CAR_Public/060516.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 96

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in S.D. Ohio
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Overtime Compensation Suit in Wash.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Workers File Suit Over Required Purchases
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Calif. "Kimbell" Deal Gets Final Approval

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Court Consolidates Stock Fraud Suits
ADVENTURE PLAYSETS: Fall Hazard Prompts Recall of Wooden Swings
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Security Guards Launch Wage Suits in Calif.
AT&T CORP: Calif. Court to Hear Motions in Wiretapping Suit Wed.
BARNES & NOBLE: Reaches $10M Settlement in Calif. Overtime Suit

BORDERS GROUP: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
BURLINGTON COAT: Calif. Court Seals Labor Lawsuit Settlement
BURLINGTON COAT: Deal Reached in N.J. Suit Over Bain Purchase
CANADA: Same Sex Partners to Appeal Pension Suit in Court Today
CANADIAN BROADCASTING: CBC Pensioners' Suit Gets Certification

CASH STORE: Canadian Court Certifies "Payday Loan" Litigation
CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for ERISA Lawsuit
CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for "Houston" Case
CINTAS CORP: Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit in Calif.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fulfills Calif. Labor Suits Settlement Terms

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Labor Law Exemption Suits in Calif.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Wash. Suit Over Rest Breaks in Arbitration
DUANE READE: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
DUANE READE: EEOC Launches Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Faces Del., N.Y. Lawsuits Over Oak Hill Purchase

EXXONMOBIL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Suit Over La. Fire
HOLLISTER CO: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
HOMEQ SERVICING: Judge Sides with Firm in Suit Over Loan Deal
JC PENNEY: Faces Tex., N.Mex. Suits Over Insurance Transactions
MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

MERIX CORP: Motions Ore. Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
MONSANTO CO: January Trial Date Slated for Farmer's Suit in Mo.
MONSANTO CO: 2007 Trial Date Set for American Seed Suit in Del.
NATIONAL CITY: Ill. Suit is "Manufactured," Defense Counsel Says
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Settlement Reached in Calif. Injury Suit

PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa.
RALPHS GROCERY: Reaches Settlement in "The Great Escape" Cases
SEMPRA ENERGY: Judge Keeps Terms of Natural Gas Suit Settlement
SOLECTRON CORP: Calif. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face RICO Violations Suit in Fla.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Potential $5B Suit Over NSA Link
WAL-MART STORES: Canadian Court Rejects Unionized Workers' Suit
YAHOO INC: Facing Spyware Click Fraud Lawsuit in California

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICA SERVICE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
CHINA ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Pa.
ESCALA GROUP: Ann D. White to File Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ESCALA GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

ESCALA GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in La.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Suit
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Yourman Alexander Files Calif. Stock Suit
XM SATELLITE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a purported securities
class action "In re Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Securities
Litigation, MDL-1336" pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

The company is aware of 20 actions filed against it and certain
of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a
purported, but as yet uncertified, class of shareholders who
purchased the company's Class A Common Stock between Oct. 8,
1999 and Oct. 13, 1999.

These 20 actions were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and seeking unspecified damages.

On Apr. 12, 2000, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a Transfer Order transferring the 20 pending actions to
the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York for
consolidated pretrial proceedings under the caption, "In re
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Securities Litigation, MDL-1336."

On Nov. 16, 2000, the court signed an order appointing the Hicks
Group, a group of seven unrelated investors in A&F's Common
Stock, as lead plaintiff, and appointing lead counsel in the
consolidated action.  

On Dec. 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint in which they did not name as defendants Lazard
Freres & Co. and Todd Slater, who had formerly been named as
defendants in certain of the 20 complaints.

On Feb. 14, 2001, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.  On Nov. 14, 2003, the
motions to dismiss the amended complaint were denied as to all
defendants except Michelle Donnan-Martin.

On Dec. 2, 2003, the company and the other defendants moved for
reconsideration or re-argument of the Nov. 14, 2003 order
denying the motions to dismiss.  On Feb. 23, 2004, the motions
for reconsideration or re-argument were denied.

On Apr. 1, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Apr. 8, 2005, the company and the other
defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The parties are currently conducting merits
discovery.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a consolidated class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

In each action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective
purported class, seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts
of economic and liquidated damages.

In the suit "Melissa Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which was filed on June
13, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, the plaintiffs allege that assistant managers and store
managers were not paid overtime compensation in violation of the
FLSA and Ohio law.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add Scott Oros as a
named plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2004.  On June 17, 2005, plaintiffs
filed a motion to further amend the complaint to add claims
under the laws of a number of states, and the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted that motion on
Nov. 8, 2005.

On June 24, 2005, the defendants filed motions seeking summary
judgment on all of the claims of each of the three plaintiffs.
On Jul. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 Motion for
Certification of a Class of State Wage Act Claimants and a
Motion for Designation of FLSA Claims as Collective Action and
Authority to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees.  The
defendants filed their opposition to both motions on Dec. 8,
2005.

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court issued an order indicating that it
intended to rule on the defendants' motions for summary judgment
forthwith and, for purposes of docket administration, denied the
plaintiffs' motions to certify their class.  

The court also indicated that it would reactivate, as
appropriate, the motions to certify following resolution of the
defendants' motions for summary judgment.  

On Mar. 31, 2006, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motions for summary judgment on all of the claims of each of the
three plaintiffs.  These cases have been consolidated with the
Fuller case described in the following paragraph.

                      Casey Fuller Lawsuit

In "Casey Fuller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which
was filed on Dec. 28, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, the plaintiff alleges that he and
other similarly situated assistant managers and managers in
training were not paid properly calculated overtime during their
employment and seeks overtime pay under FLSA.

Because of its similarities to the Mitchell case, on Apr. 19,
2005, the defendant filed a motion to stay the Fuller case
pending the outcome of the Mitchell case or, in the alternative,
transfer the Fuller case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

On May 31, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee transferred the Fuller case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  

On Sept. 2, 2005, the Fuller case was consolidated with the
Mitchell case for all purposes.  Unlike the Mitchell case
described above, defendants have not moved for summary judgment
in the Fuller case and it remains pending.

