CAR_Public/060623.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 124

                            Headlines

ASPEON INC: Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
CBCL INC: Accused of Negligence in Suits Over Great Falls Fire
CENTRAL LIVESTOCK: Judge Grants Class Status to Cattlemen's Suit
CHEVRON CORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Ecuadorian Waste Dumping
CNL HOTELS: Fla. Court Mulls Approval to Stock Suit Settlement

DUKE CAPITAL: Nev. Court Remands Natural Gas Case Back to Tenn.
DUKE ENERGY: Kans. Court Mulls Motions in Natural Gas Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY: Nev. Court Refuses to Remand Kans. Natural Gas Case
ENCORP PACIFIC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Recycling Deposits Suit
EN POINTE: Parties Reach $1.8M Settlement in Calif. Stock Suit

GLOBAL CROSSING: Microsoft & Softbank Reinstated in Stock Suit
HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
HOMETOWN AUTO: N.J. Court Nixes Certain Claims in Consumer Suit
HOSPITALS: Two Nurses File Lawsuit in Ill. Court Over Salaries
HOSPITALS: Seven Health Care Providers Sued Over Nurses Wages

HOSPITALS: Nurses Sue Baptist Memorial, Methodist Healthcare
HOSPITALS: Nurse Files Suit in Tex. Court Demanding Higher Wages
IDNA INC: Board Approves $2.5M Investor, Derivative Suits Deal
IMPSAT FIBER: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
INSURERS: Court Revives "Redlining" Lawsuit Against Mo. Firms

LOUISIANA: June 27 Hearing Set in Suit Against Video Games Law
L Q CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
MARYLAND: Baltimore City Police Faces Suit Over Illegal Arrests
NORTEL NETWORKS: Enters $575M Settlement in N.Y. Securities Suit
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Allowed to Advance Employee Defense Costs

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Pre-Bankruptcy Fees to Cadwalader Disclosed
POLAND: N.Y. Lawsuit Seeks $1.26B Pre-World War II Bond Payment
SELECT MEDICAL: Discovery, Certification to Begin in Pa. Suit
TENFOLD CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Settlement

UNITED STATES: Raisin Growers File Suit Over Reserve Program
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Consolidation of Wiretapping Suits
VERTICALNET INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Agreement
WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: Faces Lawsuit in N.Mex. Over ANM Merger


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Named in Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Faces Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Sees $188M Recoveries Under Treaty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 575
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moscow CableCom Faces Lone New York Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Eastern Contends With Louisiana Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Restores Lawsuit v. Metalclad
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phil. Water Firm to Replace Asbestos Pipes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files GBP200T Claim v. Corus, Alstom
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Hazard Near Former Grace Plant, EPA Says

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific to Appeal US$13.6Mil Award
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dismissal of Andrews v. Foster Suit Upheld
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corporation Exits Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Charges Mercury Homes $66T for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Hit for Cleanup Error at WR Grace Site

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Judge to Confirm ABB Lummus Global Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Engineer Files $3.6M Claim v. 49 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Government to Reverse Asbestos Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Deny Norfolk Appeal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gunns Ltd. Slapped With $8T Fine for Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire Dismantlement Charged for CAA Breach


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROOKS AUTOMATION: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in Mass.
CSK AUTO: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities suit in Ariz.
ERIE FAMILY: Johnson Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Pa. Securities Suit
HOME SOLUTIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Tex.

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Squitieri & Fearon Files N.J. Stock Fraud Suit


                            *********


ASPEON INC: Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated securities class
action against Aspeon, Inc.

In October and November 2000, eight purported class actions were
filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and its
former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the defendants moved to dismiss each of the actions, the
lawsuits were consolidated under a single action, "In re Aspeon
Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 00-995 AHS (ANx)," and the
appointed lead plaintiff voluntarily filed an amended and
consolidated complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint and on April 23, 2001
the court entered an order dismissing the complaint without
prejudice.  

On May 21, 2001 the appointed lead plaintiff filed a third
complaint, styled as a "First Amended Consolidated Complaint."

On June 4, 2001 the defendants moved to dismiss this complaint
and on Sept. 17, 2001 the U.S. District Court dismissed the suit
with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the company and
the company's officers.

On Sept. 20, 2001 the lead plaintiff in the class action suit
appealed against the dismissal of the case.

On Jan.21, 2003 the decision to dismiss the case was upheld, but
the lead plaintiff was given the opportunity to remedy the
deficiencies in the complaint that had been filed.

Accordingly on May 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed its "Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint" which again was subsequently
dismissed by the District Court.  

On Nov. 26, 2003 the lead plaintiff filed its "Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint" which was again dismissed with prejudice
in March 2004.

The lead plaintiff once again appealed against the dismissal and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006.

The suit is "Jay Spechler, et al. v. Aspeon Inc, et al., Case
No. 8:00-cv-00995-AHS-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, under Judge Alicemarie H.
Stotler.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas C. Bright, Solomon B.
Cera, Steven Orrin Sidener, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, 595
Market St, Ste 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105-2835, Phone: 415-
777-2230, Fax: 415-777-5189.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Donald A. Daucher, Jay C. Gandhi, Colleen Elizabeth
         Hushke, Peter M. Stone, Paul Hastings Janofsky and
         Walker, 3579 Valley Centre Dr., San Diego, CA 92130,
         Phone: 858-720-2500, E-mail:
         dondaucher@paulhastings.com; and

     (2) Eric J. Belfi, Murray Frank and Sailer, 275 Madison
         Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-
         1818.  


CBCL INC: Accused of Negligence in Suits Over Great Falls Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of the J.P. Stevens Mill No. 3 building as well as
the plastics recycling company that operates inside the building
are facing class actions over a fire on June 6 that forced more
than 1,000 Great Falls, South Carolina residents to evacuate,
The Charlotte Observer reports.

John and Margaret Tibbs are primary plaintiffs in the suit filed
by Great Falls resident Jacqueline Dye against the mill owners
and CBCL Inc.  The suit was filed on June 20 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Chester County by lawyer Robert Dodson.

Another suit was filed against the defendants on behalf of Clare
Dawkins and Donald Johnson.  

Both suits are seeking class-action status.  They allege that
the business was not properly safeguarded against fire.  One
suit accuses the company and the county of negligence in not
preventing the fire; the other suit accuses the company and the
property owners of negligence, according to the report.

Representing CBCL Inc. is Hemphill Pride of 1401 Gregg St.
Columbia, South Carolina (Lexington & Richland Cos.).  Mr.
Dodson is with Dodson & Dodson, L.L.P., 2005 Moores Lane, P.O.
Box 1877, Texarkana, Texas 75504 (Bowie Co.), Phone: 903-794-
3121, Fax: 903-793-4801, Web site: http://www.dodsondodson.net.


CENTRAL LIVESTOCK: Judge Grants Class Status to Cattlemen's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge William Lyle granted on June 9 class-action status
to a suit over bouncing checks filed by a Hutchinson, Kansas
attorney against defunct Central Livestock Corp., The Hutchinson
News reports.  

At a subsequent hearing in mid-June, attorney Stan Juhnke, who
has been retained by 40 of nearly 200 potential plaintiffs,
presented to Reno County District Court Judge Richard Rome a
check for $248,000, arising from the recent sale of the barn.

Judge Rome granted potential claimants 30 days to opt out of the
suit before disbursing the funds.  He said he turned the check
over to the clerk of the district court, who placed the money in
an interest-bearing account until the suit is decided and funds
disbursed, according to the report.

The schedule for the next hearing has not yet been set.  In it,
Judge Rome said he would address the issue of attorney's fees
and costs.

The company was closed in February when auditors with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture began investigating its finances.  
Cattlemen had complained about checks from the business
bouncing.

Central Livestock is also facing a criminal complaint filed by
the Reno County district attorney's office for failing to
properly balance the company's accounts related to the buying
and selling of livestock.


CHEVRON CORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Ecuadorian Waste Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Corp. is facing a new federal class action over toxic
wastewater dumping in the rainforest in Ecuador, according to
MSNBC.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by nine unnamed citizens and residents of
Ecuador on April 25.  Plaintiffs seek to represent residents of
Ecuador's Oriente region who allegedly contracted cancer or who
are at increased risk of cancer and other diseases because of
the company's activities.

The company is also facing a suit in Ecuador, captioned "Aguinda
v. ChevronTexaco Corp."  It was filed after an initial suit in
New York District Court in 1993 was ultimately dismissed due to
"inconvenient forum."  The Aguinda case seeks remediation for
the cleanup of contaminated sites.

The suits arose out of the activities of Chevron subsidiary --
Texaco Petroleum Co., which the company bought in 2001 -- in
Ecuador as the operating partner of a joint venture with the
state-owned oil company, PetroEcuador.

The most recent suit claims the company dumped wastewater into
open pits and rivers during its oil drilling operations in
Ecuador between 1971 and 1992.  The practice was illegal in the
U.S. at the time, the suit says.  Plaintiffs are asking a court
order that would compel Chevron to give up or disgorge profits
Texaco made in the region by using non-industry-standard
drilling methods.  Those funds would then be used to build and
maintain medical facilities for the affected regions, the report
said.

The suit also charges that Chevron violated the California
Business and Professions Code by repeatedly and publicly
misrepresenting or denying its responsibility for the problems.

Chevron has filed a motion to dismiss.  A hearing is set for
July 6, 2006.

The suit is "Doe, et al. vs. Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Co.
Inc. and Chevron Corp.," filed under Judge William H. Alsup.  
Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Cristobal Bonifaz of Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz,
         180 Maple St., PO Box 180 Conway, MA 01341, U.S.,
         Phone: 413-369-4263, 413-369-0076;

     (2) Thomas Joseph Cmar of International Labor Rights Fund,
         2001 S Street, NW, Suite 420, Washington, DC 20009,
         Phone: (202) 347-4100, E-mail: thom.cmar@ilrf.org; and

     (3) Paul Lindsey Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow
         Harris & Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA
         90291, Phone: 310-396-0731, E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Robert A. Mittelstaedt of Jones
Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-875-5710, Fax: 415/875-5700, E-mail:
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com.


CNL HOTELS: Fla. Court Mulls Approval to Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a final approval hearing on July 26, 2006 for the proposed
settlement in a securities fraud class action against:

     -- CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc.,

     -- CNL Hospitality Corp. (CHC),

     -- certain affiliates of the company and of CHC, and

     -- certain directors and officers, including

        * James M. Seneff, Jr.,
        * Robert A. Bourne,
        * Thomas J. Hutchison III,
        * John A. Griswold,
        * Craig M. McAllaster, and
        * Robert E. Parsons, Jr.

On Aug. 16, 2004, a shareholder filed a complaint on behalf of
two separate classes, those persons who purchased company shares
during the class period pursuant to certain registration
statements and those persons who received and were entitled to
vote on the Proxy Statement dated May 7, 2004, as amended.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act and Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based upon,
among other things, allegations that:

     (1) the defendants used improper accounting practices to
         materially inflate company earnings to support the
         payment of distributions and bolster its share price;

     (2) conflicts of interest and self-dealing by the
         defendants resulted in excessive fees being paid to the
         Advisor, overpayment for certain Properties which the
         company acquired and the proposed Merger between the
         company and its Advisor;

     (3) the proxy statement and certain registration statements
         and prospectuses contained materially false and
         misleading statements; and

     (4) the individual defendants and the company's Advisor
         breached their fiduciary duties to the members of the
         class.

                       Settlement Demands

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action, unspecified monetary damages, rescissory damages,
to nullify the various shareholder approvals obtained at the
2004 annual meeting, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.  

It also seeks an injunction enjoining the postponed underwritten
offering and listing until the court approves certain actions,
including the nomination and election of new independent
Directors and retention of a new financial advisor.   

                        Second Complaint

On Sept. 8, 2004, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida containing allegations that are substantially similar to
those contained in the class action filed on Aug. 16, 2004.  

On Nov. 10, 2004, the two complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs were assigned for each of the two purported classes.  
On Dec. 23, 2004, the plaintiffs served a corrected,
consolidated and amended complaint asserting substantially the
same claims and allegations.

On Feb. 11, 2005, the company and the other defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On May 9, 2005, the court dismissed all causes of action against
the company's operating partnerships, CNL Hospitality Partners,
L.P., and RFS Partnership, L.P., and against the Advisor, CNL
Financial Group, Inc., and other advisor related entities.

The court sustained the sufficiency of the pleading relating to
the Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims against the company and
the individual defendants, but instructed plaintiffs to re-plead
to specifically identify in the particular registration
statements the alleged misstatements or omissions attributable
to each defendant.

The court deferred consideration of the Section 14 (a) and 20(a)
claims in light of the company's April 8, 2005 disclosure
relating to the possible amendment of the existing merger
agreement.  

Finally, the court dismissed completely the breach of fiduciary
duty claims finding they were derivative and belonged to the
company.  

                     First Amended Complaint

On May 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated first amended
class action complaint, which eliminated one of the named co-
plaintiffs and certain previously named defendants, including
CNL Hospitality Partners, L.P., RFS Partnership, L.P., CNL
Financial Group, Inc., CNL Real Estate Group, Inc. and Five
Arrows Realty Securities II, LLC, and adds CNL Securities
Corporation as a defendant for alleged violations of Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The consolidated first amended class action complaint continues
to assert claims pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act and Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Further, the
breach of fiduciary duty claim is expressly asserted as
derivative.  

On July 22, 2005, the company and the other defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the consolidated first amended class
action complaint.  The court heard oral arguments on Sept. 9,
2005.

On the same day, the court dismissed without prejudice the
Section 14(a) and 20(a) claims as moot, and granted plaintiff
leave to amend its complaint, within thirty days, to add
additional plaintiffs that had standing to assert certain
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims, and instructed defendants
to advise the Court, within thirty days thereafter, whether they
have any additional defenses to raise in support of their
motions to dismiss in light of any new plaintiffs.

On Sept. 13, 2005, the court dismissed the derivative claims
with prejudice finding that plaintiffs had failed to make a pre-
suit demand or establish that such demand would have been
futile.

