CAR_Public/060515.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 95

                            Headlines

AES CORP: Appeal Planned on Dismissal of Calif. Antitrust Suit
BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED: Faces Mich. ERISA, LRMA Violations Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Ala. Court Mulls Dismissal of Drug Discounts Suit
CALIFORNIA: Appeal on Legal Fees in "Cruz v. Alhambra" Denied
CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits

CENTRAL LIVESTOCK: Ranchers File Suit in Kans. Over Cash Checks
COSMETICS PRICING LITIGATION: Lawyers Sue Over $24M Settlement
ENSIGN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Nursing Homes Operations in Calif.
GRILL CONCEPTS: Continues to Face Employee Wage Suit in Calif.
HERTZ CORP: Continues to Face Service Charge Lawsuit in N.Mex.

HERTZ CORP: Discovery Begins in Okla. Consumer Lawsuit Over FSC
HERTZ CORP: Discovery Begins Anew in Tex. Service Charge Lawsuit
HERTZ CORP: N.J. Appeals Court Mulls Dismissal of "Henderson"
HERTZ CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Fla. Court's Ruling in "Moore"
ILLINOIS: Muslim Men File Suit Over Delays in U.S. Citizenship

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: "Light" Cigarette Lawsuit Allowed to Proceed
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Clients Sue Over Web Service Problems
LIBERTY FIBERS: Facing Labor Lawsuit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Recalls Children's Jewelry on Lead Poisoning Risk
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Workers' Benefits Suits

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Alcatel Merger Plan
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Mulls Approval of Deal with Calif. Cities
MINNESOTA: Drivers Sue Minneapolis Over "Stop on Red" Program
MODTECH HOLDINGS: Faces Labor Violations Suit in Calif. Court
NORTH FORK: Investors File N.Y. Suits to Block Capital One Deal

RAJBHOG FOODS: Recalls Sweets for Undeclared Milk Allergens
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Sued in California for Asking Client Data
RESPIRONICS INC: Recalls Ventilators for Adverse Health Effects
ROGERS INT'L: Continues to Face Fiduciaries Suit in N.D. Ill.
RUNNING PRESS: Recalls Candle Kits for Possible Fire Hazard

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Enters $88M Settlement in Price Fixing Suit
SOUTH BRUNSWICK: Ordered to Pay $550T in Stormwater Fees Lawsuit
STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 22
TRAVEL AGENCIES: Assoc. Denies Tex. City's Claim of Unpaid Taxes
TRAVEL AGENCIES: Ga. Allowed to Recover Alleged Unpaid Taxes

UNITED STATES: FDA Warns Against Side Effect of Bowel Cleanser

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTEA INT'L: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
CHINA ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ESCALA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ESCALA GROUP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Ohio
ESCALA GROUP: Paskowitz & Associates Files Stock Suit in N.Y.

ESCALA GROUP: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in Fla.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in Fla.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in Minn.

XM SATELLITE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in D.C.


                            *********


AES CORP: Appeal Planned on Dismissal of Calif. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the San Diego County Superior Court's
decision to dismiss the remanded antitrust class action filed
against AES Corp. and other electric companies.

In November 2000, the company was named in a purported class
action along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful
manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market,
allegedly resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices
throughout California.

The alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright
Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  

On July 30, 2001, the Court remanded the case to San Diego
Superior Court.  The case was consolidated with five other
lawsuits alleging similar claims against other defendants.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in
the consolidated action, which re-asserted the claims raised in
the earlier action and names the company, AES Redondo Beach,
LLC, AES Alamitos, LLC, and AES Huntington Beach, LLC as
defendants.

In May 2002, the case was removed by certain cross-defendants
from the San Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.  The plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which was
granted on December 13, 2002.  

Certain defendants appealed aspects of that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 8, 2004, a
panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part
and reversing in part the decision of the District Court, and
remanding the case to state court.

On July 8, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer in state court
seeking dismissal of the case in its entirety.  On October 3,
2005, the court sustained the demurrer and entered an order of
dismissal.  On December 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  


BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED: Faces Mich. ERISA, LRMA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Products Inc., a subsidiary
of BorgWarner, Inc., is defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

The suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2006 by four retirees who are
alleging violations of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LRMA)
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The plaintiffs are Bob L. Bertram, Eugene J. Winningham, James
L. Kelley and Willard L. Sloan.  They purport to bring this case
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former
employees and surviving spouses of former employees who retired
from the company after Oct. 26, 1989 and who were represented by
the United Auto Workers in collective bargaining.

The suit is "Sloan, et al. v. Borgwarner Diversified
Transmission Products, Incorporated, Case No. 2:06-cv-10861-PDB-
MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan under Judge Paul D. Borman with referral to Judge
Mona K. Majzoub.  Representing the plaintiffs is Roger J. McClow
Klimist, McKnight of 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 117,
Southfield, MI 48034-2161, Phone: 248-354-9650, E-mail:
rmcclow@kmsmc.com.

Representing the defendant is Daniel P. Colling of Miller,
Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500,
Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone: 313-496-7646, E-mail:
colling@millercanfield.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?90c
(Complaint).


BRISTOL-MYERS: Ala. Court Mulls Dismissal of Drug Discounts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is defendant in two putative class
actions involving drug prices under Section 340B of the Public
Health Services Act, which requires prescription drug
manufacturers to offer discounts to qualified medical providers
-- generally those who disproportionately service poor people.

In one case, pending in Alabama federal court, the plaintiffs
are two medical providers who claim that they and all other
providers across the country did not receive the discounted
prices to which they were entitled.  In the other case, pending
in California federal court, the County of Santa Clara,
California, contends that it and other counties and cities in
California have had to provide more financing to local hospitals
than otherwise would have been necessary had the company and the
other defendants provided the appropriate discounts.

The Alabama court denied defendants' motions to dismiss or
otherwise stay the case.  In the California case, the County of
Santa Clara recently filed an amended complaint.  A hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss was held on April 27, 2006 and the
motion is currently pending.  


CALIFORNIA: Appeal on Legal Fees in "Cruz v. Alhambra" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian of California upheld
his earlier ruling regarding attorneys' fees in the Title IX
class action filed by Alhambra High School female athletes
against the city and the school district, The Pasadena Star-News
reports.

Essentially, the judge reduced the amount of requested
attorneys' fees by more than half in a February ruling to about
$336,000.  An appeal by plaintiff's lawyers was recently denied.

The suit, filed in March 2004 under the caption, "Cruz v.
Alhambra School District," was sparked by the school district's
$900,000 improvement to the boy's baseball field at Moor Field,
while girls played on substandard softball fields.

The students, with lead plaintiff Lauren Cruz, 17, who plays
softball, demanded equal sports facilities and equipment for
boys and girls from school administrators.  It later included
all present and female students of the school (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 3, 2006).

A settlement requiring the district to build new facilities for
girls' athletics and institute new policies was reached in
December of last year and approved in January 2006.

Under the settlement, the school district and the city of
Alhambra agreed to build two new softball fields for girls, fund
girls' and boys' teams equitably, give female athletic teams
equal practice and competition time at athletic facilities and
give girls the same quality of coaches given to boys (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 3, 2006).  

Basically, the district will spend $3.5 million on facilities
for female athletes, including two new softball diamonds at Moor
Field.  The city will contribute $500,000.  There is also an
$18,000-per-year monitoring fee until 2011.  The settlement
agreement mandates a February 2008 completion date.

In January, attorneys for plaintiffs sought $840,000 in fees for
more than 2,000 hours of work done by five lawyers billing
between $275 and $470 an hour.  Lawyers also sought a $25,000
reimbursement for costs.

Judge Tevrizian reduced that amount to $336,000 in fees and
$20,000 in costs, on the grounds that the number of hours billed
was excessive.