The Mitchell case is "Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00306-EAS-NMK," and the Fuller case is
"Fuller v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
00596-EAS-NMK," both filed in the in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Norah McCann King.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) "Mitchell": Bryan L.  Clobes of Miller Faucher &
         Cafferty, LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18th &
         Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-
         2800, Fax: 215-864-2810, E-mail:
         bclobes@millerfaucher.com; and

     (2) "Fuller": John William Ferron of Ferron & Associates,
         580 N Fourth Street, Suite 450, Columbus, OH 43215-
         2125, Phone: 614-228-5225, Fax: 614-228-3255, E-mail:
         jferron@ferronlaw.com.

Representing the company is Thomas Brennan Ridgley of Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay Street,
Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, E-mail:
tbridgley@vssp.com.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Overtime Compensation Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a purported class action
"Eltrich v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." filed in the
Washington Superior Court of King County.

In the suit filed Nov. 22, 2005, the plaintiff alleges that
store managers, assistant managers and managers in training were
misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements
of the State of Washington, and improperly denied overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff filed an amended con Nov. 30, 2005.  The amended
complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged unpaid wages
due to the plaintiff and the purported class, penalties,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.  

The defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on or
about Jan. 27, 2006.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Workers File Suit Over Required Purchases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a purported class action
"Rankin, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," filed in
the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah.

Will Rankin filed the suit on Dec. 9, 2005.  A first amended
complaint dated Jan. 9, 2006 named two additional plaintiffs
named: Chris Masagatani and Kayti Kersten.

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and a purported
class of in-store managers and hourly employees, that they were
required to purchase clothing and that the costs of purchases
reduced actual wages earned in violation of Oregon's minimum
wage laws.

The first amended complaint seeks payment of alleged wages due
to plaintiffs and the purported class, civil penalties under
Oregon statutes, a permanent injunction, attorneys' fees and
prejudgment interest.  

The defendant filed an answer to the first amended complaint on
Feb. 8, 2006.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Calif. "Kimbell" Deal Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County gave final
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., alleging violations of overtime wage
laws.  The suit is "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."

The plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class,
seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and
liquidated damages.  The plaintiffs allege that California
general and store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay
as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws,
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2006).  

The parties have agreed to a settlement of the matter, which
must be approved by the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County.  The parties filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 26, 2005.  The
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County preliminarily
approved the settlement on Sept. 14, 2005, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 12, 2006).

The parties have agreed to a settlement of this matter, which
was finally approved by the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County on Jan. 12, 2006.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Court Consolidates Stock Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces consolidated securities fraud
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio that was filed on behalf of a purported class
of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A
Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16,
2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.  In September and October of
2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed
against the company and other defendants in the same Court.  All
six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On Mar. 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al. (2:05-
cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Soutthern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Keith W. Schneider of Maguire & Schneider, 250 Civic Center
Drive, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-224-1222, Fax:
614-224-1236, E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com.

Representing the defendants are:
  
     (1) Philip Albert Brown of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
         52 East Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone:
         614-464-6400, Fax: 614-464-6400, E-mail:
         pabrown@vssp.com;

     (2) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter,
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215-4294,
         Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail:
         rsugarman@keglerbrown.com; and  

     (3) Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr. of McNamara and McNamara,
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-228-6131, E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us.


ADVENTURE PLAYSETS: Fall Hazard Prompts Recall of Wooden Swings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adventure Playsets (dba Backyard Ventures Inc.) of Amarillo,
Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety
Commission, is recalling about 26,000 wooden swing sets.

The company said defective bolts could cause the swing set frame
to detach from the fort structure, posing a fall hazard to the
user.  Backyard Ventures has received 64 reports of the bolt
heads twisting off during installation. No injuries have been
reported.

The swing set models include: The Durango, Tacoma, Odyssey,
Bellvue, Monarch, Grand Teton and Outlook II.  The swing sets
are made of wood, and feature various types of slides, swings
and a fabric canopy over part of the structure.

The swing sets were manufactured in China and the U.S. and are
being sold in Wal-Mart, Menards, and Toys "R" Us stores
nationwide and Wal-Mart.com from February 2006 through March
2006 for about $1,000.

Consumers are advised to stop using the swings set immediately
and contact Backyard Ventures to receive repair instructions and
free replacement bolts for the recalled swing sets.

Pictures of the Durango, Tacoma, and Odyssey models:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06163a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06163b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06163c.jpg

Additional models can be viewed at:
http://www.adventureplaysets.com

For more information, call Backyard Ventures at (800) 856-4445
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.adventureplaysets.comor e-mail  
the firm at custservice@adventureplaysets.com.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Security Guards Launch Wage Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) is defendant in
purported class actions in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County filed by ACSS security guards in California.

The suit was filed on Jul. 12, 2005 and is styled, "Augustus v.
American Commercial Security Services."  The potential class
consists of all ACSS security guards in California.  The
plaintiff alleges that ACSS failed to provide meal breaks and
rest breaks under California's wage and hour laws.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the same named plaintiff in the same forum
representing the same class and alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws and unfair business practices
filed a second purported class action.


AT&T CORP: Calif. Court to Hear Motions in Wiretapping Suit Wed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government filed a motion on May 13 to dismiss the
Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class action against
AT&T Corp. for illegally handing over its customers' telephone
and Internet records and communications to the National Security
Agency.  The government claims that its legal brief and two
affidavits from senior intelligence officials that accompanied
the motion are classified, preventing even the parties to the
lawsuit, EFF and AT&T, from seeing them.

While EFF was not permitted to see the government's entire
brief, in a redacted version made publicly available, the
government said the case against AT&T should be immediately
terminated because any judicial inquiry into the whether AT&T
broke the law could reveal state secrets and harm national
security.