On Sept. 20, 2005, the court dismissed the claims asserted
against CNL Securities Corp.  On Sept. 21, 2005, the court
denied the motion to dismiss CHC as a defendant in the
complaint.

                    Second Amended Complaint

On Oct. 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended
Shareholder Complaint, which added three additional named
plaintiffs to assert Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims
against the company and the individual defendants.

On Nov. 9, 2005, the company moved to dismiss and strike the
second amended complaint.  On Dec. 16, 2005, the court entered
an order postponing resolution of the motion to dismiss and
strike, pending settlement discussions among the parties.

                   Memorandum of Understanding

On Feb. 6, 2006, the company and the other defendants executed a
non-binding Memorandum of Understanding, which sets forth the
general terms of an agreement in principle for the settlement of
the class action.

The MOU assumed that a merger agreement would be executed in
accordance with a term sheet, dated Dec. 5, 2005.  

On March 13, 2006, plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that they had
completed the discovery that was conducted to verify the
settlement was reasonable, and the parties informed the Court of
the terms of the MOU and the parties' intention for the
settlement to be documented by a stipulation of settlement.

On March 16, 2006, the terms of the MOU and the settlement were
approved by the Special Litigation Committee of the Board, which
is comprised of the three non-defendant members of the Board.

                         Plan of Merger

On April 3, 2006, the company entered into an amended and
restated agreement and plan of merger with CHC, CNL Real Estate
Group, Inc., Five Arrows Realty Securities II L.L.C., the other
stockholders of CHC identified therein, CNL Hotels & Resorts
Acquisition, LLC (Acquisition Sub), CNL Hospitality Properties
Acquisition Corp., and CNL Financial Group, Inc. (CFG).  

The company's board of directors approved the amended merger
agreement after receiving the recommendation of a special
committee comprised of three of its independent directors.
Pursuant to the amended merger agreement, CHC will merge with
and into Acquisition Sub, all of the membership interests of
which are owned by the company, and the separate corporate
existence of CHC will cease.

After execution of the amended merger agreement, counsel for the
company, CHC, CNL Securities Corp., and certain of the company's
current and former directors and officers, including Messrs.
Seneff, Bourne, Hutchison, Griswold, McAllaster, Parsons, Adams,
and Dustin, executed a stipulation of settlement, consistent
with the terms of the MOU, which sets forth the terms of an
agreement for the settlement of the class action.

                       Settlement Classes

Under the terms of the Stipulation, subject to court approval,
two settlement classes will be certified:

      -- a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
         acquired the company's securities issued or offered
         pursuant to or by means of the company's registration
         statements and/or prospectuses between Aug. 16, 2001
         and Aug. 16, 2004, inclusive (Purchaser Class), and

      -- a class of all persons who were entitled to vote on the
         proposals presented in the proxy statement filed by the
         company, dated June 21, 2004, as amended or
         supplemented by the additional proxy solicitation
         materials filed on July 7, July 8 and July 20, 2004
         (Proxy Class).

The company and the other defendants have denied and continue to
deny liability or any act of negligence or misconduct, but in
exchange for a release and resolution of the class action, the
company and the other defendants have agreed to settle the class
action.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, in connection with the
Purchaser Class claims, the company will pay a total of $35
million, consisting of $3.7 million to be paid by Jan.15, 2007,
$15.65 million to be paid by Jan.15, 2008, and $15.65 million to
be paid by Jan.15, 2009, which payments will be deposited into a
settlement fund account to be administered by plaintiffs'
counsel.

Plaintiffs' counsel will seek a fee with respect to the
Purchaser Class equal to 25 percent of all amounts paid by the
company into the settlement fund account, totaling approximately
$8.75 million, plus expenses.

The proceeds in the settlement fund, plus any applicable
interest, less approved fees and expenses will be distributed to
stockholders who are members of the Purchaser Class.

In connection with the Proxy Class and derivative claims, the
company and the other defendants who were its directors during
the negotiation and execution of the amended merger agreement,
the amended and restated renewal agreement, and the payment
agreement (new agreements) have acknowledged that the class
action was among the material factors taken into account in
connection with the terms of the new agreements.

As required by the terms of the Stipulation, the company also
provided plaintiffs' counsel with an opportunity to review and
comment on its proxy statement relating to a special meeting of
the company's stockholders and all related materials for the
purposes of compliance with all applicable securities and
corporate fiduciary laws, rules, and regulations.

               Additional Settlement Conditions

In addition, as a part of the settlement of the class action,
the company will adopt or maintain certain corporate governance
measures, including:

      -- a mechanism for a committee of the board comprised
         solely of three independent directors to review and
         approve any proposal by the company to its stockholders
         to approve an amendment to the charter to extend the
         date specified in the charter by which the company must
         commence an orderly liquidation (and that any final
         evaluation by the advisor to such directors be provided
         to plaintiffs' counsel for review); and

      -- the maintenance of a committee of the board, consisting
         solely of directors who do not have a financial
         interest in the transaction being considered, to review
         and approve all related-party transactions.  

Plaintiffs' counsel will seek a fee and a portion of
reimbursable expenses with respect to the Proxy Class and
derivative claims in the amount of $5.5 million, which the
company has agreed to pay as part of the settlement.

The Special Litigation Committee of the Board has determined
that:

      -- the settlement is advisable and in the company's best
         interest and approved the settlement and the
         implementation of its terms; and

      -- under the indemnification agreements with the defendant
         directors and under the Advisory Agreement, the
         defendant directors and CHC would be entitled to
         indemnification in connection with the class action and
         that the company should not seek contribution or
         reimbursement of advanced expenses from these parties
         in connection with the class action.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, the named plaintiffs in the
class action and their legal counsel have agreed to fully
support stockholder approval of the amended merger and
associated charter amendments as being fair and reasonable, and
in the best interests of the company and its stockholders.

                            July 26 Hearing

By order dated April 21, 2006, the court preliminarily approved
the fairness of the settlement of the class action for the
limited purpose of permitting notice to be mailed to the class
of the proposed settlement and the fact that the court will hold
a hearing on July 26, 2006 to determine whether the proposed
settlement should be considered by the Court as fair, reasonable
and adequate, and to consider the fee and expense application of
the Plaintiffs' attorneys.

The company accrued $34.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2005,
representing the present value of the total settlement estimate
of $40.5 million, and recognized the related charge as an
expense for litigation settlement in its statement of operations
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.  During the quarter ended
March 31, 2006, the company recognized approximately $0.7
million in interest expense pertaining to the accrued liability.

The suit is "Campbell v. CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc. et al., Case
No. 6:04-cv-01231-GAP-KRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge Gregory A. Presnell.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly Marie Donaldson,
         Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Haverford Centre, 361
         West Lancaster Ave., Haverford, PA 19041, Phone:
         215/642-8500, E-mail: nick@chimicles.com or
         kimdonaldson@chimicles.com;  

     (2) Beth Hoffman, Lawrence A. Sucharow, Goodkind Labaton
         Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY
         10017, E-mail: bhoffman@glrslaw.com or
         lsucharow@glrslaw.com;  

     (3) Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212/545-4600, E-mail: kolker@whafh.com; and

     (4) George E. Ridge, Cooper, Ridge & Lantinberg, P.A., 200
         W. Forsyth St., Suite 1200, Jacksonville, FL 32202-
         1069, Phone: 904/353-6555, Fax: 904-353-7550, E-mail:
         gridge@attorneyjax.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark Herman Budoff, Kenneth A. Lapatine, Toby S. Soli,
         Greenberg Traurig LLP, MetLife Building, 200 Park Ave.,
         15th Floor, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212/801-9200,
         Fax: 212/801-6400, E-mail: budoffm@gtlaw.com,
         lapatinek@gtlaw.com, solit@gtlaw.com; and

    (ii) David B. King and Thomas A. Zehnder, King, Blackwell,
         Downs & Zehnder, P.A., 25 E. Pine St., P.O. Box 1631,
         Orlando, FL 32801-1631, Phone: 407/422-2472, Fax: 407-
         648-0161, E-mail: dking@kbdlaw.com or
         tzehnder@kbdlaw.com.


DUKE CAPITAL: Nev. Court Remands Natural Gas Case Back to Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand a purported class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Duke
Capital, LLC, affiliates and other energy companies back to
Tennessee state court has been granted.

On Jan. 28, 2005, four plaintiffs filed suit seeking class
action certification in Tennessee Chancery Court against Duke
Capital affiliates and other energy companies.  

The suit was brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of natural
gas who allege that they have been harmed by defendants'
manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means,
including providing false information to natural gas trade
publications and unlawfully exchanging information, resulting in
artificially high natural gas prices paid by plaintiffs in the
State of Tennessee.

Alleging that defendants violated state antitrust laws and other
laws, plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

Defendants removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee in March 2005, and the case was
transferred to a federal judge in Nevada in Multidistrict
Litigation proceeding 1566, "In re Western States Wholesale
Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation."

By order dated May 2, 2006, plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case to state court was granted, according to Duke Capital,
LLC's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.


DUKE ENERGY: Kans. Court Mulls Motions in Natural Gas Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has yet to
rule on either motions to remand back to a Kansas state court or
to transfer to the MDL 1566 proceeding in Nevada a purported
class action against Duke Energy Corp. (Old Duke Energy) and
Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), as well as other
energy companies.

On Sept. 26, 2005, a class action petition was filed by two
plaintiffs in state court in Kansas against various defendants
including Old Duke Energy and DETM.  The petition claims that
the plaintiff was harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation
of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing
false information to natural gas trade publications and entering
into unlawful arrangements and agreements.

This matter was moved to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, and defendants are seeking to have the case
transferred to: "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1566," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to state
court.  They are claiming that the defendants violated Kansas'
antitrust laws and are seeking damages in unspecified amounts,
according to Duke Capital, LLC's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006.


DUKE ENERGY: Nev. Court Refuses to Remand Kans. Natural Gas Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada refused to
remand back to a Kansas state court a purported class action
against Duke Energy Corp. (Old Duke Energy) and Duke Energy
Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), as well as other energy
companies.  

On Aug. 8, 2005, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court in
Kansas, claiming that the plaintiff was harmed by the
defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by
various means, including providing false information to natural
gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements
and agreements.

Old Duke Energy removed this case to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas on Sept. 8, 2005, and the case was
subsequently transferred to a federal judge in Nevada as, "In re
Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1566"

Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was denied
on April 26, 2006, according to the Duke Capital, LLC's May 15,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.  


ENCORP PACIFIC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Recycling Deposits Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia Supreme Court rejected claims in a suit filed
by the Consumers Association of Canada, alleging the beverage
container industry is misappropriating millions of dollars in
recycling deposits, the Black Press reports.

The plaintiffs in the suit claim that companies behind the
recycling system illegally benefited from CA$70 million in
unredeemed deposits collected in 1998 to 2004.  Defendants
include Pepsi, Coke, and Encorp Pacific, the manager of the
deposit system.  The suit against them was filed on behalf of
all British Columbia consumers.

Earlier this month, Madam Justice Loryl Russell rejected
arguments that the recycling fee amounts to an illegal levy, and
that the companies engaged in a deceptive practice by failing to
disclose the fee with prices marked on store shelves.  Also,
Judge Russell found that allegations saying the deposits are not
held in trust are not true.

According to the report, Consumers Association of Canada
president, Bruce Cran, said the association will appeal the
ruling and continue the effort to certify a class action.


EN POINTE: Parties Reach $1.8M Settlement in Calif. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and defendants in the consolidated securities class
action, "In Re En Pointe Technologies Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01 CV0205L (CGA)," reached a $1.8 million settlement of
the case, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

In February 2001, En Pointe Technologies, Inc. and five of its
directors, one current officer, and certain former officers
along with seven unrelated parties were named in a stockholder
class action complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations regarding the company and that the individual
defendants improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the
company's common stock and seeking a recovery by the company's
stockholders of the damages sustained as a result of such
activities.

In an amended complaint, plaintiffs limited their claims to the
company and its chief executive officer.  In response to a
motion to dismiss, the court further limited plaintiffs' claims
to allegations of market manipulation and insider trading.

Defendants have answered the amended complaint.  The court
recently certified the case as a class action.

Counsel for the parties agreed to resolve the case for $1.8
million.  The company's insurance carrier will make the payment.

The suit is "In Re En Pointe Technologies Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01CV0205L (CGA))," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.  

Plaintiff firms involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;

     (2) Krause & Kalfayan, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.232.0331, Fax:
         619.232.4019;

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

     (4) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com; and

     (5) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Microsoft & Softbank Reinstated in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York reinstated Microsoft Corp. and
Japanese telecom Softbank Corp. in a class action brought by
investors in the failed telecommunications company Global
Crossing.

In 2002, Microsoft and SoftBank, which owned stakes in Global
Crossing, were named defendants in the case along with Global
Crossing, Asia Global Crossing, and their boards, officers,
investment bank advisors and accountants.  They were accused of
defrauding investors.

In 2005, Microsoft and Softbank were dismissed on the grounds
that they could not be held accountable for the actions of their
board members, but plaintiffs' attorneys recently discovered a
secret agreement between board members and corporate officials
that implicates the companies directly in the scheme.

The plaintiffs allege that Microsoft intentionally misled them
into believing that there was a $200 million-revenue stream from
Global Crossing to encourage investment into the company.

The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Jan.28, 2002
(Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-40188).  When the Debtors filed for
protection from their creditors, they listed $25,511,000,000 in
total assets and $15,467,000,000 in total debts.  Global
Crossing emerged from chapter 11 on Dec. 9, 2003.


HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
over a June 2005 Exchange Agreement with subsidiaries, according
to the company's May 15, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March
31, 2006.

The suit also names as defendants its directors:

      -- Corey E. Shaker,  
      -- William C. Muller, Jr.,
      -- Joseph Shaker,  
      -- Bernard J. Dzinski, Jr.,  
      -- Steven A. Fournier,  
      -- H. Dennis Lauzon,
      -- Timothy C. Moynihan  

Plaintiffs Steven N. Bronson, Louis J. Meade and Leonard Hagan
purport to bring the action individually, derivatively and as a
class action on behalf of the public stockholders of the
company's Class A shares.  

