and
the Center for Justice in Spokane initiated a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Washington on behalf of three Thai migrant
farm workers against Los Angeles-based labor contractor, Global
Horizons, and its president, Mordechai Orian, the Yakima Herald
reports.

The suit alleges the defendants violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, the state Farm Labor Contractors Act, state wage
and contract laws.

The suit further contends that while working in the Yakima
Valley they -- Ratthapon Yapunya, Somkhit Nasee and Wisit
Kampilo, who were hired to work at Valley Fruit Orchards of
Wapato and Green Acre Farms of Harrah in 2004 and 2005 -- were
underpaid, housed in substandard conditions and promised work
that didn't materialize.

The lawsuit alleges that the workers were not given a minimum of
eight hours of work a day, five days a week at that hourly rate
in violation of their agreements with Global Horizons, which
offered workers an hourly wage set at $8.71.

The suit seeks class action status for all Thai workers brought
to the Yakima Valley in 2004 and Hawaii in 2004 and 2005 to
harvest fruit under the federal H-2A guest-worker program, name
of the temporary visa given to workers after employers have
shown they cannot find U.S. workers for the job.  There were
about 170 Thai workers in the Yakima Valley in 2004 and about 90
in 2005.

The complaint seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages and
compensation for attorneys' fees against the defendants.

Global Horizons authorized one of its agents in Thailand, AACO
International Recruiting Ltd., to find workers for the H-2A
jobs.  Under the rules of the H-2A program, employers are
required to provide travel expenses, room and board, and pay
what is known as an "adverse effect wage rate."

Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor ordered Global Horizons
to pay nearly $300,000 in fines and back wages for allegedly
deceiving and underpaying 88 Thai workers hired to harvest
onions and pineapples in Hawaii.

For more information, contact Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Withey
Coluccio, 413 8th Street, Hoquiam, WA 98550, Phone: (800) 540-
7364, Fax: (360) 532-8032.


GREAT WOLF: Wis. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin
dismissed in its entirety the pending consolidated class action
complaint against Great Wolf Resorts, Inc.

The suit, filed earlier this year, alleged the company violated
securities laws with regard to its 2004 initial public offering
and its July 2005 announcement that earnings fell short of
expectations for the second quarter of 2005.

The blamed the loss on a slower-than-expected occupancy ramp-up
at Blue Harbor Resort and Conference Center, which the company
owns and operates and opened in June 2004; and a slower- than-
expected start of the 2005 summer season in the Midwest and
competitive pressures at the company's resort in Sandusky, Ohio
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006).

Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is a group of indoor waterpark resorts
operated under the Great Wolf Lodge(R) and Blue Harbor
Resort(TM) brands.  It has operations in Wisconsin Ohio,
Michigan, Kansas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Canada, and Wisconsin.

For more information, contact Alex Lombardo or Erin Ruppenthal
both of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., Phone: +1-703-573-9317, or +1-
608-661-4775.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Suits Over Pentium 4 Chip
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face purported consumer fraud
class actions in Illinois and California over the performance of
the Intel Pentium 4 processor, according to the company's June
8, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended April 30, 2006.

In Illinois the company faces two such suits: "Neubauer, et al.
v. Intel Corp., Hewlett-Packard Company, et al.," and "Neubauer,
et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp."  Both were filed on June 3,
2002 in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial District, Madison
County, Illinois.

Each suit is alleging that the company and Compaq, along with
Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the
alleged material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4
processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the
Intel Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor
of Intel.

The court in the HP action has certified an Illinois class as to
Intel but denied a nationwide class, and proceedings have been
stayed pending resolution of the parties' appeal of this
decision.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class.  

The class action certification against Compaq has been stayed
pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal in the HP action.

A third suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-
Packard Company," was initially filed in state court in Alameda
County, California to which the company was joined on June 14,
2004, based upon factual allegations similar to those in the
Neubauer suits.  

On Feb. 22, 2005, the parties stipulated to transfer this case
to state court in Santa Clara County, California.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and cost and certification of nationwide class.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Lawsuits in Canada Over "Smart Chip"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada)
Co., are defendants in three Canadian class actions, one
commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and two commenced
in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, over the
"smart chip" in certain of its printers.

Generally, plaintiffs alleged that that the company employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

All three suits are seeking class certification, restitution,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, according to the company's
June 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended April 30, 2006.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho that was brought on
behalf of a putative class of persons who were employed by
third-party temporary service agencies and who performed work at
the company's facilities in the U.S.

Filed on March 21, 2005, the suit, "Miller et al. v. Hewlett-
Packard Company," claims that plaintiffs were incorrectly
classified as contractors or contingent workers and, as a
result, were wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and benefits
not covered by ERISA.

It also claims that plaintiffs were denied participation in HP's
Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance
program, credit union, dependent care reimbursement program,
educational assistance program, time off programs, flexible work
arrangements, and the 401(k) plan.

On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint,
which added a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
claim and defined the class to include those persons who have
been, or now are, hired by the company through agencies to work
at HP facilities in the U.S. from March 21, 2000 through the
present who have been deprived of the full benefit of employee
status by being misclassified as contractors, contingent workers
or temporary workers or were otherwise misclassified.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive
and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages
and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees,
according to the company's June 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
April 30, 2006.

The suit is "Miller v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00111-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing the plaintiffs are Christopher F. Huntley, Robert
C. Huntley, Steven L. Olsen, William H. Thomas, Daniel E.
Williams of Huntley Park, P.O.B. 2188, Boise, ID 83701-2188,
Phone: 208-388-1230 and (208) 345-7800, Fax: 208-388-0234 and 1-
208-345-7894, E-mail: chuntley@huntleypark.com,
rhuntley@huntleypark.com, solsen@huntleypark.com,
wmthomas@huntleypark.com and danw@huntleypark.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) D. Ward Kallstrom of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, One
         Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105,          
         Phone: (415) 984-8200, Fax: (415) 984-8200, E-mail:
         dwkallstrom@morganlewis.com;

     (2) Patricia M. Olsson of Moffatt Thomas Barrett Rock &
         Fields, P.O. Box 829, Boise, ID 83701, Phone: (208)
         345-2000, Fax: 1-208-385-5384, E-mail: pmo@moffatt.com;
         and

     (3) Kimberly R Sayers-Fay of Stevens O'Connell, LLP, 400
         Capitol Mall, Ste. 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814-4498,
         Phone: 916-329-9111, Fax: 916-329-9110, E-mail:
         ksf@stevensandoconnell.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The suit, "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Company and Carleton
Fiorina," was initially filed on Nov. 3, 2003 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of a
putative class of persons who sold common stock of the company
from Sept. 4, 2001 to Nov. 5, 2001.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and generally alleges that
HP and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws by
making statements during this period that were misleading in
failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the
proposed acquisition of Compaq by the company prior to Mr.
Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed
transaction.  

The suit was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
June 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended April 30, 2006.

The suit is "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-02047-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiff is Edward F. Haber of Shapiro Haber &
Urmy, LLP, 53 State St., 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-439-3939, E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas G. Rohback of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103,
         Phone: 860-293-3500, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail:
         trohback@llgm.com; and

     (2) Steven M. Schatz of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:
         650/493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
         sschatz@wsgr.com.  


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Court Approves Spartanburg Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. and its Hill-Rom, Inc. and Hill-Rom
Company, Inc. subsidiaries said that the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina granted final approval to the
definitive settlement agreement entered into with Spartanburg
Regional Healthcare System and its attorneys.

The agreement ends the antitrust class action brought by
Spartanburg against the companies.  The original cost of the
settlement, $337.5 million, was reduced by almost $21.2 million
to approximately $316.3 million.

The reduction in the settlement amount reflects the portion
attributable to customers who opted out of the settlement.  The
original settlement cost, along with estimates of certain legal
and other costs to complete the settlement, was fully accrued by
the company in the fourth quarter of its 2005 fiscal year, which
ended Sept. 30, 2005.

The settlement is expected to resolve all of the plaintiffs'
claims and those of all class member U.S. and Canadian
purchasers or renters of Hill-Rom products from 1990 through the
date of the agreement.  

In March 2006, after receipt of preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, $50 million was paid into escrow.  The
company anticipates it will fund the balance due of
approximately $266 million by mid August.

"We are pleased to have received final court approval for our
previously announced settlement agreement.  [The] decision is a
critical step toward finalizing this matter," commented Peter H.
Soderberg, Hillenbrand Industries and Hill-Rom President and
Chief Executive Officer.  

"After funding the settlement, Hillenbrand will continue to have
a solid financial position to enable the execution of its
strategic initiatives.  As we have said before, we believe the
claims in this case are without merit, but we also believe it is
in our company's and customers' best interests to put this
matter behind us.  The nearly 10,000 associates of Hillenbrand
Industries worldwide will continue to strive everyday to be the
people with whom customers want to do business."

Background of the Lawsuit

On June 30, 2003, Spartanburg filed a purported antitrust class
action against Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom in South Carolina
District Court alleging violations of federal antitrust laws.  
Spartanburg claimed damages caused by Hill-Rom's discounting
practices, which allegedly harmed competition and resulted in
higher prices for standard and/or specialty hospital beds and/or
architectural and in-room products (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
27, 2006).