"The government is trying to lock out any judicial inquiry into
AT&T and the NSA's illegal spying operation," said EFF Staff
Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "It is illegal for major
telecommunications companies to simply hand over private
customer information to the government.  They should not be
allowed to hide their illegal activity behind government
assertions of 'state secrets' to prevent the judiciary from
stepping in to expose and punish the illegal behavior.  If the
government's motion is granted, it will have undermined the
freedoms our country has fought so hard to protect."

EFF's federal lawsuit against AT&T alleges that the
telecommunications company has given the NSA secret, direct
access to the phone calls and emails going over its network, and
has been handing over communications logs detailing the
activities of millions of ordinary Americans.

This week, a USA TODAY report bolstered key allegations in EFF's
lawsuit, detailing how AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth provided
phone call records about of tens of millions of their customers
to the NSA without any legal authorization.  The same week,
lawyers at the Justice Department were forced to halt their
probe into the Department of Justice's involvement in the spying
program because they were refused security clearance by the NSA.

"The press has already widely reported on the illegal domestic
surveillance that is the basis for our case.  Allowing a court
to determine whether AT&T broke the law would in no way harm
national security.  Indeed, our case is meant to protect
Americans -- by requiring that the AT&T follow the law and
protect its customers from unchecked spying into their personal
communications," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

On Wednesday, May 17, at 10 a.m., a U.S. District Court judge in
San Francisco will hear oral arguments about the unsealing of
critical documents in the lawsuit.  The sealed evidence at issue
includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T
telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T
documents that support EFF's allegations.  AT&T wants the
documents returned and argues that they should not be used as
evidence in the case.  For more information about attending the
hearing, send an e-mail to press@eff.org.

The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., case no.
3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454   
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-  
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:  
         cindy@eff.org; and   

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San   
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-  
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendant are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com

For more details, visit, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/.


BARNES & NOBLE: Reaches $10M Settlement in Calif. Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Orange County entered a final
judgment approving Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s $10,000,000 settlement
of an overtime class action filed against it.

On Mar. 14, 2003, a company employee filed the suit alleging
that the company improperly classified the assistant store
managers, department managers and receiving managers working in
its California stores as salaried exempt employees.  The also
alleges that these employees spent more than 50% of their time
performing non-exempt work and should have been classified as
non-exempt employees.

In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code and
sought relief, including overtime compensation, prejudgment
interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Nov. 18, 2004, an amended complaint was filed alleging that
the company improperly classified the music managers and cafe
managers working in its California stores as salaried exempt
employees.

The parties reached agreement on a settlement that provides for
a maximum payment of $10,000,000 to the class, including
attorneys' fees, costs and class representative enhancement an
amount which is not different from that accrued by the company.

On Mar. 21, 2006, the court entered final judgment on the
settlement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.  The
company anticipates that the settlement funds will be disbursed
in June 2006.


BORDERS GROUP: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action
alleging labor violations that is pending in the Superior Court
of California for the County of San Francisco.

The suit was filed by two former employees, individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as inventory managers or sales
managers in company stores in the state of California at any
time from Sept. 30, 2001 through the trial date.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly
classified as exempt employees and that the company violated the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code by failing to:

      -- pay required overtime;

      -- provide meal periods, rest periods, and accurate
         itemized wage statements;

      -- keep accurate records of employees' hours of work; and

      -- pay all compensation owed at the time of termination of
         employment to certain members of the purported class.

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief, as the court deems proper.


BURLINGTON COAT: Calif. Court Seals Labor Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda gave
final approval to the settlement of a putative class action
"Lewis v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp."

A former employee filed the suit on Nov. 10, 2004 on behalf of
himself and certain current and former management-level
employees at the company's California stores.  The plaintiff
alleged that the company violated a California state law by
classifying these employees as "exempt" managerial/executive
employees for purposes of the payment of overtime compensation
and failing to pay them the overtime premium required for non-
exempt employees.

The suit also claims that the company failed to provide
employees with meal and rest periods required under California
law.  In his complaint, the plaintiff sought certification as a
class, damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, statutory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory
relief, and costs of litigation, including attorney fees.

The company filed an answer denying the claims and asserting
various affirmative defenses on Dec. 22, 2004.

On Jul. 22, 2005, the company entered into an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle this claim.  The settlement is subject to
court approval.  On Oct. 21, 2005, the Court granted preliminary
approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23,
2006).

The Court granted final approval to the settlement on Feb. 24,
2006 and all claims have been paid.  The settlement did not have
a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


BURLINGTON COAT: Deal Reached in N.J. Suit Over Bain Purchase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. reached a tentative
settlement in the purported class action over a Jan. 18, 2006
sale agreement with Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, Inc. and
BCFWC Mergersub, a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding
company (Merger Sub).  The suit is "Lemon Bay Partners v.
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation et al. (CA No.
Bur. C-000014-06)."

On Jan. 27, 2006 a purported class action complaint was filed by
putative stockholders of the company in the Superior Court of
New Jersey in and for Burlington County against the company and
its directors (individual defendants) challenging the proposed
acquisition of the company by newly formed affiliates of Bain
Capital Partners, LLC -- the holding company and Merger Sub.

On Mar. 7, 2006, plaintiff served the company and the individual
defendants with a first amended shareholder class action
complaint.

The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of company
stockholders a claim against the Individual defendants for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration to be paid to holders of company common stock in
the merger is inadequate.  It further alleges that the company
and the individual defendants have breached a disclosure duty to
the company's stockholders by failing to provide them with
material information and/or providing them with misleading
information concerning the proposed merger in the company's
proxy statement.

In addition, the complaint also asserts a claim against Bain
Capital Partners, LLC for aiding and abetting the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual defendants.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
consummation of the merger, that the transaction be rescinded if
it is not enjoined, and an award of compensatory and rescissory
damages as well as attorneys' fees.