They allege that the directors and controlling stockholders
breached their fiduciary duties to the company and the Class A
stockholders, have failed to seek a transaction that would
maximize value for the company and all it stockholders, and have
initiated a transaction that is not fair to the company and its
public stockholders.  

Thus, plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, including,
rescission of the Exchange Agreement, a preliminary and
permanent injunction the Exchange Agreement transactions, a
declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties, a constructive trust on any assets transferred pursuant
to the Exchange Agreement transactions, damages for the injury
suffered by plaintiffs and the class as a result of defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties, certification of the action as a
class action, and an order requiring defendants to pay
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

On June 2, 2005, the company entered into an Exchange Agreement
with the New England subsidiaries of the company and the
stockholders of the company in the Shaker Group.  The Exchange
Agreement was also approved by the written consent of
stockholders owning a majority of the voting power of the shares
of stock of the company.

Pursuant to the Exchange Agreement, the company will organize a
new corporation to be called Shaker Auto Group, Inc.  The
company will then transfer to Shaker Auto Group, Inc. all of the
shares of stock of the New England Subsidiaries, plus $5 million
in cash -- subject to adjustment for fluctuations in the value
of certain assets and liabilities of the New England
Subsidiaries -- in exchange for all of the outstanding shares of
stock of Shaker Auto Group, Inc.  

Immediately following this transfer, the company will transfer
all of the outstanding shares of stock of Shaker Auto Group,
Inc. to the Shaker Group in exchange for all of their shares of
stock of the company.


HOMETOWN AUTO: N.J. Court Nixes Certain Claims in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County dismissed
certain claims in a purported class action filed by Maryann
Cerbo, et al. against Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. d/b/a Muller
Toyota, Inc. and 1,666 other defendants.

Served on the company on Dec. 30, 2004, the action has been
brought on behalf of about 111 named plaintiffs and, purportedly
on behalf of a class of individuals and companies who have
purchased or leased a motor vehicle from the defendants.

Plaintiffs contend that the defendants:

      -- overcharged for registration and/or title fees;

      -- failed to properly itemize documentary costs and
         governmental costs;

      -- charged grossly excessive documentary fees not
         reasonably related to costs; and

      -- failed to disclose that the defendants are not required
         to perform certain documentary services.

It appears from the complaint that plaintiffs have attempted to
name as defendants all franchised automobile dealers in the
State of New Jersey, as well as a large assortment of other
persons and entities.

There are no allegations that the company ever performed any
services for any of the named plaintiffs.  The complaint makes
certain class action allegations and alleges violations of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as common law fraud.

The court has dismissed the portions of the complaint alleging
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, common law
fraud and conspiracy to commit common law fraud, according to
the company's May 15, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.


HOSPITALS: Two Nurses File Lawsuit in Ill. Court Over Salaries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and James & Hoffman,
PC initiated a class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Lisa Reed and Mary
McDowell, nurses employed in hospitals in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area.

The suit alleges that hospitals in the Chicago Metropolitan
Area, which includes metropolitan Chicago and immediately
surrounding towns and cities, have conspired to keep their
nurses' wages at artificially low levels.

The lawsuit invokes the federal antitrust laws to force the
hospitals to pay their nurses compensation that is long overdue.

According to the suit, these hospitals have been putting their
bottom line ahead of patients and the nurses who care for them.

For years, these hospitals have deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanged detailed, non-public, current
information about the wages each is paying its nurses.  The
purpose and effect of this information exchange has been to
permit the hospitals to suppress nurse wages - depriving nurses
of a fair wage and contributing to the nursing shortage in the
nation.

According to the lawsuits, the conspiring hospitals have been
taking extreme advantage of a vulnerable but critical component
of the American healthcare system.  In the aggregate, these
hospitals have underpaid nurses in the four cities hundreds of
millions of dollars.  According to preliminary estimates,
Chicago, nurses on average have been underpaid approximately
about $5,000 annually.

The suit seeks to recover compensation properly earned by nurses
employed in hospitals in the area.  It also seeks costs,
including attorneys' fees and interest.

Lisa Reed is a nurse employed at the Advocate South suburban
Hospital for 10 years.

Mary McDowell was employed as a nurse at the Advocate Christ
Medical Center from 1992 through 2005.

Class members include all nurses employed by hospitals in the
area from June 20, 2002 until the present.

The defendants are:

     -- Advocate Health Care,
     -- Children's Memorial Hospital
     -- Evanston Northwestern Healthcare
     -- Michael Reese Hospital,
     -- Resurrection Health Care, and
     -- University of Chicago Hospitals

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?be5

The suit is "Reed et al. v Advocate Health Care et al., Case No.
06C 3337," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Shadur with referral to Judge
Denlow.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Vanek, Scott A. Ruksakiati and David P.
         Germaine all of Vanek, Vickers & Masini P.C., 225 W.
         Washington, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606, Phone:
         (312) 224-1500, Fax: (312) 224-1510;

     (2) David P. Dean and Mary Joyce Carlson both of James and
         Hoffman, 1101 17th St., NW, Suite 510, Washington D.C.
         20036-4748, Phone: (202) 496-0500, Fax: (202) 496-0555;

     (3) Michael Hausfeld, Joseph M. Sellers, Charles P.
         Tomkins, Allyson B. Baker and Daniel A. Small all of
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
         York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West, Washington, District
         of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-
         408-4699;

     (4) Michael P. Lehmann, Thomas P. Dove, and Kimberly A.
         Kralowec all of The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush Street,
         15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-
         2070, Fax: (415) 982-2076;

     (5) Daniel E. Gustafson and Jason S. Kilene both of
         Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 650 Northstar East, 608 Second
         Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 333-
         8844, Fax: (612) 339-6622; and

     (6) Mark A. Griffin Raymond J. Farrow both of Keller
         Rohrback LLP, 2101 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle,
         WA 98101-3052, Phone: (206) 623-1900, Fax: (206) 623-
         3384.


HOSPITALS: Seven Health Care Providers Sued Over Nurses Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and James & Hoffman,
PC initiated a class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York on behalf of Marjory Unger, a
nurse who worked at Albany Medical Center from 2002 until 2005.

The suit alleges that hospitals in the Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Metropolitan Statistical Area have conspired to keep their
nurses' wages at artificially low levels.

The lawsuits invoke the federal antitrust laws to force the
hospitals to pay their nurses compensation that is long overdue.

According to the suits, these hospitals have been putting their
bottom line ahead of patients and the nurses who care for them.

For years, these hospitals have deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanged detailed, non-public, current
information about the wages each is paying its nurses.  The
purpose and effect of this information exchange has been to
permit the hospitals to suppress nurse wages -- depriving nurses
of a fair wage and contributing to the nursing shortage in the
nation.

According to the lawsuits, the conspiring hospitals have been
taking extreme advantage of a vulnerable but critical component
of the American healthcare system.  In the aggregate, these
hospitals have underpaid nurses in the four cities hundreds of
millions of dollars.  According to preliminary estimates, in
Albany, nurses on average have been underpaid approximately
$6,000 per year.

The suit seeks to recover compensation properly earned by nurses
employed in hospitals in the Albany area.  It also seeks costs,
including attorneys' fees and interest.

Class members include all nurses employed by hospitals in the
Albany area from June 20, 2002 until the present.

The defendants are:

     -- Albany Medical Center,
     -- Ascension Health, Inc.
     -- Catholic Health East,
     -- Ellis Hospital,
     -- Northeast Health,
     -- Seton Health System,
     -- St. Peter's Health Care System

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?be3

The suit is "Unger v. Albany Medical Center et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00765-TJM-DRH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York under Judge Thomas J. McAvoy with
referral to Judge David R. Homer.

Representing the plaintiffs is Daniel A. Small of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 500 West, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3964,
Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699.


HOSPITALS: Nurses Sue Baptist Memorial, Methodist Healthcare
------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and James & Hoffman,
PC initiated a class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on behalf of Suzanne C. Clarke and
Conise P. Dillard, nurses employed in hospitals in the Memphis
area.

The suit alleges that hospitals in the Memphis Metropolitan
Statistical Area have conspired to keep their nurses' wages at
artificially low levels.

The lawsuit invokes the federal antitrust laws to force the
hospitals to pay their nurses compensation that is long overdue.

According to the suit, these hospitals have been putting their
bottom line ahead of patients and the nurses who care for them.

For years, these hospitals have deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanged detailed, non-public, current
information about the wages each is paying its nurses.  The
purpose and effect of this information exchange has been to
permit the hospitals to suppress nurse wages -- depriving nurses
of a fair wage and contributing to the nursing shortage in the
nation.

According to the lawsuits, the conspiring hospitals have been
taking extreme advantage of a vulnerable but critical component
of the American healthcare system.  In the aggregate, these
hospitals have underpaid nurses in the four cities hundreds of
millions of dollars.  According to preliminary estimates,
Memphis, nurses on average have been underpaid approximately
about $14,000 yearly.

The suit seeks to recover compensation properly earned by nurses
employed in hospitals in the area.  It also seeks costs,
including attorneys' fees and interest.

Suzanne C. Clarke is a nurse employed in hospitals operated by
Methodist Healthcare from 1979 until 2006.

Corisse P. Dillard was employed as a nurse at the Memorial
Hospital in Memphis from 1998 until 2004 and from March 2005
until March 2006.

Class members include all nurses employed by hospitals in the
area from June 20, 2002 until the present.

Defendants named in the suit are the Baptist Memorial Healthcare
Corp. and the Methodist Healthcare.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?be6

The suit is "Clarke et al. v. Baptist Memorial HealthCare
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02377-JPM-dkv," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
under Judge Jon Phipps McCalla with referral to Judge Diane K.
Vescovo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David P. Dean and Mary Joyce Carlson both of James and
         Hoffman, 1101 17th St., NW, Suite 510, Washington D.C.
         20036-4748, Phone: (202) 496-0500, Fax: (202) 496-0555;

     (2) Michael Hausfeld, Joseph M. Sellers, Charles P.
         Tomkins, Allyson B. Baker and Daniel A. Small all of
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
         York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West, Washington, District
         of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-
         408-4699;

     (3) Michael P. Lehmann, Thomas P. Dove, and Kimberly A.
         Kralowec all of The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush Street,
         15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-
         2070, Fax: (415) 982-2076;

     (4) Daniel E. Gustafson and Jason S. Kilene both of
         Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 650 Northstar East, 608 Second
         Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 333-
         8844, Fax: (612) 339-6622;

     (5) Mark A. Griffin and Raymond J. Farrow both of Keller
         Rohrback LLP, 2101 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle,
         WA 98101-3052, Phone: (206) 623-1900, Fax: (206) 623-
         3384; and

     (6) Gary K. Smith of Gary K. Smith & Associates, PLLC, The
         Tower at Peabody Place, 100 Peabody Place, Ste. 1050  
         Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-544-6399, Fax: 901-544-
         6398, E-mail: gsmith@garyksmithlaw.com.


HOSPITALS: Nurse Files Suit in Tex. Court Demanding Higher Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and James & Hoffman,
PC initiated a class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of Marissa Maderazo, a nurse
employed at the Methodist Children's Hospital of South Texas
since before June 2002.

The suit alleges that hospitals in the San Antonio Metropolitan
Statistical Area have conspired to keep their nurses' wages at
artificially low levels.

The lawsuit invokes the federal antitrust laws to force the
hospitals to pay their nurses compensation that is long overdue.

According to the suit, these hospitals have been putting their
bottom line ahead of patients and the nurses who care for them.

For years, these hospitals have deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanged detailed, non-public, current
information about the wages each is paying its nurses.  The
purpose and effect of this information exchange has been to
permit the hospitals to suppress nurse wages -- depriving nurses
of a fair wage and contributing to the nursing shortage in the
nation.

According to the lawsuits, the conspiring hospitals have been
taking extreme advantage of a vulnerable but critical component
of the American healthcare system.  In the aggregate, these
hospitals have underpaid nurses in the four cities hundreds of
millions of dollars.  According to preliminary estimates, in San
Antonio, nurses on average have been underpaid approximately
about $1,300 each year.

The suit seeks to recover compensation properly earned by nurses
employed in hospitals in the area. It also seeks costs,
including attorneys' fees and interest.

Class members include all nurses employed by hospitals in the
area from June 20, 2002 until the present.

Defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Vanguard Health Systems a/k/a Baptist Health Systems,
     -- VHS Subsidiary Acquisition Subsidiary Number 5, Inc.,
     -- Hospital Corp. of America, Inc. a/k/a Methodist
        Healthcare System of San Antonio Ltd. LLP, and
     -- Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corp.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?be7

The suit is "Maderazo et al. v Vanguard Health Systems et al.,
Case No. SA06CA0535DG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Luke C. Kellog of Perry & Kellog LLP, 7801 Broadway,
         Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas 78209, Phone: (210) 821-
         3377, Fax: (210) 821-3388;

     (2) David P. Dean and Mary Joyce Carlson both of James and
         Hoffman, 1101 17th St., NW, Suite 510, Washington D.C.
         20036-4748, Phone: (202) 496-0500, Fax: (202) 496-0555;

     (3) Michael Hausfeld, Joseph M. Sellers, Charles P.
         Tomkins, Allyson B. Baker and Daniel A. Small all of
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
         York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West, Washington, District
         of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-
         408-4699;

     (4) Michael P. Lehmann, Thomas P. Dove, and Kimberly A.
         Kralowec all of The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush Street,
         15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-
         2070, Fax: (415) 982-2076; and

     (5) Daniel E. Gustafson and Jason S. Kilene both of
         Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 650 Northstar East, 608 Second
         Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 333-
         8844, Fax: (612) 339-6622.


IDNA INC: Board Approves $2.5M Investor, Derivative Suits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a derivative and class action filed against
iDNA, Inc., formerly National Auto Credit, Inc., and certain of
its directors was approved by the disinterested and independent
members of the company's board of directors.  

