CAR_Public/060630.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 30, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 129

                            Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Consumers File Suit in Ark. Over Security Breaches
ACXIOM CORP: Still Faces Suit in Fla. Over Use of Driver's Data
ALKERMES INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
BLUEHIPPO FUNDING: Revises No Refund Policy Amid Fraud Lawsuits
BODY SHOPS: Insurers File Suit Over Alleged Fraudulent Claims

BP PRODUCTS: Accused of Inflating Prices in Propane Contracts
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Stock Suit Yet to Enter Discovery
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Faces Independent Contractor's Suit in Tex.
FLORIDA: Appeals Court Reverses Order in School Impact Fees Suit
FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion on Stock Suit

FOREST LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Mulls Dismissal on Tiazac Suit
GENESIS MICROCHIP: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
ILLINOIS: Cook County Sued Over Use of Television in Bond Trials
IMPERIAL PETROLEUM: Reaches Settlement in Tex. Moss Unit Suit
ING ANNUITY: Faces Suit in D.C. Court Over Stolen Client Data

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
LOUISIANA: Judge Found No Discrimination in Suit Against FEMA
MARSH SUPERMARKETS: Investor Sues to Block Sale to Sun Capital
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Facing Personal Injury Litigation in Pa.
NATIONAL HOME: Parties Agree to Stay Overtime Wage Suit in N.Y.

NATIONAL CENTURY: Ariz. City Council Mulls Settlement with PwC
PEMSTAR INC: Discovery Proceeds in Minn. Consolidated Stock Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: High Security Inmates Lose Bid to Newspaper Access
PHILIPPINES: U.S. Court Grants Partial Payouts to Marcos Victims
PILLOWTEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Non-union Workers Lawsuit

PRESTIGE BRANDS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Securities Lawsuit in Ill. State Court Stayed
REMEC INC: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Stock Suit
SELECTICA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK of IPO Suit Settlement
STAFFING NETWORK: Day Laborers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Ill.

STARBUCKS CORP: Former Manager Files Wage-Related Suit in Calif.
ST BARNABAS: Rival Hospitals Sue in N.J. Over Outlier Payments
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Medicaid Citizenship Proof Requirement
UTAH: Federal Judge Dismisses Rave Bust Lawsuit With Prejudice
YAHOO INC: Settles Checkmate "Click Fraud" Lawsuit in Calif.

WEBMETHODS INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Penn. Court Favors Youngs in Appeal v. Zinc
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire State Awaits Staniszek Suit Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Deems John Crane Payouts Unreasonable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Allows Board to Revisit Dallas Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Affirms Board Ruling in Fama Claim

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Cecere Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Samson Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Deals With ACandS Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vector Group Unit Has 3 Third-Party Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KACC Requests Return of Funds in Agreement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Removes Grace Property Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Retrieval of Grace Documents
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Seeks Insurer to Get GBP113T Award
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USA Properties Fund to Pay $300T Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richmond Homes Fined GBP39T for Violations

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian Gov't Offers Relocation Package
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Asks Shareholders to Admit Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning May End Bankruptcy by Oct. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Three Suits Filed v. 46 Firms in W.V. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Ministry Grants Tougher Asbestos Ban


                   New Securities Fraud Cases        

HOME SOLUTIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
INFOSONICS CORP: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.


                            *********


ACXIOM CORP: Consumers File Suit in Ark. Over Security Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corp. is defendant in a purported consumer class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas over incidents that resulted in the loss of personal
information of several of the plaintiffs.

The suit was filed in April 17, 2006.  It alleges that the
company had a duty to notify consumers of the security breach
incidents that occurred in 2003.  

Among others, the complaint seeks an order requiring the company
to notify all class members in writing of the times their
private information was breached, how it was breached, by whom,
and what action the company took to prevent further breaches of
security.

Plaintiff also seeks an order requiring the company to remove
the class members' private information from its computer systems
and enjoining it from obtaining such private information from
the class in the future.

The complaint also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees, according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "April Bell v. Acxiom Corp., Case No. 4:06-cv-00485-
WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John G. Emerson and Scott E. Poynter of Emerson
         Poynter, LLP, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556,
         E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com and
         Scott@emersonpoynter.com; and

     (2) George L. McWilliams, Sean Fletcher Rommel, James Clark
         Wyly and Jack Thomas Patterson, II of Patton Roberts
         McWilliams & Capshaw, Phone: (903) 334-7000 and 501-
         372-3480, E-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com,
         srommel@pattonroberts.com and jwyly@pattonroberts.com.


Representing the defendant is Amy Lee Stewart of Rose Law Firm,
120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock, AR 72201-2893, Phone: 501-
375-9131, E-mail: astewart@roselawfirm.com.


ACXIOM CORP: Still Faces Suit in Fla. Over Use of Driver's Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers remained
defendants in a purported class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according
to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2006.

The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed in state
court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003.  
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used driver's
license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act.

To date, a class has not been certified.  Among others, the
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees.


ALKERMES INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered an order dismissing, in its entirety and with prejudice,
a consolidated securities class action against Alkermes, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Beginning in October 2003, the company and certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors were named
as defendants in six purported securities class actions:

      -- "Bennett v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12091";

      -- "Ragosta v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12184";

      -- "Barry Family LP v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-
         12243";

      -- "Waltzer v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12277";

      -- "Folkerts v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12386";
         and

      -- "Slavas v. Alkermes, Inc., et al., 1:03-CV-12471."


On May 14, 2004, the six actions were consolidated into a single
action, "In re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
03-CV-12091-RCL."  

On July 12, 2004, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from
April 22, 1999 to July 1, 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleged, among
others, that, during such period, the defendants made
misstatements to the investing public relating to the
manufacture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of
the company's RISPERDAL CONSTA product.  It sought unspecified
damages.

On Sept. 10, 2004, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of the litigation on numerous
legal grounds, and the court referred that motion to a federal
magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for issuance of a report and recommendation as to
disposition of the motion to dismiss.

The court heard oral argument on the motion on Jan. 12, 2005.  
On Oct. 6, 2005, the federal magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation for dismissal, in its entirety, of the above-
captioned purported securities class action.

After issuance of this ruling, on Oct. 21, 2005, the company,
the individual defendants and the lead plaintiff filed a
stipulation with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts providing for dismissal of this action, in its
entirety and with prejudice.  

On Oct. 27, 2005, the court entered the dismissal order,
according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12091-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Connie M. Cheung, Jeffrey W. Lawrence, William S.
         Lerach and Shanna M. Scarlet, Lerach Coughlin Stoia &
         Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: jeffreyl@lcsr.com; and

     (2) David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,
         37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
         617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.  

Representing the company are Brian E. Pastuszenski and Alexis L.
Shapiro of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place, 53 State
Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1094, Fax: 617-523-
1231, E-mail: BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com or
ashapiro@goodwinprocter.com.  


BLUEHIPPO FUNDING: Revises No Refund Policy Amid Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer sales and finance company BlueHippo Funding LLC has
created its first refund policy to consumers who had previously
signed a non-refundable contract with the company, the Baltimore
Sun reports.

Under the refund policy, BlueHippo consumers can cancel a
layaway purchase and get their money back, minus a $175 early
termination fee.

BlueHippo spokesman Michael Waldron said the $175 fee is similar
to cancellation fees charged by cell phone providers.

Mr. Waldron said the new policy isn't a response to the consumer
lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny by state and federal
regulators.

                          Case History

BlueHippo sells computers and plasma TVs nationwide to people
without access to traditional credit.  Consumers pay through
electronic debits to their bank accounts over one year.  They
were promised the merchandise after completing three months'
payments worth hundreds of dollars.  But early on, consumers
complain, the company reneged on the promise.

For the past three years, the Better Business Bureau of Greater
Maryland logged 799 complaints against the company.  BlueHippo
has only operated since 2003.

In 2005, the Illinois Attorney General's office sued the company
after receiving 15 complaints.  It accused the firm of deceptive
sales tactics.  The lawsuit asks to bar them from making sales
in the state.

In December 2005, Florida's Attorney General's office began an
investigation in after receiving 17 complaints.  Maryland's
Attorney General's office has received 257 complaints about
BlueHippo but has not filed a lawsuit.  Most of the complaints
are from out of state, and 82 were resolved through mediation.

In March, two Californians filed a class suit against Maryland-
based BlueHippo Funding LLC alleging they didn't get their
computers and weren't able to get refunds.

The suit is "Ray et al. v. Bluehippo Funding, LLC et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01807-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.
Representing the plaintiffs are Debra S. Katz of Katz and David
J. Marshall both of Marshall & Banks, 1718 Connecticut Ave.
N.W., Washington, DC 20009, Phone: 202-299-1140, Website:
http://www.kmblegal.com.


BODY SHOPS: Insurers File Suit Over Alleged Fraudulent Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid Century Insurance Company
have sued two separate body shops and their owners, accusing
them of taking part in a scheme designed to defraud Farmers and
its policyholders.

The civil complaints, which are similar to prior successful
lawsuits against body shops who submitted false insurance
claims, seek not only damages for the fraud committed, but seek
injunctive relief, where the courts are asked to order a halt to
these deceptive practices.  The lawsuits are pending in Santa
Clara and Los Angeles.

The lawsuits detail a systematic scheme where the body shops
billed Farmers for services that were never performed.  This
includes billing for parts and labor that were never provided.  
Once Farmers suspected fraud, it immediately inspected the cars
involved, confirmed that there were no safety issues and exposed
physical evidence of fraud.

"We expect and assume honesty and integrity from those people
who render services for the company's policyholders.  When we
develop concrete evidence that intentionally false claims have
been filed, we take swift action against the unscrupulous
individuals," said Doug Ashbridge, Director of Special
Investigations.

"Farmers is committed to fight fraud, no matter where it occurs
and no matter what form it takes.  Farmers continues to
cooperate with law enforcement on these and other matters around
the country, working to deter anyone from attempting to defraud
Farmers and its policyholders.  We are committed to stamp out
fraud. We will assist law enforcement on criminal matters and
file our own civil actions to deter anyone who is contemplating
submitting fraudulent insurance claims.  It is our commitment to
our policyholders to take fraud out of their premium dollars."

In the Santa Clara action, Farmers noticed an unusual billing
pattern, initiated an investigation and developed evidence
against defendants Tommys Body Shop and its owner, Gia Van Tran.  
Farmers' Special Investigations Unit, which includes body shop
experts, inspected all 12 vehicles, documenting fraud in each
invoice.

The expert inspections revealed substantial discrepancies
between the invoices and the work actually performed.  The
invoices reflected billing for repairs that were not done,
billing for replacements where the parts were not replaced,
billing for part replacements that were only repaired and other
similar billing issues.  Farmers is seeking over $320,000 in
statutory damages for the intentional actions of the defendants.

The Los Angeles action against Hollywood Auto Body Shop, Inc.
and one of its officers, featured similar false claims.  Farmers
inspected eight vehicles, finding that 30% of each invoice
involved billing for parts that were never placed on the
vehicles and billing for services that were never rendered.

Farmers is seeking over $190,000 in statutory damages for the
intentional actions of the defendants.

