---

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

            Wednesday, March 29, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 63

                            Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Litigants Appeal Securities Suit's Dismissal
AMERICAN SAFETY: Continues to Face Suit in Fla. Over Debt Owed
CALIFORNIA: Homeowners Near 210 Freeway Demand Safety Structures
CALIFORNIA: Measures to Solve Parole Hearings Backlog Approved
CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Lawsuit Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires

CENTERPLATE INC: Final Fairness Hearing Set for Holden Lawsuit
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Taxi Holdings Merger
CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
CORN PRODUCTS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suits in Ill.
COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Face Fla. Managed Care Litigation

CREDIT SUISSE: Moves to Dismiss AOL Time Investors' Complaint
CREDIT SUISSE: Securities Watchdog Requests Refco-Related Data
CREDIT SUISSE: Lawsuit Over Adelphia's Accounting Continues
CREDIT SUISSE: Plaintiffs Ask for Summary Judgment in IPO Cases
DOE RUN: Appealing Suit Over Lead Emissions by Miss. Smelter

DOE RUN: Faces Personal Injury, Property Damage Suits in Okla.
DOE RUN: Faces Lawsuits Over Mining Operations Damages in Miss.
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Continues in Retailers' Suit
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Calif. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Federal Court Allows Suit Over Hispanics' Voting Rights

GEO GROUP: Enters $3.1M Settlement for California Labor Lawsuit
GRADIENT ANALYTICS: Paid for Biovail Research, Report Says
KOPPERS INC: Tex. Residents Amend Personal Injury, Damage Suit
LA ESPERANZA: Sued Over Alleged Unpaid Wages in Main St. Store
LOUISIANA: $11.1M Settlement Entered in Suit Over Teachers Exam

MONY LIFE: Continues to Face Insurance Policies Fraud Lawsuit
MORGANS HOTEL: Member Left Out of IPO Proceeds File Fraud Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Federal Judge Drops Insurers in La. Lawsuit
NL INDUSTRIES: Wis. Court Allows Lead Paint Lawsuit to Proceed
NORTH CAROLINA: Durham School's Disciplinary Policy Under Attack

OIL REFINERIES: Israeli Firm Faces $32M Lawsuit for Belching
PACKAGING DYNAMICS: Faces Stockholders' Suit in Del. State Court
PENTON MEDIA: Reaches Settlement in Ga. TCPA Violations Lawsuit
SAUDI ARABIA: Teachers of Gifted Students Sue to Earn Pay Raise
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Wis. Shareholder Suits Over Bain Merger Nixed

SHURGARD STORAGE: Calif. Court Limits Class in Consumer Lawsuit
SHURGARD STORAGE: Faces Suit in Wash. Over Public Storage Merger
SLM CORP: D.C. Court Hears Appeal on Dismissed Consumer Lawsuit
TROPICAL ZONE: Sued for Alleged Illegal Selling of Latin Music


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DOT HILL: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
H&R BLOCK: Brodsky Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
H&R BLOCK: Mager Goldstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Lawsuit in Wis.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Suit in Wis.

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in Fla.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Gardy Notis Files Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
PHH CORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.

                           *********

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Litigants Appeal Securities Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of a purported securities
class action filed in May 2004 against Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
and its officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.

An amended complaint was filed in August 2004.  The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's securities from May 29, 2003 to April 29, 2004.  It
sought unspecified damages relating to the issuance of allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding EFAPROXYN during this
period and subsequent declines in the company's stock price.  

On October 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated October 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On November 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District
Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.


AMERICAN SAFETY: Continues to Face Suit in Fla. Over Debt Owed
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Safety Insurance Holdings, Ltd. and a number of its
affiliates are defendants in a suit entitled, "Dick Sizemore v.
American Safety Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Case No 2005-
31704."

Filed in Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, the suit was
brought by an individual who contends that defendants are liable
to him for a $400,000 debt, plus interest and costs, owed to him
by the company's former borrowers, Ponce Marina, Inc. and Herman
McMurray.  Plaintiff intends to seek class certification for the
case on these claims.  

On January 27, 2006, the trial court dismissed the case.  The
plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint on or
before March 6, 2006.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on March 7, 2006, alleging various theories of recovery.  


CALIFORNIA: Homeowners Near 210 Freeway Demand Safety Structures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents on the east side of the 210 Freeway between Milliken
and Rochester avenues in San Bernardino County are demanding
more than a guardrail to protect them from possible accidents,
according to DailyBulletin.com.  They want California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) to erect a full-sized soundwall,
the report said.

The 210 Freeway is in Caltrans' right-of-way through Rancho
Cucamonga.  As such, the city would have to finance a sound wall
and be liable for future accidents related to it.  In relation,
homeowners are bringing a class action against Caltrans to force
it to erect a structure that would prevent vehicles that might
go off course in the freeway from landing into their
neighborhood.  They are also directing the action against the
state of California, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments
and freeway contractors.

Some 1,500 residents in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties
are affected by noise and property damage resulting from the
freeway.  Caltrans spokeswoman Terri Kasinga told the
DailyBulleting the construction of a steel guardrail on the 0.7-
mile stretch of the freeway is scheduled to begin in about a
year.

Representing the plaintiffs is Monica-based law firm Milstein,
Adelman & Kreger (http://www.vmplaw.com/).


CALIFORNIA: Measures to Solve Parole Hearings Backlog Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marin County Superior Court Judge Verna Adams approved
procedures to eliminate California's backlog of overdue parole
hearings, ContraCostaTimes reports.  

The measures were agreed between the state and prisoners'
advocacy group, representing thousands of inmates waiting for
parole suitability hearings that are legally past due.  The
basic measures include developing a tracking system to show when
prisoners are entitled to appear, and maintaining staff and
resources to meet legal obligations, according to the report.  
In a written joint statement, the parties provided that at least
one of the 12 parole commissioners must attend each of the
thousands of hearings each year, along with at least one deputy.

Meanwhile, the judge set a tentative April 25, 2006 hearing on
more controversial reforms, including holding Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger legally responsible if seats on the Board of
Parole Hearings go unfilled.  Also pending is a request to bar
the board from using multi-year parole denials as means of
managing its caseload, the report said.

A prisoner reaching the minimum eligible release date is
entitled to an annual parole suitability hearing under state
law.

The board is facing 3,200 overdue parole hearings.  In the
spring of 2001, 2,058 cases were overdue for hearings, by now
the backlog has increased by 55% (Class Action Reporter, March
6, 2006).

The inmates are represented by Keith Allen Wattley of The Prison
Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, California, (Marin
Co.).


CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Lawsuit Over Texas Panhandle Grass Fires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cano Petroleum, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in a lawsuit by a local land and mineral
owner.  The suit is filed in state court in Carson County,
Texas, seeking damages and other relief relating to the recent
grass fires in Texas panhandle.

Burnett Ranches, Ltd. is leading the complaint in the March 12
grass fire, according to BusinessWeek Online.  The suit blamed
the fire to Cano's electrical wiring and equipment.  It said the
company failed to comply with the applicable standards in the
installation, maintenance and operation of its electrical
equipment used in connection with oil production, according to
the report.  Burnett is seeking the termination of Cano's oil
and gas lease and the market value of the destroyed property in
damages.

Cano said that the subsidiaries named in the suit intend to seek
compensation for lost production, damages and other costs from
those who are determined to be at fault for the fires and the
effects thereof.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com-- is an  
independent Texas-based energy producer with properties in the
mid-continent region of the U.S.  For more information, contact
Cano Petroleum's Investor Relations: Craig Scott, Phone: 800-
769-7205; E-mail: craig@canopetro.com; or HWH Public
Relations/New Media Media Inquiries: Norman Iannarelli; Phone:
203-856-3487; E-mail: normani@hwhpr.com.


CENTERPLATE INC: Final Fairness Hearing Set for Holden Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative June 2006 fairness hearing was slated for the
purported class action entitled, "Holden v. Volume Services
America, Inc. et al.," which was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Orange against Centerplate, Inc.
and its subsidiary Volume Services America, Inc.

In May 2003 a former employee at one of the California stadiums
that the Company serves, filed the suit, alleging violations of
local overtime wage, rest and meal period and related laws with
respect to this employee and others purportedly similarly
situated at any and all of the facilities the Company serves in
California.  The purported class action sought compensatory,
special and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties
under the applicable local laws and injunctions against the
alleged illegal acts.  

On December 8, 2005, the Company executed an agreement to settle
this claim.  The proposed settlement received preliminary court
approval on February 27, 2006 but remains subject to final court
approval.  The final fairness hearing regarding the proposed
settlement is scheduled for June 2006.