On Mar. 30, 2006, the company and its directors entered into a
memorandum of understanding for a settlement, which will be
subject to court approval, pursuant to which the lawsuit will be
dismissed against all parties to the lawsuit.  The terms of the
merger are unchanged.  


CANADA: Same Sex Partners to Appeal Pension Suit in Court Today
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear two appeals from a
landmark ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal in "Hislop et al.
v. Attorney General of Canada" on May 16, 2006, 9:20 a.m. at the
Supreme Court building 301 Wellington St. Ottawa.

The class members are gay men and lesbians whose partners died
between Apr. 17, 1985 and Jan. 1, 1998.  They will be continuing
their battle against the federal government seeking equal
treatment under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor pensions.  

The federal government has continued to deny equal pensions to
the class members on the basis of the class members' sexual
orientation.

The federal government has appealed the Ontario Court of
Appeal's ruling arguing that no class member is entitled to any
CPP survivor pension.  The class members are also appealing the
Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling because the Court of Appeal's
decision means that deceased class members will receive nothing
and some class members may only receive one case, they could be
owed as much as 20 years.  There are an estimated 1,500 class
members across Canada.

The federal government enacted the Modernization of Benefits and
Obligations Act in August 2000.  However, that legislation
served only to forever exclude these class members.  That
legislation provides for a CPP survivor's pension to gay men and
lesbians, but only if their partners died on or after Jan. 1,
1998.  There is no such restriction for heterosexual survivors.

The class members, in their appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada are seeking to restore the decision of the trial judge,
which guarantees a full and equal pension to heterosexual
survivors.  The class members also seek a full and equal pension
for the estates of survivors.

For more information, contact Don Huff, Environmental
Communication Options, Phone: 416-972-7404, Mobile: 416-805-
7720, on the Net: http://www.reko.ca.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING: CBC Pensioners' Suit Gets Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class
action brought by a pensioner against the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC).

The court appointed Donald Waterston as the representative
plaintiff for these class of persons: those people, wherever
resident, together with their survivors, who were in receipt of
an annuity or pension from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
under the CBC Pension Plan on Dec. 31, 2002 and/or on Dec. 31,
2005.

Mr. Waterston alleges that the CBC entered into a "Surplus
Allocation Agreement" in the early 1990's in which it agreed to
share 30% of the available actuarial surplus identified in
regular triennial actuarial valuations of the plan with plan
beneficiaries, including pensioners.  The sharing was to be
based on the historical levels of employer/employee
contributions to the plan of 60:40.  

Since the adoption and implementation of the Surplus Allocation
Agreement, CBC has used its share of the available surplus to
take contribution holidays and the portion allocated to plan
beneficiaries has been distributed in the form of cash,
increased benefits, and reductions to the active employees'
contribution rate.  The CBC last applied the Surplus Allocation
Agreement to the available surplus identified in Actuarial
valuation of the Plan as at Dec. 31, 1999.

At Dec. 31, 2002, the actuarial valuation for the plan disclosed
an available actuarial surplus of CA$156 million, but the CBC
decided to use 30% of the available surplus to fund its own
contributions, without any apportionment to the Plan
beneficiaries, including the pensioners.  The CBC therefore used
the available surplus entirely for its own benefit.

Mr. Waterston seeks a mandatory order directing the CBC to
return to the plan 30% of the available surplus identified in
the 2002 actuarial valuation, and to administer the 2002
surplus, as well as all subsequent available surpluses, in
accordance with the Surplus Allocation Agreement.  The case has
yet to be heard and no court has ruled on the merits of the
dispute.

Fore more information, contact lawyers Arleen Huggins, Ari
Kaplan and Clio Godkewitsch of the Toronto law firm of Koskie
Minsky LLP, Phone: (416) 595-2087, On the Net:
http://www.koskieminsky.com.


CASH STORE: Canadian Court Certifies "Payday Loan" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified under the
Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992 a class action against
Rentcash Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, The Cash Store Inc.

The certification is conditional on the plaintiffs providing the
judge with a satisfactory plan regarding notification of the
proceeding to the class members.  The class has been determined
to be any person in Canada, resident outside of the provinces of
British Columbia and Alberta, who borrowed money as a 'Payday
Loan' from a Cash Store location, and who repaid the loan at a
standard broker fee charged by The Cash Store at:

     -- 22.54% of the loan amount to Mar. 11, 2004; and
     -- 25% of the loan amount after Mar. 11, 2004

on or after the due date of the loan.

The class definition may be amended at a later stage to include
residents of Alberta if a similar action in Alberta is
permanently stayed or discontinued without a settlement on the
merits.  A similar class action proceeding was certified against
The Cash Store Inc. in 2005 in British Columbia where the class
was confined to residents of British Columbia.

Rentcash is the only payday advance broker in Canada publicly
traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:RCS).  Rentcash
operates more than 424 stores across Canada under three banners:
The Cash Store, Instaloans and Insta-rent.

The Cash Store and Instaloans act as brokers to facilitate
payday advance services to income-earning consumers and provide
two private-label debit cards, The Cash Store Cash Card and
InstaWorld Debit Card, to those who may not be able to obtain
them from traditional banks.

Insta-rent rents brand-name furniture, appliances, electronics
and computers, with or without an option to purchase.  Insta-
rent operates primarily in The Brick and United Furniture
Warehouse locations, which are part of The Brick Group, one of
Canada's largest volume retailers of household furniture,
mattresses, appliances and home electronics.

Rentcash employs more than 1,700 associates and is headquartered
in Edmonton, Alberta.  For more information, contact: Gordon J.
Reykdal, chairman and chief executive officer, Phone: (780) 408-
5118.


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division ordered arbitration in the class action "Paul
Veliz, et al., v. Cintas Corporation."

The suit, filed on Mar. 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees, and asserting additional related Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims.  The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional state law wage and hour claims under the state laws
of: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief or both.  The company denies these claims and
is defending the plaintiffs' allegations.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court ordered a majority of the opt-in
plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the
terms of their company employment agreement.  The court or an
arbitrator made no determination regarding class certification.