Mr. Ashbridge stated, "Body shops cannot bill Farmers, accept
money for the parts and services, fail to install the parts or
render the services, and then simply pocket the money.  It is
wrong; it is fraud.  Farmers has developed a statewide team that
is designed to detect precisely this type of fraudulent
activity.  Our investigators' efforts and expertise exposed the
fraud being perpetrated here and developed the physical evidence
of fraud.  Lawsuits such as this are part of a nationwide
commitment to stem the tide of insurance fraud."

Farmers is represented by Dennis B. Kass, Manning & Marder,
Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP, 660 South Figueroa Street, 23rd
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: (213) 624-6900, Fax: (213)
624-6999.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, the Farmers Insurance Group(R) --
http://www.farmers.com-- companies comprise the nation's third-
largest personal lines property & casualty insurance group --
helping to restore the lives of over 15 million customers when
the unexpected happens.

For more information, contact Mary Flynn of Farmers Insurance
Group, Phone: 323-932-3662.


BP PRODUCTS: Accused of Inflating Prices in Propane Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP initiated a class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against BP
Products North America Inc., Dennis Abbott, Mark Bradley, and
Cody Claborn for allegedly inflating the prices of propane gas
and propane contracts in violation of specified state laws.

The class action is on behalf of purchasers, between April 1 and
April 30, 2003 or January 1 and April 30, 2004, of propane gas
or propane contracts in specified states, including Arkansas,
Indiana, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia.

For further information contact Robert Rodriguez, Esq. or Imtiaz
A. Siddiqui, Esq. both of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, Phone:
(212) 608-1900.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Stock Suit Yet to Enter Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of New Jersey has yet to schedule
discovery in the securities class action against Bradley
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's June 23, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The company, along with certain of its officers and directors,
were named defendants in thirteen federal securities class
actions that were consolidated on May 5, 2005 in the U.S.
District Court of New Jersey.

In the amended consolidated complaint, filed on June 20, 2005,
the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, arising out of disclosures that plaintiffs allege
were materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs also allege that the company and the individual
defendants falsely recognized revenue.  Plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.

The company and the individual defendants filed their initial
response on July 20, 2005 seeking to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

On March 23, 2006, the court issued an order denying the
company's motion to dismiss the federal securities class action.  

Discovery in the federal securities class action has not yet
been scheduled.

The suit is "Esposito v. Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty
Shwartz.  

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

Representing the defendant is James P. Flynn of Epstein, Becker
& Green, PC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 642-1900, E-mail: jflynn@ebglaw.com.


FFE TRANSPORTATION: Faces Independent Contractor's Suit in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FFE Transportation Services, a subsidiary of Frozen Food Express
Industries, Inc., filed its response to a purported class action
over independent contractor agreements, which is pending against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. and three independent contractors with trucks
formerly contracted to the company filed a putative class action
complaint against the company.

The complaint alleges that parts of the company's independent
contractor agreements violate the federal Truth-in-Leasing
regulations at 49 CFR Part 376.

The complaint seeks to certify a class comprised of all
independent contractors of motor vehicle equipment who have been
party to a federally regulated lease with the company during the
time period beginning four years before the complaint was filed
and continuing to the present.  It seeks injunctive relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, and legal costs.

The company's response to the complaint was filed in March 2006,
according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The suit is "Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc. et al. v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 3:06-
cv-00010," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Cohen of The Cullen Law Firm, 1101 30th St. NW,
         Suite 300, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202/944-8600,
         E-mail: dac@cullenlaw.com; and

     (2) Jay R. Stucki of Hulse Stucki, 2912 W. Story Rd.,
         Irving, TX 75038, Phone: 214/441-3000, Fax: 214/441-
         3001, E-mail: JRS@TExasNetLaw.com.

Representing the defendants are George C. Lamb, III and Aimee
Williams Moore of Baker Botts, 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 600,
Dallas, TX 75201-2980, Phone: 214/953-6659 and 214/953-6500,
Fax: 214/953-6503 and 214/661-4695, E-mail:
george.lamb@bakerbotts.com and aimee.moore@bakerbotts.com.


FLORIDA: Appeals Court Reverses Order in School Impact Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second District Court of Appeal found Lee Circuit Judge Jay
Rosman wrong in finding the county's school impact fees
"facially unconstitutional," according to Naplesnews.com.

County commissioners created an ordinance on the collection of
the fees in December of 2001.  The fees are assessed on new
construction and go towards building new schools.  Builders
filed a suit against it, principally challenging its
calculation.

On the same month, Judge Rosman granted an injunction preventing
collection of the fees on contracts in existence before the
ordinance was adopted.  The injunction exempted more than 900
contracts.

On appeal, the court said Judge Rosman was wrong because there
are circumstances under which it could be constitutional.  He
could still find the ordinance unconstitutional "as applied,"
which would mean those pre-existing contracts could still be
exempt, according to the report.

The county's attorneys and outside counsel is Greg Stewart of
Nabors Giblin & Nickerson.

Representing the builders is Jeffrey R. Garvin of Garvin &
Tripp, 2532 East First Street, P.O. Drawer 2040, Fort Myers,
Florida 33902 (Lee Co.), Phone: 239-334-1824, Fax: 239-334-6848.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion on Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on Forest Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the
company and certain of its officers, according to the company's
June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all
purchasers of the company's securities between Aug. 15, 2002 and
Aug. 31, 2004 or Sept. 1, 2004.

These actions, the first of which was filed on March 11, 2005,
were consolidated under the caption, "In re Forest Laboratories,
Inc. Securities Litigation, 05-CV-2827-RMB."

The consolidated complaints, which assert substantially similar
claims, allege that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
with respect to the company's business, prospects and
operations, including the company's drugs for the treatment of
depression and Alzheimer's disease, in violation of Section
19(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys fees.  The
company and the officer defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss.

The suit is "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-02827-RMB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Richard M. Berman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Harris Lee Pogust of Pogust & Braslow, LLC, 161
         Washington Street, Suite 1520, Conshohocken, PA 19428,
         Phone: (610) 941-4204, Fax: (610) 941-4245, E-mail:
         hpogust@cpm-law.com;

     (2) Jonathan W. Cuneo of The Cuneo Law Group, P.C., 317
         Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC 20002,
         Phone: (202) 789-3960;

     (3) William S. Lerach of Milberg, Weisss, Bershad, Hynes
         and Lerach, 401 B. Street, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         (619) 231-1058; and

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


FOREST LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Mulls Dismissal on Tiazac Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on Forest Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an
antitrust class action filed against it.

The complaint alleges attempts by the company to monopolize
under Section 2 of the Sherman Act with respect to the product
Tiazac, resulting from Biovail's January 2001 patent listing in
the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book" of Approved
Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.

Biovail withdrew the Orange Book listing of the patent at issue
following an April 2002 Consent Order between Biovail and the
Federal Trade Commission.  Biovail is the owner of the Non-
disclosure Agreement covering Tiazac, which the company
distributes in the U.S. under license from Biovail.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all persons or entities, who purchased Tiazac directly
from the company from Feb. 13, 2001 to the present, seeks treble
damages and related relief arising from the allegedly unlawful
acts.

By way of a ruling dated March 31, 2005, Judge Robertson granted
Biovail's motion for summary judgment in a related action, "Twin
Cities v. Biovail" to which the company is not a party, but
which it believe has significance for the action filed against
the company.

Plaintiffs in the Louisiana Wholesale case then amended their
complaint to add a conspiracy charge against Biovail and Forest
and an allegation that Biovail and Forest damaged plaintiffs as
a result of a delay in marketing their own generic version of
Tiazac.  

The company and Biovail filed a motion for summary judgment and
a motion to dismiss directed to the complaint.  The motion is
now under judicial consideration, according to the company's
June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. et al v. Biovail
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02235-JR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for District of Columbia under Judge James
Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David U. Fierst of Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, LLP, 1100
         Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100, Washington, DC
         20036-4195, Phone: (202) 737-7777, Fax: (202) 296-8312,
         E-mail: dfierst@steinmitchell.com; and

     (2) Anne K. Fornecker of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP,
         1501 Broadway, Suite 1416, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         (212) 398-0055, E-mail: afornecker@garwingerstein.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Lawrence Saul Robbins of Robbins, Russell, Englert,
         Orseck & Untereiner, 1801 K Street, NW, Washington, DC
         20006-1301, Phone: (202) 775-4501, E-mail:
         lrobbins@robbinsrussell.com; and

    (ii) Peter J. Venaglia of Dornbush Schaeffer Strongin &
         Weinstein, LLP, 747 Third Avenue, 11th Floor, New York,
         NY 10017, Phone: (212) 759-3300, Fax: (212) 753-7673,
         E-mail: venaglia@dsswlaw.com.


GENESIS MICROCHIP: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Microchip, Inc. reached a settlement in the purported
securities class action, "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip, et al.,
Case No. 02-CV-05344," which is pending against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In November 2002, a putative securities class action was filed
against the company, former Chief Executive Officer Amnon
Fisher, and former Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric Erdman.  
The suit was amended in July 2003 to include Executive Vice
President Anders Frisk.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Genesis and the Individual Defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

In July 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the case, with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

However, on March 2006, parties signed an agreement to settle
the case, according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:02-cv-05344-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP, 300
         Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415/982-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776, E-mail:
         waudet@alexanderlaw.com;

     (2) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax:
         212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com; and

     (3) Ryan M. Hagan of Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152
         North Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112,
         Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax: 408-287-1776, E-mail:
         rhagan@alexanderlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Nina F. Locker, Ignacio E.
Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:
650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com,
isalceda@wsgr.com and bnoor@wsgr.com.  


ILLINOIS: Cook County Sued Over Use of Television in Bond Trials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County is facing a suit filed by a Chicago man and the
MacArthur Justice Center over the use of closed-circuit
television for daily bond hearings at the Criminal Courts
Building, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The television monitors are used in brief hearings in Central
Bond Court each day.  Chicago are resident Esses Mason alleges
in his suit that the system violates the rights of defendants
who do not have enough access to defense lawyers.  He also
claims that under the current system, judges do not get enough
information to set reasonable bonds, according to the report.  
Mr. Esses was charged of possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

The suit names as defendants the offices of the Cook County
sheriff and public defender.

The suit, "Mason v. County Of Cook Illinois et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-03449," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge James B. Zagel.  

Representing the plaintiff is Locke E. Bowman, III of MacArthur
Justice Center, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, Phone:
(773) 702-0349, E-mail: locke_bowman@law.uchicago.edu.


IMPERIAL PETROLEUM: Reaches Settlement in Tex. Moss Unit Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Petroleum, Inc., through its predecessor in interest,
reached a settlement for the class action pending against it in
the Texas Superior Court, according to the company's June 23,
2006 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended April 30, 2006.

Filed on June 13, 2003, the suit is seeking damages on behalf of
plaintiffs for inadequate development of the Moss Unit located
in Panola County, Texas.

The lawsuit was settled subsequent to year-end through the
execution of a farmout agreement with a company nominated by the
plaintiffs to drill additional wells in the Unit.  

The company retained an over-riding royalty interest in the
farmout wells to be drilled and all rights to its existing
proration unit surrounding the Moss well, as well as $132,500 as
consideration for executing the farmout.  Three additional wells
have subsequently been drilled in the Unit.


