CAR_Public/060511.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 93

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Cargo Pricing
AUSTRALIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Ill Effects of Ore Dust Pollution
BAYER CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Over Cipro in Wis.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Sued on Failure to Pull Out Tequin from Market
CALIFORNIA: Judge Defers Decision on High School Exit Exam Suit

CANADIAN NATIONAL: Offers $7.5M to Wabamun Oil Spill Victims
CAREER EDUCATION: Overtime Suit Now Includes Temporary Workers
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 28
ENRON CORP: Credit Suisse to Pay $90M in Lawsuit Over Bankruptcy
EXXONMOBIL: Franchisees Win Lawsuit Over Wholesale Gas Pricing

GOOGLE INC: AIT Challenging $90M Settlement of Click Fraud Suit
MAJOR LEAGUE: Court Junks Bias Lawsuit by Former MLB Players
MARVEL EDUCATION: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Phones
REGAL LAGER: Recalls Strollers for Potential Injury to Children
RTM OPERATING: ADA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set Next Month

TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Helmets for Failing Impact Standards
UNITED STATES: PwC Study Reveals Decrease in Securities Cases
WAL-MART STORES: Managers' Overtime Lawsuit Denied Certification

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTEA INT'L: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
ESTEE LAUDER: Glancy Binkow Sets May 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files N.Y. Securities Suit
GMH COMMUNITIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.

NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Howard G. Smith Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files La. Securities Suit
PXRE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
PXRE GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Minn. Securities Suit

VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Goldman Scarlato Files Calif. Stock Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Cargo Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp., was named as
defendant in 25 cargo shipments price-fixing lawsuits, according
to its quarterly financial report with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Filed in federal courts across the country, the suits named the
Fort Worth-based American along several other airlines,
including British Airways, Japan Airlines and United Airlines as
defendants (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2006).  The suits are:

      -- "Animal Land, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on February 17, 2006;

      -- "Joan Adams v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New  
         York on February 22, 2006;  

      -- "Rock International Transport v. Air Canada, et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on February 24, 2006;

      -- "Helen's Wooden Crafting Co. v. Air Canada, et al.,"
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on February 24, 2006;

      -- "ABM Int'l, Inc. v. Ace Aviation Holdings, Inc., et  
         al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on February 28, 2006;

      -- "Blumex USA, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         Illinois on March 1, 2006;

      -- "Mamlaka Video v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
         York on March 3, 2006;

      -- "Spraying Systems Co. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.,
         et al." filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York on March 3, 2006;

      -- "Mitchell Spitz v. Air France-KLM et al.," filed in the
         United States District Court for the Eastern District
         of New York on March 6, 2006;  

      -- "JCK Industries, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC et al.,"
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York on March 6, 2006;  

      -- "Marc Seligman v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         United States District Court for the Southern District
         of Florida on March 6,  2006;

      -- "CID Marketing and Promotion Inc. v. AMR Corporation,
         et al.," filed in the United States District Court for
         the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 7, 2006;

      -- "Lynn Culver v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Columbia on March 8, 2006;

      -- "JSL Carpet Corp. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et  
         al." filed in the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York on March 10, 2006;

      -- "Y. Hata & Co, Ltd. v. Air France-KLM et al." filed in  
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California on March 13, 2006;

      -- "FTS International Express v. ACE Aviation Holdings,
         Inc., et al." filed in the United States District Court
         for the District of Columbia on March 15, 2006;

      -- "Thule, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
         United States District Court for the Eastern District
         of New York on March 28, 2006;  

      -- "Rosetti Handbags and Accessories, Ltd. v. Air France
         ADS, et al.," filed in the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District of New York on March 31, 2006;

      -- "W.I.T. Entertainment Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of Florida on April 3, 2006;

      -- "Jeff Rapps v. British Airways PLC, et al." filed in
         the United States District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on April 7, 2006;  

      -- "Funke Design Build, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.,"  
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         Northern District of Illinois on April 7, 2006;

      -- "Sul-American Export Inc. v. Air France ADS, et al.,"
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York on April 7, 2006;

      -- "La Regale Ltd. v. British Airways PLC, et al." filed
         in the Untied States District Court for the Eastern
         District of New York on April 12, 2006;  

      -- "J.A. Transport Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et
         al.," filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of Columbia on April 12, 2006; and

      -- "Caribe Air Cargo, Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.,
         et al.," filed in the United States District Court for
         the District of Columbia on April 13, 2006).

In addition, there are also 33 similar lawsuits that don't name
the carrier, but could add it if the suits are consolidated into
a single class action.

The flurry of litigation follows an investigation into airline
cargo pricing by several countries, including the U.S.  Various
firms that pay airlines to deliver cargo filed the civil suits.

In January, Company officials confirmed that they had been
subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice in conjunction with
the investigation.

Company spokesman Tim Wagner told The Fort Worth Star Telegram
that the airline does not believe that it is a target of the
government's investigation, and described the lawsuits as
"follow-on" litigation.