The company entered into a November 2004 Amended Stipulation of
Settlement to resolve a derivative and class action, "Robert
Zadra, et al. v. James A. McNamara, et al, Index. No. 01-
604859."  The suit was filed against the company and certain of
its directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County.

Under the terms of the New York Settlement Stipulation, the
company agreed -- subject to certain terms and conditions -- to:

      -- adopt or implement certain corporate governance
         procedures or policies;

      -- issue to a class of iDNA shareholders who had
         continuously held iDNA Common Stock from Dec. 14,
         2000 through Dec. 24, 2002 up to one million
         warrants (one warrant per 8.23 shares of Common Stock),
         with each warrant having a five year term and being
         exercisable for shares of iDNA Common Stock at a price
         of $1.55 per share;

      -- cancel 50% of certain stock options granted on Dec.
         15, 2000;, and

      -- make certain payments for legal fees for counsel to the
         plaintiffs in the New York action.

In addition, the New York Settlement Stipulation created for the
benefit of the company a settlement fund in the amount of $2.5
million, which was funded by an insurance policy.  The legal
fees for counsel to the plaintiffs in the New York Action were
not to exceed 25% of the settlement fund.

                       Derivative Lawsuit  

In order to facilitate the settlement and dismissal of a
separate derivative action, "In re National Auto Credit, Inc.,
Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 19028 NC," as well as the New
York Action, the company entered into a stock purchase agreement
with the Selling Stockholders:

     -- Academy Capital Management, Inc.,
     -- Diamond A. Partners, L.P.,
     -- Diamond A. Investors, L.P.,
     -- Ridglea Investor Services, Inc., and
     -- William S. Banowsky.

The derivative suit was commenced in the Chancery Court for the
State of Delaware.

The Selling Stockholders had also raised objections to the
settlement of the New York Action.  The New York Court rejected
the objections raised by the Selling Stockholders.  It would
later rule that the settlement is fair and in the best interests
of the company and its shareholders.  The Selling Stockholders
then filed an appeal to such determination by the New York
Court.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Selling Stockholders
agreed, among other things, to do:

      -- enter into a stipulation, to be filed with the New York
         Court, pursuant to which they would irrevocably
         withdraw, with prejudice, any objections they had
         asserted or might have asserted with respect to the
         settlement of the New York Action, stipulate to the
         entry of an order dismissing the New York Action and
         agree to the dismissal of the Appeal;

      -- enter into a stipulation (to be filed with the
         Appellate Division, First Department, of the Supreme
         Court of the State of New York) providing for the
         dismissal of the appeal; and

      -- enter into a stipulation, to be filed in the Delaware
         Court, pursuant to which they would agree to the
         dismissal of the Delaware Action with prejudice.

The Selling Stockholders executed and delivered to the company
and it later filed with the applicable New York Court and
Delaware Court each of the stipulations referred to above.

Effective May 5, 2005, the New York court entered a final order
and judgment in which it approved the Stipulation of Dismissal
of Objections, finding the terms set forth therein fair,
reasonable and adequate, and dismissed the New York Action and
the objections to the New York settlement with prejudice.

Effective May, 13, 2005, the Appellate Division, First
Department, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
granted the dismissal of the Appeal.  Effective May 18, 2005,
the Delaware Court granted an Order and Judgment Dismissing
Action with Prejudice the Delaware Action.

As a consequence of each of the above actions by the respective
courts, settlement of the New York Action and the Delaware
Action, were deemed final in June 2005.  The company thus
received net proceeds of $2.0 million from its insurer from the
Settlement Fund in the New York Action.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the company agreed to purchase from
the Selling Shareholders their 1,562,500 shares of iDNA Common
Stock at a price of $0.6732 per share (or a total purchase price
of $1,051,875).  It was also required to contribute $100,000 to
cover a portion of the legal fees incurred by the Selling
Shareholders.  Effective June 30, 2005, iDNA purchased 1,562,500
shares of iDNA Common Stock from the Selling Stockholders.

As a consequence of the confirmation of the New York Settlement
Stipulation, the Dismissing Action with Prejudice of the
Delaware Action and the subsequent purchase by the company of
its own common stock from the Selling Shareholders, for fiscal
2006, the company recorded:

      -- a charge to operations of $100,000 for legal fees of
         the Selling Shareholders;

      -- a charge to operations of $208,000 for the excess cost
         over the market value of the iDNA Common Stock acquired
         as of the date of the Agreement, April 22, 2005;

      -- a charge to other income of $25,000 for the expense of
         the fair value of the warrants to be issued to eligible
         shareholders; and

      -- recognized other income of $2.0 million for the net
         proceeds received by iDNA from the Settlement Fund.

All company shareholders who had continuously held iDNA Common
Stock from Dec. 14, 2000 to Dec. 24, 2004 (eligible
shareholders) were given until December 2005 to submit their
claims for one warrant for each 8.23 shares of common stock
owned during the eligibility period, with each warrant having a
five year term and being exercisable for shares of iDNA Common
Stock at a price of $1.55 per share.

Based upon the final submission of claims by Eligible
Shareholders, in April 2006, iDNA issued 100,282 warrants to
them.

As acknowledged by the Selling Shareholders in the agreement,
the company was willing to enter into the agreement, settle the
New York Action and the Delaware Action and consummate the other
transactions contemplated by the agreement in order to terminate
prolonged and expensive litigation.

In addition, the agreement states that iDNA's entry into it did
not constitute or would not be deemed to constitute or evidence
any improper or illegal conduct by or on behalf of the company
or any of its directors, officers, employees and other agents or
representatives or any other wrongdoing by it or any of its
directors, officers, employees and other agents or
representatives.  

The disinterested and independent members of iDNA's board of
directors approved the agreement, according to the company's May
15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Jan.31, 2006.


IMPSAT FIBER: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc., according to the company's May 15,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On Nov. 1, 2001, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company,
certain individuals who were then officers and directors of the
company, and the underwriters to the company's initial public
offering.

This suit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all
shareholders that the company and its underwriters violated
various provisions of the securities laws in connection with the
IPO in February 2000.

Pursuant to the plan, the plaintiffs in the IPO class action
received in connection with their claims the assignment of any
insurance proceeds, which the company receives in connection
with the litigation, but otherwise the claims of the plaintiffs
against the company or any of its other assets, have been
discharged as part of the Chapter 11 proceedings.

Pursuant to a court order in August 2001, the suit was
consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92," an intra-district
proceeding involving approximately 900 lawsuits relating to the
initial public offerings of approximately 310 companies.

In July 2002, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which was denied as to the company and one
individual officer in February 2003.

In April 2003, the company was advised that global settlement
discussions between the plaintiffs and its insurer, on behalf of
the company and the individual defendants, to resolve
plaintiffs' claims against all 310 companies had reached an
advanced stage.

Among other things, the proposed settlement would result in a
broad release of claims against the company, its officers and
directors, and other issuers, and their officers and directors
without a direct financial contribution by the company.

Settlement papers seeking preliminary approval of the settlement
and certification of the investor class were submitted to the
court in June 2004.  

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposal settlement.  Final approval of the settlement is
pending.

The suit is "In Re IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


INSURERS: Court Revives "Redlining" Lawsuit Against Mo. Firms
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a suit alleging
"redlining "against three major insurers in Kansas City,
Missouri, according to The Kansas City Star.

In 1996, East Side homeowners Cynthia Canaday and Marva Jean
Saunders sued 23 insurance companies, alleging they
discriminated against homeowners in minority neighborhoods in
violation of the federal fair housing and civil rights laws.

In 1997, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. dismisses the
case, ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing because they did
not allege "direct injury."  Plaintiffs filed 10 new actions
against individual insurers.  Some were settled, others
dismissed, leaving only the cases against Farmers Insurance
Exchange, American Family Mutual Insurance Co. and Shelter
General Insurance Co.

The trial court dismissed the cases, saying the plaintiffs had
not proved they had applied for homeowners insurance and been
rejected for reasons related to the challenged underwriting
criteria.

The plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit Court.  The appeals
court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs had not
proved they had suffered direct injuries, but allowed it to
proceed finding the lower court wrong in dismissing plaintiffs'
claims that the insurers' pricing policies and practices
reflected unlawful race discrimination.

Representing the plaintiffs is Michael D. Lieder of Sprenger &
Lang, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, District of
Columbia 20005, Phone: 202-265-8010, Fax: 202-332-6652.


LOUISIANA: June 27 Hearing Set in Suit Against Video Games Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge James Brady issued a temporary restraining
order against the enforcement of a new Louisiana law aimed at
keeping violent video games away from children, according to
Associated Press.  A court hearing was set for June 27, 2006,
the report said.

The order was issued after the Entertainment Software
Association and Entertainment Merchants Association filed a suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,
to overturn the state's new video game law.  Under HB 1381,
vendors would be subject to fines of between $100 and $2,000 and
up to a year in prison if caught selling video games containing
"violent" content to minors.

The suit is "Entertainment Software Association et al. v. Foti
et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00431-JJB-CN," filed under Judge James
J. Brady with referral to Judge Christine Noland.

Representing the plaintiffs is James A. Brown of Liskow & Lewis-
LAF, P.O. Box 52008, Lafayette, LA 70505, Phone: 337-232-7424,
Fax: 504-556-4108, E-mail: jabrown@liskow.com.


L Q CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a securities class action against L Q Corp.,
Inc., according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006.

The company is a defendant in certain purported class actions
filed by individual shareholders in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against certain of its former
officers and directors, and various of the underwriters in its
initial public offering and secondary offering.

The suits have been filed by individual shareholders who purport
to seek class action status on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons who purchased the common stock of the company
between July 8, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000.

They allege that certain underwriters of the initial public
offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees
and commissions in connection with that offering.  

It further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the company's initial public
offering which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On or about Oct. 8, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing
the claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions without any payment from these individuals
or the company.

On or about Feb. 19, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice the claims asserted against the company under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

As a result, the only claims that remain against the company are
those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The company entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the
remaining claims in the litigation.  The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the company and its present and former
directors and officers.

It is anticipated that the company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance will handle any payment to the plaintiff
class and their counsel.  Essentially, the company will make no
direct payment.

The parties have negotiated and executed a definitive settlement
agreement.  The proposed settlement provides that the class
members in the class action cases brought against the
participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of
$1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

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

In addition, the company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.

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

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon
obtaining approval by the court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the Ccourt
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement at which objections to the proposed settlement were
heard.

The court did not issue a ruling at the fairness hearing.  The
settlement remains subject to a number of conditions, including
final approval of the court.

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


MARYLAND: Baltimore City Police Faces Suit Over Illegal Arrests
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore City Police Department is facing a suit over
alleged illegal arrests filed by The American Civil Liberties
Union of Maryland and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, TheWBALChannel.com reports.

Defendants in the suit are:

     (1) Baltimore City Police Department, 601 East
         Fayette St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

     (2) Leonard Hamm, Commissioner, Baltimore City Police  
         Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

     (3) Martin O'Maley, Baltimore Mayor, 100 North Holliday  
         St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

     (4) Baltimore City Council, 100 North Holliday St.,
         Baltimore, MD 21202;

     (5) Marcus L. Brown, Deputy Commissioner, Baltimore City
         Police Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD
         21202;

     (6) Kevin Clark, 321 Union Ave., Mount Vernon, NY 10550;

     (7) Edward T. Norris, 1621 East 51st St., Brooklyn, NY  
         11234;

     (8) Jemini Jones, Police Officer, Baltimore City Police
         Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

     (9) David A. Crites, Jr., Police Officer, Baltimore City
         Police Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD
         21202;

    (10) Sgt. Pecha, Police Officer, Baltimore City Police
         Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

    (11) B. Newkirk, Police Officer, Baltimore City Police
         Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

    (12) Arnold Jones, Police Officer, Baltimore City Police
         Department, 601 East Fayette St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

    (13) State of Maryland, Baltimore Central Booking and Intake
         Center, 400 East Madison St., Baltimore, MD 21202;

    (14) Mary Ann Saar, Secretary, Department of Public Safety  
         and Correctional Services, c/o J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,
         Attorney General of Maryland, 200 St. Paul Place,
         Baltimore, MD 21202;

    (15) William J. Smith, Commissioner, Division of Pretrial
         Detention and Services, 400 East Madison St.,
         Baltimore, MD 21202;

    (16) Mitchell Franks, Warden, Baltimore Central Booking and
         Intake Center, 400 East Madison St., Baltimore, MD
         21202;

    (17) Susan Murphy, 400 East Madison St., Baltimore, MD
         21202.

The defendants are accused of:

     -- engaging in a pattern illegal arrest of in violation of
        the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of
        Rights;

     -- conducting visual body cavity and strip searches of male
        arrestees without probable cause or individualized
        suspicion that they are carrying weapons or contraband;
        and

     -- detaining many arrestees beyond the statutory time of 24
        hours.

Further, the defendants are accused of encouraging such
indiscriminate arrests with a reward and punishment system.

Plaintiffs in the case include the State NAACP Conference, the
Baltimore City NAACP and several individuals who have had their
rights violated from alleged illegal arrests.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

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

The suit is "NAACP et al. v. BCPD et al., Case No. 24-C-06-
005088," filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Deborah A. Jeon and David R. Rocah of the American
         Civil Liberties Union of Maryland Foundation, 3600
         Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD 21211,  
         Phone: (410) 889-8555, Fax: (410) 366-7838; and

     (2) Mitchell A. Karlan, Wayne A. Schrader, Daniel A. Cantu,
         Scott Dodson, Jan M. Geht and Jason E. Morrow all of
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue
         N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20036, Phone:   
         (202) 955-8500, Fax: (202) 467-0539.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Enters $575M Settlement in N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Ltd. entered into stipulations and agreements of
settlement in two actions with respect to the previously
announced agreement in principle for a proposed settlement of
certain shareholder class suits with the lead plaintiffs in two
significant class suits pending in the Southern District of New
York.

As previously announced, the proposed settlement was
conditioned, among other things, on the resolution of related
Canadian shareholder class actions.