In August 2004, a second purported class action, captioned,
"Perez v. Volume Services Inc, d/b/a Centerplate," was filed in
the Superior Court for Yolo County, California.  Perez made
substantially identical allegations to those in Holden.  
Consequently, the Company filed a Demurer and the case was
stayed on November 9, 2004 pending the resolution of Holden.

In February 2006, the parties stipulated to add Celeste Perez as
plaintiff in the Holden suit and the Perez case was dismissed.  
Accordingly, Ms. Perez' claim will now be resolved with the
Holden case.


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Taxi Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. is defendant in a state
court civil action filed against it and all of the members of
its Board of Directors in the Hillsborough County, Florida
Circuit Court.  The suit is styled, "Pipefitters Local No. 636
Defined Benefit Plan v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. et
al., Case No. 06-CA-001825."

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that each of seven individual
defendants, collectively comprising all of the members of the
company's Board of Directors, individually breached the
fiduciary duties owing to shareholders by voting to approve a
merger agreement with Taxi Holdings Corp., an affiliate of
Wellspring Capital Management LLC, a private equity firm, and
Taxi Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Taxi
Holdings Corp.  If shareholders hereafter approve the merger
agreement, the company will emerge as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Taxi Holdings Corp. and its shareholders will receive cash
consideration of $15.00 per common share owned in exchange for
their shares of the Registrant.  A separate count alleges that
the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breach
of fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, the court's designation
of class action status, a declaration that entry into the merger
agreement was in breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties and
therefore was unlawful and unenforceable, and entry of an order
enjoining the defendants from taking further action to
consummate the proposed merger.  


CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in a securities class action
complaint filed on December 5, 2005, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Docket No. C 05 4997
MHP).

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
the company's common stock from August 8, 2005, when it issued a
press release announcing its intention to restate unaudited
financial results for the second quarter of 2005 through
November 16, 2005.  The Plaintiffs do not demand any particular
amount in damages.  The Company has not yet responded to this
complaint.  

The suit was styled, "Cohen v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-04997-MHP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Marilyn H. Patel.  Representing the plaintiffs are: Linda M.
Fong and Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 555
Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
415-772-4700, Fax: 415-772-4707, E-mail: lfong@kaplanfox.com and
lking@kaplanfox.com; and Todd M. Schneider of Schneider &
Wallace, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA
94104, Phone: 415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-7105, E-mail:
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com.

Representing the defendants is Caz Hashemi of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: (650) 320-4827, E-mail: CHASHEMI@WSGR.COM.


CORN PRODUCTS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suits in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Products International, Inc. and certain of its officers
are defendants a consolidated securities class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Between May and June of 2005, the Company, Samuel Scott and
Cheryl Beebe were named as defendants in five purported
securities class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs are:

     (1) Monty Blatt, May 20, 2005,

     (2) Dale Anderson, May 27, 2005,

     (3) Adam Shapiro, June 1, 2005,

     (4) Neil Hildebrand, June 24, 2005, and

     (5) Philip Brust, June 27, 2005.

The complaints, alleging violations of certain federal
securities laws, seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25,
2005 and April 4, 2005.  The plaintiffs alleged that the company
made false and misleading statements and omissions of material
facts based on its disclosure regarding earnings projections and
operating margins, claiming alleged violations by each named
defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged
violations by certain of the company's officers of Section 20A
of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

In August 2005, all of these class actions were consolidated in
the matter of "Monty Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc.
(N.D. Ill. 05 C 3033)."  In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint containing essentially the same
legal claims.  Cheryl Beebe was not named as a defendant in the
consolidated amended complaint.

The suit was styled, "Blatt v. Corn Products International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-03033," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
James B. Zagel.  Representing the plaintiffs are: Samuel H.
Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58
South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631)
367-7100.

Representing the defendants are: Nathan P. Eimer of Eimer Stahl
Klevorn & Solberg, LLP, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 660-7600, E-mail:
neimer@eimerstahl.com; and Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
rkopecky@kirkland.com.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Face Fla. Managed Care Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. is a defendant in the provider track
of "In Re: Managed Care Litigation," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division,
Multi-District Litigation (MDL), No. 1334.  The action is
captioned, "Charles B. Shane, et al., v. Humana, Inc., et al."  

The lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class action
against Coventry and nine other companies in the managed care
industry.  The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to
violate RICO and aiding and abetting a scheme to violate RICO.

In addition to these federal law claims, the complaint included
state law claims for breach of contract, violations of various
state prompt payment laws and equitable claims for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit.  The trial court dismissed
several of the state law claims and ordered that all physicians
who have an arbitration provision in their provider contracts
must submit their direct RICO claims and all of their remaining
state law claims to arbitration.  

As a consequence of this ruling, all the plaintiffs who have
arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed all of their claims
that are subject to arbitration.  The trial court, however,
ordered that the plaintiffs' claims of conspiracy to violate
RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO are not subject
to arbitration.  The defendants' appeal to the 11th Circuit
challenging the trial court's arbitration decision was denied.

The trial court certified various subclasses of plaintiffs.  The
defendants filed an appeal of that certification order to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals overturned
the class certification order as to the plaintiffs' state law
claims but affirmed the certification with respect to the
plaintiffs' federal law claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition to review
the 11th Circuit's class certification decision.  As a result of
the class certification decision, the only causes of action
remaining in the lawsuit are the claims of conspiracy to violate
RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO.  Seven
defendants entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs, which have received final approval from the trial
court.  

                      RICO Suit Trial Date

The claims against one defendant have been dismissed.  Two
defendants remain, including the company.  The trial of this
lawsuit is tentatively scheduled to start September 18, 2006.

The lawsuit triggered the filing of copycat class action
complaints by other health care providers such as chiropractors,
podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed health care
professionals.  Each of these actions has been transferred to
the MDL and was designated as "tag-along" actions.  The court
entered an order, which stays all proceedings in the tag-along
actions until all pre-trial proceedings in the current suit were
concluded.

The suit was styled, "In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL-1334,
Master Docket No. 00-1334-MD-Moreno," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Federico
A. Moreno.


CREDIT SUISSE: Moves to Dismiss AOL Time Investors' Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class actions were filed against Credit Suisse
Securities (USA), LLC, or CS Securities, in the wake of
publicity surrounding the 2002 industry-wide governmental and
regulatory investigations into research analyst practices.  

Currently, four federal class action cases remain pending.  
These cases were brought on behalf of purchasers of shares of
AOL Time Warner Inc., Razorfish, Inc., Lantronix, Inc. and
Winstar, Inc.  Class certification was granted in the Winstar
and Razorfish matters.

In September 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint brought on behalf of purchasers of shares of AOL Time
Warner Inc., but allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  In February 2006, the Company and other defendants
moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The Company was also named as a defendant in a class action
filed in California state court in June 2003 on behalf of
residents of California who held shares in certain issuers for
which it had issued research reports.  Plaintiffs appealed the
lower court's dismissal of that case to the Supreme Court of
California and in February 2006, the Supreme Court of California
denied that appeal.


CREDIT SUISSE: Securities Watchdog Requests Refco-Related Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC, along with other financial
services firms, accountants, officers, directors and controlling
persons, was named as defendant in several federal class action
and derivative lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to Refco, Inc.

The actions, the first of which were filed in October 2005,
allege that the Company and other underwriters violated federal
securities laws and state laws in connection with the sale of
Refco securities, including in the Refco IPO in August 2005.

CS Securities and certain of its affiliates have received
subpoenas and requests for information from various regulators,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission, regarding
Refco.  CS Securities and its affiliates have cooperated with
such inquiries and requests.


CREDIT SUISSE: Lawsuit Over Adelphia's Accounting Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC, and certain of its
affiliates were named as defendants in eight civil actions
brought by investors in Adelphia Communications Corporation, or
Adelphia, debt and/or equity securities.  The suits concern
alleged misstatements in certain Adelphia securities offerings
and in the merger of Century Communications Corporation with
Adelphia in October 1999.  

These complaints have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Company and
its affiliates have filed, or expect to file motions to dismiss
in each of these cases.

In June and July 2005, the court dismissed a federal securities
fraud class action claim and certain non-class action federal
securities claims brought by Adelphia security holders against
the company and its affiliates on statute of limitations grounds
with leave to re-plead.  In opinions in August 2005 and
September 2005, the court denied motions to dismiss in two of
the actions by institutional investors on the ground that the
plaintiffs in those cases lacked standing.  

In November 2005, the Company and certain affiliates joined in a
motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the court's August
2005 opinion.