ING ANNUITY: Faces Suit in D.C. Court Over Stolen Client Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two retirement plan managers are facing a suit after the theft
of a laptop containing personal data of government employees and
retirees this month.

Life Insurance Co. and ING Annuity, which manages two retirement
plans for the District of Columbia government, is facing a
demand of at least $10,000 in damages and lifetime identity-
theft monitoring for each of the 13,000 city workers and
retirees whose data were contained in the stolen laptop.  

The laptop was stolen June 12.  It reportedly lacked encryption
and password protection.

ING earlier offered identity-theft monitoring for one year, but
plaintiffs' lawyer said it was not enough.

Plaintiffs in the suit include Metropolitan Police Department
officers Sgt. Tony Giles and Sgt. Regina Randolph.  

The suit was filed in D.C. Superior Court by lawyers Gregory
Lattimer and Ted Williams of 1200 G St. N.W. Washington,
District of Columbia.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated reached an agreement to
settle the securities class action litigation filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
the company and certain of its directors and officers.

In addition, the company has also reached an agreement to settle
the shareholder derivative actions filed on behalf of the
company in the Superior Court of California and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The settlements, which are subject to court approval, resolve
all claims by the parties, including those asserted against
Ligand and the individual defendants in these cases.

Under the agreements, in exchange for a release of all claims,
the company will pay a total of $12.15 million in cash.  The
settlement amounts and a portion of the company's total legal
expenses will be funded by the company's insurance carrier while
the remainder of the company's legal fees incurred will be paid
by the company.

As part of the settlement of the state derivative action, the
company has agreed to adopt certain corporate governance
enhancements.

Neither the company nor any of its current or former directors
and officers has made any admission of liability or wrongdoing.

The related investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission is ongoing and is not affected by the settlements
discussed above.

"Although Ligand believes these suits are without merit, the
Company is pleased to put the uncertainty, expense, and
management time drain of the class action and derivative
litigation behind it and believes that the decision to settle is
in the best interests of its shareholders," said David E.
Robinson, Ligand Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer.

"Settling this litigation will also facilitate continued full
focus of our organization on the ongoing strategic alternatives
process and the Company's business," Mr. Robinson added.

Beginning in August 2004, purchasers of the Ligand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s common stock -- during several time
periods, the longest of which runs from July 28, 2003 through
August 2, 2004 -- filed several purported stockholder class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the company and certain of its
directors and officers.

The complaints generally allege that the company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission by
making false and misleading statements, or concealing
information about the company's business, forecasts and
financial performance, in particular statements and information
related to drug development issues and AVINZA inventory levels
(Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2006).

The suit is "In re Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1620," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Dana
M. Sabraw with referral to Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk B. Hulett of Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, 550 West
         C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         338-1133, Fax: (619) 338-1139;

     (2) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087, (Delaware
         Co.), Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, Web site:
         http://www.sbclasslaw.com;and   

     (3) Ramzi Abadou of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         California 92101-4297, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-
         1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site:
         http://www.lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is William F. Sullivan of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 3579 Valley Centre Drive, San
Diego, California 92130, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 858-720-2525
and (858) 720-2500, Fax: 858-847-3525.


LOUISIANA: Judge Found No Discrimination in Suit Against FEMA
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Judge
Stanwood Duval ruled that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has acted fairly in granting disaster relief to Hurricane
Katrina victims.

Judge Duval found FEMA did not discriminate on economic or other
grounds in dealing with Hurricane Katrina victims' applications
for temporary housing aid, and said delays were "inevitable,"
given the consequences of the storm, the Times-Picayune reports.

But the judge upheld the right of storm victims to sue FEMA for
temporary housing assistance and ruled that the agency was not
immune to review by the courts, as the government had argued.

The case had forced FEMA to make numerous changes in its housing
aid programs for Gulf Coast residents in recent months, widening
eligibility guidelines, clarifying public notices and extending
a hotel subsidy program until FEMA could determine whether
people displaced by the storm qualified for other rental aid
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2005).

The lawsuit, the first filed against FEMA in relation to its
response to Katrina, says that the agency has violated and
continues to violate Federal law by failing to discharge its
obligations as the federal agency chartered to care for victims
of natural disasters.

In addition to preserving the hotel program, the suit, which was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, seeks a court order to require FEMA to make it easier
for victims to apply for temporary housing assistance, to
improve the agency's outreach and accessibility and immediately
to provide trailers or other alternatives to replace shelters,
tents and other makeshift arrangements.

The suit also asks the court to force FEMA to establish
application guidelines under which victims can obtain continued
financial assistance beyond a three-month period and receive
adjustments based on family size and other factors.  The
plaintiffs also request that the court order FEMA to eliminate
certain rules regarding the use of funds victims have already
received and to cease a policy whereby FEMA makes room for its
housing by evicting and destroying the homes of residents of
trailer parks.

The legal action was brought by 14 named plaintiffs on their own
behalf and on the behalf of a class of people who lived in
Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama on Aug. 29, 2005 in areas that
were subsequently declared Federal Disaster Areas, were
displaced by Hurricane Katrina and have or will apply for
disaster housing assistance under the Stafford Act (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 14, 2005).

The suit is "McWaters et al v. Federal Emergency Management
Agency et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05488-SRD-DEK," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under
Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are John K. Pierre of John K.
Pierre, Attorney at Law, 2900 Westfork Dr., Suite 200, Baton
Rouge, LA 70816, Phone: 225-295-5638; and Margaret Ann Pierre of
Louisiana Department of Justice, Litigation Division, 601
Poydras St., Suite 1725, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (504)
599-1200.

Representing the defendants is Michael Sitcov of U.S. Department
of Justice Civil Division, Room 7210, P.O. Box 883, Washington,
DC 20044, Phone: (202) 514-3495.


MARSH SUPERMARKETS: Investor Sues to Block Sale to Sun Capital
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder of Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. is suing the grocery
chain and its executives over alleged mismanagement, fraud, and
breach of fiduciary duty, according to Associated Press.

Irene Kasmer, who owns 1,000 shares of Marsh stock, filed the
suit in Marion Superior Court on June 27.  It accuses Chairman
Don E. Marsh, interim President William L. Marsh and members of
the board of directors of failing in their duties to forward the
interest of investors.  

The suit is asking the court to block a pending $88 million
acquisition of the company by the private investment fund Sun
Capital Partners Inc., and to order the company to solicit
additional offers.  It is seeking class action certification,
and claiming unspecified damages.  

Sun Capital and the company have agreed on am $11.125 cash per
share acquisition.  The deal prices each share in the company at
more than $3.37 less than what the stocks once are trading.  A
new offer from Drawbridge Special Opportunities Advisors and
Cardinal Paragon Inc. would have paid $13.625 per share, or more
than $107 million in total.  However, the company said the Sun
Capital deal barred it from independently considering the new
bid.

Marsh shareholders have yet to vote on Sun Capital's offer.

Marsh Supermarkets -- http://www.marsh.net/-- operates 69 Marsh  
supermarkets, 38 LoBill Foods stores, eight O'Malia Food
Markets, 154 Village Pantry convenience stores, and two Arthur's
Fresh Market stores in Indiana, Illinois and western Ohio.


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Facing Personal Injury Litigation in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Modine Manufacturing Co. is a defendant in a purported personal
injury class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed on April 25, 2006, the case involves allegations of
personal damages from exposure to solvents that were allegedly
released to groundwater and air for an undetermined period of
time.  

It seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value
diminution for a putative class of residents of a community that
are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of
exposure to the allegedly contaminated groundwater and air.  

Plaintiffs' counsel has threatened to file further personal
injury cases, according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania under Judge Gene E.K.
Pratter.

Representing the plaintiffs is Aaron J. Freiwald of Layser &
Freiwald PC, 1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19102,
Phone: 215-875-8000, E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com.

Representing the defendants is Albert G. Bixler of Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 1515 Market Street, 9th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: 215-851-8412, E-mail:
abixler@eckertseamans.com.


NATIONAL HOME: Parties Agree to Stay Overtime Wage Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Home Health Care Corp. and plaintiffs in the class
action, "Lerai Jones, et al. v. National Home Health Care
Corp.," agreed to stay the suit pending a court decision in a
similar case.  

The suit was filed on Feb. 28, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, under Index No. 06-
102757.  It alleges violations of the New York Labor Law for
unpaid overtime under state law.  

It asserts that all hourly employees of the company within New
York were not paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required
under state law.  The applicable statute of limitations is six
years.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded
for further consideration the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in "Evelyn Coke v. Long Island
Care At Home, Ltd., 126 S.Ct. 1189 (2006)" -- a case unrelated
to the company -- in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the determination of a lower court
finding an exemption from the payment of overtime under Section
13(a)(15) under the Fair Labor Standards Act for employees of
third parties who provide "companionship" services.

The Second Circuit's decision in "Coke" invalidated this
overtime exemption for employees of third parties.  In vacating
the Second Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court remanded with
instructions to consider a Department of Labor Wage and Hour
Advisory Memorandum, which found that the overtime exemption is
applicable for employees employed by third parties performing
"companionship" services.

While the company cannot predict how the Second Circuit will
rule on reconsideration, che Company is confident that, in light
of the Supreme Court's instruction to consider the Department of
Labor Memorandum, the Second Circuit will uphold the applicable
overtime exemption.

Under New York State Law, if an exemption under the FLSA is
applicable, employers are only obligated to pay overtime at a
rate of time and one-half the statutory minimum rate of pay, not
an employee's regular rate.

In view of the significance of the decision by the Second
Circuit on remand, on March 27, 2006 plaintiff and the company
entered into a Stipulation and Order Staying Action which stays
further proceedings pending the decision by the Second Circuit.


NATIONAL CENTURY: Ariz. City Council Mulls Settlement with PwC
--------------------------------------------------------------
A council meeting of the city of Douglas in Arizona discussed a
proposed settlement with PriceWaterHouseCooper in the National
Century Financial Enterprises litigation, according to The Daily
Dispatch.

Douglas is one of 93 communities involved in suits that arose
after the Ohio-based medical receivables company collapsed in
2002.  

Securities sold by the company were part of a Local Government
Investment Pool managed by the Arizona Treasurer's Office.  The
Arizona municipalities that had invested in the state-managed
pool lost a combined total of $131 million when the company
failed.

In May, securities fraud investigation at the company resulted
in the indictment of seven senior executives, including former
Chief Executive Officer Lance Poulsen.

A lawsuit by the state also names Deloitte & Touche and J.P.
Morgan as defendant.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, National Century Financial
Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.ncfe.com/-- through the CSFB  
Claims Trust, the Litigation Trust, the VI/XII Collateral Trust,
and the Unencumbered Assets Trust, is in the midst of
liquidating estate assets.  The Company filed for Chapter 11
protection on Nov. 18, 2002 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Case No. 02-
65235).  The Court confirmed the Debtors' Fourth Amended Plan of
Liquidation on April 16, 2004.  Paul E. Harner, Esq., at Jones
Day, represents the debtors (National Century Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 63; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-
7000).


PEMSTAR INC: Discovery Proceeds in Minn. Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the securities fraud class action, "The
Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR, Inc., et al., Case No.
05-CV-01182 - JMR/FLN," pending against PEMSTAR, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District Court of Minnesota.