Nortel has now also reached agreement with the plaintiffs in
those Canadian actions with respect to the global settlement as
set forth in the stipulations and agreements of settlement.

These various settlement agreements encompass most pending and
proposed shareholder class actions commenced against the company
and certain other defendants following the company's
announcement of revised financial guidance during 2001, and the
company's revisions of its 2003 financial results and
restatement of other prior periods effected during the first
half of 2005.

Under the terms of the global settlement, subject to certain
approvals, the company would:

      -- make a payment of $575 million in cash,

      -- issue 628,667,750 of its common shares (representing
         approximately 14.5% of its equity), and

      -- contribute one-half of any recovery in the existing       
         litigation by Nortel against Messrs. Frank Dunn,
         Douglas Beatty and Michael Gollogly, the company's
         former senior officers who were terminated for cause in
         April 2004.

The cash amount bears interest as of March 23, 2006 at a
prescribed rate and was paid into escrow as of June 1, 2006
pending satisfactory completion of all conditions to the
settlement.

Further, previously announced settlement terms with respect to
insurance and corporate governance related matters remain
unchanged.  The settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing
by the company or any of the other defendants.

The settlement remains conditioned, among other things, on
receipt of all required court, securities regulatory and stock
exchange approvals.  Although settlement agreements have been
entered into, at this time, there can be no assurance that all
conditions to such agreements will be satisfied.

The company will continue to cooperate fully with the U.S. and
Canadian securities regulators and law enforcement authorities
in their ongoing investigations relating to the company's
accounting restatements, and the settlement does not relate to
these ongoing investigations.

The settlement also does not encompass the previously disclosed
related ERISA action, the previously disclosed pending
application in Canada for leave to commence a derivative action
against certain current and former officers and directors of
Nortel, and the previously reported proposed Ontario shareholder
class action against Nortel and certain current and former
directors and certain former officers in respect of the payment
of cash bonuses to executives, officers and employees in 2003
and 2004 under the Nortel Networks Return to Profitability bonus
program.

                         Case Background   

In 2005, Nortel Networks begun mediation for more than twenty-
five purported consolidated securities class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
related to the company's Feb. 15, 2001 announcement in which it
provided revised guidance for financial performance for the 2001
fiscal year and the first quarter of 2001.

The suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired
company securities as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and as late as Feb.
15, 2001.  It alleged, among other things, violations of U.S.
federal and Canadian provincial securities laws.  These matters
also have been the subject of review by Canadian and U.S.
securities regulatory authorities (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
16, 2005).

The suit is "Weinstein, et al. v. Nortel Networks, et. al., Case
No. 1:01-cv-01855-RMB-MHD," filed in the U.S. District Court for  
the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman,  
with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger.

Representing the defendants is Richard F. Albert of Morvillo,
Abramowitz of Grand, Iason & Silberberg, P.C., 565 Fifth Avenue,
New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 856-9600.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steven G. Schulman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-946-9356; Fax: 212-273-4406; E-mail:
sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and Daniel Bernard Scotti of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300; Fax: 212-868-1229; E-
mail: dscotti@milberg.com.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Allowed to Advance Employee Defense Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines Corp. and its debtor-affiliates obtained
authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York to advance the defense costs incurred by
certain directors, officers or employees who are named as
defendants in certain pending ERISA and securities class
actions.

                       Class Action Suits

On Oct. 14, 2005, Jennifer Karpiuk filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of a
purported class of participants in various Northwest-sponsored
retirement plans, alleging violations of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  On Nov. 3, 2005, Neil
Hastings filed a nearly identical complaint with the Minnesota
District Court.

On Dec. 20, 2005, Bernard J. Gesenhues filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Northwest securities during the relevant
class period alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934.

On April 7, 2006, various participants in Northwest Airlines-
sponsored retirement and pension plans filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a purported class of participants in the
Plans, alleging ERISA violations.  The plaintiffs are:

   -- Bruce W. Cress, Peter Ochabauer, Walter Boulden, Keith
      Schilling, Mark A. Knudsen, and Christopher J. Parkyn,
      allegedly participants in both the Northwest Airlines
      Retirement Savings Plan for Pilot Employees and the
      Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees; and

   -- Amanda R. Ochabauer and Bernard C. Larkin, allegedly
      participants in both the Northwest Airlines Retirement
      Savings Plan for Contract Employees and the Northwest
      Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees.

                     Class Action Defendants

The ERISA complaints name 26 individuals and two committees as
defendants.  Among the defendants are:

   a. Douglas Steenland, the Debtors' chief executive officer;

   b. Terri Keimig, the Debtors' director of Retirement Savings
      and Stock Plans;

   c. Timothy Meginnes, vice president of Compensation Benefits;

   d. Michael Becker, senior vice president of Human Resources
      and Labor Relations;

   e. Daniel Matthews, senior vice president and treasurer;

   f. Robert Brodin, the Debtors' former senior vice president
      of Labor Relations and is currently a Debtors' consultant
      to supervising labor negotiations with the their pilots
      union;

   g. four current members of the Debtors' Board of Directors:

      -- Mr. Gary Wilson,
      -- Mr. Frederic Malek,
      -- Mr. Dennis Hightower, and
      -- Mr. George Kourpias;

   h. Richard Blum and V.A. Ravindran, the Debtors' former
      directors;

   i. Richard Anderson and John Dasburg, the Debtors' former
      chief executive officers; and

   j. James Mathews, the Debtors' former vice president of
      Finance and chief accounting officer.

The Securities complaint is also brought against the Debtors'
current or former officers and board members:

   -- Mr. Steenland,
   -- Mr. Wilson,
   -- Bernard Han, a former officer, and
   -- Alfred Checchi, a former member of the Debtors' Board of
      Directors.

Northwest previously filed a request to stay the Class Actions.
The Court denied the Debtors' request, noting that there appears
to be a large deductible in the case that would leave the
defendants uninsured for up to $5,000,000 and that the insurer's
obligation to defend does not provide for defense costs in the
interim.

Judge Gropper added that the Debtors have their remedies before
the Court.  He held that the incurrence of costs that the
Debtors have obligations to advance under their charter might
constitute an immediate distraction.

Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,
in New York, notes that the Class Action Defendants are entitled
under applicable state law and Northwest's bylaws to
indemnification, including the advancement of legal expenses,
including attorneys' fees, incurred to defend the Class Actions.

Northwest is the owner of two liability insurance policies:

   a. an Employee Benefit Plan Fiduciary Liability Insurance
      Policy with National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
      Pittsburgh, PA, as issuer, which provides coverage for
      loss, including defense costs, resulting from claims
      against Northwest, certain of its benefit plans, plan
      fiduciaries or administrators, arising from an actual or
      alleged violation of fiduciary duties with respect to an
      ERISA plan; and

   b. an Executive and Organization Liability Insurance Policy
      -- the D&O Policy -- with the National Union, which
      provides coverage for loss, including defense costs,
      arising from claims against an executive or employee of
      Northwest, arising from any actual or alleged act or
      omission by such executive or employee in his or her
      official capacity.

Mr. Petrick discloses that, in the case of an indemnifiable
loss, National Union is liable to Northwest for the amount of
loss in excess of the retention amount of $5,000,000 under each
of the Fiduciary Policy and the D&O Policy.

In the event of a loss that Northwest has neither indemnified
nor is permitted or required to indemnify pursuant to law or
contract or charter, bylaws, operating agreement or similar
documents of Northwest, the Policies provide for coverage by
National Union without regard to any retention.

Accordingly, the Debtors propose to advance the defense costs of
the Class Action Defendants up to the retention amounts under
the Policies.

Mr. Petrick asserts that it is in the Debtors' best interests
that the Class Action Defendants not incur personal pecuniary
injury because of their employment with the Debtors and as a
result of the Class Actions, which create the potential for
distraction of the Debtors' key employees from the task of
reorganizing.

                    About Northwest Airlines

Northwest Airlines Corp. (OTC: NWACQ) -- http://www.nwa.com/--  
is the world's fourth largest airline with hubs at Detroit,
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Memphis, Tokyo and Amsterdam, and
approximately 1,400 daily departures.  Northwest is a member of
SkyTeam, an airline alliance that offers customers one of the
world's most extensive global networks.  

Northwest and its travel partners serve more than 900 cities in
excess of 160 countries on six continents.  The company and 12
affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 14, 2005
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 05-17930).  Bruce R. Zirinsky,
Esq., and Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft LLP in New York, and Mark C. Ellenberg, Esq., at
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in Washington represent the
Debtors in their restructuring efforts.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has retained Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as its bankruptcy counsel in the
Debtors' chapter 11 cases.  When the Debtors filed for
protection from their creditors, they listed $14.4 billion in
total assets and $17.9 billion in total debts.  (Northwest
Airlines Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 27; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000).


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Pre-Bankruptcy Fees to Cadwalader Disclosed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines Inc. started paying its lead bankruptcy
attorneys five months before the company filed for Chapter 11 in
September, the Detroit Free Press reports, citing a court filing
by the airline.

Northwest Chairman Gary Wilson could face questions on what he
knew about the company when he began selling the majority of his
stock in April, said Richard Kruger, attorney with Jaffe Raitt
Heuer & Weiss, according to the report.

Northwest's lead bankruptcy counsel is Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft in New York, which received three payments adding up to
$974,940.86, according to the court filing.

On Dec. 20, 2005, Bernard J. Gesenhues filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Northwest securities during the relevant
class period alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (Troubled Company Reporter, Vol. 10, No. 128).  Mr.
Wilson is named defendant in the suit.

Northwest Airlines Corp. and 12 affiliates filed for chapter
11 protection on Sept. 14, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No.
05-17930).  Bruce R. Zirinsky, Esq., and Gregory M. Petrick,
Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York, and Mark
C. Ellenberg, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in
Washington represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.


POLAND: N.Y. Lawsuit Seeks $1.26B Pre-World War II Bond Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. lawyer filed a class action against Poland seeking EUR1
billion ($1.26 billion) in payment for pre-World War II bonds to
the families of Holocaust victims, according to Polskie Radio.

Ed Fagan filed his suit in a New York court on behalf of 600
families of Holocaust victims living in the U.S.  His suit
concerns securities which were issued by the State Treasury
before the Second World War and were not purchased by the
government before the outbreak of hostilities, according to the
Warsaw Business Journal.  He is being supported by a New York-
based group called Association for Restitution of Polish Assets
and Property, The Scotsman reported.

According to Polskie Radio, Mr. Fagan claims that since 1945 all
Polish governments 'knowingly misled bondholders by failing to
honor debts or establish a program through which such claims
could be paid'.

Mr. Charles Edward Fagan's address is 606 Hotel Jamestown Off.
Bldg., Jamestown, New York (Chautauqua Co.).


SELECT MEDICAL: Discovery, Certification to Begin in Pa. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action pending against Select Medical Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania is set to move to the discovery and class
certification phase, according to the company's May 15, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On Aug. 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed a
purported class action complaint on behalf of the public
stockholders of the company against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A.
Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice and the company.

In February 2005, the court appointed James Shaver, Frank C.
Bagatta and Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der
Bank Austria Creditanstalt Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.

On April 19, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders of Select,
against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A.
Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the company as defendants.

The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things,
failure to disclose adverse information regarding a potential
regulatory change affecting reimbursement for the company's
services applicable to long-term acute care hospitals operated
as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance of false and
misleading statements about the financial outlook of the
company.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees.  The company
believes that the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this
action.

The court granted in part and denied in part the company's and
the individual officers' preliminary motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The company and the individual officers will
now answer the amended complaint and the case will move to the
discovery and class certification phase.  

The suit is "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the U.S. District for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge J. Curtis Joyner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Lori G. Feldman, Shannon L. Hopkins
         and Peter E. Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
         sdumain@milbergweiss.com, lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
         shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Eric L. Young of Kenney Lennon & Egan, 3031 Walton
         Road, Building C, Suite 202, Plymouth, PA 19462, Phone:
         215-260-5493, E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com.

Representing the defendants are, David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Stuart T. Steinberg of Dechert, LLP, Phone: 215-
994-4000, 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2521, E-mail:
david.howard@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com and
stuart.steinberg@dechert.com.


TENFOLD CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
TenFold Corp., according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

On Nov. 6, 2001, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants the
company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.

An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2002.  The company
and certain of the company's officers and directors are named in
the suit pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the
basis of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters'
alleged compensation and manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated Oct. 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted a motion to dismiss the Rule
10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the company.

On June 27, 2003, the company's board of directors approved a
proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the company's and of the individual defendants for the alleged
wrongful conduct in the Amended complaint.  

The company agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims that it may have
against its underwriters.

In June 2004, a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed with the Court.  The underwriters filed a
memorandum with the court opposing preliminary approval of the
settlement.  

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb.
15, 2005, subject to certain modifications.  On Aug. 31, 2005,
the court issued a preliminary order further approving the
modifications to the settlement and certifying the settlement
classes.

The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on Nov.
15, 2005.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006, though
the court issued no ruling.

The suit is "In re Tenfold Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Turnstone Systems, Inc., according to the company's May 15, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On Nov. 9, 2001, Arthur Mendoza filed a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging claims against the company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering of stock as well as the
company's secondary offering of stock.

The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the company's initial
public offering and secondary stock offering between Jan.31 and
Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaint generally alleges that the prospectuses under
which such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and commissions received by
the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over
300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently
pending in the Southern District of New York.

On April 18, 2002, Michael Szymanowski was appointed lead
plaintiff in the action.  On April 22, 2002, an amended
complaint was filed.  

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss.  On July 15, 2002, the company, collectively
with the other issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss.

Lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the underwriters' motion
to dismiss on Aug. 15, 2002 and to the issuers' motion to
dismiss on Aug. 27, 2002.  

The underwriters' reply to the opposition was filed on Sept. 13,
2002, and the company's reply to the opposition was filed on
Sept. 27, 2002.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motions
to dismiss with respect to substantially all of the plaintiffs'
claims, including those against the company.