CREDIT SUISSE: Plaintiffs Ask for Summary Judgment in IPO Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two consolidated initial public offering cases
against Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC filed a motion for
summary judgment with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Since November 1998, several lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or
SDNY, against the company and numerous other brokerage firms,
alleging that the defendant broker-dealers conspired to fix the
"fee" paid for underwriting certain IPO securities by setting
the underwriters' fee or "spread" at 7%, in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.  The lawsuits purport to be class
actions brought on behalf of classes of persons and entities
that purchased and issued securities in those IPOs.

In February 1999, the district court consolidated the purchaser
cases in a single litigation, captioned, "In re Public Offering
Fee Antitrust Litigation."

Separately, in July 2001, the issuer plaintiffs filed a
consolidated issuer complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming numerous defendants,
including the Company, under the caption, "In re Issuer
Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation."

In September 2004, the plaintiffs in both the consolidated
issuer and consolidated purchaser cases filed motions for class
certification.  These motions are fully briefed.  On October 25,
2005, the plaintiffs in both the consolidated issuer and
consolidated purchaser cases filed a motion for summary
judgment.


DOE RUN: Appealing Suit Over Lead Emissions by Miss. Smelter
------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in lawsuits
alleging certain damages from lead emissions stemming from its
operations at the Herculaneum, Missouri smelter.  The cases were
brought in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and
styled:

     (1) "Meyer, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et al." (formerly
         known as Mitchell, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et
         al.)(filed on July 9, 2001);

     (2) "Doyle, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et al." (filed  
         July 9, 2001); and  

     (3) "Johnson, et al. v. Fluor Corporation, et al." (filed
         September 9, 2003).

The Doyle, Meyer, and Johnson cases are class actions.  In the
Doyle and Johnson cases, the plaintiffs seek to have certified a
class of property owners in a certain section of Herculaneum,
alleging that property values have been damaged due to the
operations of the smelter.  

In the Meyer case, plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of
children who lived in Herculaneum during a period of time when
they were six years old or younger and children born to mothers
who lived in Herculaneum during their pregnancies.  The remedy
sought is medical monitoring for the class.

The trial court has granted the property class action in Doyle,
but has denied the medical monitoring class action in Meyer.  
Both decisions are being appealed.


DOE RUN: Faces Personal Injury, Property Damage Suits in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in several
lawsuits currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging personal injury and
property damage.

Two class action suits, captioned, "Cole, et al. v. Asarco,
Inc., et al.," filed May 14, 2003, and "Evans, et al. v. Asarco
Inc., et al.," filed February 9, 2004, were initiated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma,
alleging personal injury and property damage in Picher, Oklahoma
and Quapaw, Oklahoma respectively.

Another class action, entitled, "The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma,
et al. v. Asarco, Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on December 10, 2003
against seven companies, including Doe Run.  This action alleges
damage to natural resources and to property of members of the
Quapaw Tribe.


DOE RUN: Faces Lawsuits Over Mining Operations Damages in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in lawsuits
alleging certain damages from past mining operations in St.
Francois County, Missouri that were filed in the Circuit Court
of the City of St. Louis, Missouri.  The suits are styled:

     (1) "Lee Ann Stotler and Keely Stotler v. Fluor
         Corporation, et al." (filed on January 10, 2002);

     (2) "Layne Stotler v. Fluor Corporation, et al. (filed on
         January 10, 2002);

     (3) "Mullins v. Fluor Corporation, et al. (filed on April
         15, 2002); and  

     (4) Mullins II v. Fluor Corporation, et al. (filed on April
         15, 2002.

The Lee Ann Stotler, Layne Stotler, Mullins, and Mullins II
cases are class actions.  The Lee Ann Stotler and Layne Stotler
cases are class actions for property damages, and medical
monitoring, respectively, concerning alleged damages caused by
tailings and related operations in Bonne Terre.  The Mullins and
Mullins II cases are class actions for property damages and
medical monitoring, respectively, concerning alleged damages
caused by chat, tailings and related operations in six areas in
St. Francois County, Missouri.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Continues in Retailers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two separate lawsuits were filed against Echostar Communications
Corp. by retailers in the Arapahoe County District Court in the
State of Colorado and the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado, respectively, by:

      -- Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and
      -- John DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class
         of persons similarly situated.

The plaintiffs, who filed the suits on October 2000, are
attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of
the company's satellite hardware retailers.  They are asking the
Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged
agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The company has asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado stayed the Federal
Court action to allow the parties to pursue a comprehensive
adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe County State
Court.  John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph Kelley, d/b/a
Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the Arapahoe County Court
action as plaintiffs and proposed class representatives.  

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts
and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond
to the company's motion.  The Court granted a limited discovery
period, which ended on November 15, 2004.  The Court is hearing
discovery-related motions and set a briefing schedule for the
motion for summary judgment to begin 30 days after the ruling on
those motions.  A trial date has not been set.  


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Calif. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Echostar Communications Corp. reached a settlement for the
lawsuit filed against the Company in California Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, relating to the use of terms such
as "crystal clear digital video," "CD-quality audio," and "on-
screen program guide," and with respect to the number of
channels available in various of its programming packages.

David Pritikin and Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit
unincorporated association, filed the suit in 1999, alleging
breach of express warranty and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 &
17200.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Company's motion for summary judgment was held during 2002.
At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  However, before
issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted
the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to all of
the plaintiffs' claims. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion
for attorneys' fees, which was denied by the Court.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's granting of
the company's motion for summary judgment and the company cross-
appealed the Court's ruling on its motion for attorneys' fees.

During December 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part; and
reversed in part, the lower court's decision granting summary
judgment in the company's favor.  Specifically, the Court found
there were triable issues of fact whether the company may have
violated the alleged consumer statutes "with representations
concerning the number of channels and the program schedule."  
However, the Court found no triable issue of fact as to whether
the representations "crystal clear digital video" or "CD quality
audio" constituted a cause of action.  

Moreover, the court affirmed that the "reasonable consumer"
standard was applicable to each of the alleged consumer
statutes.  Plaintiff argued the standard should be the "least
sophisticated" consumer.  The court also affirmed the dismissal
of Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim.  Plaintiff filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court and the
Company responded.

During March 2004, the California Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff's Petition for Review.  Therefore, the action has been
remanded to the trial court pursuant to the instructions of the
Court of Appeals.  

Hearings on class certification were conducted on December 21,
2004 and on February 7, 2005.  The Court denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification on February 10, 2005.  The
plaintiff has appealed this decision.  In December 2005, the
company reached a settlement for an immaterial amount with the
individual plaintiffs.          


FLORIDA: Federal Court Allows Suit Over Hispanics' Voting Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District judge certified as class action the suit filed
against Kissimmee and the Supervisor of Elections by Armando
Ramirez and John Cortes, the Orlando Sentinel reports.

According to an amended complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2005, the
plaintiffs -- individual Hispanic voters who reside in the City
of Kissimmee -- challenges the at-large method of electing
members of the Board of City Commissioners on the ground that
the at-large election method impermissibly diminishes the voting
strength of Hispanics residing in the city in violation of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 USC, 1973, et
seq.

The suit was styled, "Armando Ramirez, John Cortes, Caridad
Cores, and John Ramirez v. City of Kissimmee Commission and
Donna Bryant, Supervisor of Elections (6:05-cv-1121-Orl-22KRS),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
Florida.

The document was submitted by:

      L.A. Gonzales Law Offices, P.A. and
      D. Soto Law Offices, P.A.
      Counsel to Plaintiffs
      809 Irma Avenue, Suite 1
      Orlando, Florida 32803
      Phone: (407) 649-8389
      Fax:(407) 649-7598

      Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
      Counsel to Plaintiffs
      Alan Levine (AL-5297)
      Foster Maer (SM-0680)
      99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor
      New York, New York 10013
      Phone: (212) 219-3360


GEO GROUP: Enters $3.1M Settlement for California Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GGI) settled a wage and hour class
action, entitled, "Salas, et al. v. WCC," which was filed on
December 26, 2001 in California state court by ten current and
former employees.

This suit was settled in January 2005 by way of a satisfaction
of judgment and a release of all claims executed by the
plaintiffs that was later filed with the Superior Court of
California in Kern County.  As part of the settlement, the
company made cash payments of approximately $3.1 million and is
required to provide certain non-cash considerations to current
California employees who were included in the lawsuit.