In an emailed statement to Fort Worth Star Telegram, Mr. Wagner
further said, "We did not engage in any unlawful activity.  We
are cooperating with the government's investigation, and we
intend to vigorously defend any litigation."


AUSTRALIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Ill Effects of Ore Dust Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth is facing a class action filed by a group of
New South Wales residents who said ore particles that were
allowed to pollute the air in their area have affected the
health of their children, ABC Regional Online reports.

The parents of 24 children in Broken Hill filed a suit in the
South Australia District Court alleging the Commonwealth is
negligent in allowing toxic ore to blow off the back of freight
trains onto their homes.

The residents alleged their children suffered permanent health
damage as a result of elevated lead levels, causing learning
difficulties, diarrhea, persistent nosebleeds, chronic fatigue
and lethargy.


BAYER CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Over Cipro in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 1st District Court of Appeals has reversed a county judge
ruling dismissing a suit accusing Bayer Corp. of blocking
generic versions of antibiotic Cipro, the Associated Press
reports.

A group of Wisconsin residents filed the lawsuit in 2000 against
Bayer and Barr Laboratories after Bayer successfully preserved
its exclusive rights to the production of the antibiotic.  

In 1991, Barr asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
permission to market a generic form of Cipro arguing that
Bayer's patent was invalid and unenforceable.  Bayer sued Barr
in New York.  Eventually, in 1997, they settled the suit with
Barr agreeing not to market generic Cipro while Bayer's patent
was in effect and Bayer paying what eventually totaled $398
million.  The patent expired in 2004.

The lawsuit filed by Wisconsin residents alleged the agreement
is illegal under Wisconsin anti-trust law because it eliminated
any generic competition for Cipro, resulting in inflated prices
for consumers.  The argument was dismissed by a Milwaukee County
judge three years ago on grounds Wisconsin's anti-trust laws
applied only to commerce within the state and not to inter-state
transactions.

On appeal, the suit was reinstated by the court basing on a
state Supreme Court case last year that allowed Wisconsin
antitrust laws to apply to interstate commerce if the alleged
conduct "substantially affects" the people of Wisconsin.

The class action was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
paid for the prescription drug Cipro(R) since January 8, 1997.  
It was filed in San Diego Superior Court as Cipro(R) Cases I and
II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154 and 4220.  Also named as defendants are
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
The Rugby Group, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2004).

There are two types of plaintiffs:

     (1) consumer plaintiffs are people that paid for some or
         all of the price of Cipro in California.  A consumer
         plaintiff purchased Cipro from a pharmacy or was
         administered Cipro in a hospital.  The consumer
         plaintiff must have lived in California at any time
         since January 8, 1997, and paid for some or all of the
         total cost of a Cipro prescription in California
         during that time.

     (2) third-party payor plaintiffs include insurance
         companies, union health and welfare benefit plans, and
         other organizations that paid for all or part of a
         Cipro prescription obtained by one of its California
         members since January 8, 1997.

Excluded from the class are all persons who obtained Cipro
through the MediCal Prescription Drug Program, governmental
entities, the defendants and their related entities, any
purchaser of Cipro who paid a flat copayment and who would have
paid the same copayment for a generic substitute under the terms
of their health insurance coverage, and anyone that purchased
Cipro for purposes of resale.

For more details, contact Cipro Class Counsel by Mail: P.O.
Box 2820, San Francisco, CA 9411 or visit the litigation Web
site: http://www.california-cipro-litigation.com.   


BRISTOL-MYERS: Sued on Failure to Pull Out Tequin from Market
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
face a $200,000 class action over its alleged failure to warn
patients of the risks associated with Tequin, a commonly
prescribed antibiotic, CTV.ca reports.

The lawsuit alleges the drug should have been pulled from sale
years ago, as the risks were known.

The statement of claim alleges that 70-year-old Alban Conlon,
one of the plaintiffs, fell into a coma after taking three doses
of the drug in March 2002 to treat bronchitis.  The suit also
alleges that Mr. Conlon was hospitalized for seven months and
that he will now require medical care for the rest of his life.

Some hospitals stopped using the drug three years ago, but
Tequin continued to be prescribed across Canada to about 500
patients per day.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
required increased warnings on the drug's label.

Bristol-Myers Squibb spokesman Eric Miller said the company will
return rights to the drug to Japan's Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
noting that the decision was made after a commercial evaluation
of the product as well as an ongoing transition in the company's
focus.

The drugmaker confirmed earlier this month that it plans to stop
making and selling Tequin, known generically as gatifloxacin.  
Meanwhile, Health Canada was also advised that Tequin will no
longer be sold to Canadian pharmacies.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Charles Wright.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Defers Decision on High School Exit Exam Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman postponed a final ruling on
whether thousands of high school seniors who haven't passed the
state's high school exit exam will be able to graduate, the
Mercury-Register reports.

On Monday, Judge Freeman issued a tentative ruling indicating
high school diplomas could be annotated to indicate whether a
student had passed or failed the exit exam.  On Tuesday, Judge
Freedman deferred a final decision until Friday pending lawyers'
arguments on whether a preliminary injunction would apply to all
the diploma-eligible students who hadn't passed the exam or just
the six plaintiffs.