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposed settlement and release of claims against the issuer
defendants, including the company.

In August 2005, the court entered an order affirming its
preliminary approval for the proposed settlement, and scheduled
a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement to the
shareholder class for April 2006.

In April 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection
with the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement,
but did not indicate when it would issue a decision regarding
final approval of the settlement.

The suit is "In Re Turnstone Systems,Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNITED STATES: Raisin Growers File Suit Over Reserve Program
------------------------------------------------------------
More than 30 Central Valley raisin growers are suing the Raisin
Administrative Council over a marketing order that sets aside
part of their crop as reserve, The Selma Enterprise reports.

The suit was filed by Marvin Horne, a Kerman grower, and other
growers from Caruthers, Fresno, Selma, Madera, Fowler and Clovis
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington D.C. on June
1.

Under the Raisin Reserve Program, a yearly pre-determined
percentage of the raisins delivered by growers to packers is
considered free tonnage, and the remaining is considered reserve
tonnage.  The growers are paid only for the free tonnage.  They
must hold the reserve tonnage until the Raisin Administrative
Council, which prescribes the free tonnage, needs them.  The
practice is used to stabilize raisin prices.

Plaintiffs claim the allocation of a part of their crop without
payment from the government violates the U.S. Constitution,
Amend V.  They are seeking reimbursement for losses on behalf of
all California raisin producers whose raisins have been taken by
the RAC through the Reserve Raisin Program from June 1, 2000 to
now.

Michael Stumo, based out of the Omaha, Nebraska, firm of David
A. Domina, represents the strictly central San Joaquin Valley
based farmers.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Consolidation of Wiretapping Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Justice Department filed a motion on June 19 supporting
Verizon Communications Inc.'s request to consolidate 20
wiretapping class actions in a Washington court, Reuters
reports.  Verizon asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict on
May 24 to consolidate 20 similar lawsuits that were filed
against it in 14 federal district courts.

The District of Columbia is the "the most logical and convenient
forum" for the case because of national security reasons, the
filing said.

According to the report, the government also asked that five
other lawsuits against the U.S. government related to the
surveillance program be consolidated and coordinated with the
Verizon proceeding.

In May, the Mason Law Firm, P.C. filed 15 class actions in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of
millions of persons in the U.S. who are residential customers of
telephone or Internet services provided by Verizon Corp., AT&T
Inc., and BellSouth Corp.  

The complaints allege that the National Security Agency began a
classified surveillance program shortly after Sept. 11,  
2001, to intercept the telephone and Internet communications of
persons inside the U.S. without judicial authorization.

The plaintiffs claim that in violation of the Electronic Privacy  
Act of 1986, Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth provided customer
records to the government.  The privacy Act bars the telephone
carriers from turning over information about calls except in
extremely limited circumstances.  The suit seeks the minimum
penalty of $1,000 for each person whose information was
compromised.  

The AT&T complaint -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?94c-- is    
"Harold Ludman on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. AT&T Inc."

The BellSouth complaint -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?94d   
-- is "David M. Discoll, Jr., Anne Brydon Taylor, and Cory  
Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Verizon Communications, Inc."   

The Verizon complaint -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?94e--  
is "Lawrence Phillips on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. BellSouth Corp.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th  
         St. NW, Suite 500, Washinton D.C. 20038, Phone: (202)  
         429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294;

     (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., One  
         Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632, New York, NY 10119,  
         Phone: (212)-362-5770, Fax: (917)-591-5227

     (3) Peter N. Wasylyk of the Law Offices of Peter N.  
         Wasylyk, 1307 Chalkstone Avenue, Providence, RI 02908,  
         Phone: (401)-831-7730, Fax: (401)-861-6064;

     (4) Andrew Kierstead of the Law Offices of Andrew  
         Kierstead, 101 S.W. 5th Ave., Suite 1100, Portland OR  
         97204, Phone: (508) 224-6246, Fax: (508) 224-4356; and

     (5) John C. Whitfield of Whitfield & Cox, PSC, 29 East  
         Center St., Madisonville, KY 42431, Phone: (270) 821-
         0656, Fax: (270) 825-1163 (for the AT&T suit only).


VERTICALNET INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Verticalnet, Inc., according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.

On June 12, 2001, a class action was filed against the company
and several of its officers and directors in U.S. Federal Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Also named as,
defendants were four underwriters involved in the issuance and
initial public offering of the company's common stock in
February 1999.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities law based
on, among other things, claims that the underwriters:

      -- awarded material portions of the initial shares to
         certain favored customers in exchange for excessive
         commissions; and

      -- engaged in a practice known as "laddering," whereby the
         clients or customers agreed that in exchange for IPO
         shares they would purchase additional shares at
         progressively higher prices after the IPO.

With respect to Verticalnet, the complaint alleges that
Verticalnet and its officers and directors failed to disclose in
the prospectus and the registration statement the existence of
these purported excessive commissions and laddering agreements.

After the initial complaint was filed, other plaintiffs filed
several "copycat" complaints with nearly identical allegations
in the District Court.  

All of the suits were consolidated into a single amended
complaint containing additional factual allegations concerning
the events set forth in the original complaints filed with the
District Court in April 2002.

In October 2002, the district court entered an order dismissing,
without prejudice, the claims against the individual defendant
officers and directors who had been named as defendants in the
various complaints.

In February 2003, the district court entered an order denying a
motion made by the defendants to dismiss the actions in their
entirety, but granting the motion as to certain of the claims
against some defendants.

However, the district court did not dismiss any claims against
the company.  In June 2003, the company's counsel, with the
approval of its directors, executed a memorandum of
understanding on behalf of the company with respect to a
proposed settlement of the plaintiffs' claims against it.

The proposed settlement, if finally approved by the district
court, would result in, among other things, the dismissal of all
claims against the company and its officers and directors.

Under the present terms of the proposed settlement, the company
would also assign its claims against the underwriters to the
plaintiffs in the consolidated actions.

In February 2005, the district court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement and held a final "fairness" hearing on the
settlement in April 2006, but reserved a ruling on the
settlement.

The suit is "In Re Verticalnet, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: Faces Lawsuit in N.Mex. Over ANM Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a purported class action pending in the State of
New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District
against Westland Development Co., Inc., filed their opposition
to the suit on March 24, 2006.

The suit was filed by Rachel Stubbs on Feb. 21, 2006.  Ms.
Stubbs purports to represent a class of all of the company's
shareholders and seeks both injunctive relief and damages
arising out of the company's then-proposed merger with ANM
Holdings, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants, all of
Westland's directors, breached their fiduciary duty to
shareholders by entering into an agreement to sell the company
to ANM at all or for a price that is less than its true value.

It also alleges that the directors have conflicts of interest
because they hold what the complaint alleges are "Change in
Control" shares of Westland common stock and because of certain
employment agreements.

In addition to purporting to allege a breach of fiduciary duty,
plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in insider trading
in violation of New Mexico's securities law, engaged in a
conspiracy to do the alleged wrongful acts described in the
complaint, and aided and abetted each other in the breach of
fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff also seeks to enforce a purported demand for
inspection of the company's books and records pursuant to New
Mexico's corporations law.

In addition to filing the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion
for expedited discovery.  The defendants filed their opposition
on March 24, 2006.

The suit is "Rachel M. Stubbs, by her administrator Gordon H.
Flynn, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. Barbara Page, Sosimo S. Padilla, Jose S.
Chavez, Josie Castillo, Charles V. Pena, Georgia Baca, Troy K.
Benavidez, Ray Mares, Jr., Randolph M. Sanchez and Doe
Defendants 1-100, Defendants, CV 2006 01455."


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Named in Injury Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corporation continues to defend against
suits alleging personal injury from asbestos exposure.

Like many other industrial firms, the Company faces suits citing
exposure to chemicals and particulates integrated into its
premises and processes and certain historical products.

The Company said that the particulates are no longer
incorporated in any manufactured products and that safety
protocols have been implemented to reduce exposure to chemicals
and remaining particulates in the workplace. To date, the
Company has been dismissed from a number of these suits and has
settled a number of others.

Based in Portland, Oregon, Precision Castparts Corp. makes
investment castings used in aerospace and power generation
applications. Its products include jet engine parts, fluid
management valves, and deep-hole boring tools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Faces Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc. continues to defend against suits
filed in Mississippi state courts alleging illnesses from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The complaints, filed also against as many as 200 other
companies, seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Since the cases are in its initial stages, the Company is not
certain whether any plaintiffs have dealt with any of the its
products, were exposed to an asbestos-containing part of a
Company product, or whether that part could have been a
contributor to the alleged illness.

The Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to products from
certain subsidiaries of predecessor Invensys Metering Systems.
Those indemnities, when combined with other claims, are limited
to the purchase price paid by the Company in connection with the
acquisition of Invensys on December 17, 2003.

Based in Raleigh, North Carolina, Sensus Metering Systems Inc.
provides metering and Automatic Meter Reading solutions for
water, gas, electric, and heat utilities as well as sub-metering
entities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Sees $188M Recoveries Under Treaty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.'s recorded gross
reinsurance recoveries of asbestos and pollution losses, under
the Blanket Casualty Treaty (BCT) as of June 30, 2006, amounted
to about US$188 million.

On June 15, 2006, the Company entered into an agreement with
Equitas and all Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas that
resolves the Company's ceded and assumed domestic reinsurance
exposures with Equitas. This includes the Company's reinsurance
recoveries from Equitas under the Company's BCT.

During the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company completed an asbestos
reserve evaluation. The Company reviewed its open direct
domestic insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability and
assumed reinsurance accounts and certain closed accounts.

Based in Hartford, Connecticut, The Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property/casualty
insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers'
compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 575
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation, as of April 2, 2006, was named a
defendant in 575 asbestos-related bodily injury claims, of which
25 are "malignant" and 550 are "non-malignant." These claims are
included in about 429 open cases.

As of the February 10, 2006 Class Action Reporter edition, the
Company defended in about 593 personal injury claims, of which
24 cases are "malignant" and 569 are "non-malignant."

The Company has been named in civil actions by parties alleging
damages from exposure to toxic substances, mainly asbestos, at
its Seattle, Washington shipyard and former facilities. Aside
from the Company, the cases include as defendants other ship
builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers.

About 211 cases do not assert any specific amount of relief
sought. About 159 cases contain standard boilerplate language
asserting on behalf of each claimant a claim for compensatory
damages of US$2 million and punitive damages of US$20 million
against about 20 to 100 defendants.

About 36 cases set forth the same boilerplate language asserting
US$5-US$20 million in compensatory and US$5-US$20 million in
punitive damages on behalf of each claimant against about 20-100
defendants.

About 18 cases assert US$1-US$5 million in compensatory and
US$5-US$10 million in punitive damages on behalf of each
claimant against about 20-100 defendants. About 5 cases seek
compensatory damages of less than US$1 million per claim.

At April 2, 2006 and April 3, 2005, bodily injury reserves were
at US$7.3 million. Bodily injury insurance receivables increased
from US$5.3 million at April 3, 2005 to US$5.5 million at April
2, 2006.

The Company resolved nine malignant claims in 2006 compared with
11 in 2005 and 15 in 2004.

Based in Seattle, Washington, Todd Shipyards Corp., through
subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains,
overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial vessels.
The U.S. Government, through the Navy and the Coast Guard,
accounts for more than 90 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moscow CableCom Faces Lone New York Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moscow CableCom Corporation's subsidiary, JM Ney, now known as
Andersen Land Corp., continues to defend against an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau
County of New York.

In March 2004 and April 2004, JM Ney was served with a summons
and a complaint in a suit, captioned Loretta Brienza and Brent
Brienza v. A.W. Chesterton Co. et al., and a matter that has
since been dismissed.

In the suit, JM Ney and in excess of 100 other parties were
named as defendants in an asbestos-related civil action for
negligence and product liability.

The plaintiffs claim damages from being exposed to asbestos and
asbestos products alleged to have been made or supplied by the
defendants, including JM Ney's former dental division.

The plaintiffs have not provided any specific allegations of
facts as to which defendants may have manufactured or supplied
asbestos and asbestos products.

Based on the answers to the inquiries that have been supplied by
the plaintiffs' attorneys, it does not appear to the Company
that JM Ney manufactured any asbestos-containing products.

Based in New York City, New York, Moscow CableCom Corp., has
investments in broadband communications in Moscow. The Company
is building a communications network in Moscow through a license
to provide broadband communications services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Eastern Contends With Louisiana Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEPPCO Partners LP's general partner Texas Eastern Pipeline Co.
LLC faces a multi-defendant asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
numerous plaintiffs in the first Judicial District Court, Caddo
Parish in Louisiana.

In May 2003, Texas Eastern was named a defendant in the suit
styled John R. James et al. v. J Graves Insulation Co., et al.
Plaintiffs alleged to have suffered damages as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products and materials.

According to the petition and as a result of a preliminary
investigation, Texas Eastern stated that the only claim asserted
against it resulted from an individual who worked on a facility,
which was owned by a predecessor, from July 1971 through July
1972.

The individual's claims involve numerous employers and alleged
job sites. Texas Eastern has been unable to confirm involvement
by it or its predecessors with the alleged location, and it is
uncertain whether the case is covered by insurance.

Discovery is planned and the plaintiffs have not stipulated the
amount of damages that they are seeking in this suit. TEPPCO is
obligated to reimburse Texas Eastern for any costs it incurs
related to this suit.

Based in Houston, Texas, TEPPCO Partners LP transports refined
petroleum products through more than 5,500 miles of pipeline
between Texas and New York. The Company also transports more
than 2.4 billion cu. ft. of natural gas a day through more than
1,900 miles of pipeline in Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and
Wyoming.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Restores Lawsuit v. Metalclad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a
prior court's ruling, which had ordered the dismissal of an
asbestos-related complaint filed by Robert and Balaria Goodwin
against Metalclad Insulation Corporation and other defendants.

The panel, comprised of Justice Patti S. Kitching, Presiding
Justice Joan D. Klein, and Justice Richard D. Aldrich, decided
on Case No. B178424 on March 28, 2006.