The suit is "Veliz et et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-
01180-SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with
referral to Judge Maria-Elena James.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott A. Kronland of Altshuler, Berzon et al., 177 Post
         Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-
         421-7151, Fax: 415-362-8064, E-mail:
         skronland@altshulerberzon.com; and

     (2) Helen I. Zeldes, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423.  

Representing the company is Cheryl A. Hipp of Squire Sanders &
Dempsey LLP, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH
44114, Phone: 516-479-8365.


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for "Houston" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corp. faces a racial discrimination class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The suit was filed on Aug. 3, 2005 on behalf of African-American
managers.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Court entered an order requiring the named
plaintiffs in the lawsuit to arbitrate all of their claims for
monetary damages.

The suit is, "Houston et al. v. Cintas Corp. (3:05-cv-03145-
JSW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein,
Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite
1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, Fax: 510 835-
1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com.

Representing the defendants is Nancy L. Abell of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 555 South Flower St., 25th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627-
0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com.


CINTAS CORP: Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corp. is defendant in a purported class action "Robert
Ramirez, et al., v. Cintas Corp.," filed on Jan. 20, 2004, and
pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.

The case was brought on behalf of all past and present female,
African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees of the
company and its subsidiaries.  It alleges that the company has
engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against
women and minorities in recruitment, hiring, promotions,
transfers, job assignments and pay.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees, among other things.

The company denies these claims and is defending the plaintiffs'
allegations.  The court ordered four of the named plaintiffs to
arbitrate their claims.

On Apr. 27, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) intervened in order to participate in this
lawsuit.  No filings or determination has been made in regard to
the lawsuit as to class certification.

The suit is "Ramirez et al. v. Cintas Corp. (3:04-cv-00281-
JSW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen
         & Dar, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA
         94612, Phone: 510/763-9800, Fax: 510-835-1417, E-mail:
         RLS@gdblegal.com;  

     (2) Sharon K. Legenza, 14 West Erie Street, Chicago, CA
         60610, US, Phone: 312-751-1170, Fax: 312-751-0438, E-
         mail: slegenza@lawmbg.com; and

     (3) Robert D. Unitas of U.S. EEOC, Office of General
         Counsel, Systemic Litigation, 1801 L Street NW, Suite
         7712, Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202-663-4768, Fax:
         02-663-4196, E-mail: robert.unitas@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendant is Rachael Rowe, 6800 Cintas Blvd.,
Cincinnati, OH 45262, Phone: 513-754-3640.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fulfills Calif. Labor Suits Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. is providing an update on the
settlement reached in two class actions filed against it
Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging violations
of the state's wage and hour laws.

In March 2002 and March 2003, three current and former hourly
restaurant employees filed two purported class actions against
the company, alleging violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  

Although the company continues to believe it provided the
required meal and rest breaks to its employees, to avoid
potentially costly and protracted litigation, the company agreed
during the second quarter of fiscal 2005 to settle both lawsuits
and a similar case filed in Sacramento County, for approximately
$9.5 million.  

Terms of the settlement, which do not include any admission of
liability by the company, received preliminary judicial
approval, and claims administration is underway.  As of the end
of the third quarter of fiscal 2006, all settlement proceeds
were paid.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Labor Law Exemption Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. reached a settlement for several class
actions pending in California state courts in which the
plaintiffs allege that they and other current and former service
managers, beverage and hospitality managers and culinary
managers were improperly classified as exempt employees under
California labor laws.

Beginning in 2002, a total of five purported class actions were
filed in Superior Courts of California two each in Los Angeles
County and Orange County, and one in Sacramento County.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties.  Two of
the cases were removed to arbitration under its mandatory
arbitration program, one was stayed to allow consideration of
judicial coordination with the other cases, one is proceeding as
an individual claim, and one remains a purported class action
litigation matter.

Although the company continues to believe it correctly
classified these employees, to avoid potentially costly and
protracted litigation, the company agreed to discuss possible
resolution and the cases were stayed in Dec. 2005.  

Following mediation in February 2006, a tentative settlement was
reached.  Without admitting any liability, the company agreed to
pay up to a maximum total of $11,000 to settle all five cases.  

The company recorded settlement expenses amounting to
approximately $9,000 associated with these lawsuits during the
quarter and nine months ended Feb. 26, 2006, which are included
in selling, general, and administrative expenses.  

The settlement amounts of these lawsuits are included in other
current liabilities at Feb. 26, 2006.  The tentative settlement
will be documented in a full settlement agreement and must have
court approval.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Wash. Suit Over Rest Breaks in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-arbitration motions and briefs are currently pending in a
purported class action field against Darden Restaurants, Inc. in
Washington State Superior Court in Spokane County.

In August 2003, three former employees in Washington filed the
suit, alleging violations of Washington labor laws with respect
to providing rest breaks.  

The Court stayed the action and ordered the plaintiffs into the
company's mandatory arbitration program.  Pre-arbitration
motions and briefs are currently pending.  


DUANE READE: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. is defendant in a purported a class action
"Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.," pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that, from the period beginning November
1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title,
"assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these
employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Law.  It seeks an award equal to twice an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages.

The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., (1:04-cv-08819-
GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Tarik Fouad Ajami, Adam T. Klein and Justin
Mitchell Swartz of Outten & Golden, LLP, (NYC), 3 Park Avenue,
29th Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 245-1000, Fax:
(212) 977-4005, E-mail: tfa@outtengolden.com,
atk@outtengolden.com and jms@outtengolden.com.

Representing the defendants are, Gerald Thomas Hathaway and Lisa
A. Schreter of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Phone: 212.583.2684 and
(404) 233-0330, Fax: 212.832.2719 and (404) 233-2361, E-mail:
ghathaway@littler.com.


DUANE READE: EEOC Launches Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. is defendant in a purported a class action
flied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Filed on Jan. 5, 2005, the suit is alleging, among other things,
that the company created a hostile work environment for three
female store employees, and potentially a class of such female
employees.  