The non-cash considerations include a designated number of paid
days off according to longevity of employment, modifications to
the Company's human resources department, and changes in certain
operational procedures at the Company's correctional facilities
in California.  The settlement encompasses all current and
former employees in California through the approval date of the
settlement and constitutes a full and final settlement of all
actual and potential wage and hour claims against the Company in
California for the period preceding July 29, 2004.


GRADIENT ANALYTICS: Paid for Biovail Research, Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Gradient Analytics, the subject of an expose on Viacom's CBS
network's 60 Minutes Sunday night, for alleged biased research
produced on Biovail Corp. (NYSE: BVF), has now admitted that
giant hedge fund SAC Capital Management paid it for its
research, according to Charles Gasparino, reporting on CNBC, a
unit of Geneeral Electric.  It also said there were no required
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements
regarding the compensation, the report said.

At the same time, a $4 billion class action has been filed on
behalf of Biovail shareholders against SAC, its founder Steven
A. Cohen, Gradient and Banc of America Securities (NYSE: BAC)
and one of its analysts, David Maris.  It has also been
disclosed that the SEC has subpoenaed Gradient for its own
copies of communications it may have had with journalists whose
own subpoenas are on hold pending new SEC guidelines.

These journalists include Herb Greenberg, now with Dow Jones
Marketwatch, but formerly with TheStreet.com, whose own co-
founder and CNBC personality James Cramer was subpoenaed, as
well as Carol Remond, a writer for Dow Jones.  Despite these
developments, Mr. Greenberg appeared this afternoon on CNBC to
defend the independence of Gradient's reports, saying its
research is distributed to subscribing mutual funds and others,
and not to the public.  He called the new developments spin.

Mr. Greenberg did not address allegations that a reporter
working for Greenberg and Cramer actually ghost-wrote reports
for Gradient, or whether his own subsequent news reporting on
Gradient's research wittingly or unwittingly effectively moved
the findings of Gradient on Biovail and Overstock.com and
several others into the public arena.  

Michael Mayhew, CEO of Integrity Research Associates, appearing
on the network shortly afterwards, disagreed, saying that
disclosure of compensation in any commissioned research project
is imperative, whether produced for retail or for institutional
subscribers.  Sponsored research is not new.  For example,
Investrend Research, a division of the company that publishes
FinancialWire, produces sponsored research, but it follows both
the law and the Standards For Independent Research Providers in
full disclosures regarding not only who commissions the research
but how much is paid.


U.S. SEC Regulation 17(b) states: It shall be unlawful for any
person, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation
or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the
mails, to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice,
circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment
service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer
a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration
received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an
issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the
receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and
the amount thereof.

Gradient is a member of the subscriber-based research
organization, InvestorSide, which had previously told
FinancialWire that it would consider terminating the company's
membership if an impropriety is found to exist.  On May 1, Mr.
Greenberg will welcome U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Chair Chris Cox into a lion's den of supporters when both speak
at the annual conference of the Society of American Business
Editors and Writers.  

Mr. Greenberg will discuss the subpoenas himself on a panel with
Joseph Nocera, a New York Times (NYSE: NYT) columnist, Dan
Colarusso, business editor for the New York Post, and Dave Beal,
columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, who will moderate the
panel.  Mr. Greenberg, who has been alleged in affidavits as
having close ties with Gradient Analytics and whose reporter has
been accused of having ghost-written some of the research firm's
reports, was more recently famously associated with Cramer in a
joint TV appearance where Cramer wrote BULL on his subpoena and
tossed it ceremoniously on the floor.  

Also, Myron Kandel, the retired TV business news reporter, will
moderate the annual Gary Klott Ethics Symposium, focusing on
hedge funds, short sellers, regulators and the ethical
challenges for journalists and editors working in that realm.  
Participating will be Dave Kansas, Money & Investing Editor of
The Wall Street Journal; Jane Kirtley, Silha Professor for Media
Ethics and Law University of Minnesota, and Ed Wasserman, Knight
Chair of Ethics at Washington and Lee University.  

Sponsored research is common practice among smaller public
companies for which no other analytics would generally be
available to shareholders, and it has now drawn the endorsement
of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission advisory committee.  
The endorsement by the SEC committee, however, comes with a
proviso, that such providers and their covered companies reveal
the compensation and act according to a published set of
standards designed to eliminate conflict.  The Standards For
Independent Research Providers at
http://www.firstresearchconsortium.comwas the model the SEC  
advisory committee had available as their sole reference when
promulgating their new recommendations to the Commission.  

In an e-mail to FinancialWire, John J. Nester, a spokesperson
for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, confirmed that
regulators interpret 17(b) to mean that specific compensation
information must be contained in press releases, and that a link
to a disclosure somewhere else, for example, is a violation of
the regulation.  He further stated that the compensation
disclosure required by the SEC includes amounts and sources in
any press release mentioning the company under research
coverage.

The SEC had previously told FinancialWire that it intends to
enforce its provisions so that investors may have a fully
transparent understanding of any potential agenda or lack
thereof.  The CFA Institute and National Investor Relations
Institute Analyst/Issuer Guidelines requires that analysts:
Accept only cash for their work and to decline any compensation
that is contingent on the content or conclusions of the research
or the resulting impact on share price; Disclose the nature and
extent of their compensation, along with any relationship they
may have with the issuer or an affiliate, their credentials and
professional background, and any matters that might reasonably
be expected to impair their objectivity; and Certify that
analysts and recommendations contained in the report represent
their true opinion. Not all of the providers named by Nymox
accept only cash.

The NIRI-CFAI joint panel now requires public company issuers to
insure that reports issued about it for a fee contains the
appropriate fee disclosures, as well as require that analysts
have proper, disclosed credentials.  The following Standards for
Independent Research Providers, initially promulgated three
years ago were updated May 9, 2005, and are posted at
http://www.firstresearchconsortium.com. They include the CFAI-
NIRI and other ethics programs by reference: The FIRST Research
Consortium, founded in May, 2003 as an Association of Standards-
Based Research Providers, recognizing that:

      -- surveys indicate that three out of every four investors
         are most influenced by an analyst report,

      -- that nearly nine out of ten investors believe
         legitimate fee-based research is objective and useful,
         and

      -- that Enrollment in standards-based research is an
         important measure of a company's commitment to
         transparency and Good Governance, has promulgated these
         Standards for Independent Research Providers, to serve
         as an ethical bond between enrolled companies and their
         shareholders.  

      (1) Ethical precepts are an essential element of
          professional independent research, establishing the
          credibility necessary to understanding and accepting
          the research provider's analytical output.

      (i) These Standards incorporate by inference the analyst
          Standards and Ethics of the CFA Institute, the Issuer/     
          Analyst Guidelines jointly adopted by the CFA
          Institute and National Investor Relations Institute,
          and the appropriate language in NASD Rule 2711,
          Regulation AC, as well as other recognized industry  
          guides; and

    (ii) Once a company has enrolled for coverage, the
         responsibility of the fee-based independent research
         provider and its assigned analyst(s) is to the public
         and to a company's shareholders and investors, and not
         to any company or to management.

     (2) Qualified analysts are fundamental to the production of
         valid analytics.

     (i) Only analysts credentialed by professional peer-
         reviewed organizations, or otherwise qualified by
         several years of supervised or supervisory research
         reporting for recognized financial institutions, and
         only adherents to the Standards and Ethics of the CFA
         Institute should be allowed to produce research
         published by fee-based independent research providers;

    (ii) The names and credentials of analysts producing the
         research should be included in reports published by
         independent research providers, along with an
         attestation thereto that the analyst's work product is
         purely his or her own without influence or
         interference; and

   (iii) Only qualified analysts should determine what to
         publish and when to publish.  Independent research
         providers are obligated to distribute the qualified
         analyst's report upon publication.

     (3) Transparency is vital to the publication and
         dissemination of investment data and fundamental
         analysis, and is an ethical responsibility of the fee-
         based independent research provider.

     (i) Fee-based independent research providers should
         disclose all amounts of compensation received or to be
         received for the preparation, publication and
         dissemination of research, research summaries or other
         announcements not only in the reports but also in
         whatever form such material is disseminated;

    (ii) All such communications should include the names and
         identities of the payers, and if a third-party or
         third-parties, their names and identities, as well as
         their relationship(s) to the issuer;

   (iii) All such communications should also meet both the
         letter and the spirit of U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission Regulation 17(b);

    (iv) If communications come from the issuer, it is the
         responsibility of the provider to advise the issuer

         that its reports or summaries may not be issued without
         the inclusion of these full disclosures, and if the
         provider is ignored, it is the responsibility of the
         provider to so inform the public; and further,

     (v) Ratings and targets should not be issued as
         recommendations or stock price predictors, and should
         not be issued or published in the absence of a full,
         publicly-accessible report.