On December 3, 2001, the Goodwins sued numerous defendants,
including Metalclad, alleging that the defendants provided
asbestos-containing products, which caused injuries to Mr.
Goodwin. The complaint alleged that Mr. Goodwin had used or had
been exposed to these products at various locations.

The complaint alleged that Mr. Goodwin's exposure caused him to
sustain severe and permanent injury, including breathing
difficulties, asbestosis, lung or other cancer, mesothelioma, or
other lung damage.

The complaint against Metalclad alleged Mr. Goodwin's causes of
action for negligence, strict product liability, false
representation, intentional tort, and premises owner or
contractor liability. Mrs. Goodwin sued for loss of consortium.

On February 14, 2002, Metalclad responded and on June 23, 2003,
the Goodwins served their designation of 32 expert witnesses.  

On May 11, 2004, Metalclad served a notice to depose the
Goodwins' expert witnesses within the expert discovery cutoff
date based on the June 21, 2004 trial date. The Goodwins'
attorneys responded to Metalclad's notice to depose the
Goodwins' expert witnesses.

On August 5, 2004, the trial court filed a judgment of nonsuit.
The judgment ordered Metalclad to recover judgment on the merits
against the Goodwins, the complaint to be dismissed, and
defendant Metalclad to recover its costs as against the
Goodwins.

The Goodwins filed a timely notice of appeal. The Appeals Court
concluded that the order sustaining defendants' objection and
excluding the Goodwins' expert witnesses' testimony from
evidence was an abuse of discretion.

Alan R. Brayton, Gilbert L. Purcell, Lloyd F. LeRoy, and David
L. Fiol of Brayton Purcell represented the Goodwins.

William J. Sayers, Farah S. Nicol, and Margaret I. Johnson of
McKenna Long & Aldridge represented Metalclad Insulation Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phil. Water Firm to Replace Asbestos Pipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mabalacat Water District in the Philippine province of
Pampanga will replace the old asbestos cement pipes, which are
still used as water distribution lines in at least three
villages, SunStar reports.

MWD General Manager Francis Dimaliwat said the asbestos cement
pipes would be replaced with new polyvinyl chloride pipes. The
water district would spend more than PHP4 million for the PVC
pipes, which will be installed in villages including San
Joacquin, Poblacion and San Francisco.

Mr. Dimaliwat admitted that the rehabilitation of the old lines
was delayed. However, he disclosed that MWD management has been
implementing programs to ensure the safety of its consumers.

Residents in Barangay San Francisco had been urging the MWD
officials to replace the asbestos lines in the village. They
feared that the asbestos part of the old distribution lines
might cause asbestosis and other ailments to water consumers.

Mr. Dimaliwat said the project is in line with the water
district's rehabilitation program.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files GBP200T Claim v. Corus, Alstom
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Brewer has filed a U.K. High Court claim for up to
GBP200,000 against Corus (UK) Ltd., formerly British Steel, and
Alstom Energy Ltd. following the death of her husband, Eric,
from mesothelioma, Warrington Guardian reports.

Mrs. Brewer is claiming between GBP150,000 and GBP200,000 for
damages caused by "negligence and breach of statutory duty" by
Corus and Alstom.

Mr. Brewer died on January 2005.

Mrs. Brewer, 68 years old, said that, "He (Mr. Brewer) worked in
the boiler house at British Steel in Irlam. He was heavily
involved with the lagging."

A Corus spokesman said, "This case is in the hands of the
insurers and they have full control over it. It is therefore
inappropriate for us to comment at this time."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Hazard Near Former Grace Plant, EPA Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated that no toxic
asbestos has been found in a two-mile area surrounding the
former W.R. Grace & Co. plant in Hamilton, New Jersey, the
Associated Press reports.

The EPA said that more than 40 soil samples were taken two
months ago from recreation and residential areas that surround
the former plant. None of the samples were contaminated.

Grace has assured the state that the site was clean in 1995 when
it closed the plant after 40 years of processing asbestos-
containing vermiculite ore. However, workers, many of whom had
illnesses from working around the asbestos, said the site was
contaminated.

Further tests found the facility was heavily tainted, and the
state has removed 9,000 tons of toxic soil and filed a US$1.6
billion civil suit against Grace. The suit contends that two
Grace executives were aware that dust and other waste laden with
asbestos was contaminating the ground and air near the plant.

Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore told The Trentonian, "It's good news
that the test results came back negative and from this terrible
incident we are literally changing laws in our state to impose
much higher environmental standards."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific to Appeal US$13.6Mil Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-Pacific Corporation said it would appeal a Texas jury
award of nearly US$13.6 million to the family of Timothy Shawn
Bostic, who died on September 5, 2003 of mesothelioma, a rare
cancer caused by asbestos exposure, Cox News Service reports.

The Dallas County jury returned the verdict, finding the Company
liable for negligence and failure to warn. The jury awarded
US$7.55 million in compensatory and US$6 million in punitive
damages.

Lawyers for the family of Mr. Bostic told jurors that Mr. Bostic
was exposed to asbestos while working as a child with his father
in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Bostic, who died at the age of 41, used an asbestos-
containing joint compound made by Georgia-Pacific, witnesses
testified. The discontinued product was used to seal the seams
between pieces of gypsum wallboard.

Company spokesman James Malone said, "As a company, we firmly
believe that people who are sick from exposure to asbestos-
containing products deserve to be appropriately compensated."

Mr. Malone said Georgia-Pacific would appeal the verdict as well
as "certain rulings" made by Judge Sally Montgomery during the
trial, which was the second for the case. In March 2005, the
first trial ended with a US$9.3 million verdict for Mr. Bostic's
wife, Susan, and son, Kyle. In August 2005, the Court ordered a
new trial for procedural reasons.

Chris Panatier, an attorney for the Bostic family, said Georgia-
Pacific could challenge the judge's rulings as to what evidence
was allowed in the trial and what was not.

Mr. Panatier and co-counsel Charla Aldous told the jury that
Georgia-Pacific officials knew of the health dangers of asbestos
as early as 1966, but the Company continued to sell asbestos-
containing products as late as 1977.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. was acquired by Wichita, Kansas-based Koch
Industries Inc. in a deal valued at US$13.2 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dismissal of Andrews v. Foster Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two,
upheld a prior court decision in granting summary judgment to
Foster Wheeler LLC, concluding that Paul and Eileen Andrews
failed to present sufficient triable evidence in the asbestos-
related suit.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline,
Justice James R. Lambden, and Justice Paul R. Haerle, decided on
Case No. A108911 on March 30, 2006.

In September 2003, Paul and Eileen Andrews filed product
liability claims in the San Francisco Superior Court against
manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors for allegedly causing
the asbestos-related disease of then 70-year-old Mr. Andrews as
a result of asbestos exposure during his employment.

For over 20 years, Mr. Andrews worked as a laborer, deck hand,
and gunner's mate at naval facilities and on naval vessels,
including the USS Brinkley Bass.

Foster Wheeler contended that Mr. & Mrs. Andrews could not prove
that Mr. Andrews was exposed to asbestos from Company equipment.
The Company contended that Mr. & Mrs. Andrews did not identify
facts supporting their claim.

Mr. & Mrs. Andrews argued that Mr. Andrews, as a result of
visits to the Brinkley Bass boiler room after his arrival
onboard in 1966, had been exposed to asbestos released into the
air from asbestos-containing gaskets in Foster Wheeler
condensers and then "re-entrained" into the air.

The Superior Court granted summary judgment, finding that Foster
Wheeler demonstrated that Mr. & Mrs. Andrews did not have
evidence to support their claim, and that Mr. & Mrs. Andrews had
failed to present evidence that created a triable issue.

Allan R. Brayton, Gilbert L. Purcell, and Lloyd F. LeRoy of
Brayton & Purcell, LLP, represented Paul Andrews and Eileen
Andrews.

James G. Scadden, David M. Rice, and Lee G. Sullivan of Carroll,
Burdick & McDonough LLP and Julie Torres of Jackson & Wallace
represented Foster Wheeler LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corporation Exits Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation's Plan of Reorganization, which was confirmed by
U.S. Bankruptcy Court and U.S. District Court judges, became
effective, formally ending its Chapter 11 proceedings, according
to a Company press release.

The Company will start repaying its creditors and start funding
a US$900 million asbestos trust that will compensate asbestos
personal injury claimants.

USG Chairman and CEO William C. Foote said, "The successful
resolution of our Chapter 11 case is historic in the context of
asbestos bankruptcy cases. Asbestos claimants will be
compensated, our banks, bondholders and suppliers will be repaid
in full-100 cents on the dollar, with interest-and shareholders
who stood by us through this process will be rewarded by
retaining ownership in the company."

The plan, which was approved by more than 99 percent of the
asbestos personal injury claimants voting, requires USG to
establish and fund a personal injury trust to pay asbestos
personal injury claims.

Two subsequent payments totaling US$3.05 billion would be made
within the next 12 months if Congress fails to enact legislation
establishing a national asbestos personal injury trust fund. The
terms of the agreement are contained in the plan that was
confirmed by the Delaware court.

Plan financing is expected to be provided from USG's cash on
hand, a US$1.8 billion rights offering to stockholders
backstopped by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., tax refunds and new
long-term debt.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, USG Corp., together with
subsidiaries, makes gypsum wallboard, joint compound and related
gypsum products, cement board, gypsum fiber panels, and ceiling
panels and grid. The Company also distributes building products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Charges Mercury Homes $66T for Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts State Department of Environmental Protection
slapped a US$66,208 penalty against Rhode Island-based Mercury
Homes Inc. for allegedly violating asbestos and hazardous waste
regulations during a demolition project, telegram.com reports.

In April 2004, DEP's Environmental Strike Force reportedly found
dry, crushed, unmarked and improperly enclosed siding containing
asbestos at the 46 Hill St. site. The strike force observed
drums, containers and tanks containing hazardous waste and waste
oil around the site.

DEP alleged that Mercury Homes did not notify the state of the
demolition and asbestos removal, did not remove asbestos-
containing materials (ACMs) from the building before demolition,
and did not wet and properly handle, package, label, store and
dispose of them at the site.

Moreover, DEP alleged that the Company acted as an unregistered
hazardous waste storage facility by failing to mark its
hazardous waste, and storing it in excess of 180 days without
being a licensed storage, treatment or disposal facility.

DEP required Mercury Homes to hire a licensed asbestos
contractor and licensed hazardous waste transporter to eliminate
the violations and bring the site into compliance.

DEP required more than 1,600 pounds of hazardous waste and 800
pounds of waste oil to be properly removed and disposed of by a
licensed hazardous waste transporter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Hit for Cleanup Error at WR Grace Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, reprimanded the U.S.
Environment Protection Agency for missing asbestos while
cleaning up the W.R. Grace & Co. site in Libby, Montana's News
Station reports.

Sen. Baucus is a senior member of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, the panel that oversees environmental and
superfund site cleanup.

Residents were exposed to asbestos fibers by Grace, which
operated a vermiculite mine in Libby until 1990. People have
died and even more are sick because of exposure to tremolite
asbestos.

Workers were digging a waterline and discovered a patch of
tremolite asbestos. Sen. Baucus said the EPA deemed the land
clear and safe. Cleanup began in 1999.

Sen. Baucus told Susan Bodine, the Assistant Administrator for
Superfund Cleanup at the EPA, that it's important to make sure
that the cleanup in Libby is done right.

"In all my years as an elected official this issue of doing what
is right for Libby is among the most personally compelling
things I have ever been called on to do. I've been to Libby 18
times since 2000 and every time I go, the devastation is worse
and worse. More people are sick and dying," Sen. Baucus added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Judge to Confirm ABB Lummus Global Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald said she would confirm
the Chapter 11 plan of ABB Lummus Global Inc., the second unit
of ABB Ltd. to clear asbestos-related liabilities in U.S.
courts, once documents are finalized, Dow Jones reports.

ABB Lummus Global's Chapter 11 case will then go to a federal
district judge for a final signature, which will put ABB's
asbestos strategy in place.

U.S. bankruptcy laws allow ABB to transfer asbestos-related
injury claims away from its balance sheet and into trusts set up
in the Chapter 11 process. The endorsed Chapter 11 plan gives
ABB two years to decide whether to sell ABB Lummus Global or
some of its assets to make the payments or find the money in
another way.

ABB Lummus Global was slated to be sheltered under the same
Chapter 11 plan as Combustion Engineering Inc., ABB's U.S. unit.
However, two separate Chapter 11 plans were required, one for
each Company, in order to shield parent ABB from claims for
personal injury due to asbestos products it once made.

The dual Chapter 11 strategy grew out of a deal announced in
March 2005 calling for ABB to add more than US$200 million to
the money set aside for asbestos damages.

ABB Lummus Global filed its prearranged bankruptcy petition on
April 21.

ABB spokesman Thomas Schmidt said, "We first want to closely
assess claims against Lummus and keep our options open what we
will do with the business in the future."

Based in Bloomfield, New Jersey, ABB Lummus Global Inc. offers a
range of services, including process design, project management,
project financing, engineer training, and technical support. The
Company serves the oil and gas and petrochemical and refining
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Engineer Files $3.6M Claim v. 49 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Crawford seeks damages in excess of US$75,000 totaling
US$3,675,000 million, plus costs, in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed against 49 defendants, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

In the suit filed on June 9, 2006 in the Madison County Circuit
Court in Illinois, Mr. Crawford was employed by Union Electric
Co. from 1949 until 1988 as a millwright and engineer at sites
including the Venice Powerhouse in Venice, Illinois.

Some of the defendants include: General Electric Co., John Crane
Inc., Honeywell International Inc., A.W. Chesterton Co., Union
Carbide Corp., and Viacom Inc.

Mr. Crawford claims that he was exposed to, inhaled, ingested or
absorbed asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing products he
was working with or around including pipe covering, block
insulation, mud, cement and fireproofing.