The suit is "Spartanburg Regional Health Services District, Inc.
v. Hillenbrand Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 7:03-cv-02141-
HFF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina under Judge Henry F. Floyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) J. Theodore Gentry and Frank S. Holleman, III of Wyche
         Burgess Freeman and Parham, P.O. Box 728, Greenville,
         SC 29602, Phone: 864-242-8200, Fax: 864-235-8900, E-
         mail: tgentry@wyche.com and fholleman@wyche.com; and

    (ii) Richard A. Feinstein of Boies Schiller and Flexner,
         5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 800, Washington, DC
         20015, Phone: 202-895-5243, E-mail:
         rfeinstein@bsfllp.com.


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Court to Junk Customers' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Communications Company filed a motion in Jefferson
Circuit Court in Kentucky to have a suit filed against it by
four customers dismissed, according to The Courier-Journal.

The company said the plaintiffs' service agreement with Insight
calls for disputes to be settled through arbitration.

The suit against Insight over service outages that affected
several thousand broadband Internet users was filed on May 11.  
It accused Insight of breach of contract, violation of Kentucky
consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment, and is seeking
class action status.

Broadband customers of the company experienced service
disruption in April and May as the company upgrades network and
e-mail services.

The attorney for the potential class, H. Philip Grossman, said
customers throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky are seeking
compensation for damages (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006).  
The firm's cable system serves 1.3 million subscribers in
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.  

For more information, contact Mr. Grossman of Fernandez Friedman  
Grossman and Kohn PLLC, 101 S. Fifth St., Suite 2400,  
Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: (502) 589-1001, (877) 299-1001  
(toll-free); and Insight's attorney Laurence Zielke of Pedley
Zielke Gordinier & Pence, PLLC, 2000 Meidinger Tower, 462 South
Fourth Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (Jefferson Co.),
Phone: 502-589-4600, Fax: 502-584-0422.


ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Operation Subject of Multi-Million Dollar Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Electric Corp. is linked to two multi-million dollar
class actions in recent weeks, according to reports by
Haaretz.com and United Press International.

One suit is filed by an 18-year-old person in the Tel Aviv
District Court, alleging that air pollution caused by the
company's coal power station at Hadera is damaging the health of
local residents.  The plaintiff said the station's operations
involve burning coal, scattering soot and emitting gases, which
allegedly caused the asthma from which he suffers.   He is
seeking NIS200 million ($44.79 million).  

The other suit is a $20 million class action filed after
malfunctions at the company's Rothenberg and Orot Rabin power
stations resulted to hundreds of people being trapped in
elevators and at least one traffic death at a malfunctioning red
light.

A report submitted to Israeli Minister of National
Infrastructures blamed the state utility's mismanagement for the
blackout earlier in June.

The report cited the utility's failure to bring two power
stations with a combined capacity of 600 megawatts on line
because of a row over electricity sector reform, according to
Israeli business magazine TheMarker.


K. HOVNANIAN: N.J. Couple Files Suit Over Construction Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------
K. Hovnanian Southern NJ LLC faces a purported class action in
the Superior Court in Gloucester County, New Jersey over alleged
faulty construction of heating ventilation/air-conditioning
systems in the Chestnut Green community.

The suit, which was filed by Mike and Tracy D'Andrea, claims
that the company knowingly installed HVAC systems that violated
construction code and were "substandard, inefficient and require
repair."  The couple is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

Commenting on the suit's allegations, Doug Fenichel, a K.
Hovnanian spokesman, told The Courier-Post that it has responded
to homeowners concerns.  He also added that they also assigned
additional crews to address concerns in Chestnut Green once they
realized the delay in response time.

Some residents of Chestnut Green though say that they still face
long delays after complaining about their HVAC systems, and
other defects in the construction of their homes, according to
John Trimble, a Washington Township attorney representing the
D'Andreas.  

Mr. Trimble, who has about 40 cases against K. Hovnanian, say
the problem extends to other new developments by the builder.

Court documents revealed that if the D'Andreas prevail, their
suit would cover thousands of K. Hovnanian homes purchased from
2000 to the present where the "HVAC system constructed and
installed such that one or more stud wall cavity convey air from
more than one floor level."  Chestnut Green is composed of about
70 single-family homes built about two years ago.


NURSING HOMES: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-two Horizon West nursing homes in California are named in
a class action alleging unlawful business practices, unfair and
fraudulent business practices, violations of health and safety
codes, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The suit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, was on behalf of
Hazel Adams by and through her attorney in Fact Judy Wilken and
the thousands of other citizens of the State of California who
have or do reside in a Horizon West skilled nursing facility.

The allegations of the complaint covers June 10, 2002 to June
10, 2006 and alleges that the defendants:

     -- Horizon West, Inc.,
     -- Horizon West Healthcare, Inc.,
     -- Horizon West Healthcare of California, Inc., and
     -- 26 of the skilled nursing facilities it owns, operates,
        or manages in California

are knowingly not providing the minimum level of direct patient
care mandated by the State of California and Federal
regulations.

Yet these elderly residents, their insurance companies, and even
Medicare and MediCal, are being billed as if the lawfully
required care is being provided, a statement from the plaintiff
lawyer states.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the corporation and
facilities are advertising on their Web sites, in brochures, and
during site visits that they are meeting all California laws and
regulations when, in fact, they are not doing so.

According to Long Beach plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of
Garcia Law, inadequate staffing leads to elder abuse.  The
California Legislature realized this reality back in 1999 when
it implemented the law that as of Jan. 1, 2000, all skilled
nursing facilities must comply with providing residents 3.2
nursing hours per patient per day.

"Take, for example, the Horizon West facility Sierra Health Care
Center in Davis, California.  Documents filed, under penalty of
perjury, by the Horizon West defendants with the State of
California Records reflect that this facility averaged 2.55
nursing hours per patient per day during the year 2004.  If
these numbers are accurate, that would mean that Sierra Health
Care Center failed to provide approximately 26,235 hours of
legally required nursing care to its residents.  If true, the
Horizon companies billed, and were pad for, services they did
not perform," Mr. Garcia said.

Mr. Garcia continues, "During that same year, according to
public records, the California Department of Health Services
issued this same facility with 15 notices of deficiencies.  The
year 2005 was even worse, with DHS writing them 25 notices of
deficiencies, resulting in Sierra Health Care Center being 220
percent over the statewide average of 11 citations that year.  
Once again, there is a direct correlation between adequacy of
staff and quality of care in these nursing homes."

Horizon West, Inc., headquartered in Rocklin, Calif., a for-
profit company with a checkered past, runs elder-care facilities
in California and Utah.

In February 1999, Horizon West, Inc. paid the U.S. government $4
million to settle claims that it bilked Medicare by submitting
fraudulent cost reports.

Federal officials alleged that Horizon West submitted billings
to Medicare for the cost of the liquor bar at the company's
annual holiday party, the purchases of shoes, boots, and a
handbag at Saks Fifth Avenue by an officer of the company, and
purchases of gifts, cigarettes and lotto tickets.

"It was reported in the media that as part of the 1999
settlement Horizon West agreed to implement a corporate
integrity program," says Mr. Garcia. "I can't help but wonder
how such a program can exist alongside corporate and facility
management allegedly creating, approving and using budgets that
short-shrift their elderly residents by not providing the staff
they need and, to add insult to injury, that they are paying
for."

Nursing homes named in the suit are:

Foothill Oaks Care Center

     * averaged 3.08 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
       State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 3,958 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 31 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 280 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Colonial Healthcare

     * averaged 3.1 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs. State's    
       mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 6,458 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 17 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 150 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Bishop Care Center

     * averaged 2.83 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
       State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 8,458 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 18 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 160 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year,

     * received 26 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS, making
       the facility 230 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Walnut Whitney Care Center

     * upon information and belief, it is alleged that this
       facility failed to provide the mandated 3.2 nursing hours
       per patient,

     * failed to provide thousands of hours of legally required
       nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 20 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS, making
       the facility 180 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year,

     * received 24 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS, making
       the facility 210 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Sierra Health Care Center

     * averaged 2.55 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.  
       State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 2,060 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 25 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 220 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year,

     * received 15 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS, making
       the facility 130 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Grass Valley Care Center

     * averaged 3.06 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
       State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 14,718 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 14 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 120 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Meadow View Manor

     * averaged 3.09 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
       State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 3,577 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 17 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 150 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Lakeport Skilled Nursing Center

     * upon information and belief, it is alleged that this
       facility failed to provide the mandated 3.2 nursing hours
       per patient,

     * failed to provide thousands of hours of legally required
       nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 22 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 200 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year,

     * received 20 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS, making
       the facility 180 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

     * received 29 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS, making
       the facility 260 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Lincoln Manor

     * upon information and belief, it is alleged that this
       facility failed to provide the mandated 3.2 nursing hours
       per patient,

     * failed to provide thousands of hours of legally required
       nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 19 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS, making
       the facility 170 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Live Oak Manor

     * upon information and belief, it is alleged that this
       facility failed to provide the mandated 3.2 nursing hours
       per patient,

     * Failed to provide thousands of hours of legally required
       nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 23 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 200 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year,

     * received 20 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS, making
       the facility 180 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Monterey Pines Skilled Nursing Center

     * averaged 3.1 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs. State's
       mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

     * failed to provide approximately 3,290 hours of legally
       required nursing care to residents in a single year,

     * received 47 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS, making
       the facility 420 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year,

     * received 25 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS, making
       the facility 220 percent over the statewide average of 11
       notices per year

Napa Nursing Center

      * upon information and belief, it is alleged that this
        facility failed to provide the mandated 3.2 nursing
        hours per patient,

      * failed to provide thousands of hours of legally required
        nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 31 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,
        making the facility 280 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

El Dorado Care Center

      * averaged 3.09 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 3,368 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year

Placerville Pines Care Center

      * averaged 2.73 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 14,817 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 13 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS,
        making the facility 118 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

Arlington Gardens Care Center

      * averaged 2.27 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 8,139 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 25 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS,     
        making the facility 220 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year,

      * received 26 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,
        making the facility 230 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

Roseville Care Center

      * upon information and belief, it is alleged that this       
        facility failed to provide the mandated 3.2 nursing
        hours per patient,

      * failed to provide thousands of hours of legally required
        nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 17 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS,
        making the facility 150 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

Sierra Hills Care Center

      * averaged 3.12 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 2,637 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 18 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS,
        making the facility 160 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year.