This action is in its early stages, and accordingly it is not
possible to determine the ultimate outcome, which, if adverse,
could be material.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Duane
Reade Inc., (1:05-cv-00036-GBD-DCF)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge George
B. Daniels with referral to Judge Debra C. Freeman.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Judy Ann Keenan of The U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor,
New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 336-3705, Fax: (212) 336-3623,
E-mail: judy.keenan@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendant is Daniel Peter Goldberg of Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, (NYC), 1633 Broadway, New York,
NY 10019, Phone: (212)-506-1970, Fax: (212)-506-1800, E-mail:
dgoldberg@kasowitz.com.


DUANE READE: Faces Del., N.Y. Lawsuits Over Oak Hill Purchase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. is defendant in several purported
class actions in state courts in Delaware and New York,
challenging its acquisition by a group of investors, including
Oak Hill Capital Partners, L.P., and members of the company's
management team.

On Jul. 30, 2004, the acquisition of the company was completed
by a group of investors.  As part of the acquisition, Duane
Reade Acquisition Corp., the company wholly owned subsidiary,
merged with and into Duane Reade Inc., with Duane Reade Inc.
remaining as the surviving corporation.

Initially the company was slapped with six purported class
action complaints challenging the Acquisition consummated by the
it and Duane Reade Acquisition, which were all filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, referred to as the
"Delaware Complaints," as well as three purported class action
complaints that were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York.  

Two of the New York complaints have been dismissed without
prejudice.  The other New York complaint is pending, but has not
been served on the company.

The Delaware complaints name the company's former chairman and
certain other members of its board of directors and executive
officers as well as Duane Reade as defendants.  Four of the
Delaware complaints name Oak Hill as a defendant.  

The New York Complaint names the company's former chairman and
certain other members of the company's board of directors and
executive officers as well as Duane Reade as defendants.  One of
the dismissed New York complaints named Oak Hill as a defendant.

The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on Jan. 28, 2004, and
on Apr. 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  


EXXONMOBIL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Suit Over La. Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Stephen Riedlinger recommended that a motion for
class certification be denied in a lawsuit over an August 1993
fire at the ExxonMobil Corp. plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
the 2theadvocate.com reports.

Judge Riedlinger refused to certify the suit because there are
no longer any class representatives or named plaintiffs with
viable claims, and individual plaintiffs are so different with
regard to exposure and types of injuries.  The report will be
presented to a federal judge for review.

In January, Riedlinger recommended dismissing the suit saying
none of those in the class action have proven the plaintiffs
were injured by a smoke plume.  Plaintiff attorneys filed an
objection to a magistrates' recommendation to dismiss injury
claims, saying the recommendation was riddled with legal errors
(Class Action Reporter, February 14, 2006).

The suit is "In Re: 1993 Exxon Coker Fire, Case No. 3:93-md-
00002-BMGL-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn with
referral to Stephen C. Riedlinger.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard J. Arsenault of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault,
         P.O. Box 1190, 2220 Bonaventure Court, Alexandria, LA
         71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874, Fax: 318-561-2591, E-
         mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com;

     (2) Jeffrey Michael Bassett of Morrow, Morrow, Ryan &
         Bassett, P.O. Drawer 1787, Opelousas, LA 70571-1787,
         Phone: 337-948-4483, Fax: 942-5234, E-mail:
         jeffb@mmrblaw.com; and

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the Law Offices of Daniel E.
         Becnel, Jr., P.O. Drawer H. 106 West 7th Street,
         Reserve, LA 70084, 985-536-1186, Fax: 985-536-6445, E-
         mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing ExxonMobil are:

     (1) Michael P. Cash of Winstead, Sechrest & Minick
         910 Travis Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002,
         Phone: 713-650-8400, Fax: 713-650-2400, E-mail:
         mcash@winstead.com; and

     (2) William Victor Courtney of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond -- N.O., 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1450, New
         Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-585-3050, Fax: 504-585-
         3051.


HOLLISTER CO: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hollister Co. is defendant in a purported class action filed in
the Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging labor-
related violations.  The suit is "Gibson v. Hollister Co."

Filed on Oct. 25, 2005, the suit alleges these claims on behalf
of the plaintiff and a purported class and subclasses of hourly
employees employed by the company in the state of California:

      -- failure to provide and maintain uniforms;

      -- failure to pay regular and overtime wages;

      -- failure to provide rest periods and meal periods or
         compensation in lieu thereof;

      -- failure to timely pay wages due at termination;

      -- failure to itemize wage statements;

      -- conversion; and

      -- violation of unfair competition law.

The complaint cites various California statutes, orders and
regulations.  It also seeks compensatory damages for alleged
unpaid wages due to the plaintiff and the purported class,
penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, interest and
costs.  The defendant filed an answer to the complaint on Jan.
25, 2006.


HOMEQ SERVICING: Judge Sides with Firm in Suit Over Loan Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Circuit Judge in Illinois has ruled against plaintiffs in a
class action over mortgage contract filed against HomEq
Servicing Corp., according to The Madison County Record.

In a summary judgment, Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas
Byron rejected a definition by the defendant's lawyer of the
word "until" in the contract between HomEq Servicing and
plaintiffs Thomas Hogle and Rebecca Hogle.  The Hogles alleged
they were charged interest on the same day defendant's received
a payoff check.  The case had not been certified.

The loan note states: "interest will be charged on unpaid
principal until the full amount of principal has been paid."

"The full amount of principal was paid on Oct. 4, 2000, and
defendant charged the plaintiff interest until that full amount
was paid on Oct. 4," according to HomEq attorney Jeffrey
Pilgrim.

Paul Marks of the Lakin Law Firm argued "until" doesn't
necessarily mean "through," while the defendant's lawyer
maintained that "until" includes the date of reference.  Mr.
Pilgrim said the case that plaintiffs relied on in their brief
was decided in 1850.