The students whose fate is in the balance are about 47,000, or
11% of the graduating class.  They are mostly English learners,
African American, Hispanic and low-income students.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs argued their client were not given the same
opportunity to learn the material as other students across the
state in violation of their constitutional rights.

Five Richmond High School students and five others from around
California filed the suit in San Francisco Superior Court
against state Superintendent Jack O'Connell, the State of
California, the state Department of Education and the state
Board of Education as defendants, the report said.  Students
named in the complaint come from Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Fair
Oaks and Rialto (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).

The test is required for a diploma starting this year.  The
class of 2006 will be the first to be denied a diploma if they
don't pass the state standardized test.  

The plaintiff's argument are:

     (1) by denying a diploma to students who would otherwise
         graduate the state would be depriving them of their
         fundamental right to public education;

     (2) the state violated the equal protection clause of the
         California Constitution by providing inadequate
         instruction in the first place and unfairly
         distributing money dedicated to helping students pass
         the test; and

     (3) the state violated California's due process law when by
         failing to thoroughly research alternatives as mandated
         by the Legislature when it approved the exit exam in
         1999.

The plaintiffs' lawyer is Arturo J. Gonzalez, Partner in
Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco,
California 94105-2482: Phone: 415-268-7000; Fax: 415-268-7522.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Offers $7.5M to Wabamun Oil Spill Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian National Railway is offering $7.5 million in
compensation to about 1,600 households on Lake Wabamun in
Northern Alberta that were affected by an oil spill from a train
derailment last year, the Canadian Press reports.

The company says owners of property nearest the spill site, as
well as those whose properties were most contaminated will be
eligible for the largest payouts of $15,000.  They have until
June 30, 2006 to decide on whether or not to accept the offer.

Calvin Davey, a resident of Half Moon Bay on Wabamun Lake, filed
the suit in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on Feb. 17.  The suit
seeks $950 million in general and punitive damages, and a
declaration that the railway was negligent in the derailment and
spill.  Should the suit be certified as class action, it would
include everyone living and owning land and homes within a 5-km.
radius of the lake's shore. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21,
2006)

The company 's chief legal officer is Sean Finn of Montreal,
Quebec.


CAREER EDUCATION: Overtime Suit Now Includes Temporary Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Judge William Hart of the Illinois Northern District has
allowed temporary employees of Career Education Corp. to join a
class action over unpaid overtime work filed against the
company, according to Chicago Business.

The temporary employees eligible to join in the suit are those
who worked as admissions advisers for Career Education and one
of its campuses, American InterContinental University, as far as
2001.  The employees solicited students to sigh up for online
education through Career Education's campuses.

The suit, filed in August 2005, alleged the company violated
state and federal overtime laws by forcing workers not to report
some overtime and work off the clock.  The employees' lawyer,
Robin Potter, said the suit was granted class status in January.  
It involves more than 100 workers.  He said some 800 temporary
workers are receiving notices that they, too, are eligible to
join.

The suit is "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental
University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under  
Judge William T. Hart.  Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B.  
Potter of Robin Potter & Associates P.C., 111 East Wacker Drive,  
Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-1800, E-mail:  
robinpotter@igc.org.

Representing the defendants is James M. Gecker of Katten Muchin  
Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL  
60661, Phone: 312-902-5200, E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com.  


COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
suit "Access Now, Inc., et al. v. Community Hospital of
Andalusia, et al., Case No. 4:01-CV-02" on June 28, 2006, 2:00
p.m., Eastern Time.

The case involves disability access at the facilities of Athens
Regional Medical Center, LLC; Hillside Hospital, LLC; and
Livingston Regional Hospital, LLC (defendants).  It alleges on
behalf of all disabled individuals, including individuals with
mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, that the defendants
are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
other state anti-discrimination laws affecting persons with such
disabilities.  

The class is essentially defined as an individual with any type
of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek
access to or use any facility of the named defendants.  

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, 800 Market Street, Courtroom 1B,
Knoxville, TN 37902.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by June 7, 2006.

For more details contact Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country
Club Drive #1522, Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059,
Fax 305-574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site:
http://www.adaaccessnow.org.


ENRON CORP: Credit Suisse to Pay $90M in Lawsuit Over Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. affiliate of Swiss bank Credit Suisse agreed to pay $90
million to the bankruptcy estate of Enron Corp. to settle claims
by investors who lost money from the energy giant's collapse,
AFX reports.

The settlement between Credit Suisse First Boston and Donaldson
Lufkin & Jenrette will allow the return of $92 million in
bankruptcy claims that Credit Suisse no longer holds, according
to the report.  Credit Suisse is not admitting liability or
wrongdoing under the agreement.

The deal is part of a broader class action on behalf of Enron
investors against financial services companies accused of
helping the energy trader commit accounting fraud that led to
its collapse.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.  
Representing the defendant are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


EXXONMOBIL: Franchisees Win Lawsuit Over Wholesale Gas Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of current and former ExxonMobil franchisees settled a
class action filed against ExxonMobil, its wholly owned
subsidiary, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, and the companies'
officers and directors.