Plaintiffs' lawyers declined to say whether they would appeal
again.  "It's too soon for us to make some comment on that,"
said Elizabeth Kristen, a lawyer with the San Francisco-based
Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center.  

The suit is "Lauren M. Cruz, et al. v. Alhambra School District,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01460-DT-Mc," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Dickran Tevrizian with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Vicky L. Barker and Nancy M. Solomon, Californaia Women
         Law Center, 3460 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1102, Los
         Angeles, CA 90010, Phone: 213-637-9900; and

     (2) Claudia Center, Elizabeth Kristen and Patricia A. Shiu,
         Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Ctr., 600 Harrison
         St., Ste. 120, San Francisco, CA 94107, Phone: 415-864-     
         8848, E-mail: ekristen@las-elc.org.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) John W. Allen, Gary R. Gibeaut and Nancy Ann Mahan-Lamb
         of Gibeaut Mahan and Briscoe, 6701 Center Drive West,
         Suite 611, Los Angeles, CA 90045, Phone: 310-410-2020,
         Fax: 310-410-2010;

    (ii) Elizabeth R. Feffer and Joseph M. Montes of Burke
         Williams and Sorensen, 444 South Flower St., Suite
         2400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953, Phone: 213-236-0600,
         Fax: 213-236-2700, E-mail: jmontes@bwslaw.com;

   (iii) Harold W Potter of Jones & Mayer, 3777 N. Harbor Blvd.,
         Fullerton, CA 92835, Phone: 714-446-1400, Fax: 714-446-
         1448.


CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centennial Communications Corp. faces several lawsuits in which
plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation or
unfair practice claims relating to its billing practices,
including rounding up of partial minutes of use to full-minute
increments, billing send to end, and billing for unanswered and
dropped calls.  

The plaintiffs are seeking certification to pursue the case as
class action.  They did not state specific monetary damages.

A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held
on Sept. 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana.  Subsequent to
such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the
plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class action status in
December 2004.  The decision of the court with respect to class
certification is still pending.


CENTRAL LIVESTOCK: Ranchers File Suit in Kans. Over Cash Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Stan Juhnke filed a class action civil petition in Reno
County District Court in Kansas against Central Livestock Corp.
on behalf of 33 ranchers, The Hutchinson News reports.

The suit alleges losses totaling $73,978, as well as damages and
recovery of attorney fees for problems encountered while cashing
checks issued by the sale barns.  It seeks damages, and an
accounting of a government audit currently being conducted by
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, a
division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The company
closed on Feb. 14.  

For more details, contact Stanley Juhnke of Bretz Law Offices,
400 W. 1st Ave., P.O. Box 567, Hutchinson, KS 67501-5206, Phone:
(316) 669-1022, Fax: (316) 669-1025.


COSMETICS PRICING LITIGATION: Lawyers Sue Over $24M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers who objected to the settlement of a class action over
cosmetics pricing are challenging the award to their colleagues
who pursued the case, according to the New York Sun.

The challenge came out after a special master on the suit,
Charles Renfrew, in March, recommended that the 21 objecting law
firms should receive at most $368,000, if, they should get
anything at all.

The objectors, led by two Texas lawyers, Michael Caddell and
Mitchell Toups, said in court papers that the $24 million
payment to the 19 firms that pursued the case should also be
scrutinized.  

The objectors said records from the settling law firms disclosed
"repeated abuses of the billing process."  They are asking $3
million of the $24 million award, the reduction of the fee award
to class counsel, and allotment of portion of the money to
charity.

Under a settlement approved by an Oakland, California-based
federal judge last year, consumers throughout the nation are
entitled to free cosmetics worth a total of $175 million, and
lawyers for the class would receive $24 million from the
defendant companies to cover the costs of pursuing the
litigation.  

The suit from which the settlement arose claimed that department
stores and cosmetics manufacturers conspired to prevent
discounting of lipstick, blush, and other beauty counter
products.


ENSIGN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Nursing Homes Operations in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-nine nursing homes throughout California, owned or
operated by Ensign Group, Inc. faces a class action filed on May
10, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District.  

The suit alleged unlawful business practices, unfair and
fraudulent business practices, violations of health & safety
codes, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  It
was filed on behalf of:

      -- Barbara Davison, a former resident of Shoreline
         Healthcare Center;

     -- the California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA), a
        non-profit corporation, on behalf of patients, their
        families, and

     -- the Service Employees International Union United
        Healthcare Workers-West, representing nursing home
        employees and the thousands of other citizens of the
        State of California similarly situated.

The essence of the complaint is that the defendants professed
that their skilled nursing facilities provided the level of
patient staffing and quality of care that are required, at the
very minimum, by the State of California and that they billed
individuals, their private insurance companies, and government
sources, such as MediCare and MediCal, as if they had been
providing the care promised.  According to the lawsuit, the
facilities did not provide this legally mandated minimum care to
the elder and infirm residents of their skilled nursing
facilities.

"I have successfully litigated hundreds of elder abuse cases for
individuals throughout the southwest, and the fact is, there is
a direct correlation between the level and quality of care a
patient receives and the direct nursing staff available at a
facility," says Long Beach plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia
of Garcia Law.  

"The California Department of Health Services has cited Ensign
over and over again for such inadequacies related to short-
staffing, leading Ensign to an unacceptable number of residents
who develop bed sores and urinary tract infections, who have
unexplained falls, who have an unexpected weight loss, and who
suffer medication errors, all often the first signs of
inadequate care and elder abuse."

"This is a classic case of corporate greed," Mr. Garcia
continues.  "Ensign ignores the needs of a particularly
vulnerable segment of our community.  Our parents, our
grandparents -- and someday we -- are the victims of this
'profits over people' mentality."

In 1999, in response to a growing concern over the low levels of
direct patient staffing and quality of care in nursing homes,
the California legislature increased required direct patient
care to 3.2 hours per day as of January 2000.  The lawsuit
alleges Ensign not only operates outside the law, as evidenced
by its frequent California Department of Health citations, but
also builds the inadequate staffing into each of the facility's
budgets.  This is done with the full knowledge and approval of
the corporate executive team and the management at each of the
29 California Ensign facilities.

This permits the directors and officers of the corporation to
maximize their bonus options.  After all, Mr. Garcia points out,
the physical and mental abuse Ensign's residents suffer never
show up on a quarterly report.

"This is one of many class action cases I have brought in recent
years against nursing home operators who are using this
vulnerable group as 'cash cows,'" says Mr. Garcia.  "As horrible
as the individual cases are, they can't compare with these so-
called skilled nursing facilities who are abusing our elderly
relatives and friends by the hundreds, sometimes the thousands."

Bill Powers of the California Alliance for Retired Americans
concurs with Mr. Garcia, saying, "We hope this lawsuit helps
force the Ensign Group to clean up and to staff up for better
patient care."

The Ensign nursing homes named in the class action are:

     -- Bellflower: Rose Villa Health Care Center
     -- Cloverdale: Cloverdale Healthcare Center
     -- COSTA MESA: Victoria Healthcare Center
     -- Downey: Brookfield Healthcare Center
     -- Escondido: Palomar Vista Healthcare Center
     -- Glendora: Claremont Care Center
     -- Huntington Beach: Sea Cliff Healthcare Center
     -- Laguna Hills: Palm Terrace Healthcare & Rehabilitation
                      Center
     -- Lemon Grove: Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center
     -- Long Beach: Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Center
     -- Long Beach: Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Center
                    Shoreline Healthcare Center
     -- Norwalk: Southland Care Center
     -- Oxnard: Glenwood Care Center
     -- Palm Springs: Premier Care and Rehabilitation for Palm
                      Springs
     -- Panorama City: Panorama Gardens
     -- Redlands: Brookside Healthcare Center
     -- Rosemead: Mission Care Center
     -- San Diego: Arroyo Vista Nursing Center
     -- San Dimas: Arbor Glen Care Center
     -- Santa Rosa: Park View Gardens at Montgomery
     -- Summerfield Health Care Center

     -- Sonoma: Sonoma Healthcare Center
     -- Ukiah: Ukiah Convalescent Hospital
     -- Upland: Upland Rehabilitation and Care Center
     -- Ventura: Victoria Care Center
     -- Vista: Vista Knoll Specialized Care Facility
     -- Willits: Northbrook Nursing and Rehab
     -- Whittier: Royal Court Health Center
                  Whittier Hills Health Care Center

Garcia Law Firm on the Net: http://www.lawgarcia.com,Phone:  
800-281-8515.