Heritage Care Center

      * averaged 2.4 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 18,374 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * Received 16 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,
        making the facility 145 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year,

      * Received 24 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS,
        making the facility 218 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

McKinley Health Care Center

      * averaged 2.42 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.  
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 9,014 hours of required
        nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 20 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,  
        making the facility 180 percent over the statewide  
        average of 11 notices per year,

Valley View Skilled Nursing Center

      * averaged 3.11 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 1,698 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 18 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS,
        making the facility 160 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year,

      * received 28 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,
        making the facility 250 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year,

      * received 25 notices of deficiencies (2003) by DHS,
        making the facility 220 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

Linwood Gardens Care Center

      * averaged 3.15 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 1,680 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year

Westgate Gardens Care Center

      * averaged 3.18 nursing hours per patient (2004) vs.
        State's mandate of 3.2 nursing hours per patient a day,

      * failed to provide approximately 873 hours of legally
        required nursing care to residents in a single year,

      * received 15 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,
        making the facility 130 percent over the statewide
        average of 11 notices per year

For additional information about the suit, call Garcia Law Firm
at (800) 281-8515 or visit http://www.lawgarcia.com.


OHIO: Court Certifies Suit Over Lake Erie Shoreline Boundaries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lake County Common Pleas Judge Eugene Lucci certified as class
action a suit over boundaries along Lake Erie, toledoblade.com
reports.  

The suit was filed two years ago by 13 plaintiffs.  It seeks to
determine property boundaries between landowners and the state.  
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources claims control over
public access to the shoreline by using the lake's "ordinary
high-water mark" as a property line -- a demarcation the Ohio
Lakefront Group, a property owners' advocacy group claims a
violation of their property deeds and state law.  The group
argues the boundary is simply at the water's edge.

The case must still go to trial, although no court date has been
set, said Mr. Tony Yankel, president of the group.  According to
him, the case could potentially affect the owners of 14,000
parcels along the 262 miles of the southern shore of Lake Erie,
including Sandusky Bay and other estuaries that have been
determined to be a part of Lake Erie.

For more details, visit http://researcharchives.com/t/s?b70
(Stipulation order) or contact:

     (1) Ohio Lakefront Group, P.O. Box 2084, Sheffield Lake, OH
         44054, Phone: 440-925-0148, E-mail:
         info@ohiolakefrontgroup.com, Web site:
         http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com;

     (2) James F. Lang and K. James Sullivan of Calfee, Halter &
         Griswold, LLP, 1400 McDonald Investment Center, 800
         Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2688, (Cuyahoga
         Co.), Phone: 216-622-8200, Telecopier: 216-241-0816,
         Telex: 980499, E-mail: kjsullivan@calfee.com and
         jlang@calfee.com; and

     (3) Cynthia K. Frazzini and John P. Bartley, Assistant
         Attorney Generals, Ohio Attorney General's Office,
         Phone: (614) 265-6870, Fax: (614) 268-8871, E-mail:
         Cfrazzini@ag.state.oh.us and Jbartley@ag.state.os.us.


ORBITZ INC: Contract Breach Claim Dismissed in Taxes, Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Anne Mason of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois dismissed breach of contract claims in a class suit
filed against Orbitz Inc. and its parent company, Cendant Corp.,
Travel Weekly reports.

In its motion to dismiss, Orbitz argued that the plaintiffs
failed to prove that the company breached any specific contract
clause.  Orbitz also contended that plaintiffs had committed a
procedural error by not attaching a copy of the contract to the
amended complaint.

The judge's ruling on May 31 will allow the suit to proceed only
with regards to allegation that Orbitz's "unfair and deceptive
conduct" violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

In the same order Judge Mason also granted Cendant's motion to
be removed from the lawsuit by virtue of its being a distinct
legal entity.

Both the dismissal of the breach of contract claim and Cendant's
removal from the lawsuit were granted "without leave to amend."

Judge Mason's order did not explain the grounds for her
decisions.

The consolidated class action complaint in Illinois, known as
Orbitz Taxes and Fees Litigation, alleged that the hotel
practices of Orbitz and its parent, Cendant, constituted a
breach of contract with consumers.

The suit further alleged, both companies charged excessive
"taxes and fees" in conjunction with net rate hotel bookings
that didn't correspond to services rendered and that the fees
were actually "retained as hidden profits."

The suit's claims are similar to that of a federal class action
filed in November by Rome, Cartersville, and Hart County in
Georgia.  The suit alleged potentially more than 100 cities and
counties in Georgia lost millions of dollars in taxes by the
practice of travel agencies of calculating taxes based on
wholesale rate on hotel rooms offered to online bookers rather
than on the final price paid by the end user.  Other states,
including California, North Carolina and Ohio face similar
lawsuits (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2006).

The city of Atlanta in Georgia filed a similar case against a
dozen online travel Web sites alleging the firms are not
forwarding some taxes to the city.  The suit was filed in Fulton
County Superior Court against Expedia.com, Hotwire.com,
Orbitz.com and Travelocity.com (Class Action Reporter, April 4,
2006).


PFIZER INC: Changes Label for Drug Used to Slow Vision Loss
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. and the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration notified
healthcare professionals of important changes in the approved
product labeling for Macugen or pegaptanib sodium injection,
including changes to the contraindications, precautions, adverse
events post-marketing, and dosage and administration sections.

In rare cases, anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions, including
angioedema, have been reported after patients received Macugen
along with other medications used to prepare for the injection.

A direct relationship hasn't been established between these
reactions and Macugen or any of the other drugs.

Macugen is used to slow vision loss in people with the
neovascular or "wet" form of age-related macular degeneration,
and is administered once every six weeks by intravitreous
injection.

Healthcare professionals are advised to evaluate the patient's
medical history for hypersensitivity reactions to Macugen prior
to using this product.


PHILIP MORRIS: Wins Favorable Ruling in Ohio "Light" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court did not allow two Ohio smokers to bring a
class action against Philip Morris USA Inc. over the company's
marketing of its "light" cigarettes, according to Associated
Press.

The court said plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the company
acted in a way "previously declared to be deceptive" under Ohio
law when it advertised its Marlboro Lights and Virginia Slims
Lights as safer or healthier than other cigarettes.

Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton clarified that the June 14
ruling did not answer the question of whether Philip Morris
acted to "deliberately deceive consumers," rather it was only on
whether the smokers were eligible for class-action status.

She said that the suit may proceed as class action under another
section of Ohio law, but not under the state's consumer
protection law.

Representing the plaintiffs is Charles R. Saxbe of Chester,
Willcox & Saxbe LLP, 65 East State Street, Suite 1000, Columbus,
Ohio 43215-3413 (Delaware, Fairfield & Franklin Cos.), Phone:
614-221-4000, Fax: 614-221-4012.


QVC INC: Recalls Electronic Pressure Cookers Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
QVC Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 900
Welbilt Electronic Pressure Cookers.

The company said the lid on these pressure cookers can open
prematurely while contents are under pressure, and hot contents
can be expelled posing a burn hazard.

QVC has no known reports of consumer incidents or injuries
associated with this product.

QVC is voluntarily implementing this recall based on 43 reports
of failure incidents, including 37 reports of burn injuries,
reported by another retailer that sold the same model Welbilt
electronic pressure cooker.

The known burn injuries include various degrees of burns,
including at least four third degree burns.

The recalled electronic pressure cooker was sold under model
number PC501.  The model number PC501 is located in three
places: near the control panel, on the instruction/warning label
near the bottom of the unit, and on the bottom of the product.  
The name "Welbilt" is located near the control panel.  The
pressure cooker measures 11-inches-high, 11-inches-wide and 15-
inches-long and was sold in white.

These electronic pressure cookers were manufactured in Korea and
are being sold by QVC through its telemarketing channel, its Web
page and its toll-free number from March 2001 through April 2001
for at least $120.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled pressure
cookers immediately and contact QVC to receive a refund of the
purchase price.