For more information, contact The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans
Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618)
254-1127 and (800) 851-5523, Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/.


JC PENNEY: Faces Tex., N.Mex. Suits Over Insurance Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. (DMS) is defendant
in putative insurance-related class actions pending in Texas and
New Mexico state courts.  

One of these suits is "Gayle G. Pitts, et al. v. J.C. Penney
Direct Marketing Services, Inc., AEGON Direct Marketing
Services, Inc., and J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company
(JCPenney Life) n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance Company, Case No.
01-03395-F."  The suit involves the sale of J.C. Penney Life
Insurance accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) insurance
over the telephone.

The named plaintiffs allege that they did not give permission to
defendants to charge their credit cards for ADD insurance
premiums.  They also allege that the scripted questions asked
during the telephone sales presentation are inadequate to obtain
permission to charge the customer's credit card, primarily
because the customer is not told that the insurance company
already has his or her credit card number.  

The lawsuit originally also included as defendants J.C. Penney
Company, Inc., and J.C. Penney International Insurance Group,
Inc.  The plaintiffs have since dismissed these parties.  The
Lawsuit originally also included named plaintiffs who did not
deny giving permission to charge their credit cards for
premiums, but who alleged that they had submitted claims that
were wrongfully denied.  

Those former named plaintiffs and their claims were severed into
a separate lawsuit "York, et al. v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc.,
J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc., J. C. Penney Life
Insurance Company, J. C. Penney International Group, Inc., AEGON
Direct Marketing Services, Inc., AEGON USA, Inc., and
Commonwealth General Corporation, No. 02-2651-F," in the 214th
District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

The assets of DMS, including the stock of JCPenney Life, were
sold to Commonwealth General Corporation, a domestic subsidiary
of AEGON, N. V., pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated
Mar. 7, 2001, among Commonwealth as Purchaser, DMS as Seller,
and JCP as Parent corporation of DMS.  Thus, as a matter of law,
all of the liabilities of JCPenney Life stayed with that company
after the sale. Commonwealth is currently providing defense to
DMS.

Under the Agreement, J.C. Penney Corporation (JCP) and DMS
agreed to indemnify Commonwealth for any liability of JCPenney
Life, but only to the extent that such liability arises out of
or relates to a breach of a representation and warranty in the
Agreement.  Commonwealth may claim entitlement to
indemnification from JCP and DMS if a final determination in the
Lawsuit is adverse to JCPenney Life, and Commonwealth
successfully contends that the liability arose out of a breach
of a representation or warranty in the Agreement.  JCP's and
DMS's liability for breaches of representations and warranties
is subject to both a deductible and a cap.

In September 2002, the trial court certified the lawsuit as a
national class action.  On Jul. 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals
for the Thirteenth District of Texas reversed the certification
order and remanded the case to the trial court.

Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental motion for Class
Certification, this time seeking a Texas class only.  On Jan.
31, 2005, the trial court granted the motion, certifying a Texas
class.  

Defendants have filed a motion to appeal that order with the
Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, styled,
"Stonebridge Life Insurance Company f/k/a J.C. Penney Life
Insurance Company; J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc.,
J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance
Company (JCPenney Life), and AEGON Direct Marketing Services,
Inc. v. Gayle G. Pitts, et al, No. 13-05-131-CV."

The severed lawsuit was originally pled as a class action, but
the plaintiffs amended their petition and now assert only
individual claims.  

On Feb. 3, 2005, Vicente Balderaz filed a complaint in the First
Judicial District, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe (No.
D-0101-CV2005-00249), against the same defendants as the lawsuit
and asserting essentially the same claims.  DMS has since been
dismissed.  The New Mexico Lawsuit seeks certification of a
nationwide class.  On Nov. 9 and 10, 2005, the trial court held
a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for class certification.


MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc., a group of 61
upscale restaurants across the U.S., was charged with violating
federal and state laws against race discrimination in employment
in a class action filed on May 11 in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco.

Claiming that the restaurant chain fails to hire qualified
African Americans and instead favors white job applicants and
employees in an effort to present a "white image" to the public,
African American job applicants and current employees of
McCormick & Schmick's filed a suit "Wynne et al. v. McCormick &
Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc."  The suit is represented by
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, and several other law firms.

"McCormick & Schmick's is making employment decisions based on
skin color," stated attorney Diana C. Tate, head of the African-
American Agenda at the Lawyers' Committee. "Whites are hired for
positions in the front of the restaurants as servers,
hostesses/hosts, and bartenders.  African Americans are either
not hired or relegated to low paid, menial jobs where they do
not interact with the public.  This discrimination and
segregation has no place in twenty-first century America."

"McCormick & Schmick's touts 'We are in the business of People -
- our employees and our guests.'  But the company fails to live
up to the promise of treating all employees equally and fairly,"
said Bill Lann Lee, a partner at Lieff Cabraser, and former
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the U.S.
Department of Justice.  "McCormick & Schmick's uses racial
stereotypes to deny job opportunities and promotions to
thousands of qualified African American applicants and
employees."

A central allegation in the lawsuit is that McCormick &
Schmick's has a nationwide corporate policy and practice of
preferring white employees over African American employees for
"front-of-the-house" positions.  These are the prominent,
better-paying jobs, including server, hostess/host, and
bartender.  Plaintiff Dante Byrd was not hired as a bartender at
McCormick & Schmick's Berkeley restaurant despite having a
diploma from bartending school and seven years experience as a
bartender.

The lawsuit also charges that McCormick & Schmick managers throw
away applications from African American job seekers without
seriously considering them.  In addition, the complaint alleges
that managers have been instructed by corporate headquarters to
"clean up the restaurant," meaning to hire fewer African
Americans, to keep the African American employees away from
front-of-the-house positions, and to subject African American
employees to harsher discipline.

While promotions are preferentially given to white workers
without requiring a formal application process, African American
employees are denied promotions to management positions at
McCormick & Schmick's restaurants throughout the U.S., the suit
alleges.