GRILL CONCEPTS: Continues to Face Employee Wage Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grill Concepts, Inc. is defendant in an employee wage class
action pending in the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County.

One of the company's former hourly restaurant employees filed
the suit in June 2004.  The company requested and was granted a
motion to move the suit from Orange County to Los Angeles
County.  The lawsuit was then filed in the Superior Court of
California of Los Angeles in December 2004.  

The plaintiff alleged violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  The suit sought
unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on
behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

The case was stayed pending the outcome of the California
Supreme Court's review on appealed cases of the same nature.


HERTZ CORP: Continues to Face Service Charge Lawsuit in N.Mex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Corp. is defendant in a purported class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, styled,
"Janelle Johnson v. The Hertz Corporation."

The case, which was initially filed on December 13, 2005 in the
Second Judicial District Court of the County of Bernalillo, New
Mexico, purports to be a class action, on behalf of all New
Mexico residents who rented from the company and who were
charged a Fuel and Service Charge (FSC).  

The complaint alleges that the FSC is unconscionable as a matter
of law under pertinent sections of the New Mexico Uniform
Commercial Code and that, under New Mexico common law, the
collection of FSC does not constitute valid liquidated damages,
but rather is a void penalty.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, with the return of all
FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual cost.

In the alternative, the plaintiff requests that the court
exercise its equitable jurisdiction and order the company to
cease and desist from the company's unlawful conduct and to
modify the company's lease provisions to conform with applicable
provisions of New Mexico statutory and common law.

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.  The
company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico and, in lieu of an answer, filed a motion
to dismiss.


HERTZ CORP: Discovery Begins in Okla. Consumer Lawsuit Over FSC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed against Hertz Corp.
in the District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, styled, "Keith Kochner, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action, this time on behalf of
Oklahoma residents who rented from the company and incurred the
company's Fuel and Service Charge (FSC).  The petition alleges
that the imposition of the FSC is a breach of contract and
amounts to an unconscionable penalty or liquidated damages in
violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code.
In March 2005, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to
re-plead.

In April 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
petition, alleging that the company's FSC violates the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act and that the company have been unjustly
enriched, and again alleging that the company's FSC is
unconscionable under Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform
Commercial Code.

In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action petition.  In October 2005, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint by the end of October, which the
plaintiff did.  A third amended complaint was filed in November
2005 and the company answered the complaint.  Discovery has now
commenced.


HERTZ CORP: Discovery Begins Anew in Tex. Service Charge Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed against Hertz Corp.
in the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas,
styled, "Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on
behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge
(FSC) by the company or all Texas residents who were charged a
FSC by the company.  The complaint alleges that the FSC is an
unlawful penalty and that, therefore, it is void and
unenforceable.  

In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff
filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative
class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents
who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi
Licensee.

A new cause of action was also added for conversion.  After some
limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment in December 2004.  That motion was denied in January
2005.  The parties are now engaged in more extensive discovery.


HERTZ CORP: N.J. Appeals Court Mulls Dismissal of "Henderson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division has briefed
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed
against The Hertz Corporation, styled "Naomi R. Henderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
The Hertz Corporation."

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
County in August 2003.  The suit purports to be a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased optional insurance
products in the State of New Jersey or in other states from or
through the company at times that the company did not have
required licenses to sell such insurance.

In January 2004, the company's motion to dismiss was granted and
an order of dismissal was thereafter entered.  The plaintiff
appealed the dismissal, and that appeal has now been briefed,
argued and submitted to the New Jersey Appellate Division for a
decision.


HERTZ CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Fla. Court's Ruling in "Moore"
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the decision of the Circuit Court of
the Thirteenth Judicial Court of the State of Florida for
Hillsborough County to grant Hertz Corp.'s motion for summary
judgment in the class action "Stephen Moore, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Hertz
Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of persons who
rented vehicles from the company in Florida and were allegedly
overcharged for the recovery of a tire and battery solid waste
management fee and the recovery of registration fees for the
issuance of Florida license plates.  Similar lawsuits were
separately filed by the same plaintiffs against Avis Rent A Car
System Inc. and Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.

In February 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint which alleges that, in addition to the initial causes
of action, the company deceptively collected an improper
"federal excise tax" frequent flyer mileage awards to class
members.  The company answered the amended complaint and
discovery commenced.  

In January 2005, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
and the plaintiff filed a revised motion for class
certification.  

In June 2005, the company's motion for summary judgment was
granted and the plaintiff's revised motion for class
certification was denied.  A final judgment was thereafter
entered.  In July 2005, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
and that appeal is currently being briefed.


ILLINOIS: Muslim Men File Suit Over Delays in U.S. Citizenship
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several Chicago area Muslim men recently initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the federal government, alleging that their
quest to become U.S. citizens is being delayed because of their
Islamic faith and gender, The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

According to Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center attorney
Chuck Roth, the Syrian, Moroccan, Jordanian, Pakistani and
Egyptian natives have no criminal records, but they have been
waiting one to four years for the government to make a decision
on their applications.  Some of their wives applied at the same
time and have since received their U.S. citizenship.

The plaintiffs, including the Council on American Islamic
Relations' Chicago office, agree the government must conduct
background checks on all potential citizens.  However, they say
Muslim men, more than any other group, have their cases delayed
too often with no explanation.

The suit is "Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center v. U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01466," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Illinois under Judge Virginia M. Kendall.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Charles Roth of Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights
Center, 208 St., LaSalle Suite 1818, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:
(312) 660-1308 and (312) 660-1370, Fax: (312) 660-1505, Web
site: http://www.mihrc.org/index.asp.   

Representing the defendants is Samuel B. Cole, U.S. Attorney's
Office, NDIL, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL
60604, Phone: (312) 353-5300, E-mail: samuel.cole@usdoj.gov.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: "Light" Cigarette Lawsuit Allowed to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia Court of Appeals has rejected Imperial
Tobacco Group plc's motion to throw out the class action status
of a lawsuit filed against it over its marketing of cigarettes
branded "mild" or "light", the 940 News reports.

But in a unanimous ruling from the three judges of the Appeals
Court, the date for those who purchased the cigarettes and who
want to claim damages has been moved up by more than two
decades.

In his written ruling, Justice John Hall says only people who
purchased light or mild cigarettes after May 8, 1997 can be
included in the suit.  A lower court had defined the class as
people who bought the light or mild cigarettes from July 5,1974.

During the course of the certification hearing, which began on
Oct. 25, 2004 and ended Oct. 29, 2004, Imperial Tobacco Canada
argued that the allegations in the procedures are not
appropriate for certification.  The judgment only allows
certification -- a procedural mechanism that allows the case to
proceed.  It is in no way a judgment of liability (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 10, 2005).

The suit filed in Vancouver Court, alleged the company deceived
customers by saying "light" or "mild" cigarettes are less
harmful than regular brands.  The suit was the very first of its
kind in Canada, lawyer for the plaintiffs David Klein said
(Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2003).


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Clients Sue Over Web Service Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Communications Company is facing a class action in
Jefferson Circuit Court in Kentucky in relation to recent
disruptions of service as it upgrades network and e-mail
services, WHAS11 reports.