Picture of recalled electronic pressure cookers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06557.jpg.

For more information, call QVC at (800) 367-9444 between 7 a.m.
and 1 a.m. ET any day, or visit QVC's web site at
http://www.qvc.com.


SATMAR HASIDIM: Order Against Synagogue Construction Overturned
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court in Brooklyn overturned a temporary restraining
order by the state Supreme Court to halt construction of a
synagogue of the movement Satmar Hasidim, the Times Herald-
Record reports.  The ruling came after the Zalmen side of the
two rival factions of the movement objected.  

Zalmen Teitelbaum, who leads one group, is the son of Moses, the
prior grand rebbe, who died on April 24.  His brother Aron,
leads the other group.

The Aron faction wants construction in the Williamsburg section
of Brooklyn, where their movement is based, to stop pending
resolution on ownership dispute.  They filed a class action in
Orange County on behalf of 5,000 members, demanding that work
cease until an appeals court rules.

The Zalmen group is represented by attorney Scott Mollen of
Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 2 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016
(New York Co.), Phone: 212-592-1400, Fax: 212-592-1500.

The Aron group is represented by attorney Richard Mahon of
Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram, PLLC, One Corwin
Court, P.O. Box 1479, Newburgh, New York 12550 (Orange Co.),
Phone: 845-565-1100, Telecopier: 845-565-1999.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Superior Court Okays Natural Gas Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager gave final
approval to a previously announced settlement resolving the
major claims filed against Sempra Energy and its two California
utilities, Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas &
Electric, in a class action related to the Western U.S. energy
crisis of 2000-01.

Under the terms of the settlement, which was announced Jan. 4,
2006, Sempra Energy and its utilities vigorously deny any
wrongdoing.

"We are pleased that the court has approved the settlement to
end this class-action," said Donald E. Felsinger, chairman and
chief executive officer of Sempra Energy.  "We now can focus
firmly on the future -- investing in critically needed energy
infrastructure and supplies for California and our nation --
while putting the major pieces of energy-crisis litigation
behind us.  Additionally, the company already has recorded the
financial impact of this settlement in prior reporting periods
and our earnings in future years will not be materially impacted
by the settlement."

Sempra Energy reported that the after-tax cost to the company of
the settlements announced in January 2006 would be approximately
$350 million.

Judge Prager is overseeing the distribution of the settlement
proceeds to the litigation class members in California.

The approval of the Continental Forge and price-reporting class
actions does not terminate other ongoing energy-crisis-related
litigation against Sempra Energy and its affiliates, including
some claims by individual plaintiffs.  Final approval of the $30
million settlement of the related Nevada class-action is
expected later this year.

Sempra Energy, based in San Diego, is a Fortune 500 energy
services holding company with 2005 revenues of $11.7 billion.
The Sempra Energy companies' 14,000 employees serve more than 29
million consumers in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Mexico, South
America and Asia.


SUREBEAM CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on July 17, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $32,750,000 settlement in the matter: "SureBeam
Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-01721-JM
(POR)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
SureBeam Corp. common stock from March 16, 2001 to Aug. 27,
2003.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller,
at the U.S. Courthouse, 880 Front St., Courtroom 6, San Diego,
California.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by June 26, 2006.  Deadline for the submission of a proof
of claim is July 25, 2006.

For more details, contact Jeffrey D. Light of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite
1900, San Diego, California 92101-4297, (San Diego Co.), Phone:
619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web Site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


SWISS-AMERICAN: Recalls Porter Cheese for Possible Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss-American, Inc. of St. Louis recalled cut pieces of Cut
Cahill's Farm Porter Cheese because Listeria monocytogenes was
discovered in sampled product.

The company was informed that Listeria monocytogenes was found
in the imported bulk product as part of routine testing
procedures.  Swiss-American voluntarily recalled product from
stores immediately as well as ceased shipping this product to
stores.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The cut items come in random weight packages of between 7 oz.
and 10 oz. with the sell-by dates of June 16, 2006, June 15,
2006, July 2, 2006, Aug. 19, 2006, Sept. 2, 2006, and Oct. 10,
2006.

Cut Cahill's Farm Porter Cheese was distributed primarily
through retail grocery stores in Missouri and Illinois.  Product
was also distributed to two stores in Louisiana and Tennessee.

All products from Louisiana have been recovered.

Consumers who have purchased Cut Cahill's Farm Porter Cheese
with above sell-by dates are advised to return same to place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may call
Swiss-American, Inc. at 1-800-325-8150.

For more information, contact Donna Baliva, Phone: 800 325-8150.


TEXAS: Williamson County Sued Over Indigents' Defense Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Fair Defense Project initiated a class action against
Williamson County, alleging that it habitually denies indigent
defendants facing criminal misdemeanor charges their right to a
court-appointed attorney, The Statesman.com reports.

The Austin-based legal advocacy group, which focuses on
improving poor defendants' access to legal counsel, filed the
suit on behalf of people currently facing misdemeanor criminal
charges in the county.  All three plaintiffs were denied access
to court-appointed attorneys, according to the suit.

The suit contends that the county and the judges who preside
over three county courts-at-law do not inform defendants about
their right to legal counsel or, when they do, provide
misleading information about that right.  

It also contends that they encourage defendants to waive their
right to legal counsel and speak directly with prosecutors
without an attorney.  

Specifically, the suit points out that when defendants do
request for court-appointed attorneys, the courts discourage
them and delay appointment of an attorney.

Plaintiffs are not seeking any monetary damages instead they
sought an injunction requiring the county to inform people
facing misdemeanor charges and possible imprisonment of their
right to court-appointed legal counsel and to provide attorneys
for indigent defendants.  

Though declining to comment on the case, Stephen Ackley, chief
civil litigator for the county attorney's office did tell The
Statesman.com that his the office would be investigating the
allegations.  

The suit came after more than a year of courtroom observation by
both the Texas Fair Defense Project and the Texas Criminal
Justice Coalition.

Plaintiffs in the suit are Kerry Heckman, Monica Maisenbacher
and Sylvia Peterson.  Defendants include:

      -- Williamson County,
      -- County Judge John Doerfler,
      -- County Court-at-Law No. 1 Judge Suzanne Brooks,
      -- County Court-at-Law No. 2 Judge Tim Wright,
      -- County Court-at-Law No. 3 Judge Don Higginbotham and
      -- Judge William Thomas Eastes, a magistrate in
         Georgetown.

For more details, visit http://researcharchives.com/t/s?b71
(Class Action Petition) or contact Andrea Marsh, Texas Bar No.
24039033, and Harry Williams IV, Texas Bar No. 24053551, 510
South Congress Avenue, Suite 208, Austin, TX  78704, Phone (512)
637-5220, Fax: (512) 637-5224.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: N.H. Judge Certifies Class in Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court in New Hampshire Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled
that former shareholders of Tyco International who may have lost
billions of dollars due to fraud can sue the company and its
accountant, PricewaterhouseCoopers, as a group, the English
Business News reports.

In his ruling on June 12, Judge Barbadoro, removed one lead
plaintiff, Voyageur Asset Management.  The class consists of all
persons who purchased Tyco stock between Dec. 13, 1999, and June
7, 2002.

The ruling comes a year after Mr. Kozlowski and former Chief
Financial Officer Mark Swartz were convicted in a New York state
court on multiple counts of grand larceny, conspiracy,
securities fraud and falsifying business records.

The company, its accounting firm and several former executives
and board members are accused of misrepresenting the value of
Tyco and companies it acquired under the leadership of former
Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski.

Case Background

More than two dozen securities class actions were initially
filed against the company in 2002.  They were now transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  In eight of the actions,
plaintiffs have moved to have their cases remanded to state
courts.

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

     (1) Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
         therefore, as well as allegedly undisclosed
         acquisitions;

     (2) misstatements of Tyco's financial results;

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

     (4) compensation of certain of the company's former
         executives;

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

     (6) their sales of Tyco shares;

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

     (8) the criminal investigation of the company's former
         chief executive officer

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

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

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

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


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Plaintiff Objects to $12M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lead plaintiff in a class action against the University of
California has asked the court to remove her name from the suit,
according to Lamonitor.com.

Veronica Longmire, who led the suit "Longmire, et al. v. Regents
of California" considers a settlement reached in a consolidated
case alleging discrimination as inadequate, the report said.  
She claims to have been paid $60,000 less than a male employee
doing comparable work over a period of years.

Ms. Longmire's suit, which she filed in 2003 together with
another woman, Laura Barber, had been consolidated with a suit
filed in 2004 by Hispanics and other females at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, which is being managed by the university.

Hispano Round Table, an employee union and four Hispanic women,
including a state human rights commissioner, filed the suit in
2004 alleging pay disparity stemming from decades of gender and
racial discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2004).  
The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed on May 19 to
settle the suit for $12 million to avoid a length legal process.  

The settlement stands to benefit 5,500 current and former lab
employees.  It is still subject to the approval of U.S. District
Judge William P. Johnson.

Ms. Longmire said she objected to the proposed settlement
because she believes it would abandon one of the important
principles for which she initiated the suit under the Equal Pay
Act.

The judge has decided to defer ruling on Ms. Longmire's
objection until a notice goes out to the all the potential class
members, according to the report.