Where a report has been issued previous to a public
announcement, the research provider has a responsibility to
notice the investing public as to the date the report was
previously issued, as well as who received the report.

     (4) Conflicts are inimical to credible professional
         research.

Shareholders and investors need to feel comfortable that
research is produced and published in an environment that is as
free of analyst influences as possible.  

      (i) Analysts should not own a stake in their ratings.  
          Neither they nor principals of independent research
          providers should own or trade any form of equities of
          companies under coverage;

     (ii) Analysts should be paid for their initial reports in
          advance, or if salaried, the analysts incomes should
          not be dependent on the outcome of their reports; and

    (iii) Independent research should not be under the control
          of an investment banking department, investor
          relations or promotional firm or department or
          executive, and should not be produced or published
          under the auspices of an investment bank, investor
          relations or promotional firm or brokerage.

     (5) The Mission of the Standards-based independent research
         provider is to provide the investing public with an
         ethical, qualified, transparent and conflict-lessened
         fundamental analysis of public companies and their
         equities.

     (i) Adopters of these Standards for Independent Research
         Providers agree to review by the FIRST Research
         Consortium Independent Research Standards Task Force,
         and agree that the Consortium may, at its sole
         determination, suspend, terminate or expel a Provider
         found to be in violation of these Standards.

The suit is styled, "Del Giudice v. S.A.C. Capital Management,
LLC et al. (2:06-cv-01413-HAA-MF)," filed in U.S. District Court
in New Jersey under Judge Harold A. Ackerman with referral to
Mark Falk.  Representing Biovail Corp. shareholders is the law
firm Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow.  For more information,
contact Thomas A. Gentile, Esq. of Lampf, Phone: 973-325-2100.


KOPPERS INC: Tex. Residents Amend Personal Injury, Damage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed in June 2005 in the U.S.
District Court in Austin, Texas against Koppers Inc. amended
their complaint by dropping their class action allegations and
identifying 602 individual plaintiffs.  The suit also named as
defendants the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company,
Monsanto Company, Dow Chemical Company and Vulcan Materials
Company.

The lawsuit alleged that several classes of past and present
property owners and residents in the Somerville, Texas area
numbering in excess of 2,500 have suffered property damage and
risk of personal injury as a result of exposure to various
chemicals from the operations of the Somerville, Texas wood
treatment plant of the Company.  In addition to seeking class
certification, the plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified
damages for alleged injuries to property, medical monitoring
costs, punitive damages, remediation of contamination,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs.

On December 23, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
dropping their class action allegations and identifying 602
individual plaintiffs.  The amended complaint seeks to recover
compensatory and punitive damages within the jurisdictional
limits of the court for, among other things, bodily injuries,
pain and mental anguish, emotional distress, medical monitoring,
medical expenses, lost wages, loss of consortium and property
devaluation.  Of the 17 separate counts in the amended
complaint, five counts alleged acts of intentional racial
discrimination by the defendants.

The suit was styled, "Davis, et al v. Koppers Industries I, et
al., Case No. 05-CV-464," filed in the U.S. District Court
Western District of Texas (Austin) under Judge Sam Sparks.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Grover G. Hankins, The Hankins Law Firm PLLC, 616 W.
         Main St., League City, TX 77573, Phone: (281) 316-9551;

     (2) Dwight E. Jefferson, Dwight E. Jefferson, PLLC, 12
         Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77046, Phone:
         (713) 993-0399; and

     (3) Bernard Smalley, Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan, Feldman &
         Smalley, 1900 Delancey Place, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: (215) 735-3894.

Representing the Company is Michael R. Klatt and Susan E.
Burnett of Clark, Thomas, & Winters, P.O. Box 1148, Austin, TX
78767, Phone: (512) 472-8800; and Brent R. Austin, Robert L.
Shuftan, Leonard S. Kurfirst, and Paul K. Freeburn of Wildman,
Harrold, Allen & Dixon, LLP, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-201-2000.


LA ESPERANZA: Sued Over Alleged Unpaid Wages in Main St. Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer in a lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime work at La
Esperanza Markets is waiting for the grocery chain to respond to
the case, the Santacruzsentinel.com reports.

San Francisco lawyer Mark Telamantes was contacted by
Watsonville Law Center after Guillermo Mendez and Jose Contreras
Moreno, who worked at the Watsonville stores on Main Street,
raised their complaint against their employer late last year.  
The suit was filed in January in Santa Cruz County Superior
Court.  The suit also alleged that owners of the chain of
stores, Javier and Emilia Vazquez, rarely granted workers their
10-minute and 30-minute lunch breaks in violation of California
labor laws.

Mr. Telamantes said Mr. Mendez worked as a janitor, a butcher
and a stocker at La Esperanza Markets from May 2000 to October
2003.  Mr. Contreras worked in the same capacity from June 2003
to August 2004.  Both claim they worked 10-hour days for six
days a week, but were never paid for the overtime.

La Esperanza stores cater mostly to Latino consumers in San
Jose, Salinas, Santa Cruz and Watsonville.


LOUISIANA: $11.1M Settlement Entered in Suit Over Teachers Exam
---------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began on March 27 to alert concerned
parties about a proposed settlement of litigation against
Educational Testing Service (ETS).  The suit affects people who
took the Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 7-12
(PPLT) teacher certification test from January 2003 through
April 2004.

Lawsuits had claimed that, as a result of inaccurate PPLT scores
on tests administered from January 1, 2003 through April 30,
2004, approximately 4,100 people were mistakenly told they had
failed the test and approximately 23,000 others received scores
that were too low, although their pass-fail status was not
affected.  ETS denied all of the legal claims in the case and
the Court dismissed one of those claims, but it had not yet
ruled on the merits of plaintiffs' other claims.

ETS agreed to pay $11,100,000 to settle the lawsuits.  The
settlement fund will be used to provide cash payments to Class
Members for things like lost wages, decreased earning capacity,
delayed graduation, personal injuries, mental anguish,
psychological injury, incidental damages, humiliation and
embarrassment, out of pocket losses, and other forms of damages
that were allegedly caused by the scoring inaccuracy.  Lawyers'
fees, court costs, and expenses will also come out of the fund.

                     Claims Filing Deadline

In addition, any Class Member whose pass-fail status was not
affected can ask for a free score report (a $35 value).  Those
included in the settlement may send in a claim form to ask for
benefits, or they can ask to be excluded from the settlement, or
object to it.  The deadline for exclusions is June 3, 2006 and
the deadline for objections is July 3, 2006.  The deadline to
submit claims is July 3, 2006.

Notices informing people about their legal rights will be mailed
to test takers; they will also be sent to appropriate
educational institutions, teachers unions, and State Departments
of Education.  On July 12, 2006, the Court will hold a hearing
on whether to approve the settlement.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Barrios, Kingsdorf &
Casteix of New Orleans, LA; Neblett, Beard & Arsenault of
Alexandria, LA; and Bohrer Law Firm, L.L.C. of Baton Rouge, LA,
as Settlement Class Counsel to represent the people included in
the class action.

The suit was styled, "In Re: Educational Testing Service Praxis
Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 7-12 Litigation, MDL
1643)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance.

Contact information: PPLT Settlement, P.O. Box 3207, Portland,
OR 97208-3207call, Phone: 1-888-279-4407 (toll-free); On the
Net: http://www.PPLTclaims.com.


MONY LIFE: Continues to Face Insurance Policies Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONY Life and its subsidiary MONY Life Insurance Company of
America (MLOA) is a defendant in a several class actions over
the sale of whole and universal life insurance policies from the
early 1980s through the mid 1990s.

Since 1995 a number of purported class actions were commenced in
various state and federal courts against MONY Life and MLOA
alleging that they engaged in deceptive sales practices in
connection with the sale of whole and universal life insurance
policies from the early 1980s through the mid 1990s.  Although
the claims asserted in each case are not identical, they seek
substantially the same relief under essentially the same
theories of recovery (i.e., breach of contract, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, negligent supervision and training, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or violation of state
insurance and/or deceptive business practice laws).  

Plaintiffs in these cases seek primarily equitable relief (e.g.,
reformation, an accounting, specific performance, mandatory
injunctive relief prohibiting MONY Life and MLOA from canceling
policies for failure to make required premium payments,
imposition of a constructive trust and/or creation of a claims
resolution facility to adjudicate any individual issues
remaining after resolution of all class-wide issues) as opposed
to compensatory damages, although they also seek compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts.  MONY Life and MLOA answered the
complaints in each action (except for one being voluntarily held
in abeyance).  MONY Life and MLOA denied any wrongdoing and
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.