The class action complaint stemmed from methods employed by
ExxonMobil to undermine the profitability of its franchisees,
including setting the wholesale prices paid by franchisees at or
above the retail prices being charged by the plaintiffs'
competitors.  The suit alleged that ExxonMobil intentionally
caused its franchisees to choose between two evils: either sell
gas at a loss to keep pace with the competition, or try to sell
gas at a reasonable profit and lose customers to the better
priced competition.

According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, ExxonMobil engaged in
practices that were specifically designed to drive franchisees
out of business and increase the number of company operated
stations.

The lawsuit sought to recover damages to compensate franchisees
for their losses as a result of ExxonMobil's unlawful actions,
as well as damages for ExxonMobil's intentional and outrageous
behavior towards its franchisees, including violations of the
franchise and antitrust laws.  The complaint also sought
rescission of the franchisees' contracts.

"We're quite happy with the settlement.  My clients now have the
freedom to build a future without regard to the repressive
conduct of ExxonMobil," stated attorney Norman Yatooma of Norman
Yatooma & Associates, P.C.

Prior to the litigation, Exxon dealer plaintiffs were subject to
outlandish liquidated damage provisions, approaching $1 million
per store for early termination, on top of personal requirements
to pay Exxon's attorney fees.  "Those punitive measures are now
just bad memories.  Exxon is righting its wrong and compensating
my dealers," remarked Mr. Yatooma.  "It makes sense for Exxon
too.  Now they'll no longer have to require every prospective
dealer nationally to disclaim their rights in their class action
litigation," Mr. Yatooma concluded.

Norman Yatooma on the Net: http://www.normanyatooma.com


GOOGLE INC: AIT Challenging $90M Settlement of Click Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Web hosting company Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. (AIT),
the lead plaintiff in a pending federal class action against
Google over click fraud in California, is mounting a dual
challenge to the proposed settlement in an Arkansas case on the
same issue.

Clarence Briggs, AIT's Chief Executive Officer, says the $90
million dollar offer leaves the central issue of fraud itself
unresolved.  So, Mr. Briggs is not only pursuing the case in a
California courtroom but also in a Washington hearing room.

"I've gone to Capitol Hill and spoken with members of the U.S.
Senate and representatives for the Judiciary Committee," said
Mr. Briggs.  "We have been contacted and asked for additional
information on this issue; they have told us that hearings are
likely and I expect to go testify," said Mr. Briggs.  "When
officials see the scope of the issue, businesses losing
potentially billions annually, they will find it extremely
disturbing."

AIT's legal team has termed the proposed settlement as
"financially meaningless" to Google.  The only cash involved --
about $30 million -- is for attorney's fees.  Click verification
service providers are scratching their heads, too, wondering why
advertisers would even bother to look for fraud in their pay-
per-click campaigns if the effort produces no relief.

"Unchecked, fraud is only going to get worse, and this
settlement strips advertisers of any protection," said Charles
Petruzzi, President of Click Authority, an independent click
fraud detection service.  "As it is, all advertisers get is
promises from the major pay-per-click providers that fraud is
under control, but when the settlement says nothing about
improving fraud prevention, those promises sound very hollow."

Many of the click verification service providers have expressed
reservations on behalf of their clients due to fear of
retribution from Google if they complain publicly or "opt out"
of the settlement.  "Google is a great company that has achieved
some wonderful things on behalf of the Internet community," says
Mr. Briggs.  "We are asking them to fix this problem so the
Internet can continue to be the phenomenon that enriches the
lives of the global community."

AIT -- http://www.AIT.com-- is also using a non-profit  
organization it created called iGeryon -- http://Igeryon.org--
to collect information and consolidate complaints from companies
who believe they have been defrauded.  Mr. Briggs contends that,
central to the fraud, is a sprawling affiliate network that
syndicates Google AdWords advertising, with site owners being
paid every time someone or an automated software program clicks
on ads on their sites in order to generate false clicks.  These
networks are frequently located offshore, raising some questions
as to where payouts are going.

"It's not a stretch to believe that activity contrary to U.S.
national interests is being funded this way," said Mr. Briggs.  
"Stories in several in major newspapers and magazines -- The
Washington Post, USA Today, Wired -- have documented online
communities that promote terrorism.  The Internet is a
fundraising tool that is difficult to audit so a terror group
setting up affiliate sites and getting paid when someone or
something clicks on their ads is very possible."  Mr. Briggs is
a former Army combat veteran as are about 70% of AIT's staffers.

                         Case Background

In April, a judge in the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas, approved Google Inc.'s $90 million settlement of a
"click fraud" class action filed against it by advertisers, The
Texarkana Gazette reports (Class Action Reporter, April 25,
2006).