On June 16, 2005 an individual shareholder filed a putative
class action against the company and certain of its current
officers and directors.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 28, 2005, which set forth
the claim and established that the action was going forward with
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the plaintiff class.

Plaintiff alleges, in essence, that the defendants defrauded the
company's shareholders by failing to timely disclose the
circumstances around the discrepancies in the accounting of the
Mexico facility that generated a restatement.

The lawsuit also alleges that the registration statement filed
by the company in connection with a secondary offering contained
false, material misrepresentations.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased
company stock from Jan. 30, 2003 to Jan. 12, 2005, inclusive.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed Jan. 9, 2006.  The
amended complaint does not specify an amount of damages.
Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's June 26, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 0:05-cv-01182-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James
M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric J. Belfi of Murray Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Ave., Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-
         682-5434, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;

     (2) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; and

     (3) Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9160, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Peter W.
Carter and Bryan C. Keane of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th
St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-7883
and 612-340-2600 Fax: 612-340-2868, E-mail:
bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com, carter.peter@dorsey.com and
keane.bryan@dorsey.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: High Security Inmates Lose Bid to Newspaper Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court justices have ruled that Pennsylvania state
prison officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of
inmates in the Long Term Segregation Units of State Prisons by
barring them access to various news publications, The Christian
Science Monitor reports.

The suit filed by Ronald Banks against Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard in 2001 demands
prisoners' First Amendment right to receive newspapers.  
Disciplinary policy in the prison bans publications, except
religious and legal ones in the cells.

On June 28, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority
opinion: "Imprisonment does not automatically deprive a prisoner
of certain important constitutional protections, including those
of the First Amendment."  

The court said the restriction satisfied the court's standard of
creating an incentive for better prison behavior among
problematic inmates.

Prison officials said the denial of newspapers and magazines was
part of a program aimed at creating incentives for inmates to
follow prison rules, and denying them materials that might be
used as weapons or hide such.

The suit, Beard v. Banks, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Terrence F.
McVerry (D.C. No. 01-cv-1956).

Plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr. Krakoff, is member of Stember Feinstein,
The Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1705,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, (Allegheny Co.), Phone: 412-338-
1445; Fax: 412-232-3730.


PHILIPPINES: U.S. Court Grants Partial Payouts to Marcos Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii issued an
order authorizing partial compensation of US$2,000 each to about
7,500 victims of human rights abuses of the regime of former
dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the AP WorldStream reports.

Under the ruling, the amount for distribution to the Marcos
victims totals US$36.4, including money from a settlement of a
claim to Marcos' residence in Hawaii and the sale of an old
Mercedes-Benz car, plus interest.

Judge Real also ordered that 10 percent of the amount be given
as payment to the lawyers who worked on the Marcos cases for the
past 20 years.

According to victims' lawyer, Rod Domingo, no immediate payment
can be made since the Philippine Presidential Commission on Good
Government(PCGG) has blocked the decision of the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The PCGG appealed the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to use the money illegally
acquired by deposed president to pay human-rights abuse victims
because of technicalities that make the ruling problematic.  
Foreign banks and the Philippine government are claiming
ownership of the Marcos' wealth.  The Philippine government
claimed the money belonged to its treasury, but the appeals
court said it had no legal right to that deposit. (Class Action
Reporter, May 10, 2006).

In 1986, about 9,500 victims of human rights abuses filed a
class action against the Marcos estate the same year he was
deposed as Philippine President after a 20-year rule.  Pres.
Marcos and his family fled to Hawaii, where he died in exile in
1989.

In 1995, using a two-century-old U.S. law, a Honolulu jury
awarded the group $2 billion after finding Pres. Marcos
responsible for summary executions, disappearances and torture.

In 2005, the San Francisco, California-based Ninth Circuit,
which covers Hawaii and eight other western states, ruled that
the 9,500 plaintiffs have no right to recover $683 million in
Marcos assets that were transferred from a Swiss account to the
Philippine government, which claimed ownership of the money.

In May, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
the 9,500 Filipinos, most of them living in the Philippines, can
share among themselves $35 million in a New York brokerage
account that the Pres. Marcos opened in 1972 with a $2 million
deposit, winning their first financial battle in their 10-year
quest to recover a $2 billion jury verdict to settle human
rights abuses.

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said she will
support legislation to set aside a certain amount of the money
as compensation for victims of human rights violations under
Marcos.

The Philippine government has been able to recover US$683
million of Marcos' Swiss bank deposits.


PILLOWTEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Non-union Workers Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pillowtex Corp. has reached an agreement in principle to
compensate about 1,300 non-union workers in employment-related
claims, The Charlotte Observer reports citing a company
official.

Settlement checks could be mailed out by year's end, said John
Lankenau, an attorney representing non-union employees who filed
a class action in 2004.  Pillowtex Vice President of Finance
John Wahoski said the agreement still needs approval by several
parties, including the bankruptcy court judge overseeing
Pillowtex's reorganization.  

The settlement is expected to cost Pillowtex about $13.5
million, according to the report.  The $12.1 million part of the
deal will go to workers, and the rest to payroll and Social
Security taxes.

Pillowtex closed in July 2003, and has since been selling major
assets.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Pillowtex Corporation --
http://www.pillowtex.com/-- sold top-of-the-bed products to  
virtually every major retailer in the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Nov. 14, 2000 (Bankr.
Del. Case No. 00-4211), emerged from bankruptcy under a chapter
11 plan, and filed a second time on July 30, 2003 (Bankr. Del.
Case No. 03-12339).


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors continues before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The first of the six consolidated cases was filed on Aug. 3,
2005.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders
of the company who purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005 and
Nov. 15, 2005.

Plaintiffs also name as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering.  

The district court has appointed a lead plaintiff.  On Dec. 23,
2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and
20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiff, who seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
generally alleges that the company issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements in connection with its initial
public offering and thereafter in regard to these areas:

      -- the accounting issues described in the Company's press
         release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

      -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
         of the company's products was declining and that the
         company was planning to withdraw several products from
         the market.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint in February 2006.  Oral argument on the motion
was set for June 2006, according to the company's June 14, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.  No
development has yet been reported.

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Charles L. Brieant.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (4) Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,
         NY 10119, Phone: (212) 613-5625, Fax: (212) 868-1229,
         E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com;

     (5) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (6) William J. Ban of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two
         Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
         19103, Phone: (215) 963-0600, Fax: (215) 963-0838, E-
         mail: wban@barrack.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Todd R. David and Scott P. Hilsen of Alston & Bird,
         L.L.P., One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7357,
         Fax: (404) 527-8717;

    (ii) John Gueli of Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), 599
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 848-
         4744, Fax: 212 848-7179, E-mail: jgueli@shearman.com;
         and

   (iii) Jeff G. Hammel of Latham and Watkins (NY), 885 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 906-1200, Fax:
         (212)-751-4864, E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Securities Lawsuit in Ill. State Court Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in a purported securities class action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against Prestige Brands
Holdings, Inc. were stayed pending a federal court's decision in
"In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB."

On Sept. 6, 2005, a putative securities class action
substantially similar to the initially filed complaints in the
consolidated federal action was filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

In light of the first-filed consolidated action, proceedings in
this have been stayed until a ruling is issued on defendants'
anticipated motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the
federal action, according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.


REMEC INC: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
is set to hear on July 14, 2006, REMEC, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a fourth amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against the company.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.

On March 10, 2005, Milberg Weiss filed a consolidated and
amended complaint.  The complaint asserted, among other things,
that during the class period, the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's financial condition and
performance, operations, earnings and business prospects.  It
seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On April 19, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted on Aug. 17, 2005, with leave to
amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint on or
about Sept. 16, 2005.  On Oct. 28, 2005, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint,
which was granted by the Court on Feb. 14, 2006, with leave to
amend.

On March 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
On April 18, 2006 the court granted the plaintiffs leave to
further amend the third amended complaint, and relieved the
cefendants of the responsibility to respond to the third amended
complaint.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.  
The fourth amended complaint seeks unspecified legal expenses
and damages.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on June 2, 2006, which motion is to be heard
by the Court on July 14, 2006.

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA 90071, Phone: (213) 617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975;

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

     (3) Blake Muir Harper of Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, 550
         West C. Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         (619) 338-1133, Fax: (619) 338-1139.

Representing the defendants is Robert W. Brownlie of DLA Piper
Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP, 401 "B" Street, Suite 1700, San
Diego, California 92101, (San Diego Co.), Phone: (619) 699-2700
and Phone: 858-638-6886, Fax: 858-677-1401, Web site:
http://www.dlapiper.com.


SELECTICA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK 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
Selectica, Inc., according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.

During 2001, a number of securities class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain of the underwriters of the company's
March 13, 2000 initial public offering.

On Aug. 9, 2001, these actions were consolidated before a single
judge along with cases brought against numerous other issuers,
their officers and directors and their underwriters, that make
similar allegations involving the allocation of shares in the
IPOs of those issuers.

The consolidation was for purposes of pretrial motions and
discovery only.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint asserting essentially the same
claims as the original complaints.

The amended complaint alleges that the officer and director
defendants, the underwriters defendants and the company violated
federal securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in the prospectus incorporated in the company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2000 in connection
with the company's IPO.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the underwriters solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from several investors in exchange for
which the underwriters allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of shares of common stock
issued in the company's IPO.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters entered into
agreements with its customers in which it agreed to allocate the
common stock sold in the company's IPO to certain customers in
exchange for which such customers agreed to purchase additional
shares of the company's common stock in the after-market at pre-
determined prices.

The complaint also alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for the
company's stock.

During the course of pre-trial proceedings, plaintiffs dismissed
their claims against the individual defendants without prejudice
in return for the individual defendants' execution of a tolling
agreement.  A motion to dismiss filed by the company was denied
by the court on Nov. 19, 2003.

On June 25, 2003, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors
of the company approved a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting
a settlement in which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case
against the company with prejudice in return for the company's
assignment of certain claims that the company might have against
its underwriters.

The same offer of settlement was made to all the issuer
defendants involved in the litigation.  No payment to the
plaintiffs by the company is required under the MOU.

After further negotiations, the essential terms of the MOU were
formalized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which
has been executed on behalf of the company.

The settling parties presented the proposed settlement papers to
the court and filed formal motions seeking preliminary approval.
The underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the proposed
settlement, filed objections to the Settlement.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement conditioned on the agreement of the parties to narrow
one of a number of the provisions intended to protect the
issuers against possible future claims by the underwriters.

The company re-approved the Settlement with the proposed
modifications that were outlined by the court in its Feb. 15,
2005 Order Granting Preliminary Approval.  

Approval of any settlement involves a three-step process in the
district court:

      -- a preliminary approval,

      -- determination of the appropriate notice of the
         settlement to be provided to the settlement class, and

      -- a final fairness hearing.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the Court entered a preliminary order
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.

The court also ordered that the mailing of the notices of
pendency and proposed settlement of the class actions be
completed by Jan. 15, 2006.  The deadline for class members to
request exclusion from the settlement classes was March 24,
2006.