In June 1996, the New York State Supreme Court certified one of
those cases, captioned, "Goshen v. The Mutual Life Insurance
Company of New York and Mony Life Insurance Company of America,
(now known as Defillippo, et al. v. The Mutual Life Insurance
Company of New York and Mony Life Company of America)," a class
action filed as a nationwide class consisting of all persons or
entities who have, or at the time of the policy's termination
had, an ownership interest in a whole or universal life
insurance policy issued by MONY Life and MLOA and sold on an
alleged "vanishing premium" basis during the period January 1,
1982 to December 31, 1995.  

After extensive motion practice by the parties, which led to the
dismissal of most of the claims and a decertification of the
class, with respect to one remaining claim, in December 2005,
the case was settled on an individual basis.  With the exception
of one putative class action currently pending in the Eastern
District of Michigan, entitled, "Stockler v. Mony Life Insurance
Company of America," all other similar putative class actions,
of which there are two remaining, were consolidated and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  In
Stockler, MLOA has filed a motion for summary judgment that is
currently pending.


MORGANS HOTEL: Member Left Out of IPO Proceeds File Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Century Operating Associates, which eight years ago gained a
membership interest in Schrager Hotels, has filed a
multimillion-dollar complaint against ten parties associated
with the recent initial public offering of Morgans Hotel Group,
Co. (NASDAQ: MHGC).  The defendants include:

      -- Morgans Hotel Group, LLC (formerly Ian Schrager Hotels,
         LLC),
      -- Morgans Hotel Group, Co.,
      -- NorthStar Hospitality LLC,
      -- NorthStar Capital Investment Corp.,
      -- NorthStar Partnership, L.P.,
      -- MHG Associates, L.P.,
      -- RSA Associates, L.P.,
      -- Ian Schrager, Edward Scheetz, and
      -- David Hamamoto.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty and fraudulent conveyance of assets by the defendants,
which sought to deprive Century "of millions of dollars to which
it was lawfully entitled."  The complaint was filed March 23 in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
by Century attorneys Steven G. Storch and Lita Beth Wright of
Storch Amini & Munves, P.C. (http://www.samlegal.com/).

In February 1998, Century sold its interest in the Royalton
Hotel to Schrager Hotels and also contributed its interest in
the Paramount Hotel.  Both properties are located in New York.  
Although Century acquired a membership interest in Schrager
Hotels, it had no voting power in Schrager Hotels, which was
solely controlled by NorthStar, MHG and their officers Schrager,
Scheetz and Hamamoto.

As a member, Century said it was entitled to certain proceeds
from ordinary cash flow as well as any Capital Event, defined as
an "event not occurring in the ordinary course of business,
pursuant to which (Schrager Hotels) or its subsidiary ...
receive any consideration with respect to its assets or the
disposition thereof, whether in connection with any
recapitalization or restructuring of equity in, or debt of, the
Company ..."

In February 2006 Morgans Hotel Group (previously Schrager
Hotels) went public with an IPO, which Century claims is a
Capital Event, yet Morgans failed to pay Century any net capital
proceeds, even though the other entities received "substantial
proceeds."  According to the complaint, a minimum of $291
million went to Northstar Hospitality and its affiliates, $69
million to Schrager and entities he controlled (i.e., MHG and
RSA), and $17.8 million each to Scheetz and Hamamoto, while
Century received nothing for its interest.

The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently
transferred assets without consideration to a newly formed
public entity, thereby leaving Morgans Hotel Group, LLC, without
the capital required to meet its obligations to Century.  
Additionally, under its agreement with Century, Morgans, LLC,
was to be audited yearly and the results reported to members.  
The defendants have refused to provide such materials to
Century, thereby preventing it from knowing the amounts owed to
it.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Federal Judge Drops Insurers in La. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. dismissed mortgage and
insurance companies as defendants in a purported class action
over Hurricane Katrina damages filed by a New Orleans, Louisiana
lawyer, the SunHerald.com reports.  The judge found the facts in
each individual case as too varied.  They may be filed as
individual suits, however, he said.  

Gerald Maples filed a case (No. 1:05CV00436-LG-RHW) on behalf of
Ned Comer and all other similarly situated persons residing in
the state of Mississippi against Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, et al. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).   The
suit was filed on September 20, 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi.  In the recent ruling,
the judge said the oil companies can still be defendants in a
class action.

The plaintiffs sought the certification of a plaintiffs' class
consisting of all persons who are property owners in the State
of Mississippi, who purchased insurance coverage with the intent
to insure against any and all damages caused by hurricanes, who
suffered a loss as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and who will
not be paid by an insurance proceed.

Plaintiffs also sought the certification of several defendants'
classes, including an "Insurance Defendant Class," an "Oil
Company Defendant Class," and a "Mortgage Lending Defendant
Class."  The Insurance Defendant Class consists of entities that
issued insurance policies insuring property in the State of
Mississippi against losses caused by hurricanes, which contain
exclusion provisions that exclude coverage for damages caused by
water.  The Oil Company Defendant Class consists of entities
that contributed to the rise and global warming as a result of
their oil expiration, development, refining, and production
activities.  The Mortgage Lending Defendant Class consists of
entities that held a mortgage interest allowing them to secure
and purchase insurance up to the value of their mortgage
interest but failed to do so.

The claims asserted against the Insurance Defendant Class are
based upon alleged violations of the Mississippi Consumer
Protection Act, common law torts, breach of contract, and breach
of certain duties associated with an insurance contract.

With respect to the Oil Company Defendant Class, the Plaintiffs
claim that their activities led to the development and increase
of "global warming" which produced the conditions favorable for
the formation of a storm of the size and strength of Hurricane
Katrina.

With respect to the Mortgage Lending Defendant Class, the
plaintiffs alleged that its members had the right to obtain
insurance on mortgaged properties but failed to do so.  The
plaintiffs asked for a declaratory judgment against the Mortgage
Lending Defendant Class that its members are stopped from suing
or claiming that they are owed any sums from the Plaintiffs for
the value of mortgage property that was uninsured or under-
insured.

The suit was styled, "Comer al vs. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-JMR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, under
Judge L.T. Senter Jr. Representing the plaintiff is F. Gerald
Maples of F. Gerald Maples, PA, 902 Julia St., New Orleans, LA
70113, Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com.
Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Charles Greg Copeland of Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush,
         P. O. Box 6020, Ridgeland, MS 39158-6020, Phone:
         601/856-7200, E-mail: gcopeland@cctb.com;

     (2) H. Mitchell Cowan and Laura Limerick Gibbes of Watkins
         Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A., P.O. Box 427, Jackson,
         MS 39205-0427, Phone: (601) 949-4900, Fax: (601) 949-
         4804, E-mail: mcowan@watkinsludlam.com and
         lgibbes@watkinsludlam.com;

     (3) Ross F. Bass, Jr. of Phelps Dunbar, P.O. Box 23066,
         Jackson, MS 39225-3066, Phone: 601/360-9332, Fax:
         601/360-9777, E-mail: bassr@phelps.com;

     (4) Robert C. Galloway and John C. Henegan of Butler, Snow,
         O'mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248,
         Gulfport, MS 39502-4248, Phone: 228864-1170 and (601)
         948-5711, E-mail: bob.galloway@butlersnow.com and
         john.henegan@butlersnow.com; and  

     (5) William Kurt Henke of Henke Bufkin, P.O. Box 39,
         Clarksdale, MS 38614, Phone: 662/624-8500, E-mail:
         wkh@henke-bufkin.com.


NL INDUSTRIES: Wis. Court Allows Lead Paint Lawsuit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge John A. Franke rejected a motion
to dismiss the city of Milwaukee's public nuisance lawsuit
against the lead paint industry, the SunHerald.com reports.  
Trial is set to begin Jan. 8, 2007.

In 2001, the City of Milwaukee filed suit against NL Industries,
Inc., the county's largest producer of lead pigment and
manufacturer of Dutch Boy lead paint, and Mautz Paint Co., a
Wisconsin-based paint company now owned by Sherwin Williams,
Inc.  The city's lawsuit alleged that the defendants created a
public nuisance through their sales of lead paint and by their
conduct in promoting these products when they knew of lead's
hazards to children.

Milwaukee has an award-winning program to clean-up lead paint in
the city, which has significantly lowered the levels of lead
found in area children.  The city's lawsuit seeks recovery of
approximately $125 million for past and future costs for abating
the lead paint often found on older houses.