Initially, the suit was filed by Texarkana gift shop Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles.  On Feb. 4, 2005, John C. Goodson and  
Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg filed a suit against Google, Yahoo!  
Inc., Overture Services Inc., America Online Inc., Ask Jeeves  
Inc., Looksmart Ltd., Lycos Inc., Netscape Communication Corp.,  
Buena Vista Internet Group, Findwhat.Com Inc. and Time Warner  
Inc., (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The suit specifically alleged that the Company overcharged
thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the
"click fraud" strategy.  The scheme involves sending fraudulent
clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts,  
(Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

Though the Company settled its case with its clients, the "click
fraud" class action is still alive in Miller County in relation
to the other named defendants.

As part of the settlement reached by the Company, the
advertising clients will have a $60 million fund to file a claim
and receive a percentage of what it is owed.  They will not
receive cash, but they will get advertising credits to pay half
of future bills with the Company.

The remaining third of the $90 million will be paid to the
lawyers for their fees and expenses.

Entitled, "Click Defense, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (5:05-cv-02579-
RMW)," AIT's suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.   A hearing for nationwide
class certification of that case is slated for May 14, 2006,
(Class Action Reporter, March 14, 2006).  Lawyer Kevin Crass of
Little Rock represents the company.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Court Junks Bias Lawsuit by Former MLB Players
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. appeals court upheld a ruling dismissing a discrimination
case filed by retired Chicago White Sox player Mike Colbern
against the Major League Baseball, Reuters reports.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
District in San Francisco ruled that the rights of a group of
mostly white players who sued the MLB of discrimination were not
violated when they were excluded from benefit plans for former
Negro League players.

The benefits were granted to aging African-American players who
were barred from Major League Baseball until 1947 because they
were black.  The medical plan was set up in 1993; the income
plan in 1997.

The suit alleged violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex or national origin.  It names as defendants
MLB Commissioner Bud Selig and all major league teams.

According to the report, the appellants played in the majors for
less than four years between 1947 and 1979 -- a period short
enough to qualify for benefits under the vesting rules in effect
at that time.  Mr. Colbern played for the Chicago White Sox in
1978 and 1979.

The lawsuit also alleged players were given cortisone shots and
other drugs without their "informed" consent.  But the appeals
court panel said the former players failed to show "substantial
risk of injury as a result of the administration of the
cortisone shots and other drugs."


MARVEL EDUCATION: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Phones
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvel Education Company, of New York, New York, in cooperation
with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is recalling about
6,000 Marvel Education cordless push button toy telephones.

The company said the push buttons on the toy phone can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  Marvel is not aware
of any incidents involving this toy telephone.

The toy phone is made of wood.  It has push buttons with black
numbers, and has a black rubber antenna.  The toy phone sits in
a wooden caddy.  The caddy has "TELEPHONE" printed on it.

The toy phones are made in Vietnam and are sold in major school
supply distributors, including Kaplan and Ajax School Office
Source, from January 2004 through February 2006 for about $20.

Consumers are advised to stop using these toy phones immediately
and contact the firm for a free replacement toy phone.  The
replacement toy phone has red push button numbers and red
graphics printed on it.

For more information, contact Marvel Education Co. at (866) 460-
8769 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or e-
mail Marvel at marvel_ed@yahoo.com


REGAL LAGER: Recalls Strollers for Potential Injury to Children
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Georgia, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling about
425 Phil & Teds e3 Twin Buggy strollers.

The company said the plastic hinge on the handlebar can crack or
break causing the handlebar to detach while in use, posing a
risk of injury to young children.

Regal Lager has received two reports from consumers of the
handlebars breaking, but no injuries were reported.

Phil & Teds e3 twin buggy has a metal frame and side-by-side
cloth seats.  The strollers were sold in a variety of colors
including red, orange, black, charcoal grey and navy.  "e3 twin"
is embroidered on the front of each seat and the Phil & Teds
logo is printed on the crotch piece of each harness.

The strollers were made in China and sold by Web retailers, baby
furniture and baby product stores nationwide from November 2005
through March 2006 for about $650.

Consumers are advised to contact Regal Lager for information on
receiving a free replacement hinge set for the handlebar.

Picture of the recalled strollers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06154.jpg

For more information, contact Regal Lager at (800) 593-5522
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
email at info@regallager.com. Consumers can also visit the
firm's Web site at www.regallager.com


RTM OPERATING: ADA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set Next Month
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on June 14, 2006 for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Access Now, Inc. and Christ Soter
Tavantis, et al. v. RTM Operating Company d/b/a Arby's
Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 02-23374-CIV-
Martinez/Bandstra."

The case involves all persons who have qualified, qualify, or
will qualify as having a "disability," as that term is defined
by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and who have been or
will be a guest, customer, patron, visitor or otherwise, and who
have been, are, or will be denied full and equal access to or
have been, are, or will be discriminated against under title iii
of the ADA or regulations promulgated thereunder, or similar
federal, state, or local law, rule, order, or ordinance
(excluding claims for all damages, other than statutory
damages), because of their "disability," at or in connection
with:  

     -- all restaurants doing business as "Arby's" now or
        hereafter owned and/or operated by defendant rtm
        operating company, inc.,

     -- or its affiliated companies, which are located in the
        fifty states in the U.S. of America and the District of
        Columbia.