The four women plaintiffs in the 2004 suit are Martinez, Gloria
Bennett, Yolanda Garcia and Yvonne Ebelacker.  They are
represented by Santa Fe attorney Richard Hughes of othstein,
Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP, 1215
Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 (Santa Fe Co.),
Phone: 505-988-8004, Fax: 505-982-0307.


WAL-MART STORES: Ky. Doctor Sues Store Over Fake Designer Bags
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Bryant & Kautz, P.S.C. initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
against Wal-Mart and Sam's Club on behalf of Paducah residents
Dr. Joseph Mayo and his wife, Rita, the Paducah Sun reports.

The suit alleged Prada designed handbags purchased at the Sam's
Club in Paducah were fakes.

In his suit, Dr. Mayo claimed he purchased a Prada brand bag in
Paducah and sent it as a gift to his sister-in-law who lives in
Rome, Italy.  In March, his sister-in-law took the purse to a
Prada store in Rome for repairs and was informed by Prada
officials that it was a fake.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

Fendi, the upscale handbag brand owned by Louis Vuitton of
France, filed a similar suit against Wal-Mart over in a U.S.
District Court in New York, claiming the retailer is selling
counterfeit Fendi items in its Sam's Club stores.

Fendi claims the bags, purses and wallets are infringing on
Fendi's trademarks and designs, while being very close replicas
of actual Fendi products -- and these knock-offs are selling for
hundreds of dollars less than actual Fendi items.

According to Wal-Mart officials in Bentonville, Arkansas, the
company had no comment because they had not seen the content of
the lawsuits.

The suit is "Mayo et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv-00093-TBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky under Judge Thomas B. Russell.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark P. Bryant of Bryant & Kautz, P.S.C., 601
         Washington Street, P.O. Box 1876, Paducah, KY 42002-
         1876, Phone: 270-442-1422;

     (2) Michael J. Miller of Miller & Associates, 105 N. Alford
         Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, Phone: 1.800-882-2525,
         Fax: 703-519-8084; and

     (3) William K. Shannon of Bryant & Kautz, P.S.C., P.O. Box
         1876, 601 Washington Street, Paducah, KY 42002-1876,
         Phone: 270-442-1422.


YUM BRANDS: Unit Sued in D.C. for Alleged Unhealthful Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a suit in
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against the KFC
unit of Yum Brands Inc. over what they claim are unhealthful
practices used by the fast food company in the preparation of
its food.  The suit will seek to end the restaurant's use of
cooking oils containing trans fat.

The consumer group, joined in this suit by Dr. Arthur Hoyte, a
retired physician from Rockville, Maryland, wants KFC to switch
to more healthy alternatives to the partially hydrogenated oil
the company currently uses to fry its chickens.  Those oils
contain high levels of trans fat, the so-called "bad
cholesterol" that has been linked to heart disease by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

The group and Dr. Hoyte are seeking to press a class action
against the restaurant chain, and to add as plaintiffs customers
who purchased food from KFC's Washington, D.C. locations in 2004
and 2005.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest had a beef with
KFC in 2004, over ads the company ran touting the health
benefits of eating its chicken.  The group filed a complaint
with the Federal Trade Commission over the ads, and KFC
eventually settled, agreeing not to make unsupported health
claims in its advertising.

According to KFC spokeswoman Laurie Schalow the lawsuit is
frivolous and the company will fight it in court (AP
WorldStream, June 13, 2006).

KFC is looking into using other types of cooking oil, but wants
to make sure that its food offerings retain KFC's signature
flavor.

For more information, contact Andrew Porter of Center for
Consumer Freedom, Phone: +1-202-463-7112.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $23.3M Claims Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos
claims amounted to US$23,329,000 as of March 31, 2006 compared
with US$19,653,000 as of March 31, 2005.

Reserves for asbestos claims continue to be discounted at a risk
free rate. This change in estimate resulted in a reduction in
the discount recorded by the Company of about US$1,578,000.

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate
liability through March 31, 2031 and March 31, 2082 to range
between US$5.5 million and US$19.0 million using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 25 to 76 years.

The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate
liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, is through March
31, 2031 and ranges from US$5.5 million to US$6.5 million as of
March 31, 2006. The Company has reflected US$6.3 million as a
liability in the consolidated financial statements.

The increase in the recorded liability from the amount of US$4.8
million at March 31, 2005 is due to a change in actuarial
parameters used to calculate required asbestos liability reserve
levels.

The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation such as the "FAIR Act."
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$0.5 million over the next 12 months.

Based in Amherst, New York, Columbus McKinnon Corp., through its
two business units, manufactures equipment for handling,
lifting, and positioning materials. Company products are sold to
construction, general manufacturing, and transportation markets,
which include hoists, chains, cranes, forged products, and
industrial components.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Files 6th Reorganization Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning and other parties filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, a Sixth Joint Amended Plan
of Reorganization for Owens Corning and its Affiliated Debtors
and Debtors-In-Possession on June 5, 2006.

Other parties involved are certain of the Company's U.S.
subsidiaries, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants and
the Legal Representative for Future Claimants.

A Disclosure Statement was also filed with the Sixth Amended
Plan. The Amended Disclosure Statement has been prepared in
accordance with the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3016 of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and not in accordance with
federal or state securities laws or other non-bankruptcy laws or
regulations.

The Amended Disclosure Statement has not been approved by the
Court and is subject to amendment.

On May 10, 2006, the Company and certain of its U.S. units, the
Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants, the Legal
Representative for Future Claimants, the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors, the Official Representatives of Bondholders
and Trade Creditors, the Ad Hoc Equity Holders Committee, and
the Ad Hoc Bondholders Committee executed an agreement setting
forth the key terms of a new plan of reorganization to be
proposed by Owens Corning, including the treatment to be
provided to the various classes of creditors.

The Settlement Term Sheet assumes an enterprise value of Owens
Corning of US$5.858 billion, and fixes the Company's asbestos
personal injury claims at the judicially determined US$7
billion.

The Settlement Term Sheet provides that under the New Plan, the
existing equity of Owens Corning will be extinguished and 131.4
million shares of common stock of reorganized Owens Corning will
be issued, and that prior to the effective time of the
reorganization, Owens Corning will enter into a binding
commitment letter with one or more financial institutions for
US$1.8 billion of post-petition debt financing.

The Settlement Term Sheet provides that the New Plan must be
effective no later than October 30, 2006, or such other time as
Owens Corning, the Asbestos Committee and the Future
Representative shall agree.

On January 17, 2003, the Company and certain subsidiaries, with
the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the Legal
Representative for Future Claimants, filed with the Court a
Joint Plan Of Reorganization Of Owens Corning And Its Affiliated
Debtors And Debtors-In-Possession.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning makes fiberglass and
composite materials. Its building materials unit makes thermal,
acoustic, and foam insulation, plus exterior products including
roofing shingles, vinyl windows and siding, stone veneer
building products, housewrap, patio doors, and rain gutters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Takes On Claims v. Riley Stoker
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faces claims alleging personal injury by asbestos
exposure, in which claims resulted from indemnification duties
in 1990 related to the sale of a former subsidiary, Riley Stoker
Corporation.

While Riley did not make asbestos, its industrial boilers
contained some asbestos-containing components from other firms.
Most lawsuits filed involve multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, with the number of defendants in many cases
exceeding 100.

Plaintiffs have asserted damages in about 5 percent of the
50,200 active suits pending as of March 31, 2006. In these
suits, about 0.3 percent involve claims between US$0 and
US$100,000. About 1.6 percent of the active suits involve claims
between US$100,000 and US$1 million. Less than 1 percent of the
active suits involve claims between US$1 million and US$5
million.

Less than 0.2 percent of the active suits involve claims between
US$5 million and US$10 million. Less than 2 percent of the
active suits involve claims between US$10 million and US$15
million. Less than .02 percent of the active suits involve
claims between US$15 million and US$100 million.

Since October 1, 2002, Riley has been dismissed as a defendant
in 77 percent of the resolved claims. Amounts spent on
litigation defense and claim settlements averaged US$1,594 per
claim resolved in the six months ended March 31, 2006, compared
to US$1,812 in the six months ended March 31, 2005, and annual
averages of US$1,985 in 2005, US$1,655 in 2004 and US$1,610 in
2003.

The Company's asbestos reserve was US$550 million at the end of
the six months ended March 31, 2006 and US$595 million at the
end of the six months ended March 31, 2005.

The Company's non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$500
million as of March 31, 2006 and US$521 million as of September
30, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos
insurance receivable was US$345 million and US$370 million as of
September 30, 2005.

Based in Covington, Kentucky, Ashland Inc.'s Chemicals unit has
two subsidiaries. Ashland Distribution buys chemicals and
plastics, then blends and repackages them for distribution.
Ashland Specialty Chemical makes specialty resins and polymers,
adhesives, and chemicals for water treatment. Valvoline operates
an oil-change chain and markets Valvoline motor oil and Zerex
antifreeze. APAC makes up the Transportation and Construction
unit and supplies asphalt and highway materials.
    

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $26.3M Liabilities at 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$26,386,000 million at March 31, 2006 and US$28,369,000
at December 31, 2005.