A different judge previously dismissed the case in 2003.  The
Wisconsin Court of Appeals later overruled that decision,
however, in what was at the time the first appellate decision in
the country recognizing the right of a municipality to bring
public nuisance claims against the lead paint industry.

Since that time, appellate courts in California and New Jersey
have also held that municipality public nuisance claims could
proceed against lead paint companies.  Similarly, in Rhode
Island, a jury recently found lead paint manufacturers liable
for creating a public nuisance in the state.

Richard S. Lewis, a partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
(D.C.) says of the decision, "In order to help the children of
Milwaukee, the city has been patiently waiting to bring this
case to a jury for over five years.  The company now will get
that chance."

The suit was styled, "City of Milwaukee v. NL Industries, Inc.
and Mautz Paint (Circuit Court, Civil Division, Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, Case No. 01CV003066)," (Class Action
Reporter, March 12, 2004).

The City of Milwaukee is represented by Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld, & Toll (http://www.cmht.com),in Washington, DC and  
The Warshafsky Law Firm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


NORTH CAROLINA: Durham School's Disciplinary Policy Under Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of parents filed a class action against the Durham
school board on allegations that its disciplinary procedure is
unfair to blacks, The Herald-Sun reports.  The suit, filed by
eight former students, their parents and guardians, names as
defendants:

     -- Superintendent Ann Denlinger,
     -- Gail Heath, the board's chairwoman,
     -- Vice Chairman Steve Martin
     -- Steve Schewel, board member
     -- Heidi Carter, board member
     -- other school and public officials,
     -- past and present principals at Southern and Jordan high
        schools, and
     -- Sheriff Worth Hill and two of his deputies.

It is seeking temporary restraining order that would immediately
reinstate all students suspended or expelled under the system's
gang policy.  It alleges that the school denies equal
opportunity to education and due process, and that its
disciplinary measures have racial implications.  The suit stems
from a suspension record for school year 2004-2005 that shows
only 202 white male students have been suspended for the period
compared with 1,297 black males.

Patti Solari, an associate law professor at N.C. Central
University, represents the plaintiffs.


OIL REFINERIES: Israeli Firm Faces $32M Lawsuit for Belching
------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Haifa suburb Kiryat Tivon in Israel filed a $32
million suit against state-run Oil Refineries, Ltd. over a smog
incident that occurred two-and-a-half years ago, Israeli
business magazine TheMarker reports.

During the incident years ago, black smoke started to belch from
the Oil Refineries' chimneys in Haifa for two days, darkening
the sky over the Haifa Bay area.  An ensuing investigation by
the Ministry of Environment resulted to a record $350,000 fines
against the refinery, and a 150 hours community service sentence
for Haifa refinery manager, Yashar Ben Mordechai, the report
said.

The suit filed on March 26 by two Tivon residents on behalf of
all residents of Tivon and the four surrounding towns, seeks
just over $1,000 per resident for "damage suffered, including
fear and anxiety, and impairment of their autonomy, including
through placing their health at risk," the report said.

Oil Refineries -- http://www.orl.co.il/-- owns and operates two  
oil refineries, one in Haifa and one in Ashdod.  It is the only
company in Israel refining crude oil for the supply of petroleum
products.


PACKAGING DYNAMICS: Faces Stockholders' Suit in Del. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Dynamics Corporation is defendant in a purported
stockholders' class action complaint captioned, "Camp Ger, Inc.
and Ruthy Parness v. Frank V. Tannura, et al."  The suit
challenged the proposed merger with Thilmany, L.L.C., an
affiliate of the private investment firm Kohlberg & Company.

On March 2, 2006, two stockholders of the Company filed the suit
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming the
Company, the Company's directors, Packaging Investors and
Thilmany as defendants.  The complaint alleges causes of action
for:

     (1) illegal and unenforceable limits placed on the board of
         directors' exclusive authority and duties to govern the
         business and affairs of the Company by the stockholders
         agreement between the Company and Packaging Investors
         pursuant to which Packaging Investors has been granted
         special approval rights with respect to certain
         extraordinary corporate transactions under certain
         circumstances and

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's
         directors for not providing an effective fiduciary out
         for the board of directors' exercise of its continuing
         fiduciary duties in the sale of the Company.

The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger,
to invalidate Packaging Investors' special approval rights under
the stockholders agreement, to rescind any actions taken to
effect the merger, to require the defendants to fully disclose
all material information regarding the merger and to direct the
defendants to disgorge all their profits from the merger.


PENTON MEDIA: Reaches Settlement in Ga. TCPA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penton Media, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed in the Richmond County, Georgia Superior Court against it,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Allison & Associates, Inc. filed the suit on November 3, 2003,
under TCPA, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited fax
advertisements.  The suit was a punitive class action that seeks
to represent a class of plaintiffs comprised of all individuals
and entities who, during the period November 3, 1999, through
the present, received one or more facsimiles sent by or on
behalf of the Company advertising the commercial availability of
its products or services and who did not give their prior
expressed permission or invitation to receive such faxes.

The statutory penalty for a single violation of the TCPA is
$500, although the penalty can increase to $1,500 per violation
if the Company is found to have willfully or knowingly violated
these laws.  The Company is complying with the Court's order for
discovery.  

A hearing on class certification was held on May 3, 2005.  In
June 2005, the two parties settled the case for $0.05 million in
cash, which was paid entirely with insurance proceeds.  The
Richmond County, Georgia, Superior Court dismissed the case on
June 30, 2005.


SAUDI ARABIA: Teachers of Gifted Students Sue to Earn Pay Raise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public teachers who specialize in instructing gifted and
talented students want to level their pay scale with teachers
who chose a career in special education for slow learners,
Ebtihal Mubarak reports.

The group of 97 educators is suing the Ministry of Civil
Services to demand for better pay.  According to them, the
challenge in educating talented students has driven some away
from this specialty field, partly because of financial issue.

The lawyer for the plaintiff, Khaled Al-Mitari, argues "special
education" is not only for students with learning disabilities,
but also for those whose needs cannot be met in conventional
classrooms and therefore require special learning environments.  
Their counterparts in the learning disabilities field have since
the late 1970s received higher salaries than conventional
teachers.  Teachers who have majored in special education in
college receive 30 percent higher salaries while those that have
been certified get a 20-percent premium for their specialty.

The suit is being filed now because of a five-year statute of
limitations and some of the plaintiffs are entering their fourth
year of teaching, according to the report.


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Wis. Shareholder Suits Over Bain Merger Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder lawsuits filed following the School Specialty,
Inc.'s May 31, 2005 announcement that it had signed a definitive
merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of Bain Capital
Partners, LLC (Bain) were recently dismissed.  

The suits were filed in the Circuit Court for Outagamie County,
Wisconsin, styled "Neal Auman v. School Specialty, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-765" and "Adams Family Trust v. School Specialty,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-771."  The complaint in each action
purports to have been filed by a shareholder of the Company who
seeks to maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of all
holders of Company stock, excluding those related to or
affiliated with any of the defendants.  In addition to the
Company, each complaint names the Company's directors and Bain
as defendants.

The complaints assert claims arising out of the Company's May
31, 2005 announcement and allege that the Company and its
directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by negotiating and agreeing to the Transaction at a
price that the plaintiffs claim to be inadequate.  Between both
actions the plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or to
rescind the Transaction, other injunctive relief and/or damages
and other monetary relief.  

On January 17, 2006, the putative shareholder class actions were
dismissed.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Calif. Court Limits Class in Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the
class in the lawsuit filed against Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc., styled "Gary Drake v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. et al
(Case No. 02CC00152)."

The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresents the size of
its storage units, seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Court recently ruled that the class of potential members in
this lawsuit is limited to California customers of the Company.  
No class has yet been certified.  


SHURGARD STORAGE: Faces Suit in Wash. Over Public Storage Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Staer filed a purported class action suit in the Superior
Court of Washington for King County entitled, "Doris Staer v.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., Charles K. Barbo, Anna Karin
Andrews, Raymond A. Johnson, W. Thomas Porter, Gary E. Pruitt,
David K. Grant, Howard P. Behar and Richard P. Fox (Case No. 06-
2-08148-0 SEA)" alleging self-dealing and breaches of fiduciary
duties.

Ms. Staer, who filed the suit on March 7, 2006, claims that the
Company and the named directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the approval of the Company's Merger
Agreement with Public Storage, Inc.  Her suit seeks among other
things to enjoin the transaction.


SLM CORP: D.C. Court Hears Appeal on Dismissed Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard oral argument
regarding plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class
action filed against SLM Corporation over its late fees.