The attorney for the potential class, H. Philip Grossman, said
customers throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky are seeking
compensation for damages.

"We ran into some issues that resulted in some customers having
difficulty accessing E-mails and others losing connectivity
because their modems failed to register," Insight said in the
statement.  The company apologized for the trouble.

The firm's cable system serves 1.3 million subscribers in
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.

For more information, contact Mr. Grossman of Fernandez Friedman
Grossman and Kohn PLLC, 101 S. Fifth St., Suite 2400,
Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: (502) 589-1001, (877) 299-1001
(toll-free).


LIBERTY FIBERS: Facing Labor Lawsuit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has agreed to extend the deadline by
which Liberty Fibers Corp. would have to answer a suit filed on
behalf of workers who were laid off prior to the company's
bankruptcy, The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports.

The suit alleged the company failed to give workers 60 days
notice of layoff under the U.S. Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, and to give them benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  Plaintiff Mack Sane is asking
to represent all former employees of the company who are seeking
back pay and benefits, according to lawyer Steven Kortanek.  

No class has yet been certified, and no new trial was set.

Headquartered in Lowland, Tennessee, Liberty Fibers Corporation,
fka Silva Acquisition Corporation, manufactures rayon staple
fibers.  The Debtor filed for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 29,
2005 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Case No. 05-53874).  The Bankruptcy
Court converted the Debtor's chapter 11 case to a chapter 7
proceeding on Nov. 21, 2005.  

Lawyer John Walker of the Knoxville represents employees in the
case.  For more information, contact Mr. Kortanek of Klehr,
Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers LLP, Mellon Bank Center,
919 Market Street, Suite 1000, Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(New Castle Co.), Phone: 302-426-1189, Fax: 302-426-9193.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Recalls Children's Jewelry on Lead Poisoning Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Claiborne Inc., of North Bergen, New Jersey, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is
recalling about 2,800 Juicy Couture Children's jewelry.

The company said the jewelry contains high levels of lead.  Lead
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.  No injuries were reported.

Juicy Couture Children's bracelets and necklaces are gold or
silver with charms.  The charms include a yellow painted metal
shirt with "Viva La Juicy" printed on the front, a cheerleader's
megaphone with the word "Juicy," a green heart with "Juicy
Couture," a black dog, the letter "J," and a purple flower.  The
jewelry is sold in a pink box with "Juicy Couture" and "Made
with Love G&P" printed on the top.  Style numbers YJRU0722,
YJRU0723, YJR0724 and YJRU0538 are included in this recall.  The
style number is printed on a white sticker on the bottom of the
pink jewelry box.

The jewelries are manufactured in China and sold in department
stores nationwide from September 2005 through April 2006 for
about $95.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

Pictures of the recalled jewelries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06160a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06160b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06160c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06160d.jpg

For more information, contact the firm toll-free at (866) 879-
7877 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, seven days a week, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.juicycouture.com/recall


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Workers' Benefits Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. has filed motions to dismiss class
actions filed against it over its retiree health care benefits
and the funding of its pension plans.

Purported class actions have been filed against the company in
connection with the elimination of the death benefit from the
firm's U.S. management pension plan in early 2003.  Three such
cases have been consolidated into a single action pending in the
U.S. District Court in New Jersey, captioned, "In Re Lucent
Death Benefits ERISA Litigation."

The elimination of this benefit reduced the company's future
pension obligations by approximately $400 million.  The benefit
was paid out of the pension plan assets to certain qualified
surviving dependents, such as spouses or dependent children of
management retirees.  

The case alleges that the company wrongfully terminated this
death benefit and requests that it be reinstated, along with
other remedies.  The company filed a motion to dismiss, which is
pending.  Another such case, Chastain, et al. v. AT&T, was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Oklahoma.

The Chastain case also involves claims related to changes to
retiree health care benefits.  In October 2005, a purported
class action was filed by Peter A. Raetsch, Geraldine Raetsch
and Curtis Shiflett, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs allege that Lucent failed to
maintain health care benefits for retired management employees
as required by the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and the Lucent pension and
medical plans.  Lucent has filed a motion to dismiss, which is
pending.

The suit "Raetsch et al. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al.
(2:05-cv-05134-WGB-PS)," is under Judge William G. Bassler, with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Scott M. Lempert of Sandals & Associates, P.C., One South Broad
Street, Suite 1850 Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: (215) 825-
4000, E-mail: slempert@sandalslaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Edward Cerasia, II, Proskauer Rose
LLP, One Newark Center, 18th Floor, Newark, N.J. 07102-5211,
Phone: (973) 274-3200, E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Alcatel Merger Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, "Resnick v. Lucent Technologies Inc.,
et al.," was filed against Lucent Technologies Inc. and members
of its board of directors in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Union County on April 3.

The plaintiffs propose to represent a class of Lucent's public
shareholders.  They claim that, among other things, the firm's
proposed merger with Alcatel is the product of breaches of duty
by Lucent's board of directors in that they allegedly failed to
maximize shareholder value in the transaction.  Along with other
relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the closing of
the proposed merger.  

On April 2, 2006, Lucent and Alcatel entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lucent and Alcatel will
combine their businesses through a merger.  Under the terms of
the Merger Agreement, each Lucent share will be converted into a
right to receive 0.1952 of an American Depository Share of
Alcatel, with each Alcatel ADS representing one ordinary share
of Alcatel.

Lucent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.lucent.com-- is engaged  
in the design and delivery of systems, services, and software
that enable converged communications for service providers,
enterprises, governments, and cable operators.


MICROSOFT CORP: Court Mulls Approval of Deal with Calif. Cities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
approve the settlement for a purported class action against
Microsoft Corp., entitled, "City and County of San Francisco, et
al. v. Microsoft Corporation (1:04-cv-03705-JFM)."

On August 27, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco, the
City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles, San Mateo, Contra Costa,
and Santa Clara Counties filed a putative class action against
the company in San Francisco Superior Court.

The action was brought on behalf of all governmental entities,
agencies, and political subdivisions of the state of California
that indirectly purchased the company's operating system or word
processing and spreadsheet software from Feb. 18, 1995 to the
date of trial in the action.

The plaintiffs sought treble damages under California's
Cartwright Act and disgorgement of unlawful profits under its
Unfair Competition Act resulting from the company's alleged
combinations to restrain trade, deny competition, and monopolize
the world markets for P.C. operating systems and word processing
and spreadsheet applications, and productivity suites including
these applications.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  Its motion to dismiss the complaint was
granted on April 18, 2005 with leave to file an amended
complaint alleging claims under the Cartwright Act based on
conduct within the four-year statute of limitation the court
ruled applies to the plaintiffs' claims.

Recently the company entered into a tentative settlement of this
case that was approved by all named plaintiffs.  If approved by
the court, this settlement will resolve all claims asserted in
the lawsuit.

The suit is "City and County of San Francisco, et al. v.
Microsoft Corp. (1:04-cv-03705-JFM)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland under Judge J. Frederick
Motz.  Representing the plaintiffs is Eugene Chatham Crew of
Townsend and Townsend and Crew, LLP, Two Embarcadero Center
Eighth Fl., San Francisco, CA 94111-3834, Phone: 14155760200,
Fax: 14155760300, E-mail: ecrew@townsend.com.

Representing the defendant is Robert A. Rosenfeld of Heller
Ehrman White McAuliffe, LLP, 333 Bush St., San Francisco, CA
94104-2878, Phone: 14157726000, Fax: 14157726268, E-mail:
rrosenfeld@hewm.com.


MINNESOTA: Drivers Sue Minneapolis Over "Stop on Red" Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota faces a lawsuit from two
drivers over its "Stop on Red" program, The Associated Press
reports.