As part of the settlement, the settling issuers were required to
assign to the plaintiffs certain claims they had against their
underwriters.  To preserve these claims while the proposed
Settlement was pending the Court's final approval, the settling
issuers sought tolling agreements from the underwriters.

In the event that an underwriting defendant would not enter a
tolling agreement, under the terms of the proposed settlement
agreement, the settling issuer conditionally assigned the claims
to a litigation trustee.

Before the expiration of any relevant statutes of limitations,
the litigation trustee filed lawsuits against the various
issuers' respective underwriters alleging the assigned claims.

All of the company's underwriters entered into tolling
agreements.  On Feb. 24, 2006, the court dismissed, with
prejudice, the assigned claims brought by the litigation trustee
against the other issuers' underwriters that had not entered
into tolling agreements on statute of limitations grounds.

After the court's ruling, two of the company's underwriters
terminated their tolling agreements.  Accordingly, the company
conditionally assigned their assigned claims to the litigation
trustee.

Because the assigned claims were part of the consideration
contemplated under the settlement, it is unclear how the court's
Feb. 24, 2006 decision will impact the settlement and the
court's final approval of it.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a hearing in connection with a
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement.  The court
did not rule on the fairness of the settlement at the hearing.

The suit is "In Re Selectica, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In re IPO
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (SAS)," in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  

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/.


STAFFING NETWORK: Day Laborers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elk Grove Village-based Staffing Network Inc. faces a class
action filed by Attorney Chris Williams on behalf of a group of
day laborers in a Cook County Court, Illinois the Chicago
Tribune reports.

The suit alleged that the staffing agency had failed to pay them
overtime, "splitting" workers' weekly pay over multiple checks
so that they would not appear to have worked more than 40 hours.

It further contends the Staffing Network illegally charged
workers a $4 fee for their transportation to work.  State law
bars such fees, according to the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs claim
violations of the state's minimum wage law.

Attorney Williams described the lawsuit against the staffing
agency as one of the first filed since Day and Temporary Labor
Services Act was passed last year by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The Day and Temporary Labor Services Act tightened existing
laws, protected workers from illegal pay cuts or mandatory
transportation fees and levied hefty fines on companies that do
not provide fair wages and insurance as required, the Daily
Herald reports.

Staffing Network president, Robert Loughman, refused to comment
on the allegations because he had not seen the court filing, but
said the agency will comply with labor laws.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     - Irma Abraham,
     - Guadalupe Alfaro,
     - Graciela Mendez,
     - Maria Ortegon and
     - Jose Zarco

They are immigrant workers who live in Addison, Hanover Park and
Hoffman Estates.


STARBUCKS CORP: Former Manager Files Wage-Related Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Designer-coffee giant Starbucks Corp. faces a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Attorney Scott Edward Cole of Oakland on behalf of
a former Starbucks manager, the Seattlepi.com reports.

The suit accuses Starbucks of unfair business practices in
violation of state and federal law.  California labor law states
that employees are entitled to overtime pay if they work more
than eight hours a day or more than 40 hours a week, the San
Francisco Chronicle reports.

Steve White, who had worked at Starbucks shops in Concord and
Walnut Creek, filed the suit alleging supervisors weren't paid
overtime and were forced to work through meal breaks.

He further claimed, Starbucks owes him and other managers unpaid
wages plus interest and compensation for working "off the clock"
and missing meal and rest periods.

The suit asks for restitution in the form of an hour of pay for
each workday that a meal and rest period was not provided, as
well as unspecified punitive damages.

According to Attorney Cole, the suit follows litigation -- now
settled -- that accused the Seattle company of wrongly
classifying its managers as being exempt from overtime.  As a
result of that lawsuit, Starbucks' managers are paid an hourly
wage.

In 2002, Starbucks Corporation settled two California class
suits filed in 2001 that challenged the status of Starbucks
California store managers and assistant store managers as exempt
employees under California wage and hour laws (Class Action
Reporter, April 23, 2002).

In a statement, Starbucks said it was reviewing the complaint
and would respond "in a timely manner."

"Starbucks believes that it is has complied with all applicable
federal and state laws," the company said.

The suit is "White v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-
03861-WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge William H. Alsup.

Representing the plaintiffs are Matthew Roland Bainer, Clyde
Hobbs Charlton and Scott Edward Cole all of Scott Cole &
Associates, APC, 1970 Broadway, Suite 950, Oakland, CA 94612,
Phone: 510-891-9800, Fax: 510-891-7030, E-mail:
mrbainer@scalaw.com or ccharlton@scalaw.com or scole@scalaw.com.


ST BARNABAS: Rival Hospitals Sue in N.J. Over Outlier Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Barnabas Health Care System in West Orange, New Jersey is
facing a class action filed by two hospitals alleging the not-
for-profit system is depriving other hospitals their fair share
of outlier payments, Modernhealthcare.com reports.

Medicare pays supplemental reimbursement to hospitals and other
health care providers in cases where the cost of health care to
patients is unusually high.

The purported class action was filed by Longmont (Colo.) United
Hospital and Maine Coast Memorial Hospital, Ellsworth basing on
federal anti-racketeering laws.  It accuses St. Barnabas of
causing "direct, foreseeable and substantial economic harm" to
other hospitals by raising statewide averages used to measure
hospitals' eligibility for outlier payments, the report said.

The suit is "Longmont United Hospital, et al. v. Saint Barnabas
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02802-DMC-MF" filed in U.S.
District Court of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh
with referral to Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph P. Lasala of Mcelroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
P.O. Box 2075, Morristown, N.J. 07962-2075, Phone: (973) 993-
8100, E-mail: jlasala@mdmc-law.com.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Medicaid Citizenship Proof Requirement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Chicago filed a purported class
action on June 28 challenging a federal law requiring proof of
citizenship from individuals to avail of the government's
Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.

The group filed the suit in federal district court in Chicago on
behalf of low-income citizens whose welfare they claim stands to
be highly likely to be jeopardized when the law takes effect on
July 1.  It alleges the law unconstitutionally violates the
Fifth Amendment's due-process guarantee by arbitrarily requiring
documents and imposing deadlines, and puts a burden on states,
which must comply to keep federal funds.

Critics say victims are those who may be unable to provide
original documents like birth certificates, particularly those
in nursing homes, with mental and physical disabilities, and the
victims of natural disasters.

The suit wants the court to temporarily suspend the law pending
a resolution on the suit.

Named as defendant is Michael Leavitt, secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.

Shriver Center on the Net: http://www.povertylaw.org/.


UTAH: Federal Judge Dismisses Rave Bust Lawsuit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball dismissed with prejudice a
lawsuit filed against Utah County officials, after sheriff's
officers raided a gathering they called a rave, Kutv.com
reports.

Two months earlier, the plaintiffs asked the court to dismiss
the case without prejudice.  They wanted more time to organize
what they hoped would become a class action.

However, in his recent ruling, Judge Kimball agreed with the
county that the request for dismissal without prejudice was
improper, "because they had answered the complaint, and thus the
action should have been dismissed with prejudice."

Peter Stirba, who represented the county and several of its
officials in the case, said that they would seek compensation
for attorneys' fees.

The suit stemmed from an Aug. 20 raid by sheriff's deputies of a
party on a private property in Spanish Fork Canyon, where some
partygoers were arrested or cited for assaulting a police
officer, illegal drugs and disorderly conduct.  

Attorney Brian Barnard later filed suit on behalf of party
promoters Brandon Fullmer and Nick Mari as well as Ms. Childs.  

Plaintiffs alleged illegal search and seizure and violations of
their right to be secure on their property, due process, freedom
of association and free expression.

Their suit sought a temporary restraining against the sheriff's
office breaking up any more parties, which Judge Kimball denied.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined the lawsuit in
September.  Three months later, Mr. Barnard opened the case up
to class action status, hoping to encourage people who were at
the party to join the lawsuit.

The suit is "Uprock, et al. v. Tracy et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
00732-DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brian M. Barnard of Utah Legal
Clinic, 214 E 500 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3204, Phone: (801)
328-9531, E-mail: ulcr2d2c3po@utahlegalclinic.com.

Representing the defendants is Peter Stirba of Stirba &
Associates, 215 S. State, Ste. 750, P.O. Box 810, Salt Lake
City, UT 84111, Phone: (801) 364-8300, E-mail:
peter@stirbaassoc.com.


YAHOO INC: Settles Checkmate "Click Fraud" Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California preliminary approved Yahoo Inc.'s
proposed settlement of a "click fraud" class action brought
against the company by Checkmate Strategic Group in June 2005,
Reuters reports.

The terms of the settlement include a cash payment of about $5
million to plaintiffs' counsel and a provision that will allow
advertisers to file a claim for Yahoo to investigate potentially
fraudulent clicks back through January 2004.

Yahoo will pay refunds to advertisers who file claims if it
discovers evidence of fraudulent clicks.'

According to a Yahoo press release, both parties have agreed to
these settlement terms:

     -- The company will offer advertisers a one-time extended
        claims period during which advertisers can submit click
        fraud claims for clicks dating back through January
        2004.  Yahoo will investigate all claims filed under
        this one-time extension and offer cash refunds to
        advertisers if it finds questionable activity.  This
        claims process will be overseen by a retired Federal
        judge;

     -- The company will appoint a Traffic Quality Advocate who
        will be dedicated entirely to addressing advertiser
        concerns about click fraud and traffic quality issues.  
        This advocate will serve as the internal voice of the
        advertiser within Yahoo! on these matters;

     -- Once a year Yahoo will host a panel of individual
        advertisers to tour the company's Clickthrough
        Protection system, allowing them to ask questions and
        provide feedback on how the company can continue to
        enhance their approach to fighting click fraud;

     -- Yahoo will work with a reputable third party toward
        building industry-wide efforts to combat click fraud,
        including development of industry-wide definitions of
        click fraud and a comprehensive lists of identified
        bots; and

     -- Yahoo will commit technical and human resources to build
        a Traffic Quality Resource Center, which will provide
        advertisers with more detailed information about traffic
        quality issues (including click fraud) and solutions via
        FAQs, advice columns, best practices guides and
        additional access to analytics tools.

In addition, the company plans to provide advertisers with
better visibility in turnaround time on complaints on click
fraud, responding within a specified time frame.

Yahoo will also offer more clarity around refunds on click
fraud, including additional detail describing more specifically
what the company has found in refunds or credit notices-
especially in better documenting the differences between click
fraud and other traffic variances that might be misinterpreted
as click fraud.

The suit is "Checkmate Strategic Group Inc v. Yahoo Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04588-CAS-FMO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Christina Snyder, with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren T Kaplan and Gregory E Keller both of Chitwood
         Harley Harnes, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, Northeast, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-
         3900, E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com;

     (2) Richard L Kellner and Frank Eric Marchetti both of
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, 350 S Grand Avenue, 39th Floor,
         Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-217-5000; and

     (3) Shawn Khorrami of Shawn Khorrami Law Offices, 14550
         Haynes St, 3rd Fl Van Nuys, CA 91411, Phone: 818-947-
         5111, E-mail: skhorrami@khorrami.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Patrick J Carome of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, 2445 M Street, N W, Washington, DC 20037, US,
         Phone: 202-663-6000; and

     (2) Emil W Herich, Larry W McFarland and Dennis L Wilson
         all of Keats McFarland & Wilson, 9720 Wilshire Blvd,
         Ste PH, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, Phone: 310-248-3830;
         Fax: 310-860-0363, Email: lmcfarland@kmwlaw.com or
         dwilson@kmwlaw.com.