In 2003, Congoleum obtained the requisite votes of asbestos
personal injury claimants necessary to seek approval of a
proposed, pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

On March 17, 2006, the Company filed its eight plan of
reorganization. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing to
consider the adequacy of the disclosure statements with respect
to these plans for June 8, 2006.

Congoleum is involved in litigation with certain insurance
carriers related to disputed insurance coverage for asbestos
liabilities, and certain insurance carriers filed objections to
Congoleum's previously proposed plans of reorganization and
related matters and are expected to file objections to the
eighth plan.

During 2005 and 2006 the Company has entered into a number of
settlement agreements with excess insurance carriers over
coverage for asbestos-related claims.

In March 2006, Congoleum entered into a settlement agreement
with Harper Insurance Ltd. Under the settlement, Harper will pay
US$1.4 million to Congoleum or the Plan Trust once certain
conditions are satisfied. The Bankruptcy Court approved this
settlement in April 2006.

In April 2006, Congoleum entered into a settlement agreement
with Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. and St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Co. Under the settlement, Travelers and St.
Paul will pay US$25 million in two installments over 13 months
to the Plan Trust once a plan of reorganization goes effective
and the Bankruptcy Court approves the transfer of the funds. A
motion for Bankruptcy Court approval of this settlement is
pending.

In April 2006, Congoleum entered into a settlement agreement
with Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. Under the settlement,
Fireman's Fund will pay US$1 million to the Plan Trust once a
plan of reorganization goes effective and the Bankruptcy Court
approves the transfer of the funds. A motion for Bankruptcy
Court approval of this settlement is pending.

Based in Mercerville, New Jersey, Congoleum Corp.'s products
include plank flooring, resilient sheet flooring, do-it-yourself
vinyl tile, and laminate and commercial flooring. Congoleum
markets through a network of about 15 distributors in roughly 86
locations in North America. American Biltrite owns about 55
percent of Congoleum.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $172.7M for Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation reserved gross US$172.7
million, net US$132.2 million, for asbestos and environmental
claims at March 31, 2006.

At December 31, 2005, the Company reserved gross US$170.7
million, net US$132.2 million, for asbestos and environmental
claims.

The asbestos and environmental reserves posted by the Company
stem from its participations in assumed reinsurance treaties and
insurance pools. All participations were discontinued 15 or more
years ago and have since been in run-off status.

Old Republic administers the related claims through its claims
personnel as well as outside attorneys, and posted reserves
reflect its best estimates of ultimate claim costs. The claims
departments of unrelated primary or ceding reinsurance companies
handle claims administration for the assumed portion of the
Company's exposures.  

Old Republic's average five year survival ratios stood at 8.0
years, gross, and 10.4 years, net of reinsurance, as of March
31, 2006 and 7.4 years, gross, and 10.4 years, net of
reinsurance, as of December 31, 2005.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Old Republic International Corp. is
an insurance holding company operating in three areas: Old
Republic General Insurance offers general insurance including
commercial property and liability. The Company's Mortgage
Guaranty unit offers mortgage guaranty insurance. Its Title
Insurance Groups specialize in title insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Faces Suits With 116T Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc. defended in asbestos-related lawsuits
involving about 116,00 claims, as of March 31, 2006.

Most of PPG's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products made and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

PPG and Corning Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. PPG
has denied responsibility for all claims for any injuries caused
by PC products.

PPG's net asbestos settlement for the three months ended March
31, 2006 was US$9 million compared with US$8 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's current liabilities for
asbestos settlement was US$480 million compared with US$472
million as of December 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos settlement was
US$391 million compared to US$385 million as of December 31,
2005.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

On May 14, 2002, PPG had agreed with other parties, including
certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee
representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the
legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in
the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement
relating to asbestos claims against PPG and PC.

On March 28, 2003, Corning Inc. had separately reached its own
arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for
the settlement of certain asbestos claims that might arise from
PC products or operations.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG Industries Inc. makes
coatings (paints and stains) and sealants. The Company also
manufactures glass and chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110
manufacturing facilities in more than 20 countries worldwide. It
also operates more than 350 paint retail centers in the US.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Reserves $161.2Mil for A&E Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Inc.'s gross loss reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims was US$161.2 million for the period ending
March 31, 2006.

For the period ending March 31, 2006, the Company's net loss
reserves for A&E claims was US$151.2 million.

For the period ending March 31, 2005, the Company's gross loss
reserves for A&E claims was US$173.1 million and its net loss
reserves for A&E claims was US$158.8 million.

The Company has discontinued underwriting of certain lines of
business. The Company still is obligated to pay losses incurred
on these lines, which include general liability, asbestos and
environmental liabilities and medical malpractice policies
written in past years.

The lines currently in run-off are characterized by long elapsed
periods between the occurrence of a claim and ultimate payment
to resolve the claim.

Based in San Antonio, Texas, Argonaut Group Inc. is a holding
company that underwrites specialty property & casualty insurance
products throughout the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Inc. Resolves 330,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc. stated that since receiving its first
asbestos-related claim, it has disposed of the claims of about
330,000 plaintiffs and claimants as of March 31, 2006. The
average indemnity payment per claim was about US$6,500.

Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts
payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled
about US$91 million at March 31, 2006, $91 million at December
31, 2005, and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.

The Company is one of a number of defendants in lawsuits filed
in state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury,
including death, as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former businesses
produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-temperature,
calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material
containing asbestos.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company has determined that it is a
defendant in asbestos suits and claims involving about 30,000
plaintiffs and claimants. As of December 31, 2005, about 89
percent of plaintiffs and claimants either do not specify the
monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim
an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the
trial court.

About 10 percent of plaintiffs seek damages of US$15 million or
less, and one percent of plaintiffs seek damages greater than
US$15 million but less than US$100 million. Less than one
percent of plaintiffs seek damages of US$100 million or greater
but less than US$123 million.

The Company stated that as of March 31, 2006 there are about
21,700 claims against other defendants and which may be asserted
in the future against the Company.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$2.99 billion through 2005 for its asbestos liability.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$155 million, compared to US$158
million as of December 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$534.1 million, compared to US$572.1 million
as of December 31, 2005.

For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company's
asbestos-related payments was US$41 million, compared to US$45.5
million for the three months ended March 31, 2005.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens-Illinois Inc.'s glass containers,
which account for 90 percent of sales, include bottles used to
hold beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, and other beverages. The
Company also makes plastic healthcare packaging, including
prescription bottles, tamper-proof closures, and plastic medical
devices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Continues to Face Respirator Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norcross Safety Products LLC stated that it has product
liability lawsuits and claims that arise out of the use of
respiratory product lines made by its North Safety Products
subsidiary. About nine percent of the suits allege injury from
exposure to asbestos and other dust particles.

About 91 percent of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging
injury resulting from exposure to silica dust.

As of April 1, 2006, North Safety Products, with its
predecessors and the former owners of the business, is named a
defendant in about 1,424 suits involving respirators allegedly
made and sold by it or its predecessors.

These suits allege that the injuries resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured.
Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is obligated to indemnify the
Company for any losses, including costs of defending claims,
resulting from respiratory products made or sold before the
acquisition of North Safety Products in October 1998.

The Company is monitoring 12 more suits in which it feels that
North Safety Products, its predecessors and the former owners of
those businesses may be named as defendants. Collectively, these
1,436 suits represent a total of about 13,107 plaintiffs.

As of December 31, 2005, about 93 percent of the 1,136 suits
against North Safety Products involve plaintiffs alleging injury
from silica dust exposure, with the remainder alleging injury
from exposure to other particles, including asbestos. (Class
Action Reporter, April 7, 2006)

Based in Oak Brook, Illinois, Norcross Safety Products LLC makes
protective equipment like boots, clothing, eyewear, hats,
hearing protection aids, and respiratory devices, for the
agricultural, fire service, industrial, and utility markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Reserves EUR1.197Bil for Claims in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
AXA, at the end of 2005, had EUR1.197 billion gross claims
reserves including reinsurances' share, of which EUR1.046
billion related to asbestos and EUR151 million related to
environmental pollution.

The Company's net gross reserves, at the end of 2005, was
EUR1.099 billion net of reinsurance, including EUR966 million
relating to asbestos and EUR134 million relating to pollution,
as opposed to EUR1.021 million and EUR914 million net of
reinsurance at the end of 2004.

The Company's reported loss reserves totaled EUR433 million,
including EUR352 million relating to asbestos and EUR81 million
relating to pollution, compared to EUR380 million at the end of
2004.

At the end of 2005, incurred but not reported losses totaled
EUR764 million, including EUR693 million relating to asbestos
and EUR71 million relating to pollution, compared to EUR641
million at the end of 2004.

Under A&E insurance and reinsurance contracts, AXA paid claims
and legal costs of EUR69 million in 2005, including EUR58
million relating to asbestos and EUR10 million relating to
pollution, compared to EUR51 million in 2004 and EUR53 million
in 2003.

At December 31, 2005, AXA had made cumulative payments relating
to prior years of EUR682 million, including EUR508 million
relating to asbestos and EUR174 million relating to pollution,
compared to EUR571 million at December 31, 2004.