The drivers are Willard Shapira and Jennifer Baker Vanek who
were, each, fined $142 after their vehicles were photographed
going through red lights.  They are seeking reimbursement from
the city of the fines levied on them.

The suit filed could potentially bring fine reimbursements to
more than 10,000 vehicle owners who were cited during the city's
program.  It requests that the $2 million in fines collected by
the city be placed in an account for future reimbursement.  
Lawyer Marshall Tanick, the plaintiffs' legal counsel, is also
requesting class action status for the case.

Back in March, Hennepin County Judge Mark Wernick ruled that the
"Stop on Red" program was invalid since it presumed the owner of
the photographed vehicle was driving at the time.  Because that
presumption conflicts with state law, he tossed out the program.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota had brought that
suit, charging the program violated the due process rights of
citizens (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006).  

For more details, contact Marshall H. Tanick of Mansfield Tanick
& Cohen, P.A., 1700 U.S. Bank Plaza South, 220 South Sixth
Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, (Hennepin Co.), Phone:
612-339-4295, Fax: 612-339-3161, Web site:
http://www.mansfieldtanick.com.


MODTECH HOLDINGS: Faces Labor Violations Suit in Calif. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Modtech Holdings Inc. is defendant in a purported class action
in the California Superior Court for Alameda County alleging
labor violations.

On Jan. 25, 2006, TRICO Pipes, Aram Hodess, Micah Long and the
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 159 on behalf of those
persons the company employed on California public work projects
from Jan. 25, 2002 to the filing of the complaint filed a class
action against the company and Bayside Solutions, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to pay these
individuals general prevailing wage rates, overtime rates, and
required rates for holiday work.  It also alleges that the
company failed to employ registered apprentices, thereby denying
such apprentices the opportunity to earn wages.

Bayside Solutions, Inc. is a temporary labor service used by the
company and TRICO Pipes is a joint labor management committee in
the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in Contra Costa County.

The complaint seeks restitution for all underpayments of wages,
attorneys' fees and costs.


NORTH FORK: Investors File N.Y. Suits to Block Capital One Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some North Fork Bancorp Inc. shareholders initiated lawsuits in
New York state courts in a bid to block Capital One Financial
Corp.'s planned takeover of the regional bank, Reuters reports
citing a regulatory filing.

The lawsuits, which seek class action status, accuse North
Fork's directors of breaching their fiduciary duty by failing to
maximize shareholder value in the takeover.

North Fork said in its filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission it planned to defend itself against the lawsuits,
filed in New York State Supreme Court in New York County and in
Nassau County.

Capital One, the No. 4 U.S. Visa and MasterCard issuer, agreed
early in March to pay $14.6 billion for North Fork in a deal
reducing its dependence on credit cards and giving it a big
foothold in New York.

Filed in mid-March, the suits seek a court order blocking the
takeover, which was priced at a 22.8 percent premium to North
Fork's share price the Friday before the deal was announced.


RAJBHOG FOODS: Recalls Sweets for Undeclared Milk Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rajbhog Foods Inc. is recalling its 14-ounce plastic packages of
"Exotic Sweets Brand Kaju Katli" sweets.

The company said the recall was initiated after a routine
sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared milk
allergens in the 14-ounce plastic package of "Exotic Sweets
Brand Kaju Katli" which did not declare a milk ingredient on the
label.

Consumers who are allergic to milk allergens run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product.  No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this
product have been reported to date.

The product comes in a 14-ounce clear plastic package coded
79.06.

The "Exotic Sweets Brand Kaju Katli" sweets were distributed by
Exotic Foods Inc. and sold in retail stores throughout New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Consumers who have purchased a 14-ounce plastic package of
"Exotic Sweets Brand Kaju Katli" are urged to return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (516) 944-
7200.


REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Sued in California for Asking Client Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoppers who gave their phone numbers to cashiers at Reebok
International Ltd. stores in California have until June 30, 2006
to join a lawsuit against the shoemaker, according to The
Patriot Ledger.

Reebok is facing a suit filed in 2004 alleging violations of
California law prohibiting retailers from requesting personal
information from credit card customers.  At least 11 states have
laws that restrict the types of personal information retailers
can require from credit card users, according to Beth Givens,
director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a San Diego
consumer group.  But California law prohibits even just the
asking of a phone number.

"The rationale for the law was that merchants should not be able
to build marketing lists from shoppers' credit card
transactions," according to Ms. Givens.

The suit is asking $1,000 for each customer who provided the
information to the Canton athletic goods company.  It is set to
go to trial in October in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Reebok stores which allegedly committed the violations are
outlets of the Canton-based company, as well as outlets for its
Rockport, Ralph Lauren Footwear, and Greg Norman brands.


RESPIRONICS INC: Recalls Ventilators for Adverse Health Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Respironics, Inc. notified the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
that the company has voluntarily recalled 269 ventilators
representing all models and serial numbers of the PLV Continuum
Ventilator.  The recall was classified as a Class I Recall by
the FDA on April 27, 2006.

A Class I recall is a situation in which there is a reasonable
probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product
will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The company said the ventilator may suddenly stop providing
mechanical ventilation which could result in serious injury or
death.  Respironics identified the problem after an analysis of
returned units revealed the potential for failure of an internal
flow valve.  The company has received no reports of adverse
events or injuries resulting from this problem.

The PLV Continuum Ventilator is used to provide mechanical
ventilation for pediatric and adult patients who weigh at least
5 kg. (11 lbs.).  The device is intended for use at home, in an
institution, or as a portable ventilator.

These ventilators have been distributed in the U.S., Australia,
Argentina, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia,
and Taiwan.

Respironics provided notification of the recall to distributors,
sales personnel, and customers by letter on March 20, 2006.  The
firm is continuing to contact customers to arrange for the
return of all the recalled ventilators.

Consumers are advised against using the recalled ventilators
until the problem is corrected.  Customers have been directed to
quarantine all PLV Continuum Ventilators and to use other
ventilator models.  If a customer does not have a suitable
substitute ventilator, Respironics will loan them a comparable
unit.

Customers with questions may contact the company at 877-544-
9252.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,
and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch Web site at
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch


ROGERS INT'L: Continues to Face Fiduciaries Suit in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Partnership Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is
a nominal defendant in a class action filed by trustees of the
Lane Family Trust in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane are the trustees of the Lane
Family Trust dated April 10, 2001.  Also named as defendants
are: Along with Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter
Thomas Price III, Allen D. Goodman and James Beeland Rogers, Jr.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's
limited partners.

The suit is "Lane, et al. v. Beeland Management Company, LLC, et
al. (1:06-cv-00418)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony B.D. Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, PL, 4301 Snchor
         Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33634, US, Phone:
         (813) 289-0700;

     (2) Floyd A. Wisner of Wisner Law Firm, 934 South Fourth
         St., St. Charles, IL 60174, Phone: (630) 513-9434, E-
         mail: faw@wisner-law.com; and

     (3) Scott E. Schutzman of Law Offices of Scott E.
         Schutzman, 3700 S. Susan Street, Suite 120, Santa Ana,
         CA 92704, US, Phone: (714) 543-3638.

Representing the defendants is Thomas K. Cauley, Jr. of Sidley
Austin, LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312) 853-7000, E-mail: tcauley@sidley.com.


RUNNING PRESS: Recalls Candle Kits for Possible Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Running Press Book Publishers, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission
is recalling about 78,500 Fireplace in a Box" candle kits.

The company said the mini fireplace which houses the candle can
ignite, posing a fire hazard.  Running Press has received two
reports of incidents involving the fireplace igniting.  No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

The Fireplace in a Box kit includes a 2.5-inch high by 2.5-inch
wide plastic fireplace that resembles stone masonry with a black
mantle, a tea light candle to fit inside the fireplace, and a
small booklet "Fireplace in a Box."  "Fireplace in a Box," "Mega
Mini Kits," and "ISBN 0-7624-1603-3" is printed on the
fireplace's packaging.