Three Wisconsin residents filed the suit on December 20, 2001 in
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiffs
sought to represent a nationwide class action on behalf of all
borrowers who allegedly paid "undisclosed improper and
excessive" late fees over the past three years. The plaintiffs
sought damages of one thousand five hundred dollars per
violation plus punitive damages and claimed that the class
consisted of two million borrowers. In addition, the plaintiffs
alleged that the Company charged excessive interest by
capitalizing interest quarterly in violation of the promissory
note.

On February 27, 2003, the Superior Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On March 4,
2004, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead
the first count, which alleged violations of the D.C. Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.  On September 15, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On December 27, 2004, the Superior Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended compliant.  Plaintiffs
have appealed the Superior Court's December 27, 2004 dismissal
order to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  

The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on January 11, 2006.   
Even if the Court of Appeals reverses the dismissal order, the
Company does not believe that it is reasonably likely that the
Court would certify a nationwide class.


TROPICAL ZONE: Sued for Alleged Illegal Selling of Latin Music
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Latin music artists are suing Miami karaoke-recording
company Tropical Zone Group and its principal Tomas Gorrio for
allegedly selling CDs with their photos and compositions without
permission, the Miami Herald reports.

Willy Chirino and Lissette Alvarez filed the suit in U.S.
District Court on behalf of all Latin music artists.  Chirino's
lawyer, Richard Wolfe of Wolfe & Goldstein in Miami said
Tropical Zone did not obtain permission from the artists to sell
their Latin Stars series over the past three years.  The
collection includes about 300 CDs, according to the report.  The
suit is seeking the halting of the CDs' distribution, as well as
royalties and punitive damages.

Wolfe & Goldstein on the Net: http://wolfelawmiami.com/


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

March 29-30, 2006
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Bermuda
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 30, 2006
EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Grand Hyatt, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 5-6, 2006
AML COMPLIANCE FOR INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 5-8, 2006
13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 6-7, 2006
2006 CLASS ACTION & UCL CONFERENCE

Bridgeport CE
Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: http://reconferences.com/classaction.htm;818-783-7156

April 10, 2006
ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
W Chicago Lakeshore
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 11, 2006
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
W Chicago Lakeshore Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 24-25, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 27-28, 2006
RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 27-28, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

May 1-2, 2006
INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
CATASTROPHIC LOSS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 18, 2006
MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

June 5-6, 2006
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2006
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  
      
June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 30, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF THE RI DECISION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 11, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIMS ANALYSIS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 18, 2006
FRAUDULENT JOINDER TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 26, 2006
P2P NETWORKS AND LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: PROTECTION OF DIGITAL
MATERIALS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 4, 2006
TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN
PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 18, 2006
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 23, 2006
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6, 2006
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


DOT HILL: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
entitled, "Steinberg v. Dot Hill Systems Corporation, et al.,"
on behalf of persons who acquired Dot Hill Systems Corporation
securities between April 23, 2003 and February 3, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating
materially false and misleading statements concerning Dot Hill's
financial results and business while failing to disclose
material adverse facts, and further alleges that defendants'
misstatements artificially inflated the price of the Company's
securities.  On February 3, 2005, the Company announced that it
would restate its 2004 unaudited financial results.  Following
that announcement, the price of Dot Hill stock fell to as low as
$5.70 per share, far below its Class Period high of $17.37 per
share.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, but concealed from the
investing public material adverse facts, including that:
     
     (1) the Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (2) the Company's inadequate internal accounting process
         and controls enabled Dot Hill management to manipulate
         the Company's cost of goods sold and to misclassify
         expenses, causing Dot Hill to issue false financial
         statements;

     (3) multiple areas of the Company's internal controls
         suffered serious deficiencies;

     (4) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process; and

     (5) the Company falsely reported its financial results for
         the first three quarters of fiscal year 2004 by
         improperly recognizing revenue and by improperly
         recording expenses.

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of defendants' alleged
misstatements, Dot Hill securities traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. and Leigh A.
Parker, Esq. of Weiss & Lurie, Phone: (800) 437-7918, E-mail:
info@wllawca.com, Web site: http://www.wllawca.com.


H&R BLOCK: Brodsky Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------=-------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB)
between February 24, 2004 and March 14, 2006, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of H&R securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.  


H&R BLOCK: Mager Goldstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein LLP announces that a class
action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of H&R Block Inc. between February 24, 2004 and March
14, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing financial statements during the Class
Period that were materially false and misleading due to the
following defendant did not properly account for its state
effective income tax rate and as a result, its 2004 and 2005
revenues were materially overstated and defendant engaged in
deceptive marketing of its Express IRA product from which it
obtained a material portion of its revenues, thereby subjecting
investors and the Company to an undisclosed risk.  By engaging
in the alleged wrongdoing, H&R insiders were able to sell their
personal H&R stock at artificially inflated prices.

After the close of regular trading on February 23, 2006, H&R
issued a press release, which revealed that it would be
restating its 2004 and 2005 financial reports due to improper
accounting of its corporate taxes.  The market reacted to this
news and the price of H&R common stock dropped from $25.19 per
share on February 23, 2006 to $23.01 per share on February 24,
2006 on usually high trading volume, representing a drop of 8.6%
in just one day.

For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein and Lee Albert
of Mager & Goldstein LLP, Phone: (866) 849-7545, (866) 284-3280,
(954) 341-0844 and (215) 640-3280, Fax: (954) 341-0855 and (215)
640-3281, E-mail: jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com and
lalbert@magergoldstein.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Lawsuit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, filed a  class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased Merge
Technologies, Inc. securities between August 2, 2005 through
March 16, 2006, against defendants Merge Technologies, Inc.,
d/b/a Merge Healthcare, Richard A. Linden, the Company's CEO,
President, Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and
Scott T. Veech, the Company's CFO, Secretary and Treasurer.

The complaint alleges that despite the Company's representations
that its merger with Cedara Software Corp. was highly successful
and that the Company maintained a strong financial position, in
fact:

     (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (2) the Company's financial statements for the second and
         third quarters of 2005 were unreliable; and

     (3) the Company's financial projections were irresponsible
         considering the knowledge defendants possessed
         concerning the Company's actual financial situation.

On March 17, 2006, Merge reported, inter alia:

     (i) that the accounting improprieties necessitated that
         management delay the completion of its financial
         statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005;

    (ii) that its audit committee, with the assistance of
         outside counsel, was investigating anonymous
         complaints;

   (iii) that it anticipates a report of material weaknesses in
         the Company's internal control over financial
         reporting;

    (iv) the suspension of its registration statement on Form S-
         3 relating to issuance of common stock upon exchange of
         exchangeable shares of "Merge/Cedara ExchangeCo Ltd.;"
         and

     (v) that its audit committee concluded that its previously
         issued financial statements for the second and third
         quarters 2005, should no longer be relied upon.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Take-Two common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Merge.pdf.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Suit in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities  
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Merge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MRGE) between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006, inclusive.  The  
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Merge securities.  
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.  


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of PainCare
Holdings, Inc. (AMEX: PRZ) between August 27, 2002 and March 15,
2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  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.

For more details, contact Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A.,
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Gardy Notis Files Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP, filed a securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf
of all purchasers of PainCare Holdings, Inc. stock during a
class period of August 27, 2002 to March 15, 2006.

The complaint charges PainCare and its CEO and CFO with engaging
in accounting fraud and violating the federal securities laws by
fraudulently overstating and exaggerating PainCare's financial
health.  On March 15, 2006, the last day of the class period,
PainCare admitted that it would have to restate its financial
figures going back to its founding in 2000 in order to correct
the false accounting.

For more details, Mark C. Gardy of Gardy & Notis, LLP, 440
Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, Phone: 201-
567-7377, Fax: 201-567-7337, E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.gardylaw.com.


PHH CORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of PHH Corporation (NYSE:PHH) between May 12, 2005
and March 1, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against PHH,
Terence W. Edwards and Neil J. Cashen.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements during the Class Period.  Specifically, these
statements were false and misleading because the Company
materially overstated its deferred tax assets, and the Company
had a variety of material control weaknesses, impeding its
ability to accurately report its financial data.

On March 1, 2006, PHH indicated in a press release that its
financials were materially overstated, and that an ongoing
internal review would prevent it from filing its SEC Form 10-K
in a timely manner.  The Company also indicated that it had
replaced its CFO, Neil Cashen.  In reaction to this news, shares
of PHH fell from $28.73 per share to $26 per share on March 2,
2006.

For more details, contact Brian Penny, Esq. of the Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, 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  * * *