The hearing is before the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, U.S.
District Judge, in Dade County, Florida on the 14th day of June,
2006 at 1:30 p.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Ave., Miami, Florida 33128.

Any objections to the settlement must be made by May 29, 2006.  

For more details contact:

     (1) Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country Club Drive #1522,
         Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059, Fax 305-
         574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site:
         http://www.adaaccessnow.org;and

     (2) Rosen & Switkes, PL, Phone: 305-534-4757 and 954-653-
         0457, Fax: 305-538-5504 and 305-538-5504, E-mail:
         jentin@rosenandswitkes.com, Web site:
         http://www.rosenandswitkes.com/classactions/index.html.


TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Helmets for Failing Impact Standards
----------------------------------------------------------
Trek Bicycle, of Waterloo, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling about
4,500 Trek Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD Model Bicycle
Helmets.

The company said product testing has demonstrated that these
helmets do not comply with CPSC safety standards for impact
resistance. Consumers could suffer impact head injuries in a
fall.  No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD has a label inside the
helmet, which identifies the helmet as "Trek Anthem C."  The
helmets are available in men's sizes in black/charcoal,
blue/silver and blue/red, and in women's sizes in aqua
blue/silver and white/silver.  This recall includes all sizes of
this helmet.

The helmets are manufactured in China and are being sold in
authorized Trek Dealers nationwide from October 2005 through May
2006 for about $129.

Consumers are advised to stop using the helmets immediately and
return their helmets to an authorized Trek dealer for a full
refund.

For more information, contact Trek Bicycle at (800) 373-4594
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


UNITED STATES: PwC Study Reveals Decrease in Securities Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
The number of private securities litigation filed in the U.S.
was down to its lowest level in nine years, according to the
2005 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Securities Litigation Study.

While the number of class actions subsided, the study shows
settlement values skyrocketed by 156 percent from a $27.8
million average value of settlements in 2004 to an average of
$71.1 million in 2005, excluding Enron and WorldCom settlements.

In 2005, 29 cases settled for over $20 million.  Twenty of those
cases settled for over $60 million, 11 of which were "mega-
settlements" of over $100 million.  

The total 168 cases reported in 2005 represent a 17 percent
decline from the 203 cases filed in 2004, and is slightly below
the ten-year average of 188 cases per year.  

However, the value of settlements has increased so drastically
that it is costing companies more to settle now than ever
before.  These mega-settlements can possibly be attributed to
several factors, including enormous case-related losses, the
role of lead plaintiffs, the effect of Sarbanes-Oxley, as well
as the fact that companies now have to deal with the Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Justice (DOJ) and
various states' attorneys general.  

"Since 2001, the U.S. economy has been strong.  If the U.S. does
enter into another recessionary period, it is likely that
securities litigation and mega-settlements will increase," says
Daniel Dooley, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers.  "That is to
say, this may be the lull before the next storm."

Mega-settlements during 2005 included the continuing settlements
of Enron and WorldCom, where settlements with financial
institutions and other third parties have pushed total
settlements for the cases to more than $7.1 billion and $6.1
billion, respectively.

In 2005, accounting cases represented 46 percent of all private
securities class actions filed, which is the lowest percentage
since 1996 and also the first time since 1996 that the figure
fell below 50 percent.  The average settlement value of
accounting cases in 2005 was $94 million, excluding the cases of
Enron and WorldCom, 178 percent higher than the $33.8 million
average value in 2004.  

Also in 2005, 55 percent of all accounting cases filed asserted
that companies' internal controls were materially weak and
contributed to financial fraud.  

The 2005 survey also showed some relief for foreign private
issuers, as securities regulators in the U.S., European Union
countries and other nations have improved coordination of their
regulatory and enforcement policies and activities.  In 2005 the
number of securities class actions filed against foreign issuers
fell by 34 percent, from 29 in 2004 to 19 in 2005.  

Grace Lamont, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, notes: "The
increased cooperation among global regulators and the increased
focus by the SEC on foreign issuer related matters should serve
to confirm that U.S. domestic companies and foreign issuers are
equally accountable.  There is no indication that foreign
issuers should expect to be any less subject to securities
litigation than their U.S. counterparts as we look to the year
ahead."  

Other noteworthy trends that continued through 2005 include:

      -- Hedge fund fraud on the rise. The total number of hedge
         fund enforcements through December 31, 2005, was 22
         cases, some of which involved multiple enforcement
         actions against hedge funds, related parties, and hedge
         fund managers and advisors. This is something that
         should be followed closely, as hedge funds typically
         present high risk and are subject to certain reporting
         and compliance rules.

      -- An increase in mega-settlements for foreign cases. Two
         of the foreign settlements were among the ten largest
         settlements for both domestic and foreign issuers
         during the year.

      -- Health services and pharmaceutical industries continued
         to be plagued by private securities class actions, many
         of them sued for accounting or disclosure violations.  