The candle kits are made in China and sold in chain and
independent booksellers nationwide from September 2003 through
April 2006 for about $8.

Consumers are advised to stop using the candle kits immediately
and return it for a full refund to the place of purchase, or
directly to: Running Press, 2300 Chestnut Street, Suite 200,
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103, Attn: Fireplace in a Box Safety Recall.  
Consumers returning the product to Running Press directly must
include full names and addresses.  They can expect to receive a
check within four to six weeks.

Picture of the recalled candle kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06158.jpg

For more information, contact Running Press at (800) 343-4499
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday; On the
Net: http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/runningpress


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Enters $88M Settlement in Price Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern California in San
Francisco has approved a $88 million settlement by South Korea's
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Germany's Infineon Technologies
AG of a class action over memory chip prices, EE Times reports.

Under the settlement, Samsung will pay $67 million, and Infineon
will pay $20.8 million in a suit filed by small businesses and
computer makers alleging the firms and several other memory-chip
makers conspired to fix prices for dynamic random access memory.  
Samsung and Infineon did not admit wrongdoing.  Final approval
of the settlement is Sept. 6, 2006, court documents show,
according to the report.  

A May 17 approval hearing is, meanwhile, set for the settlement
of similar allegations against South Korea's Hynix Semiconductor
Inc.  The company could pay a total of $73 million, according to
Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri Inc., the law firm representing
the plaintiffs.  Also named in the suit are Micron Technology
Inc. of U.S. and Elpida Memory Inc. of Japan.

The suit is "Internet Integration Inc. v. Micron Technology et
al. (3:02-cv-03196)," filed under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  
Representing the defendant is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri
Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111,
Phone: 415-217-6810, E-mail: guido@saveri.com.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Albert J. Boro, Jr. of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
         LLP, 50 Fremont Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Phone: 415/983-1000, Fax: 415-983-1200, E-mail:
         albert.boro@pillsburylaw.com;

     (2) Alexander F. MacKinnon of Kirkland & Ellis, 777 S.
         Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213/680-
         8400, Fax: 213-680-8500, E-mail:
         alexander_mackinnon@la.kirkland.com;

     (3) Timothy G. O'Connor of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.,
         One California Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA
         94111-5427, Phone: 415-398-3500, Fax: 415-398-0955, E-
         mail: toconnor@ebglaw.com; and

     (4) Joel S. Sanders of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, One
         Montgomery Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415-393-8200, Fax: 415-986-5309, E-mail:
         jsanders@gibsondunn.com.


SOUTH BRUNSWICK: Ordered to Pay $550T in Stormwater Fees Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Rich Leonard, Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, ordered a $550,000 cash settlement of a class
action filed against the South Brunswick Water and Sewer
Authority, The Brunswick Beacon reports.

The suit was filed in 2004 by SBWSA's former customers who
claimed the stormwater fees they paid between 1994 and 2003 were
misused by the authority.  It sought damages on claims of
negligence, breach of fiduciary trust, unfair and deceptive
trade practice and negligent misrepresentation against the
former utility.

Under the settlement, SBWSA will pay $350,000, and its insurer,
the Interlocal Risk Financing Fund of North Carolina, will cover
the remaining $200,000.  About $150,000 will cover attorney's
fees and expenses, said Gere Dale, a Carolina Shores
commissioner who chaired a creditors' committee of landowners
and taxpayers in the lawsuit.  The remaining $400,000 will be
distributed to SBWSA's former customers.

In his order, Judge Leonard wrote that while SBWSA did not use
the money on illegal activities, it, however, failed to apply
them to statutorily authorized purposes.  

South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority filed for chapter 9
protection on Nov. 19, 2004 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. Case No. 04-09053-
8).


STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re: Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 1283, Case No. 99CV0962)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, firms,
corporations and other entities that during period from Jan. 22,
1990 through April 30, 2003, purchased and/or sold one or more
Class Option Contracts and/or paid transaction costs, including
without limitation all fees and other charges, incurred in
connection with the purchase and/or sale of one or more Class
Option Contracts.

The hearing will be held on May 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.  Any
objections to the settlement must be filed by May 1, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Options Trading Antitrust Litigation c/o Berdon Claims
         Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9007, Jericho, NY 11753-
         8917, Phone: (866) 208-0188;

     (2) Craig C. Corbitt of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason &
         Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400, Suite
         3400, San Francisco, CA 94104-2301, Phone: (415) 693-
         0700;

     (3) Andrew David Friedman, Samuel K. Rosen and Stuart D.
         Wechsler of Wechsler, Harwood, L.L.P., 488 Madison
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400;

     (4) Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., One South
         Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389,
         Phone: (215) 238-1700; and

     (5) Thomas James McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth
         Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         983-1300.


TRAVEL AGENCIES: Assoc. Denies Tex. City's Claim of Unpaid Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Interactive Travel Services Association said the City of San
Antonio, Texas, is "wrong on the facts and the law" in the class
action it filed against several online travel firms alleging the
agencies underpaid hotel occupancy taxes.  

"The City is getting all taxes due to it," ITSA said in a
statement.  It added: "Online Travel Companies (OTCs) do not
collect hotel occupancy taxes on the gross amount, which
includes the OTCs' service fees, while only remitting on the net
rates, nor do these taxes even apply to the OTCs' service fees.  
Occupancy taxes are payable by hotel operators, not OTCs.  Also,
occupancy taxes are due only on the rent paid for a hotel room,
not on the OTCs' fees."

Further, ITSA said that occupancy taxes don't apply to the OTCs'
service fees mainly because they don't operate hotels, buy and
resell hotel rooms, and charge rent.  However, they pass through
a tax recovery amount to the hotels, which they pay the tax
authorities.  The same is true in Dallas, Austin, Houston and in
other Texas cities.  It is urging the City to reconsider, and
withdraw the suit.

Previously, San Antonio officials say the lawsuit against
Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Priceline.com, Travelocity.com and
others does not seek money from any local hotel, only the online
companies that book the rooms and collect the taxes (Class
Action Reporter, May 10, 2006).

Art Sackler, executive director of the Interactive Travel
Services Association -- http://www.interactivetravel.org--  
represents a number of the defendants.

The suit is "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.Com, L.P. et
al. (5:06-cv-00381-OLG)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas under Judge Orlando L. Garcia.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael D. Bernard, Office of the City Attorney, City
         Hall, 100 South Flores, Third Floor, San Antonio, TX
         78205, Phone: (210)207-8944, Fax: 210/335-2884;

     (2) Frank E. Goodrich of Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn
         Avenue - Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214) 521-
         3605, Fax: (214) 521-9158;

     (3) Carrie Hill of Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn
         Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, U.S., Phone:
         (214)521-3605;

     (4) Alan B. Rich of Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn
         Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214)521-
         3605, Fax: 214/520-1181, E-mail: arich@baronbudd.com;

     (5) Steven D. Wolens of Baron & Budd, The Centrum
         3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219-
         4281, Phone: (214) 521-3605, Fax: (214) 521-9158.


TRAVEL AGENCIES: Ga. Allowed to Recover Alleged Unpaid Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge allowed a class action filed by Georgia cities
and counties against major online hotel booking Web sites to
proceed, according to Associated Press.

The suit was filed in November alleging the Web sites owe
authorities "tens of millions" of dollars in unpaid taxes.  It
accuses 18 travel booking sites, including Expedia Inc. and
Priceline.com Inc., of collecting taxes on customers based on
the full rental price of rooms, but remitting taxes based only
on the discount rate paid to the local hotel.

The suit was filed by more than 500 Georgia cities and counties,
including metro Atlanta counties such as Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton
and Gwinnett and cities such as Rome, Dalton and Warner Robins.  