The complaint states that Mr. Crawford also worked with mastics,
gaskets, packing pipe, wall compound, plaster, floor and ceiling
tile, siding, shingles, roofing, friction material, raw asbestos
fiber and machinery with asbestos supplied by the defendants.

Mr. Crawford claims the defendants knew or should have known
that the asbestos fibers contained in their products would be
harmful and damaging to the health of people inhaling them. He
claims that on July 24, 2004, he first became aware that he had
developed asbestosis and that it was wrongfully caused.

Mr. Crawford claims that his illness has caused him to suffer
extensive disability and disfigurement, physical pain and mental
anguish, including mental pain and anguish caused by his
knowledge of the increased risk of cancer. He also claims that
he has become liable for medical expenses and has been prevented
and hindered in the pursuit of employment, hence losing money he
otherwise would have earned.

Mr. Crawford seeks for his suit to be placed on the asbestos
deferred docket. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan
Stack.

Andrew O'Brien, Christopher Thoron, Andrew Schwartzkopf,
Christina Nielsen and Bartholomew Baumstark, and Gerald
Fitzgerald of the O'Brien Law Firm represent Mr. Crawford.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Government to Reverse Asbestos Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K. Government is set to amend an asbestos compensation
bill to overturn a House of Lords judgment, This is Wiltshire
reports.

The House of Lords judgment made it difficult for mesothelioma
sufferers to claim full compensation, as liability would be
split between former employers.

If someone had worked for three employers and two had closed, he
or his family would only be able to claim a third of the full
amount from the remaining firm.

North Swindon MP Michael Wills said the House of Lords decision
on mesothelioma, dubbed the Swindon Disease, had to be changed
to give justice to victims and sufferers. The disease killed 105
people in Swindon between 1981 and 2000.

Law lords stunned mesothelioma victims and their families in May
when they ruled that workers exposed to asbestos dust by several
employers must seek a proportionate share of compensation from
each.

Since 2002, victims had been able to seek full compensation
without proving which employer had caused the fatal exposure.

Trade unions and Labour MPs demanded a change in the law. They
feared victims will be left short if firms have closed or if
multiple claims are delayed for years by legal red tape.

Ministers hope the Compensation Bill will be given Royal Assent
by October with the compensation shake-up taking place by next
April.

Mr. Wills said, "I am delighted that the Government has
responded so swiftly. It will be a great relief to everyone in
Swindon who is suffering from the disease. The Government has
listened to what other MPs like myself have been telling them
and it is fantastic news."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Deny Norfolk Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eight District, upheld the Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court's decision, which denied Norfolk
Southern Railway Co.'s request for declaratory relief in an
asbestos-related lawsuit.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge Colleen Conway Cooney,
Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane, and Judge Christine T. McMonagle,
decided on Case No. 86339 on March 30, 2006.

Between September 1999 and March 2004, Charles Odell Weldon and
Eric A. Wiles sued Norfolk, alleging injuries by exposure to
asbestos-containing products while working for Norfolk. Mr.
Weldon and Mr. Wiles sued under the Federal Employer's Liability
Act and Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act.

On September 13, 2004, Norfolk filed for declaratory judgment.
The Common Pleas Court denied Norfolk's request, citing that Am.
Sub. H.B. 292 did not apply to FELA or LBIA cases because
federal law preempted it. Norfolk appealed this decision.

Am. Sub. H.B. 292 establishes minimum medical requirements for
filing certain asbestos claims, to specify a plaintiff's burden
of proof in tort actions involving asbestos exposure, to
establish premises liability in relation to asbestos claims, and
to prescribe the requirements for shareholder liability for
asbestos claims under the doctrine of piercing the corporate
veil. Am. Sub. H.B. 292 was enacted on September 2, 2004.

The FELA or the LBIA preempted the field of locomotive safety
and barred State tort claims, including asbestos-related.

The Appeals Court held that the application of Am. Sub. H.B. 292
to asbestos claims arising under the FELA or the LBIA breaches
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal law.

Kevin C. Alexandersen, Colleen A. Mountcastle, and Holly M.
Olarczuk-Smith of Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Cleveland
represented Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Christopher J. Hickey, Carolyn K. Ranke, Mary Brigid Sweeney,
and Gary J. Maxwell of Brent Coon & Associates, Cleveland
represented Charles Odell Weldon and Eric A. Wiles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gunns Ltd. Slapped With $8T Fine for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Devonport Magistrates Court in Tasmania, Australia slapped
timber firm Gunns Ltd. with $8,000 for breaching workplace
standards, by failing to ensure that a person was safe from
injury and failing to keep a register in relation to asbestos.

The Company had been facing a fine of up to $150,000 after
pleading guilty to two charges in the Court in May.

In 2003, Davenport-based engineering firm Wootton and Byrne
removed equipment from Gunns' kilns at Don Rd in Devonport. Six
employees of Wootton and Byrne smashed asbestos sheeting in the
process of removing fans and other equipment.

Magistrate Tim Hill said the method used was crude and it was
possible asbestos fibers were released into the air.

During the hearing in May, Graeme Williams from Workplace
Standards told the Court it was possible employees were exposed
to asbestos fibers, which could have long-term health problems
including death.

Mr. Hill said he could not conclude whether the contractor was
aware of the presence of asbestos.


COMPANY PROFILE

Gunns Ltd.
PO Box 572
Launceston, Tasmania
Australia 7250
Phone: 1800 265 297
Fax: 03 6334 7909
Email: pulpmill@gunns.com.au
Web: www.gunnspulpmill.com.au

Description:
The Company operates as a pulp mill. It leads in forest
management and forestry certification.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire Dismantlement Charged for CAA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that Empire
Dismantlement Corporation, the contractor hired by Seneca Gaming
Corp. to tear down the H-O Oats grain elevator, is violating the
federal Clean Air Act, The Buffalo News reports.

The violations include failing to properly wet demolition debris
that is known to contain asbestos, resulting in dust migrating
off site into a neighborhood around downtown's Cobblestone
District.

The agency also raised concerns that workers at the site are not
being adequately protected. The demolition began Memorial Day,
and most of the structure has already been torn down.

The U.S. EPA is forcing Empire Dismantlement to come into
compliance before demolition work continues. Local attorneys
familiar with environmental laws said that failure to honor the
compliance order could subject the contractor to fines.

Alan J. Steinberg, EPA's regional administrator, said, "EPA has
been in the area since last weekend and has observed the
violations firsthand."

Erie County Attorney Laurence K. Rubin said the EPA's order
validates concerns the county raised when it tried in May to get
a judge to temporarily halt demolition. When the court fight
fizzled, the county asked federal environmental officials to
step in.

Corporation Counsel Alisa A. Lukasiewicz, the city's chief
attorney, said the Seneca Gaming Corp. has been monitoring air
quality on a regular basis.

Ms. Lukasiewicz added that State Supreme Court Justice Joseph G.
Makowski weighed arguments and refused to grant an order that
would have temporarily blocked demolition.

The Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino is to be built on the site of
the former H-O Oats grain elevator.

Based in Tonawanda, New York, Empire Dismantlement Corp. has
performed demolition projects along the U.S. East Coast.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Brooks
Automation, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRKS) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Brooks
between July 25, 2001 and May 22, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and financial results, thus
causing Brooks's shares to trade at artificially inflated
prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that on March 18, 2006, The
Wall Street Journal published a story titled "The Perfect Payday
- Some CEOs reap millions by landing stock options when they are
most valuable; Luck - or something else?" that identified Brooks
as one of several companies "with wildly improbable option-grant
patterns."

On April 26, 2006, Brooks disclosed that its board of directors
created a special committee to conduct an internal review of
matters related to past stock option grants, including the
timing of such grants and associated documentation.

The complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2006, Brooks
issued a press release titled "Brooks Automation to Restate Past
Periods Related to Certain Stock Option Grants," that stated, in
part, that "the company will be required to correct certain U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including
particularly its financial statements contained in filings for
some or all of the periods commencing in fiscal 1999 and ending
in fiscal 2005."

Brooks further stated that "the company believes that it
accounted for certain matters concerning stock options
incorrectly, and as a result recognized less compensation
expense than it should have in periods prior to fiscal 2006."

On May 18, 2006, Amin J. Khoury and Roger D. Emerick reportedly
resigned from the company's Board of Directors.

The complaint also alleges that the SEC is conducting an
informal inquiry concerning stock option grant practices to
determine whether violations of the federal securities laws have
occurred and Brooks has allegedly received a grand jury document
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York requesting records pertaining to the granting of stock
options.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period,
certain company insiders sold approximately 320,000 Brooks
shares at artificially inflates prices for proceeds of
approximately $6.4 million.

It is alleged that, as a result of the company's recent
disclosures, that since March 20, 2006, the first trading day
after the above-noted Wall Street Journal article of March 18,
2006, shares of Brooks have declined from $13.88 per share at
the opening of trading on March 20, 2006, to close at $12 per
share at the close of trading on May 23, 2006, a decline of
$1.88 per share, or approximately 14%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 20, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss, Donald R.
Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-1980 and (415)
772-4700, Fax: (212) 687-7714 and 415-772-4707, E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com, Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com.


CSK AUTO: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities suit in Ariz.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of all securities purchasers of CSK Auto Corp. from June
4, 2003 to April 13, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges CSK Auto and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that the company improperly accounted for inventories
         and vendor allowances;

      -- specifically, that the company overstated its in-
         transit inventory, improperly included certain costs in
         its inventory, and improperly refunded or wrote off
         certain vendor allowance receivables;

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- that the company lacked the necessary personnel and
         controls to issue accurate financial reports and
         projections; and

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On March 27, 2006, before the market opened, CSK Auto shocked
investors when it announced the postponement of its scheduling
of a date for release of its fourth quarter and fiscal 2005
financial results and related investor call.

The company stated that the postponement was being made to
provide adequate time for the company and the Audit Committee of
the Board of Directors of the company to conduct a thorough
review of certain accounting errors and irregularities
discovered in the course of the company's ongoing assessment of
internal control over financial reporting required under Section
404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and an internal audit.

On this news, shares of the company's stock fell $1.26 per
share, or 7.9 percent, to close, on March 27, 2006, at $14.64
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On April 14, 2006, before the market opened, CSK Auto further
stunned investors when it announced that, pending the completion
of the previously announced investigation by the Audit Committee
of the company's Board of Directors into certain accounting
errors and irregularities, the company was delaying filing its
annual report with the SEC for the fiscal year ended Jan.29,
2006.

On this news, shares of the company's stock shed an additional
70 cents per share, or 5.1 percent, to close, on April 17, 2006,
at $13.06 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 8, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Richard A. Maniskas, Esq., 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 and 1-610-667-
7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


ERIE FAMILY: Johnson Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Johnson Law Firm, APC commenced a securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of those persons and entities who owned
the securities of Erie Family Life Insurance Company (EFL)
(ERIE) between March 21, 2004 and March 24, 2006.

This lawsuit alleges an effort by Erie Indemnity Company, Erie
Insurance Exchange and EFL's board of directors to "freeze out"
EFL's minority shareholders at an unreasonably low price.

As described in the complaint, defendants artificially depressed
the price of EFL shares to as low as $26.50 per share even
though they had traded at above $32 per share for nearly two
years.

Defendants then announced that a "third-party" purchaser would
pay the minority shareholders $32 for their shares.  The
purchaser was not a "third party" at all, but rather a shell
entity owned and controlled by Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange.

The complaint alleges that EFL and its directors, along with
Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange, violated Section 14(e) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and
misleading tender offer documents in which they misrepresented
or failed to disclose the true facts regarding the proposed
tender offer.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 21, 2006, move the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.  

For more details, contact Frank J. Johnson, Esq. or Brett M.
Weaver, Esq., 402 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego,
California 92101, Phone: 619-230-0063, E-mail:
frank@johnsonlawfirmapc.com, Web site:
http://www.johnsonlawfirmapc.com.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Pa. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Herley
Industries, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. 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 Oct. 1, 2001 through June 14, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Aug. 14,
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.


HOME SOLUTIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Home Solutions of America, Inc. between April 11, 2006, and
June 6, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.

Specifically, on April 11, 2006, Home Solutions announced that
it had been awarded a contract valued at up to $20 million, to
provide infrastructure support for Hurricane Katrina rebuilding
efforts.

Subsequently, Home Solutions announced a string of contract
awards, including substantial contracts with Home Depot Inc. and
American Renaissance Homes (ARH), a builder that had purportedly
contracted with Home Solutions to provide services in connection
with the Katrina rebuilding efforts.

On June 6, 2006, Home Solutions issued a press release,
revealing that it was, in fact, lending up to $800,000 to ARH
for "working capital," secured by its modular homes and land.

Defendants' prior representations regarding the dramatic growth
in revenues based on the announced contract opportunities were
false and misleading, concealing from the investment community
the company's inability to dramatically expand both revenues and
margins, in a low-margin and highly competitive market space.

On this news, Home Solutions' stock plummeted, losing 29.1% to
close at $6.80.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 21, 2006, to request
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Squitieri & Fearon Files N.J. Stock Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp. on the
open market since the company's May 23, 2006 Initial Public
Offering.

The complaint charges Vonage and its Chief Executive Officer
Jeffrey A. Citron with violating the federal securities laws.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that immediately following
the IPO, the price of Vonage shares declined significantly and
has continued to fall.

As a result of the significant decline in price, many Vonage
customers who had purchased the stock through Vonage's "directed
share program" refused to pay the IPO price, obligating Vonage
to indemnify the underwriters for the stock for which the
beneficial owners did not pay.

On May 30, 2006, Vonage publicly announced that if participants
in the directed share program did not pay for their Vonage
shares, the company would repurchase those shares from the
underwriters at the offering price.

The lawsuit contends that the company's offer constitutes a
tender offer and that all shareholders must receive the amounts
paid to the underwriters.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class
members represented by the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

Interested parties may request the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than 60 days from June 20, 2006.

For more details, contact Lee Squitieri or Stephen J. Fearon,
Jr. of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Phone: (212) 421-6492, E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com or stephen@sfclasslaw.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  * * *