      -- Electronics, high-technology and software sectors once
         again led the list of industries being sued in private
         securities class actions, representing 29 percent of
         all such cases filed.  

For more details, contact Kathryn Oliver of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Phone: 860-241-7333, E-mail:
kathryn.oliver@us.pwc.com or Suzanne Dawson of Linden Alschuler
& Kaplan, Phone: 212-329-1420, E-mail: sdawson@lakpr.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Managers' Overtime Lawsuit Denied Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to certify a class action filed on
behalf of some 2,750 current and former assistant managers of
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alleging they were not paid for overtime
work and denied meal breaks, the Bloomberg News reports.

U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer in Los Angeles said the
plaintiffs' claims that they performed non-managerial tasks and
were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay should be
considered individually.  

In California, workers who spend at least half their time on
managerial duties that require them to exercise discretion and
independent judgment are exempt from overtime pay rules.  But,
workers alleged in their suit filed in 2004 their titles don't
reflect the non-managerial work they do, including operating the
cash register.

The workers' lawyer is Robert Drexler of The Quisenberry Law
Firm, A Professional Corporation, 2049 Century Park East, Suite
2200, Los Angeles, California 90067 (Los Angeles Co.), Phone:
310-785-7966, Fax: Fax: 310-785-0254.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ASTEA INT'L: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Astea International Inc. (ATEA) between May 11,
2005 through March 31, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts:

      -- that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
         controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
         Company's overall condition;

      -- that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
         true financial health of the Company; and

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its future prospects and the
         intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

According to the complaint, the defendants materially overstated
and exaggerated Astea's financial condition throughout the Class
Period by failing to accurately account for the Company's
software development costs under Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).  As a result, Astea overstated its earnings
by failing to comply with GAAP when recording its expenses.

On March 31, 2006, the Company announced that it would have to
restate its financial results for the three quarters ended
September 30, 2005, in order to adjust for the improper
accounting.  On this news, the price of Astea stock plummeted
from $16.50 to $11.73 per share, a loss of nearly 30%.  During
the Class Period, Astea stock traded as high as $25.71 per
share.

Interested parties may, no later than June 5, 2006, move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action.

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


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers of Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. (DSCO) from December 28, 2005 through April
25, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Discovery and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

      -- that problems regarding the manufacturing of Surfaxin
         existed;

      -- specifically, that the Company failed to disclose that
         manufacturing problems with Surfaxin caused instability
         with the drug's active ingredient;

      -- that the FDA's concerns regarding Surfaxin's stability
         would result in a significant delay in the drug's
         approval; and

      -- as a result of the above, the Company's statements
         concerning Surfaxin were lacking in any reasonable
         basis when made.

Throughout the Class Period, Discovery repeatedly asserted that
it anticipated that Surfaxin would receive U.S. regulatory
approval in April 2006.  

On April 24, 2006, Discovery announced that U.S. regulatory
approval of Surfaxin was being delayed over manufacturing
problems.

Specifically, Discovery reported that Surfaxin's ability to be
stored for extended periods of time without change in its
efficacy or chemical profile, or stability, had not been
achieved.

As a result of this failure, the U.S. regulatory process would
be significantly delayed.  The Company acknowledged that
stability had never been achieved for the drug.

On this news, shares of Discovery dropped $2.49, or 53 percent,
to close, on April 25, 2006, at $2.20 per share.

Interested parties may, not later than June 30, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


ESTEE LAUDER: Glancy Binkow Sets May 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing shareholders of The
Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., reminds regarding the deadline to
file as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit against the
Company.  All persons and institutions who purchased securities
of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. between April 28, 2005 and
October 25, 2005, inclusive, may move the Court not later than
May 29, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

The Complaint, filed on in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, charges Estee Lauder and certain
of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Estee Lauder's financial performance and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that the Company's market share was
decreasing at the commencement of the Class Period, and, rather
than reverse this negative trend or fully disclose it,
defendants launched a largely successful campaign that employed
channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements to prop up reported revenues and earnings
and the Company's share price long enough for Company insiders
to sell millions of their personally held Estee Lauder shares to
unsuspecting investors at prices that were artificially inflated
by defendants' false and misleading statements.

On September 19, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company
would not meet its guidance for the first half of fiscal 2006,
causing the Company's stock to fall 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05
per share.

Estee Lauder shares, however, continued to trade at artificially
inflated levels until October 26, 2005 when defendants were
forced to disclose fiscal first-quarter 2006 earnings of only
$61.8 million, or $0.28 per share -- down 38% from the prior
year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per share -- on
essentially flat sales.

These results were well below analysts' revised consensus
earnings estimate of $0.32 per share on revenue of $1.54
billion.  Following this disclosure, the Company's share price
fell to $30.71.

By this time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the Class
Period, sold 3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common stock
to unwitting investors for proceeds of $88,077,150.