Defendants include:

     -- Lowest Fare.Com, Inc.,
     -- Priceline.Com, Inc.,
     -- Travelweb, LLC,
     -- Hotels.Com.,L.P.,
     -- Hotels.Com GP.LLC,
     -- Hotwire, Inc.,
     -- Travelnow.Com, Inc.,
     -- Expedia, Inc.,
     -- Onetravel, Inc.,

The suit is "City of Rome, Georgia et al. v. Hotels.Com,
L. P. et al., (4:05-cv-00249-HLM)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
under Judge Harold L. Murphy.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David G. Archer of Office of David G. Archer, P.O. Box
         1024, 336 South Tennessee St., Cartersville, GA 30120,
         Phone: 770-386-1116, E-mail: dgapc@bellsouth.net;

     (2) Robert Maddox Brinson and Jesse Anderson Davis of
         Brinson Askew Berry Siegler Richardson & Davis, P.O.
         Box 5513, 615 West First St., Omberg House, Rome, GA
         30162-5513, Phone: 706-291-8853, E-mail:
         bbrinson@brinson-askew.com and
         adavis@brinson-askew.com;  

     (3) John W. Crongeyer and Bryan Anthony Vroon of Vroon &
         Crongeyer, 1230 Peachtree St., Suite 2450, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-607-6710, Fax: 404-607-6711, E-mail:
         jcrongeyer@vclawfirm.com and bvroon@vclawfirm.com;  

     (4) David William Davenport and Robert Claiborne Lamar of
         Lamar Archer & Cofrin, 50 Hurt Plaza, 900 The Hurt
         Building, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-577-1777, E-
         mail: dwdavenport@laclaw.net and rclamar@laclaw.net;  
         and

     (5) Walter James Gordon of Office of Walter James Gordon,
         P.O. Box 870, 101 East Howell St., Hartwell, GA 30643,
         Phone: 404-376-5418, E-mail: wgordon@hartcom.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Edward Hine, Jr. of Office of Edward Hine, Jr., P.O.    
         Box 5511, 111 Bridgepoint Plaza, Rome, GA 30162-5511,    
         Phone: 706-291-2531, E-mail: ehinejr@bellsouth.net;

     (2) James P. Karen of Jones Day, P.O. Box 660623, Dallas,
         TX 75266-0623, U.S., Phone: 214-969-5027;

     (3) David F. McDowell of Morrison & Foerster, 555 West
         Fifth Street Suite 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024,  
         Phone: 213--892-5200;

     (4) John D. Pernick of Bingham McCutchen, Three Embarcadero
         Center San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-393-2000;

     (5) Deborah S. Sloan of Jones Day, P.O. Box 660623, Dallas,
         TX 75266-0623, U.S., Phone: 214-969-5203;

     (6) Edward Kendrick Smith of Jones Day, 1420 Peachtree
         Street N.E. Suite 800, Atlanta, GA 30309-3053, Phone:
         404-581=8343, Fax: 404-581-8330, E-mail:
         eksmith@jonesday.com;

     (7) David J. Stagman of Katten Muchin Rosenman,LLP, 525
         West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60661-3693, Phone: 312-
         902-5200; and

     (8) Karen L. Valihura of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
         P.O. Box 636, One Rodney Square, Wilmington, DE 19801,
         Phone: 302-651-3140, E-mail: kvalihur@skadden.com.


UNITED STATES: FDA Warns Against Side Effect of Bowel Cleanser
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration notified healthcare
professionals and consumers of reports of acute phosphate
nephropathy, a type of acute renal failure that is rare, but is
a serious adverse event associated with the use of oral sodium
phosphates (OSP) for bowel cleansing.

Documented cases of acute phosphate nephropathy included 21
patients who used an OSP solution (such as Fleet Phospho-soda or
Fleet ACCU-PREP) and one patient who used OSP tablets (Visicol).

Individuals at increased risk of acute phosphate nephropathy
include those of advanced age, those with kidney disease or
decreased intravascular volume, and those using medicines that
affect renal perfusion or function (diuretics, angiotensin
converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and
possibly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs).

Recommendations were offered for providers and patients when
choosing and using a bowel cleanser.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ASTEA INT'L: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Astea International
Inc. (ATEA) publicly traded securities during the period between
May 11, 2005 through March 31, 2006.

The complaint charges Astea and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Astea engages in the development, marketing and support
of service management software solutions primarily in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which described the company's increasing financial
performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented these adverse facts,
among others:

      -- that the company had under-reported its software
         product development expenses and improperly over-
         capitalized software;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's net income and earnings were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On March 31, 2006, the company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end of
2005, the period ended December 31, 2005.  

The company reported a larger fourth quarter loss than expected
and also restated its previously issued financial results for
the first three quarters of 2005, because the company had over-
capitalized software instead of charging those costs to product
development expenses.

In response to this announcement, the price of Astea common
stock fell $4.77 per share, or almost 30%, to close at $11.73
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than June 5,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.  

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/astea/.  


CHINA ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of China Energy
Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV) between April 21, 2005 and
February 15, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges China Energy 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 these material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

      -- that defendants allowed company insiders to self-deal
         in the company's January 2006 private placement;

      -- that China Energy failed to comply with the U.S.
         Securities and Exchange Commission rules regarding
         limitations on sales of restricted stock; and

      -- that as a result of this failure to comply with SEC
         rules, trading of China Energy's stock would be halted
         by NASDAQ.

On April 20, 2005, China Energy announced that the company's
stock would begin trading on NASDAQ on April 21, 2005.  Shares
of the company's common stock would continue trading under the
ticker symbol "CESV."  The listing application was approved by
NASDAQ on April 13, 2005.

On February 15, 2006, NASDAQ announced that trading in shares of
China Energy was halted at 3:30 p.m., EST, for "additional
information requested" from the company at a last price of
$6.82.

On March 22, 2006, China Energy announced that NASDAQ's request
for information involved the facts and circumstances regarding
the underlying transactions related to the rescission of certain
Rule 144 legal opinions by the company's prior securities
counsel who resigned in February 2006, as well as certain other
matters related to the company's issuance of securities.

The company reported that it retained new securities counsel and
was cooperating with NASDAQ in an effort to resolve any
questions or issues raised by NASDAQ in order to resume trading
as soon as possible.

As of the date of filing of the complaint, China Energy stock is
still halted from trading.  No indication has been given as to
when, if ever, the company's stock will resume trading.

Interested parties may no later than June 30, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


ESCALA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, PA, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) common stock from
Sept. 5, 2003 through and including May 8, 2006.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
and asserts that defendants made material misstatements and
omitted information regarding the true nature of Escala's
business and sales activities.  Escala is a major distributor of
collectibles including postage stamps, and one of its major
customers and joint venturers is its majority shareholder,
Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A. (Afinsa).

On May 9, 2006 it was publicly reported that Spanish police had
made arrests and raided the offices of Afinsa and the company's
offices in Spain.  

The operation forms part of a joint investigation launched by
the National Court, tax authorities, financial crime prosecutors
and the National Police over an alleged pyramid-type scheme
based on overpriced stamps and other collectibles.

The prosecutor's office said in a statement that Spanish
authorities are conducting more than 20 searches at company
offices and private residences.

As a result of these revelations, given the high level of the
integration between Afinsa's and Escala's business operations,
ESCL stock fell more than 50% in heavy trading on May 9, 2006.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 and (866)
767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com and
pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003
and May 8, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against
Escala and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws.  In particular, the complaint alleges that
defendants made misstatements and omitted certain information
concerning the true nature of Escala's business dealings with
its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A. (Afinsa),
as well as its sales activities.

On May 9, 2006, it was widely reported in the press that Spanish
police had arrested four people and had raided the offices of
Afinsa.  