AXA issued insurance policies and accepted reinsurance for cover
related to A&E claims. Its insurance firms have been and
continue to be involved in disputes regarding policy coverage
and judicial interpretation of legal liability for potential A&E
claims.

Based in Paris, France, AXA and its subsidiaries offer life
insurance, personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance, reinsurance, financial services, and real estate
investment services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Acquires Hilco's Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corporation faces asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, with 123 plaintiffs, acquired from predecessor
Hilco Inc., in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex
County. The Company has never sold any asbestos related
products.

Hilco was once known as Universal Supply Group Inc., which was
acquired by the Company on June 25, 1999. This subsidiary has
not engaged in the sale of asbestos products since its formation
in 1997. Its product liability policies since 1998 excluded
asbestos claims.

Of the 123 plaintiffs, five filed actions in 2006, 15 sued in
2005, 38 sued in 2004, 31 sued in 2003, and 34 sued in 2002.
Seventy-eight other plaintiffs have had their actions dismissed
and seven other plaintiffs have settled as of March 31, 2006 for
a total of US$3,306,000.

The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 21 of the
existing plaintiffs. Of these, six filed actions in 2001, one
sued in 2003, 11 sued in 2005 and three filed actions in 2006.

The Company had acquired asbestos-related personal injury suits
with 118 plaintiffs from Hilco. (Class Action Reporter, April 7,
2006)

Based in Hicksville, New York, Colonial Commercial Corp.,
through subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group,
and American/Universal Supply Inc., supplies HVAC products,
climate-control systems, and plumbing fixtures to more than
5,000 customers in New York and New Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Faces 1,692 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc., as of March 31, 2006, is named a co-
defendant with other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-
containing products in about 1,692 claims involving about 2,036
individuals. The claimants allege personal injury or death from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

In the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company noted 117
new claims, 15 settlements, and 114 dismissals. In the year
ended December 31, 2005, the Company noted 1,703 claims, with
621 newly filed claims, 24 settlements, and 732 dismissals.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$26,387,000, compared to US$28,369,000
as of December 31, 2005.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities, as of
March 31, 2006, amounted to US$9,620,000, compared to $9,500,000
as of December 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, the Company's
insurance for asbestos-related liabilities was US$8,950,000.

Asbestos-related expenses, for the three months ended March 31,
2006, was US$5,853,000, as compared to US$4,263,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2005.

During the three months ended March 31, 2006, the total
indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were US$1.1 million.
During the 12 months ended December 31, 2005, the indemnity
costs were US$1.3 million. These costs were paid by ABI's
insurance carriers pursuant to ABI's applicable insurance
policies, as were the related defense costs.

The average indemnity cost per resolved claim was about US$8,300
for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and US$1,700 for the
year ended December 31, 2005.

At December 31, 2005, the estimated range of liability for
settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to
be filed through 2011 was US$9.5 million to US$18.8 million. At
March 31, 2006, the Company has recorded US$9.6 million for the
estimated minimum liability.

Based in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, American Biltrite Inc.
makes Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl
floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M
Associates supplier. ABI makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maine Court Clears ABI in Cleanup Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Androscoggin Superior Court of Maine, on February 3, 2006,
dismissed American Biltrite Inc. from a lawsuit filed by Miller
Industries Inc. regarding the cleanup of a dumpsite containing
exposed asbestos, from sheet vinyl waste, and other hazardous
substances.

The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection
notified Miller, the owner of a former ABI sheet vinyl plant in
Lisbon Falls, Maine, to clean up the dumpsite.

In September 2005, Miller sued ABI, alleging that ABI and one
other named defendant were liable for costs to clean up the
dumpsite and a second parcel of land, which was alleged to
contain polychlorinated biphenyls. Miller sought indemnification
or contribution from ABI for the cleanup of both land parcels.

The suit, styled Miller Industries Inc. v. American Biltrite
Inc. et al, was filed on September 22, 2005 in the Androscoggin
Superior Court of Maine.

In January 2006, the Maine DEP notified ABI that it is a liable
party as to both the dumpsite and the second parcel of land.

The Superior Court of Maine dismissed the suit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Based in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, American Biltrite Inc.
makes Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl
floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M
Associates supplier. ABI makes industrial products like
adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Incurs $276T Abatement Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intermountain Refining Co. Inc., during the year ended February
28, 2006, incurred US$276,000 in consulting and abatement costs
regarding the removal of asbestos material in its Fredonia
facility.

In April 2005, the Company began dismantling portions of its
refining equipment at the Fredonia facility that were no longer
used for operations. As part of the process, asbestos containing
materials were identified in the equipment being dismantled.

During the year ended February 28, 2006, the Company recognized
US$29,000 from the salvage of metals and used equipment removed
from the facility.

The Company may recognize some additional salvage amounts over
the coming months as the dismantling project is completed.

Based in Farmington, New Mexico, Intermountain Refining Co. Inc.
produces natural gas, manufactures and stores asphalt-paving
products. It also provides management and consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Says 4Q Results Changed by Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV stated that its 4th quarter and full
year results have been affected by the recording of a US$715.6
million net provision for estimated future asbestos-related
compensation payments, at March 31, 2006.

The asbestos provision contributed to a decrease in operating
profit from continuing operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2006, down from US$46.3 million in fiscal year 2005 to
a loss of US$650.9 million.

For the full year, the operating profit from continuing
operations fell from US$127.9 million in fiscal year 2005 to a
loss of US$506.7 million.

For the 4th quarter, operating profit from continuing
operations, excluding the asbestos provision of US$715.6
million, increased 40 percent compared to the same quarter in
2005, to US$64.7 million.

The strong 4th quarter operating performance lifted the full
year operating profit from continuing operations, excluding the
asbestos provision, by 63 percent to US$208.9 million.

In the 2005-4th quarter, the Hardie Board approved a final
funding agreement to provide long-term funding for Australian
asbestos-related personal injury claims that result from
exposure to products made by former Hardie subsidiaries in
Australia. Company representatives and the New South Wales
Government signed the FFA on December 1, 2005.

The FFA was negotiated under the terms of a non-binding heads of
agreement signed on December 21, 2004, by the Australian Council
of Trade Unions, NSW Government, UnionsNSW, an asbestos
claimants' representative, and the Company.

Based in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV is a
building materials company that uses cellulose-reinforced fiber
cement to make products for residential and commercial
construction, including siding, external cladding, walls,
fencing, and roofing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Notes $7.5Mil for Liabilities in 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's current asbestos liability claims reserve
was US$7,500,000, as of March 31, 2006. The Company's current
reserve for asbestos liability claims, as of December 31, 2005,
was US$8,000,000.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's non-current reserve for
asbestos liability claims was US$25,500,000. As of December 31,
2005, the Company's non-current reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$27,000,000.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Entrx Corp. provides insulation
and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation. Operating on the West Coast, it installs insulation
on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial
equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells
specialty insulation products. The Company was established as
Metalclad Corp. in 1947.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Faces Suit Filed by ACE, Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp. and
other liability insurers defend in an asbestos-related
declaratory relief lawsuit filed by ACE Property & Casualty Co.,
Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha, and Industrial
Underwriters Insurance Co.

Filed on February 23, 2005, the suit is pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National, and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs defense and indemnity under these policies for the
asbestos suits brought against Metalclad during the last four to
five years.

The ACE suit seeks declarations regarding coverage issues, but
is focused on issues involving whether historical and pending
asbestos suits brought against Metalclad are subject to either
an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence"
limits of liability.

The ACE suit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Co. on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of
Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in an
Allstate Insurance Co. policy.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE suit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the
Settlement Agreement.

In June 2004, the Company and Metalclad agreed to release
Allstate from its policy obligations for claims arising from
injury or damage which may have occurred from March 15, 1980 to
March 15, 1981, under an umbrella liability policy. The policy
provided limits of US$5,000,000 in the aggregate and per
occurrence.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Entrx Corp. provides insulation
and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation. Operating on the West Coast, it installs insulation
on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial
equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells
specialty insulation products. The Company was established as
Metalclad Corp. in 1947.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Notes 493 Pending Cases at 1Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., had
493 pending asbestos-related cases at March 31, 2006. These
claims are defended and covered by insurance.

In the 2006-1st quarter, 68 new claims were filed, compared to
52 claims in the first three months of 2005. The Company has
projected that about 533 asbestos-related injury claims would be
filed against it after December 31, 2005.

In the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company noted 44
defense judgments and dismissals, 38 settled cases, and 82 total
resolved cases.

For the 2006-1st quarter, the Company's total indemnity payments
were US$603,500. The average indemnity paid on settled cases was
US$15,882 and the average indemnity paid on all resolved cases
was US$7,360.

Metalclad is engaged in suits involving asbestos-related injury
or potential injury claims. The 199 claims made in 2005 were
down from the 725 in 2001, 590 in 2002, 351 in 2003, and 265
claims in 2004.

The Company projected that about 145 new asbestos-related claims
will be commenced, and about 245 cases will be resolved, in
2006, resulting in an estimated 407 cases pending at December
31, 2006.

Since the Company projected that an aggregate of 533 new cases
would be commenced after December 31, 2005, and that 145 of
these cases will be commenced in 2006, the Company estimated
that an aggregate of 388 new cases would be commenced after
December 31, 2006.