WEBMETHODS INC: 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
webMethods, Inc., according to the company's June 22, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.

A purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York in 2001 that named the
company and several of its executive officers at the time of its
initial public offering and the managing underwriters of its IPO
as defendants.

This action made various claims, including that alleged actions
by underwriters of its IPO were not disclosed in the
registration statement and final prospectus for its IPO or
disclosed to the public after its IPO, and sought unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of its
common stock between Feb. 10, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.

This action was consolidated with similar actions against more
than 300 companies as part of "In Re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  

Claims against the company's executive officer defendants have
been dismissed without prejudice.  The company considered and
agreed with representatives of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated proceeding to enter into a proposed settlement,
which was amended in March 2005 and preliminarily approved by
the court in late Aug. 2005.

A fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006, and a motion for
final approval of the settlement is currently under submission
before the court.

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and
release their claims against the company in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the
consolidated action and assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs by the settling issuers of certain claims that may be
held against the underwriter defendants, plus reasonable
cooperation with the plaintiffs with respect to their claims
against the underwriter defendants.

The company believes that any material liability on behalf of
webMethods that may accrue under the proposed settlement would
be covered by its insurance policies.

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

                   
                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Penn. Court Favors Youngs in Appeal v. Zinc
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc Corporation of America is liable for compensation in the
death of Charles Young, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
held on April 5, 2006 in reversing the Workers' Compensation
Appeal Board ruling.

The Panel, comprised of Senior Judge Joseph F. McCloskey, Judge
Doris A. Smith-Ribner, and Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter,
decided on Case No. 1753 C.D.2005 on April 5, 2006.

From 1991 until February 2001, Mr. Young worked for Zinc as a
bricklayer foreman. Before working for Zinc, he worked as a
bricklayer for four other employers.

In June 2001, Mr. Young was diagnosed with mesothelioma. On July
23, 2001, he filed a claim petition asserting that he contracted
cancer from workplace exposure to asbestos. He died in April
2002. One month after his death, his wife, Arlene Young, filed a
fatal claim petition.

Both parties agree that asbestos exposure caused the fatal
cancer however, the dispute centers on whether Mr. Young's
exposure to asbestos at Zinc, which documents establish occurred
as late as 1997, caused or contributed to the disease.

The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the claim, concluding
that Mrs. Young failed to prove that Zinc was liable for
benefits partly because her husband voluntarily retired before
his diagnosis and based on his admitted lack of earnings loss.
The Judge denied claims for weekly compensation benefits and
recovery for medical expenses.

Mrs. Young appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board,
contending that the lifetime and fatal claims must be granted
based on the fact that Mr. Young suffered and died from an
asbestos-related cancer following workplace exposure to asbestos
at Zinc.

After the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the denial
of the claims, Mrs. Young petitioned to review the order,
contending that both the Board and the Workers' Compensation
Judge erred.

The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal
Board order and remanded the matter for calculation and award of
benefits.

Daniel K. Bricmont of Pittsburgh represented Arlene Young and
Charles Young.

Christopher L. Wildfire of Pittsburgh represented the Workers'
Compensation Appeal Board and Zinc Corp. of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire State Awaits Staniszek Suit Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Building Associates LLC awaits further activity by
plaintiff's counsel in an asbestos-related lawsuit entitled
Stanislawa Staniszek v. A.C.&S. Inc, et al.

The Company and numerous other New York City building owners are
defendants in the suit, which is part of the New York City
Asbestos Litigation, pending before the New York State Supreme
Court.

In the suit, Mr. Staniszek, now deceased, suffered from
mesothelioma and other related conditions as a result of
exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related products while working
as a project supervisor at sites including the Empire State
Building.

While a Note of Issue was filed over three years ago, placing
the case on the Court's trial calendar, the matter has since
been removed from any trial cluster assigned by the Court and no
new trial date has been set.

Based in New York City, New York, Empire State Building
Associates LLC, an investor group led by New York real estate
expert Peter Malkin, holds the master lease on the Empire State
Building through 2076.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Deems John Crane Payouts Unreasonable
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, determined that the damage awards issued against
John Crane Inc. "deviate materially from reasonable
compensation."

The Panel, comprised of Judges Tom, Marlow, Gonzales, Catterson,
and Malone, decided the case on April 11, 2006.

On December 13, 2004, Judge Paula J. Omansky of the Supreme
Court, New York County awarded Margaret Marshall, representing
Noah Pride, US$8 million for past pain and suffering. The award
was later vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial on the
issue of damages. John Crane then sought to reduce the award to
US$3 million and to enter an amended judgment.

That same day, Judge Omansky awarded Bernard Mayer US$7 million
for past pain and suffering and US$7 million for future pain and
suffering. The awards were vacated and the matter was remanded
for a new trial on the issue of damages. John Crane sought to
reduce the past pain and suffering award to US$3 million, reduce
the future pain and suffering award to US$1.5 million, and to
render an amended judgment.

The Supreme Court found that John Crane was not deprived of a
fair trial. It further rejected John Crane's argument that
damages for pain and suffering be calculated on a per month
basis.

Michael A. Pollard of Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, Illinois
represented John Crane Inc.

Steven J. Phillips of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, New York
represented Margaret Marshall, for Noah Pride, and Bernard
Mayer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Allows Board to Revisit Dallas Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept.,
ruled that the Workers' Compensation Board is authorized to
revisit Robert Dallas' workers' compensation claim on his
employer's request.

The case filed by Mr. Dallas against Consolidated Edison Inc.,
Special Funds Conservation Committee, and other firms has
already been established for asbestos-related occupational
disease.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge Cardona, Judges Spain,
Carpinello, Mugglin, and Lahtinen, decided the case on March 16,
2006.

Mr. Dallas was exposed to asbestos in his 34-year career. To
back his claim, Mr. Dallas submitted a 1996 report by his
physician in which he was diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis
and asbestos-related pleural disease.  

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the case for an
asbestos-related occupational disease and awarded benefits.  
Following affirmance by the Board, Mr. Dallas' employer
requested that the case be revisited.  

The Special Funds Conservation Committee made the Special
Disability Fund liable for benefit reimbursement to the employer
prompting this appeal.

Leonard B. Feld of Jericho, New York and Vecchione, Vecchione &
Connors of Williston Park, New York represented Consolidated
Edison Inc. and the Workers' Compensation Board.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Affirms Board Ruling in Fama Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept.,
affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board in a
claim filed by Antonio Fama against P & M Sorbara, the Special
Funds Conservation Committee, and other respondents.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge Cardona, Judges Spain,
Carpinello, Mugglin, and Lahtinen, decided the case on March 16,
2006.

A concrete worker for 37 years, Mr. Fama was exposed to asbestos
with his last exposure occurring in the 1990s while working for
P & M Sorbara.  

In 1999, Mr. Fama was diagnosed with asbestosis and asbestos-
related pleural disease. Following his claim for workers'
compensation benefits, a medical examination confirmed the
diagnosis.

The Board established the claim for asbestosis, but noted that
claimant had submitted evidence of an ARPD claim.

The Supreme Court held that the Board's assertion that
asbestosis was Mr. Fama's occupational disease was supported by
evidence. The Court ruled that the Board was not required to
establish a claim for Mr. Fama's asbestosis and an independent
second claim for his ARPD.

Patricia M. Barry of Douglas J. Hayden, State Insurance Fund,
White Plains represented P & M Sorbara and another respondent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Cecere Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept.,
affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board in a
claim filed by Luigi Cecere against Consolidated Edison Inc.,
the Special Funds Conservation Committee, and another
respondent.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge Cardona, Judges Spain,
Carpinello, Mugglin, and Lahtinen, decided the case on March 16,
2006.

In 1995, Mr. Cecere filed a claim for workers' compensation
benefits, alleging that he had developed asbestosis due to his
exposure to asbestos during his 24-year work with the employer.

Upon a review of medical reports submitted by Mr. Cecere and the
employer's medical examiner, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge
established the case for asbestosis.

The Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Mr. Cecere to be
permanently partially disabled and awarded benefits. The
Workers' Compensation Board later affirmed, prompting this
appeal by the Special Funds Conservation Committee on April 22,
2004.

The Special Funds claimed that the Board erred in failing to
establish an independent second claim for asbestos-related
pleural disease as an occupational disease.

The Supreme Court held that evidence supported determination
that Mr. Cecere established case for asbestosis as a work-
related occupational disease.

Leonard B. Feld of Jericho, New York and Vecchione, Vecchione &
Connors of Williston Park, New York represented Consolidated
Edison Inc. and another respondent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Samson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4,
upheld the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court
granting summary judgment to Metalclad Insulation Corporation in
an asbestos wrongful death action filed by Brenda Samson for
Douglas E. Samson.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge Ignazio J. Ruvolo, Judge
Patricia K. Sepulveda, and Judge Timothy A. Reardon, decided
Case No. A108680 on April 12, 2006.

In February 2001, Mr. Samson died allegedly from mesothelioma.
In August 2001, Ms. Samson and the other plaintiffs, who were
family of Mr. Samson, sued Metalclad and other defendants.

Ms. Samson claimed that Mr. Samson was exposed to asbestos-
containing materials supplied or installed by Metalclad while
Mr. Samson worked in the U.S. Navy as a boilermaker aboard USS
Valley Forge from March 1967 to October 1968. He maintained and
cleaned the ship's boilers.

In November 2003, Metalclad moved for summary judgment arguing
that there was no evidence of Mr. Samson's exposure to its
products. Ms. Samson providing a list of Mr. Samson's coworkers
who may have witnessed the exposure. Metalclad initiated efforts
to depose two of his coworkers, but learned in May 2004 that
they were already dead. Ms. Samson withdrew them as witnesses.

In July 2004, Metalclad moved to renew its motion for summary
judgment. In October 2004, the Superior Court granted the
renewed motion, ruling that Ms. Samson and the other plaintiffs
had no evidence that Mr. Samson was exposed to Metalclad
products.

The Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.

Katherine Y. Wang of Paul, Hanley et al. of Berkeley, California
and Bryce C. Anderson of Bryce Clay Anderson Law Office of
Brentwood, California, represented Brenda Samson and the other
plaintiffs.

Mabi Huang Ellis and Camille Kamee Fong of McKenna Long &
Aldridge, San Francisco, California represented Metalclad
Insulation Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Deals With ACandS Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a subsidiary of the St. Paul
Travelers Cos. Inc., deals with ACandS Inc.'s asbestos-related
proceedings.

ACandS Inc. is a former distributor and installer of asbestos-
containing products.

In September 2002, ACandS filed for bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In its proposed
reorganization plan, ACandS sought to create a trust to pay
asbestos injury claims. The proposed plan claimed that ACandS
had settled most asbestos claims for about US$2.80 billion, from
which ACandS asserted that TPC is liable for 45 percent.

On January 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court rejected ACandS' plan.
ACandS has appealed the court's decision and has opposed the
court's findings. TPC has moved to dismiss the appeal and has
opposed ACandS' objections.