The raid was part of a fraud probe over an alleged pyramid-type
scheme.  The raid followed the publication of an article in
Barron's on May 23, 2005, entitled "Sticky Situation," which
detailed potential fraudulent practices at Afinsa.

In reaction to the news regarding Afinsa and Escala's business
operations, shares of Escala dropped dramatically, falling from
$32.00 per share to $12.23 per share on heavy volume.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than July 10,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888)
753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Paskowitz & Associates Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Escala Group,
Inc. (ESCL) between September 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006 inclusive.
Defendants include Escala and certain of its top officers and
directors.  The case has been assigned to the Hon. Alvin
Hellerstein, U.S. District Judge.

The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and
omitted information regarding the true nature of Escala's
business and sales activities.

Escala is a major distributor of collectibles including postage
stamps, and one of its major customers and joint venturers is
its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A. (Afinsa).

On May 9, 2006 it was publicly reported that Spanish police had
made arrests and raided the offices of Afinsa.  The operation
forms part of a joint investigation launched by the National
Court, tax authorities, financial crime prosecutors and the
National Police over an alleged pyramid-type scheme based on
overpriced stamps and other collectibles.  

The prosecutor's office said in a statement that Spanish
authorities are conducting more than 20 searches at company
offices and private residences.  

The prosecutor's office also said it plans to conduct "several
arrests" as part of a lawsuit based on charges ranging from tax
evasion and money laundering to criminal insolvency and
falsification of documents.

The operation comes after Barron's magazine extensively reported
questionable practices at Afinsa, which purportedly operates a
"no-lose" stamp-sales program for investors in Spain and
Portugal.

As a result of these revelations, given the high level of the
integration between Afinsa's and Escala's business operations,
ESCL stock fell more than 50% in heavy trading on May 9, 2006.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by July 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of Paskowitz
& Associates, Phone: 1-800-705-9529, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com.  


ESCALA GROUP: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL)
between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006 inclusive.  Defendants
include Escala and certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and
omitted information regarding the true nature of Escala's
business and sales activities.  Escala is a major distributor of
collectibles including postage stamps, and one of its major
customers and joint venturers is its majority shareholder,
Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A. (Afinsa).

On May 9, 2006 it was publicly reported that Spanish police had
made arrests and raided the offices of Afinsa.  The operation
forms part of a joint investigation launched by the National
Court, tax authorities, financial crime prosecutors and the
National Police over an alleged pyramid-type scheme based on
overpriced stamps and other collectibles.

The prosecutor's office said in a statement that Spanish
authorities are conducting more than 20 searches at company
offices and private residences. The prosecutor's office also
said it plans to conduct "several arrests" as part of a lawsuit
based on charges ranging from tax evasion and money laundering
to criminal insolvency and falsification of documents.

The operation comes after Barron's magazine extensively reported
questionable practices at Afinsa, which purportedly operates a
"no-lose" stamp-sales program for investors in Spain and
Portugal.

As a result of these revelations, given the high level of the
integration between Afinsa's and Escala's business operations,
ESCL stock fell more than 50% in heavy trading on May 9, 2006.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by July 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action on May 9, 2006, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of GlobeTel Communications Corp. (GTE) from Dec. 22,
2005 through April 11, 2006, inclusive, for securities law
violations.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against GlobeTel, its Chief
Executive Officer Timothy Huff, and its Chief Operating Officer,
Lawrence Lynch.

The complaint alleges that, GlobeTel a provider an integrated
suite of telecommunications services, made false and misleading
statements regarding the company's $600 million deal with
Moscow-based LLC Internafta to provide Internet services in
Russia.

Throughout the class period, defendants emphasized a joint
venture agreement to install wireless networks throughout
Russia, valued at approximately $600 million.  Based on the news
that GlobeTel had signed a lucrative agreement, which would
generate significant revenues, the stock rose dramatically.

In fact, the complaint alleges that the deal was a sham.  An
April 11, 2006 article published by The Motley Fool questioned
the credibility of the entire deal.  On April 11, 2006, after
the truth about the joint venture was exposed, the stock dropped
15%, trading at only $1.78, a far cry from the company's Class
Period high of $3.92.

Interested parties may, no later than June 27, 2006, request
that the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Maya Saxena, Joseph White and Peter
Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: (800)
320-5081, E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com,
jwhite@milbergweiss.com and sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.  


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against GlobeTel
Communications Corp. (GTE) and certain officers on behalf of
GlobeTel securities purchasers from Dec. 22, 2005 through April
11, 2006, inclusive, for securities law violations.  

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
$600 million deal with Moscow-based LLC Internafta to provide
Internet services in Russia.  As a result, the company's stock
price was artificially inflated, thereby harming Class Period
investors.

Throughout the class period, the complaint alleges, defendants
publicly touted the $600 million joint venture with Internafta
to install wireless networks in Russia's 30 largest cities.  

The company announced the "binding agreement" in a December 30,
2005 press release.  Chief Executive Officer Tim Huff stated:
"This presents an amazing opportunity for us, for Russia and for
our Russian partners.  The Russian Internet market is severely
limited by a lack of infrastructure and by the high cost to
individual users of obtaining high-speed Internet access, even
in those relatively rare cases where it is available.  The
GlobeTel Wireless network will provide city-wide high speed,
wireless connectivity . . ."

On this news, GlobeTel's stock price surged from $2.19 to $3.68
per share, an increase of over 75%, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

According to the lawsuit, however, the deal in reality was a
sham.  The complaint alleges that almost immediately after the
deal's announcement, in January 2006, Internafta failed to pay
GlobeTel the first $150 million installment required under the
joint venture agreement.

Over the coming months, Internafta repeatedly failed to meet the
agreement's payment deadlines.  On April 11, 2006, The Motley
Fool published a shocking report, revealing that the company's
joint venture with Internafta lacked any real sense of
credibility.  With this news, the company's stock price plunged
15%, on unusually high trading volume, falling to $1.78 per
share.

Interested parties must move the court no later than June 27,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.   

For more details, contact David R. Scott of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: 800/404-7770 and 860/537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-
scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH)
between May 2, 2001 and April 7, 2006, inclusive.  The class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

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 UnitedHealth
securities.  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.  


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 UnitedHealth
Group, Inc. (UNH) between May 4, 2001 and April 7, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are those who acquired UnitedHealth's
securities through its acquisitions of AmeriChoice, Mid Atlantic
Medical, Oxford Health Plans and Pacificare Health.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota against defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc.,
William W. McGuire and Stephen J. Hemsley.  

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 7, 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.  


XM SATELLITE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on behalf of all securities purchasers of XM Satellite Radio
Holdings Inc. (XMSR) from July 28, 2005 through Feb. 15, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint charges XM 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 these material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

      -- that XM was unable to attain its stated subscriber goal
         of 6 million subscribers without increasing costs to
         acquire new subscribers;

      -- that, in order to achieve its subscriber goal, XM
         required a substantial advertising campaign in the
         fourth quarter of 2005 which increased the company's
         costs to acquire new subscribers;

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's net
         losses substantially increased; and

      -- that defendants' statements concerning the company's
         continued ability to lower its costs to acquire new
         subscribers were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On February 16, 2006, before the market opened, XM announced
financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended
December 31, 2005.  

XM reported sharply higher subscriber acquisition costs and
costs per gross addition than previously projected for both the
fourth quarter and the year ended December 31, 2005.  

On this news, shares of XM's stock fell $1.27, or 5 percent, to
close, on Feb. 16, 2006, at $23.98 per share.  Shares of XM
stock continued to fall the next day, as analysts downgraded the
stock.

As a result of this, XM's stock shed an additional $2.41, or 10
percent, to close, on Feb. 17, 2006, at $21.57 per share.

Interested parties may, not later than July 3, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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