Accordingly, the cases pending and projected to be commenced in
the future at December 31, 2006, would be 795 cases.

Although defense costs are included in the Company's insurance
coverage, it expended US$174,000 in 2003, US$304,000 in 2004,
and $188,000 in 2005. In the three months ended March 31, 2006,
the Company expended US$61,000.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Entrx Corp. provides insulation
and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation. Operating on the West Coast, it installs insulation
on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial
equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells
specialty insulation products. The Company was established as
Metalclad Corp. in 1947.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 W.Va. Couples Sue Companies for Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three West Virginia couples, through their attorney at Goldberg,
Persky and White in Pittsburgh, filed three asbestos-related
lawsuits in Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record
reports.

David Chervenick sued multiple defendants on behalf of Linda and
Glenn Scatlin, James and Clara Costantini and Tom and Ruth
Winski.

The Costantinis' and Winskis' cases were filed together against
101 defendants. Their suits were filed on June 6.

Mr. Constantini, 81 years old, and Mr. Winski, 66 years old,
were members of the Local 1190 of the United Steelworkers of
America. Both say they have asbestosis and mesothelioma. Their
wives are suing for loss of consortium.

The Scantlins case, filed on June 5, names 88 defendants. The
suit says that Mrs. Scantlin, 54 years old, has been subjected
to years of asbestos exposure, though she has never worked with
it.

The suit says Mrs. Scantlin was exposed to asbestos-containing
dust that was found on the clothing of her father Glenn Casto
and her husband. Both worked at FMC Corporation in Nitro, West
Virginia, and Bayer Cropscience in Institute, West Virginia.

Of the 88 defendants, the following seven are West Virginia-
based firms: A&I Co. of Charleston, Columbia Paint Corp. of
Huntington, McJunkin Corp. of Charleston, Pfaff and Smith
Builders Supply Co. of Charleston, Poor Charlie and Co. of
Charleston, UB West Virginia Inc. of Nitro, and Vimasco Corp. of
Nitro.

The Scatlins are seeking compensatory and punitive damage. Mr.
Scatlin is suing for loss of consortium.

The complaint said, "The plaintiffs, while employed in their
various occupations, were exposed to and did inhale asbestos
dust and other dust from products of the defendants, which
caused the conditions hereinafter set forth, resulting in
disability. Each plaintiff's exposures occurred at various
places located in the State of West Virginia, as well as
exposures elsewhere."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Sides with W.R. Grace in Montana Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy has weakened the criminal case
against W.R. Grace & Co., ruling that prosecutors cannot allege
that Grace and former top officials "knowingly endangered"
miners and people in the Libby, Montana, by exposing them to
asbestos, The Times reports.

Judge Molloy's ruling is a partial victory for the defense,
which has been trying to get a conspiracy charge thrown out or
decreased. The conspiracy charge was not thrown out, but the
allegation that the defendants "knowingly endangered" residents
and miners was a basis of the conspiracy charge.

In 2005, a federal grand jury accused Grace and seven one-time
top officials of conspiring to conceal the health risks posed by
airborne asbestos from Grace's Libby vermiculite mine.

A spokesman for New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber said
the Montana ruling would likely have no effect on a New Jersey
civil suit filed against Grace and two executives for allegedly
providing false information to state environmental regulators
when Grace closed its Hamilton Township vermiculite processing
plant in 1995.

At the time, Grace executives certified to the state Department
of Environmental Protection that no asbestos remained at the
factory that for years processed the Libby vermiculite.

Despite Grace's assertions, more than 15,000 tons of tainted
soil remained on the property. Some 6,000 tons have yet to be
removed.

Former chemical division President Robert J. Bettacchi, one of
the executives named in the Montana case, was also named in the
New Jersey case.

Brought in June 2005 by former State Attorney General Peter
Harvey, the suit is seeking US$1.6 billion from Grace, Mr.
Bettacchi, and former Environmental Coordinator Jay H. Burrill.

In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began a
cleanup of the site, removing 9,000 tons of the contaminated
soil surrounding the factory. An additional 6,000 tons was
scheduled to be removed last summer, but has been delayed.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA ENRGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set End of Month
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- representing shareholders of
China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. -- reminds investors they
only have until the end of the month to move to be a lead
plaintiff in a shareholder lawsuit.  

All persons and institutions who purchased securities of China
Energy Savings Technology, Inc. between April 21, 2005 and Feb.
15, 2006, inclusive, may move the court not later than June 30,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

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

China Energy is a Nevada corporation that maintains its
principal office in Wanchai, Hong Kong.  The company develops,
manufactures and sells energy saving products for use in
commercial and industrial settings in the People's Republic of
China.

The calleges that during the class period the company failed to
disclose insider sales and self dealing transactions on an
adequate or timely basis.

Moreover, the company failed to disclose, as a "risk factor" in
its quarterly or annual reports or elsewhere, that self-dealing
transactions in the Company's stock by insiders could lead to
its stock being halted by Nasdaq.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that:

      -- the company's insiders were engaging in self dealing
         involving the company's January 2006 private placement;
         and

      -- the company was in violation of U.S. Securities and
         Exchange Commission Rules regarding limitations on
         sales of restricted stock, which resulted in the stock
         being halted by Nasdaq.

On Feb. 15, 2006, after the market closed, the Nasdaq announced
that it had halted trading of CESV stock.  The press release
stated only that "additional information" was requested from the
company and that trading would be suspended until the company
provided the requested information.

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


CSK AUTO: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona against CSK Auto
Corporation.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from Sept. 2, 2004 through March 24, 2006.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Aug. 8,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


INFOSONICS CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of InfoSonics
Corp. between May 9, 2006 and June 9, 2006, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of InfoSonics securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Aug. 14, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


INFOSONICS CORP: Shalov Stone Files Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of InfoSonics Corp. (AMEX: IFO)
from May 8, 2006 to June 12, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California and names as defendants the company and certain of
its ranking executives.

The complaint alleges the defendants issued several statements
which were false and misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company submitted a
quarterly filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commmission
and made statements to the general public regarding its
financial condition that were false and misleading when made.

In particular, it is alleged, the company improperly classified
its previously issued warrants as derivative liability rather
than equity, thereby artificially inflating its net income by
over 33%.

Interested parties may, not later than sixty days from June 13,
2006, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Shalov Stone &
Bonner LLP, which has extensive experience in the prosecution of
class actions on behalf of investors.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
New York 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340; E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com, Website: http://www.lawssb.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set this Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP reminds current and former investors of
Newpark Resources, Inc. that they have until June 20 to file
lead plaintiff motions in federal court.

Previously, the law firm filed a securities class action against
the company on May 9, 2006.  The complaint seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who bought Newpark securities from Feb. 28, 2005 through and
including April 16, 2006.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi, Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-
mail: gademi@ademilaw.com.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Vonage Holdings Corp. or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock
pursuant to or traceable to the company's May 24, 2006 initial
public offering.

The complaint alleges the company and certain named officers and
underwriters violated the federal securities laws by publishing
a materially false and misleading joint Registration Statement
and Proxy-Prospectus.  

The company provides broadband telephone services in the U.S.,
Canada, and the U.K., primarily using voice over Internet
protocol technology.  Prior to the company's IPO on May 24,
2006, the company had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
market its services to potential customers.

However, the complaint alleges, both the company and company
insiders, who had invested hundreds of millions of dollars of
their personal funds in the company, were losing money.
According to the complaint, these company insiders, desperate to
execute an exit strategy for themselves, embarked on an illegal
course of conduct to sell shares of the Company in a public
market.

The complaint further alleges that defendants, realizing that
institutional investors who normally buy in IPOs would be
reluctant at best to purchase Vonage shares as-priced, pre-sold
at least 13.5% of the Company's IPO shares to Company customers
in violation of NASD Rule 2310.

NASD Rule 2310 requires that a company recommending the purchase
or sale of its securities to a customer must have a reasonable
basis for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the
customer.

The complaint also alleges defendants had no such reasonable
basis in this case and improperly crammed investors into the
Vonage IPO regardless of their suitability.

The complaint also contends that the Underwriter Defendants
violated the securities laws because they allowed this illegal
and improper action to continue.

The Underwriter Defendants, the plaintiff claims, had an
obligation to ensure that Vonage had complied with NASD Rule
2310 in setting up and administering the accounts of customers
purchasing in the IPO.

According to the complaint, however, the Underwriter Defendants
had little or no incentive to ensure that customer participants
in the IPO were suitable.  

Instead, the complaint alleges they were motivated by the tens
of millions of dollars in fees they would receive from a
successful IPO.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, Vonage had agreed to
indemnify the Underwriter Defendants against certain liabilities
relating to the customer pre-sale program; among those
liabilities was the foreseeable possibility that customers who
purchased in the IPO would refuse or fail to pay for the common
stock allocated to them in the pre-sale.

As a result of this alleged illegal conduct, shares of Vonage
sold in the IPO declined more than 30% in the first seven
trading days.  The decline in value of these shares has been
exacerbated by many Vonage customers who participated in the
pre-sale but are now refusing to pay for their shares.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 1, 2006, move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman, Phone: 888-844-
5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-
law.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  * * *