In January 2001, arbitration was launched to find whether and to
what extent ACandS' financial duties for asbestos injury claims
are subject to insurance policy aggregate limits. On July 31,
2003, the panel ruled in favor of TPC that claims against ACandS
are subject to the aggregate limits of the policies issued to
ACandS, which have been used up.

In October 2003, ACandS moved to vacate the arbitration award.
On September 16, 2004, the U.S. District Court denied ACandS'
motion to vacate. On January 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.

On March 1, 2006, the Third Circuit stayed the issuance of its
mandate. On March 15, 2006, TPC petitioned for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
were filed against TPC and other insurers in West Virginia state
court. These cases were consolidated into a proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. Plaintiffs
alleged that the insurers inappropriately handled and settled
asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages on insurers.

In November 2001, plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court moved to name TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC
and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of
asbestos products.   

In August 2002, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on TPC's
motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting more prosecution
of the suits under the reorganization plan and related orders.
The court ordered the parties to mediation. In 2003, the court
extended the injunction to apply to cases filed in Texas and
Ohio state courts as well as to the attorneys who are
prosecuting these cases.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders
while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy court's orders
which required all future direct actions against TPC to first be
approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or
federal court.  

Judgment was entered on March 31, 2006. Appeals from the March
29, 2006 ruling have been filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, The St. Paul Travelers Cos. Inc.
offers personal and commercial liability and casualty, property,
workers' compensation, auto, marine, and other coverage to firms
in North America and the U.K. The Company was created when St.
Paul acquired Travelers Property Casualty Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vector Group Unit Has 3 Third-Party Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd., as of December 31, 2005, noted about three
third-party payor actions pending against subsidiary Liggett
Group Inc. Asbestos manufacturers, insurance firms, union health
and welfare trust funds, and others have filed these actions.

Nine U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled that third-party
Payors did not have standing to bring lawsuits against cigarette
makers. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied petitions for
certiorari in the cases decided by five of the courts of appeal.

Since 1954, Liggett and other U.S. cigarette manufacturers have
been named as defendants in numerous direct and third party
actions on the theory that cigarette manufacturers should be
liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette
smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from cigarettes.

Liggett and the other cigarette manufacturers continue to face
new cases filed against them. For the year ended December 31,
2005, Liggett incurred legal fees and other litigation costs
totaling about US$8,048,000 compared to US$5,110,000 for 2004
and US$6,122,000 for 2003.

Based in Miami, Florida, Vector Group Inc.'s Liggett unit makes
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select and Eve, OMNI-
branded "reduced-carcinogen" cigarettes, and several generic
lines of cigarettes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KACC Requests Return of Funds in Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation asks the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware to authorize the return of
funds held in escrow pursuant to a pre-petition asbestos claims
settlement processing agreement.

Before the February 12, 2002 petition date, KACC was named as a
party-defendant in actions instituted in state and federal
courts in New York by asbestos-related personal injury claimants
represented by Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.

In March 2000, KACC and W&L entered into the Settlement
Agreement to resolve the pending asbestos litigation. KACC
agreed to make certain payments on specified dates to KACC's
attorney Raymond J. Heslin, acting as escrow agent.

KACC also agreed not to disclose the contents of the Settlement
Agreement due to the sensitive and confidential nature of
information regarding settlement amounts.

As of KACC's bankruptcy filing, Mr. Heslin held nearly
US$3,700,000 in trust. Neither W&L nor KACC has taken any
further action with respect to the Settlement Agreement and no
processing nor claim payments have occurred, Daniel J.
DeFranceschi, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, in Wilmington,
Delaware, relates.

Mr. Heslin has indicated that he will return the funds to KACC
if W&L agrees or the Court authorizes the return. KACC has
requested W&L to permit Mr. Heslin to return the funds. As of
June 19, 2006, W&L has refused to do so, Mr. DeFranceschi says.

The Confirmation Order approves the rejection of the Settlement
Agreement, and any claim in respect of the rejection will
automatically be treated as a Channeled Personal Injury Claim,
Mr. DeFranceschi notes.

Claimants may seek payment only from the Asbestos PI Trust that
will be established on the Effective Date. To preserve equality
of treatment among similarly situated creditors, the funds
should be returned to KACC, Mr. DeFranceschi asserts.

In accordance with confidentiality restrictions contained in a
Settlement Agreement, KACC also requests authority to file a
copy of the Settlement Agreement under seal.

(Kaiser Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 99; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Removes Grace Property Damage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following a stipulation between W.R. & Grace Co. and South
Carolina law firm Speights & Runyan regarding the firm's
withdrawal with prejudice of certain asbestos property damage
claims, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court withdraws and expunges 57 PD
Claims filed by Speights & Runyan in the Debtors' Chapter 11
cases.

A schedule of the 57 Withdrawn PD Claims is available at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/wrgracewithdrawnclaims.pdf

The Debtors seek permission from the Bankruptcy Court to proceed
immediately to adjudicate their substantive objections to all
remaining property damage claims in Canada as part of a pending
proceeding in "In the Matter of S. 18.6 of the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as Amended, and
In the Matter of Grace Canada, Inc.," in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, Commercial List.

A schedule of the remaining Canadian PD claims is available at:   

http://bankrupt.com/misc/wrgraceaffectedcanadianpdclaims.pdf

The Debtors also ask Judge Judith Fitzgerald to set for hearing
as part of the PD Estimation Phase 2 trial their substantive
objections to U.S. traditional property damage claims on the
grounds of:

(a) Lack of sufficient product identification;

(b) Claims brought too late; and

(c) Claims providing no proof of hazard.

A schedule of the remaining U.S. PD claims affected and their
remaining issues is available:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/wrgraceaffecteduspdclaims.pdf

James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young Jones
& Weintraub, P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware, tells Judge
Fitzgerald that the Scheduling Motion is the latest step in the
ongoing staged objection and estimation process previously
established in the Bankruptcy Court's property damage case
management orders.

To the extent that claims are disallowed through objections,
those claims need not be estimated, Mr. O'Neill says. In
addition, to the extent that estimation determines common issues
affecting large numbers of claims, those claims may in turn be
disallowed.

Mr. O'Neill relates that since the filing of PD claims
objections in September 2005, the volume of PD claims has been
currently reduced from 4,003 to 901. The 901 remaining PD claims
consist of:

-- 501 traditional U.S. claims;

-- 291 Canadian claims, all filed by Speights & Runyan; and

-- 109 "Category 2" claims for property damage allegedly
resulting from the debtors' mining, milling or processing
operations.

Mr. O'Neill states that the Debtors intend to streamline the
adjudication by implementing a process through which findings
made during estimation will be used both for purposes of plan
feasibility and claims disallowance.

To estimate the value of the 901 PD claims remaining as of the
Phase 2 estimation hearing, the Debtors want the Bankruptcy
Court to consider liability and damages concepts as they apply
to traditional U.S. claims, Canadian PD claims, and Category 2
claims.

According to Mr. O'Neill, the Bankruptcy Court will necessarily
be asked to address core liability issues including statutes of
limitations, product identification and proof of hazard,
specifically as those concepts apply to the universe of 501 or
fewer distinct U.S. buildings that remain.

Mr. O'Neill asserts that the Debtors' Scheduling Motion seeks to
clarify that the three substantive PD claims objections will be
heard once and for all as to those claims, as part of the
estimation hearing.

In addition, Mr. O'Neill notes that the Speights Canadian Claims
are governed by Canadian substantive law, which differs in
several material aspects from the corresponding U.S. law. Thus,
the Debtors' pending plan of reorganization calls for Canadian
claims to be adjudicated in Canada, under a Canadian litigation
protocol.

With the PD claims now down to a manageable number, the Debtors
believe that the "the time is ripe" to send Speights Canadian
Claims to be adjudicated by the CCAA court, so that the
Bankruptcy Court will have rulings it can take into account in
time for the Phase 2 estimation proceeding.

The Debtors further note that the claims objection process has
cut the Category 2 claims from 250 to 109, and the Debtors are
awaiting Judge Fitzgerald's decision on the pending objection to
54 of the remaining 109 claims on the ground that Minnesota does
not recognize a tort claim for stigma to property.

While retaining all objections to all remaining Category 2
claims, the Debtors anticipate that any "value" would be de
minimis.  Rather than waste time or resources separately
addressing liability for Category 2 claims at the Phase 2
estimation hearing, the Debtors currently anticipate that they
will, at most, address the minimal nature of damages sought
during estimation.

The Debtors clarify that they are not, at this time, seeking to
schedule the adjudication of individual Category 2 claim
objections as part of Phase 2 estimation.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 109; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Retrieval of Grace Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants
asks the Bankruptcy Court to compel production of documents
concerning litigation between W.R. Grace & Co. and plaintiffs
who sought relief based on allegations that their property was
damaged as a result of installation of various Grace products.

Theodore Tacconelli, Esq., at Ferry, Joseph & Pearce, P.A., in
Wilmington, Delaware, tells Judge Judith Fitzgerald that the PD
Committee must know the details of Grace's prepetition valuation
to estimate asbestos property damage liabilities in the Debtors'
Chapter 11 cases.

"The amount paid by Grace for the prepetition settlement or
resolution of PD Claims is highly material to an estimation of
the cost of the outstanding postpetition PD Claims," Mr.
Tacconelli says.

Mr. Tacconelli relates that in November 2005, the PD Committee
asked Grace to produce original documents for inspection and
copying in connection with the estimation of the PD Claims.

The Requested Documents, which are within Grace's "possession,
custody, or control" and were created during the period from
1950 to present, include:

-- All documents by, between or about any holder of an asbestos
PD Claim including, but not limited to, the sale, installation
or delivery of any asbestos-containing products to any holder or
property owner identified in any PD Claim;

-- Documents relating to asbestos contamination or release of
asbestos fibers within any building or property; and

-- All documents pertaining to organization, membership,
funding, marketing efforts, and activities of the Safe Building
Alliance and the Alliance for Safe Buildings that relate to
asbestos products or PD claims, or the maintenance of asbestos
in buildings located in the United States or Canada.

A full-text copy of the PD Committee's first set of Requested
Documents is available at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/wrgracepdcommitteerequesteddocs.pdf

James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young Jones
& Weintraub, P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware, opposed the PD
Committee's request to the extent it sought information or
identification of documents beyond the permissible scope of
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. O'Neill further argued that the PD Committee's inquiry is
premature.

A full-text copy of Grace's responses to each of the Requested
Documents is available at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/wrgracedebtorsdocdiscoveryresponse.pdf

Mr. Tacconelli asserts that "Grace's unsupported, blanket
objections cannot excuse compliance" with the PD Committee's
request for production or the Rules of Civil Procedure.

According to Mr. Tacconelli, Grace is the only party responsible
for the production of documents because the Litigation Files
cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source and the PD
Committee should not be required to seek them elsewhere.

Mr. Tacconelli avers that the information contained in public
court files across the country is incomplete and obtaining these
records would place undue burden on the PD Committee.

Furthermore, Mr. Tacconelli contends that Grace's objections are
particularly baseless since Grace has already acknowledged and
identified the universe of claims and lawsuits that comprise the
Litigation Files in correspondence between the parties.