Interested parties may move the Court, not later than May 29,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, against Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (FFH) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company between March 24, 2004 to March 21, 2006,
inclusive.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Fairfax, headquartered in Toronto, Canada, engages in property
and casualty insurance products principally in Canada, the U.S.,
and the United Kingdom.  It also provides claims adjusting,
appraisal, and loss management services.

The Complaint alleges the following:

      -- that the Company's current reserve accounts were
         understated;

      -- that the Company over utilized aggressive off-balance
         sheet funding mechanisms;

      -- that the Company improperly accounted finite
         reinsurance  contracts;

      -- as a consequence of the above, the Company's reported
         earnings were materially inflated throughout the Class
         Period; and

      -- that defendants consistently downplayed the seriousness
         of regulatory inquiries and subpoenas issued against
         the Company.

On March 22, 2006, Fairfax announced that U.S. securities
regulators issued subpoenas to third parties (including the
Company's independent auditor and a shareholder) in an ongoing
probe into certain financial transactions, including
nontraditional insurance or reinsurance product transactions.  
On this news, shares of Fairfax fell $16.97 per share or 12.96
percent, to close at $113.93 per shares.

Interested parties have until June 12, 2006 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the Class.

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


GMH COMMUNITIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of GMH
Communities Trust (NYSE:GCT) between October 28, 2004 and March
10, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of GMH securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until June 5, 2006, in which to move for
Lead Plaintiff status.

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


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Howard G. Smith Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith sets a June 2, 2006, deadline
to file as lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed
on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Nature's
Sunshine Products, Inc. (Pink Sheets:NATR) between October 19,
2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive.  The shareholder lawsuit is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Nature's Sunshine
Products securities.  No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

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


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files La. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of Newpark
Resources, Inc. (NYSE:NR) from February 28, 2005 through April
16, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Newpark and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

      -- that defendants, among other things, had irregularly
         processed and paid invoices at the Company's
         subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
         in accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP).

On April 17, 2006, before the market opened, Newpark revealed
that, based on information that had come to its attention, the
Company's Audit Committee had commissioned an internal
investigation regarding "potential irregularities involving the
processing and payment of invoices" by Soloco Texas, LP, one of
the Company's smaller subsidiaries and "other possible
violations."

The Company also announced that defendant James D. Cole, recent
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, defendant Matthew W.
Hardey, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and an officer of
Soloco Texas, LP, had been placed on administrative leave.  

Following this disclosure, shares of Newpark sank $1.28 per
share, or 17.25 percent, to close, on April 17, 2006, at $6.14
per share.

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


PXRE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) between July
28, 2005 and February 16, 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.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
or concealed from investors the full impact on its business of
hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

As a result, on February 16, 2006, PXRE announced that it would
be increasing its estimates of the net pre-tax impact of
hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by an amount between $281
million to $311 million for the year ended December 31, 2005
compared to the high end of their prior announced estimates.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


PXRE GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of PXRE Group
Ltd. (PXT) between July 28, 2005 and February 16, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant PXRE, Jeffrey L. Radke
and John M. Modin.  The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 3, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact The 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.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Minn. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH) between May 4, 2001 and April 7,
2006, inclusive.  

Also included are all those who acquired UnitedHealth's
securities through its acquisitions of AmeriChoice, Mid Atlantic
Medical, Oxford Health Plans and Pacificare Health.

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

Specifically, defendants misrepresented and omitted material
facts concerning UnitedHealth's backdating of stock option
grants to defendants William W. McGuire and Stephen J. Hemsley.

UnitedHealth represented that the exercise price of all stock
options would be no less than the fair market value of
UnitedHealth's common stock, measured by the publicly traded
closing price for UnitedHealth stock on the day of the grant.

However, in reality, those options were backdated so their
exercise price correlated to a day on or near the day
UnitedHealth stock hit its low price for the year, or directly
in advance of sharp increases in the price of UnitedHealth
stock.

Defendants McGuire and Hemsley have collectively earned over
$500 million by exercising these backdated options.

As the truth concerning United Health's practice of backdating
option grants became known to the market from a variety of
sources, the price of UnitedHealth stock fell $6.76, or 12%,
over several trading sessions.

Interested parties may, no later than July 7, 2006, request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class.  

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Goldman Scarlato Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS)
between October 23, 2003 and April 26, 2006, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Vitesse and certain officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made material
misstatements and omitted critical information regarding the
timing of stock option grants made to key executives.

On March 18, 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an article
indicating potential options backdating activity at several
companies, including Vitesse.

On April 17, 2006, Vitesse CEO Louis Tomasetta, Executive Vice
President Eugene Hovanec and the Company's CFO, Yatlin Mody,
were placed on administrative leave as the Company investigated
certain stock options transactions.

On April 26, 2006, Vitesse further announced that it was
restating its financial statements for the fiscal years ending
September 2003, 2004, and 2005, as well as the quarter ending
December 31, 2005.  In reaction to this news, shares of Vitesse
fell from $2.51 per share to $1.82 per share, or 27.5%.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than July 3, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.  

For more details, contact 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, Janice Mendoza
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  * * *