Moreover, Mr. Tacconelli insists that a privilege review is not
an overwhelming task. If the documents are filed by ordinary
litigation methods, most should require only a cursory review.

The Bankruptcy Court decided the matter in chambers.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 109; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Seeks Insurer to Get GBP113T Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Wightman of Manchester, England might not receive the
GBP113,000 compensation award unless she can prove who the
insurer of her husband's employer is, WebWire reports.

Ken Wightman worked as a plumber. Part of his job involved
mixing and sawing asbestos and cleaning asbestos roofs, which
were popular in the 1960s.

Mr. Wightman died at the age of 53 over four years ago.

Pauline Chandler, an industrial disease lawyer specializing in
asbestos compensation claims, said, "Unless we can prove who the
insurers of her husbands' employer were, we will not be able to
recover any of the compensation awarded."

Ms. Chandler, who works with Manchester-based law firm Pannone
LLP, added, "It's a real dilemma, without proof of who the
insurer is we cannot progress. We have been able to trace the
employer, a company called A. Temple Somerville, a builder and
repair contractor from Cheetham Hill, which has now ceased
trading and we know they were insured. Sadly at present we do
not have documentary evidence of their insurance."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USA Properties Fund to Pay $300T Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
USA Properties Fund Inc. and its USA Multifamily Management Inc.
unit have agreed to pay US$300,000 as settlement for a lawsuit
for violations that the companies employed untrained workers to
remove asbestos ceiling material from a Concord apartment
building, Sacramento Business Journal reports.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District filed the case
against the companies in Contra Costa County Superior Court on
March 13, 2006.

Regulators accused the companies of several incidents when it
"used untrained and uncertified laborers to remove asbestos
ceiling materials at the Clayton Crossing apartment complex in
Concord."

The workers allegedly removed the material "without taking any
precautions to prevent themselves and the residents of the
complex from being exposed to harmful asbestos fibers."


COMPANY PROFILE

USA Properties Fund Inc.
2440 Professional Drive  
Roseville, CA 95661
Tel: (916) 773-6060
Fax: (916) 773-5866
General Information: propertymgmtdept@usapropfund.com
Properties Information: propertymgmtdept@usapropfund.com
http://www.usapropfund.com/

Description:
The Company develops family and senior communities, renovates
existing apartment communities, and manages properties. USA
Properties also offers construction services and real estate
development.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richmond Homes Fined GBP39T for Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dewsbury Magistrates Court in the U.K. ordered Richmond
Homes Ltd. and its director Arran Michael Import to pay a total
of GBP39,000 for unsafe handling of asbestos during demolition,
Workplace Law Magazine reports.

The Court fined the Company GBP15,000 and Mr. Import GBP2,000
for the unsafe asbestos handling. The Company was also ordered
to pay costs of GBP20,000, while Mr. Import was ordered to pay
GBP2,000.

The Company and Mr. Import pleaded guilty to charges brought by
the Health and Safety Executive after admitting that asbestos
was removed from a building with a license and demolition was
carried out at the then asbestos tainted site.

HSE Inspector Justine Lee said, "Despite the fact that asbestos
was known to be present, this Company directed its sub-
contractors to go ahead with demolition work on the site without
removing the asbestos first. The building was then set on fire
and Mr. Import directed his employees to remove the asbestos,
which they did without taking any of the necessary precautions.

"In this instance the Company's cavalier approach to these
regulations, endorsed by its director, put at risk not only its
own workers, but also others working on the site after the fire,
including the emergency services."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian Gov't Offers Relocation Package
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Australian Government will offer residents of
Wittenoom, Western Australia a package to move elsewhere because
of asbestos-associated health risks, ABC NewsOnline reports.

The Govt. and the Asbestos Diseases Society said that Wittenoom
residents are luring tourists who do not know about the dangers
of contracting mesothelioma. Many people have died as a result
of exposure to asbestos in and around the town's old mine, which
closed in the 1960s.

Robert Vojakovic, the president of the Asbestos Diseases Society
said the risk of contracting mesothelioma is still persistent.

Mr. Vojakovic said, "One of our top engineers who only went over
there to assist ... with the water post-Wittenoom operation
passed away, we've got people who are electricians who went over
there and developed the disease, so surely you know commonsense
had to prevail eventually."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Asks Shareholders to Admit Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation's president, Daisuke Hatakake, urged
shareholders to acknowledge the Company's responsibility to
provide compensation to people whose health was harmed by
asbestos made at its plants, The Japan Times reports.

The Company had about JPY3.4 billion in extraordinary losses in
its 2005 fiscal year, which ended in March, to cover the cost of
compensation for victims of asbestos-related illnesses living
near its plants.

Mr. Hatatake told the annual shareholders meeting, "Kubota has
been seriously addressing the asbestos problem in an effort to
clarify its social responsibility."

Mr. Hatatake added that future compensation payments would not
be as large as in the past.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning May End Bankruptcy by Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building materials manufacturer Owens Corning may emerge from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy by October 31, 2006 by making a US$100
million payment, which is part of a financing deal with J.P.
Morgan Securities Inc., The Toledo Blade reports.

J.P. Morgan has agreed to purchase any unsold Company stock in a
72.9 million share-rights offering. Proceeds of the sale of the
new shares will be used to help finance settlement of the
complex asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case.

Steven Krull, Owens Corning's legal chief, said that once the
deal is approved, the Company would pay the US$100 million fee.
He added that Judge Judith Fitzgerald of U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in Wilmington, Delaware set a hearing on the matter.

J.P. Morgan's deal with Owens Corning presumes the Company will
emerge from Chapter 11 by October 31. If the Company misses that
deadline, it must pay another US$30 million to extend the
agreement until December 15. However, before that can happen,
creditors must vote to accept the Company's bankruptcy
reorganization plan and Judge Fitzgerald must sign off.

If Owens Corning decides not to go push through with the J.P.
Morgan deal, it will be required to pay US$20 million to the
firm. To help finance a settlement in the six-year-old case,
Owens Corning will cancel existing stock and issue 131.4 million
new shares.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning makes fiberglass and
composite materials. Accounting for 80 percent of sales, its
building materials unit makes thermal, acoustic, and foam
insulation, roofing shingles, vinyl windows and siding, stone
veneer building products, housewrap, patio doors, and rain
gutters. Its composite materials unit makes glass fiber
materials for the auto, construction, marine, and industrial
customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Three Suits Filed v. 46 Firms in W.V. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Guerin, an attorney with James Humphreys and
Associates filed asbestos-related lawsuits in behalf of three
sets of plaintiffs against 46 defendants, The West Virginia
Record reports.

Ms. Guerin's clients on the suits, which were filed on June 13,
2006 in Kanawha Circuit Court, are: Paul Russell, representing
Joseph Russell; Shirley Vangilder, representing Ronald
Vangilder; and Charles and Anna Thompson.

The plaintiffs charge 46 defendants for liability in the
asbestos-related illnesses that caused the deaths of Mr. Russell
and Mr. Vangilder and Mr. Thompson's current medical state.

The complaint says they were "exposed to respirable asbestos
dust and other harmful dusts as the result of the manufacture,
sale, distribution and installation of asbestos-containing
products by the defendants at their places of work in West
Virginia and Kentucky."

The suit added that Owens-Illinois Inc., Kentucky Power Co.,
Applachian Power Co., Ohio Valley Electric Corp., Aristech
Chemical Corp., Ashland Oil, Marathon Ashland Petroleum Llc,
Cabell-Huntington Hospital, and INCO Alloys Ltd. owned premises
at which the plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos.

A visiting judge will be assigned the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Ministry Grants Tougher Asbestos Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Japan's Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry said
that a Ministry panel approved measures that feature a nearly
complete ban on asbestos' use in production, Kyodo News reports.

The officials added that the measures are scheduled to take
effect of September 1, 2006.

The measures are part of a draft legislation to revise
ordinances to implement the Occupational Health and Labor Law.

The measures will cover almost all kinds of products like
insulation and fire-resistant materials in addition to building
materials and adhesives. A Ministry official said more than 99
percent of asbestos use will be banned under the new measures.

Six products, including insulation used in rocket motors and
packing for submarines, are exceptions. The measures require
asbestos content be limited to no more than 0.1 percent.

To contain health hazard to workers, mandatory reporting and
formulation of work schedule to authorities are required for
removal of asbestos-containing materials. The approved measures
will expand the scope of such reporting to include asbestos
containment work.

The new measures will also require work logs and health checkup
data of workers be kept for 40 years, which is 10 years longer
than required.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HOME SOLUTIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Home Solutions of
America, Inc. between April 11, 2006 and June 6, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Aug. 21,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.


INFOSONICS CORP: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
InfoSonics Corp. nd certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of InfoSonics between
May 8, 2006 and June 9, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
results, thus causing InfoSonics's publicly traded securities to
trade at artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that on June 12, 2006,
before the opening of trading, InfoSonics issued a press release
in which it disclosed, among other things, that it filed an
amended 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 to include a
restatement of certain non-cash items in the financial
statements for the same period.

The company originally classified warrants as a derivative
liability for the period of Jan. 30, 2006 through the end of the
first quarter, March 31, 2006.

However, upon further investigation, the company determined the
warrants should not have been classified as a liability, but
rather, as equity.

Accordingly, the company determined to restate its historical
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.  As
alleged in the Complaint, during the Class Period, InfoSonics,
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP),
overstated its reported net income for the quarter ended March
31, 2006 by $564,342, or 33%, or $0.09 per share.

It is further alleged that as a result of the company's
disclosures, on June 12, 2006, shares of InfoSonics declined
$6.84 per share, from a close of $24.22 per share on June 9,
2006, to close at $17.38 per share, a decline of approximately
28%, on heavier than usual volume.

On June 13, 2006, the following trading, InfoSonics shares
declined an additional $2.80 per share, or approximately 16%, to
close at $14.58 per share, on heavier than usual volume.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
certain Company insiders sold approximately 51,000 InfoSonics
shares at artificially inflates prices for proceeds of
approximately $1 million.

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 Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
Donald R. Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, (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.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice, LLC, filed 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.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Aug. 1,
2006 for appointment.  

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

The company provides broadband telephone services in the U.S.,
Canada, and the United Kingdom, primarily using voice over
Internet protocol technology.  

Prior to the company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on May 24,
2006, the company had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
market its services to potential customers.

However, the complaint alleges, both the company and company
insiders, who had invested hundreds of millions of dollars of
their personal funds in the company, were losing money.

According to the Complaint, these company insiders, desperate to
execute an exit strategy for themselves, embarked on an illegal
course of conduct to sell shares of the company in a public
market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a result of this alleged illegal conduct, shares of Vonage
sold in the IPO declined more than 30% in the first seven
trading days.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired VG stock and suffered a loss
as a result. The plaintiff is represented by the law firm of
Motley Rice LLC, which prosecutes class actions in both state
and federal courts throughout the country. For more information
about

For more details, contact Leslie G. Toran, Esq. of Motley Rice,
LLC, Phone: 404-201-6910, E-mail: ltoran@motleyrice.com, Web
site: http://www.motleyrice.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  * * *