The few African Americans lucky enough to be hired are
disproportionately assigned to "back-of-the-house" positions.  
These positions include bussers, bar backs, and less desirable
kitchen positions.  The few African Americans assigned to server
positions are given less desirable shifts and table assignments.

Plaintiff Juanita Wynne is the only African American server at
McCormick & Schmick's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley.  "I have
worked hard as a server at the restaurant since 1999, but I
haven't been treated fairly. My shifts and pay were cut for no
good reason, while white servers' shifts and pay were not," Ms.
Wynne said.  Ms. Wynne, a 28-year-old resident of Berkeley,
filed a complaint last year with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which granted her the right to sue.

McCormick & Schmick's operates restaurants across the U.S. under
various names, including McCormick & Schmick's Seafood
Restaurant, McCormick's Fish House & Bar, M&S Grill, The
Heathman Restaurant, Jake's Famous Crayfish, Jake's Grill, and
Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley, California.  The
company employs more than 5,400 workers.  Although the
restaurants have different menus and designs, the lawsuit
charges that they all are run by the same corporate management,
follow the same human resources policies and practices, and
participate in the same racial discrimination.

The suit seeks an injunction to reform the discriminatory
practices of McCormick & Schmick's and the institution of
company programs to ensure equal employment opportunities for
African Americans.  In addition, the suit is seeking back pay,
emotional distress damages, and punitive damages for all class
members.

Representing plaintiffs are the San Francisco offices of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, The Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights of the Bay Area, the Thomas A. Warren Law Offices
of Tallahassee, Florida, Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C.,
of Oakland, California, Lafayette & Kumagai of San Francisco,
California and Kingsley & Kingsley of Encino, California.

For more information, contact Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Phone: (866) 854-4165 (toll free); Web site:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/mccormickcomplaints.htm.


MERIX CORP: Motions Ore. Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merix Corp. filed a motion to dismiss a purported securities
class action filed against it and several other defendants that
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.

The original securities class action, "In re Merix Corporation
Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court (CV 04-826-MO),"
which was originally filed on June 17, 2004, named Merix and
four of its officers as defendants in a class action alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  Forest Grove-based Merix
vigorously defended itself and its officers with the filing of a
motion to dismiss in February 2005.  That motion was granted on
Sept. 15, 2005 (Class Action Reporter Sept. 22, 2005).

According to Merix, the shareholders filed an amended complaint
against the same parties in the original complaint.  The amended
complaint now alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate and
misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection with
the January 2004 public offering.  

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Merix securities in the offering.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the defendant's filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corporation
et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check,
         Sean M. Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
         dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com and
         azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154,
         Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax: (206) 839-0728, E-mail:
         lfeldman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch
         St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)
         727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
         baumr@perkinscoie.com; and

    (ii) Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L. Berenstain and Douglas W.
         Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201 Third Ave.,
         Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: (206) 359-
         8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax: (206)
         359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail:
         jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com
         and DGreene@perkinscoie.com.


MONSANTO CO: January Trial Date Slated for Farmer's Suit in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 8, 2007 trial was slated for the lawsuit against Monsanto
Co. that is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

The suit was originally styled, "Randy Blades, et al. v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 00-403JLF," when it was filed on Feb.
14, 2000 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.  It was brought on behalf of five farmers purporting
to represent various classes of Farmers and alleging that the
company and others violated antitrust laws by allegedly fixing
the price of seed containing biotech traits and violated tort
and international law through the commercialization of biotech
traits.  

After the lawsuit was transferred to Missouri federal court, the
District Court granted the company's motion for summary judgment
on all the plaintiffs' tort claims, including all claims
relating to alleged violations of law.  The District Court also
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify for class action status
the plaintiffs' claims that the company and the other defendants
have violated various antitrust laws, a decision that was
affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  

On Nov. 9, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion seeking to certify a class only of growers of glyphosate-
tolerant soybeans from the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois
and Indiana.

Only two plaintiffs remain in the litigation.  A trial on their
claims is set for Jan. 8, 2007.

The suit is "McIntosh, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case
No. 4:01-cv-00065-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Rodney W. Sippel.  
Representing the plaintiffs is John W. Barrett of Barrett Law
Office, 404 Courthouse Square, North, P.O. Box 987, Lexington,
MS 39095, Phone: 662-834-2376, Fax: 662-834-2628, E-mail:
dbarrett@barrettlawoffice.com.

Representing the defendants is Philip D. Bartz of McKenna and
Long, 1900 K. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-496-
7500, Fax: 202-496-7756, E-mail: pbartz@mckennalong.com.  


MONSANTO CO: 2007 Trial Date Set for American Seed Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 15, 2007 trial was slated for a class action filed by
the American Seed Company against Monsanto Co.

American Seed filed the purported class action against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
on Jul. 26, 2005, supposedly on behalf of direct purchasers of
corn seed containing the company's transgenic traits.  American
Seed essentially alleges that the company have monopolized or
attempted to monopolize markets for glyphosate-tolerant corn
seed, European corn borer-protected corn seed and foundation
corn seed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24. 2006).  

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.  On Dec. 6, 2005, the court denied the company's motion
to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri and to consolidate it with an action the
company already has pending against American Seed for unpaid
royalties.  The case was set for trial on Oct. 15, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 24. 2006).

The suit is "American Seed Co. Inc. v. Monsanto Company et al.
Case No. 1:05-cv-00535-SLR," filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard L. Horwitz of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box
         951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000,
         E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; and

     (2) Joelle Eileen Polesky of Smith, Katzenstein, & Furlow,
         The Corporate Plaza, 800 Delaware Ave., P.O. Box 410,
         Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 652-8400, E-mail:
         jpolesky@skfdelaware.com.
  
Representing the defendants are Steven D. De Salvo, Peter E.
Moll and John J. Rosenthal, Pro Hac Vice, E-mail:
desalvos@howrey.com, Mollp@howrey.com and rosenthalj@howrey.com.


NATIONAL CITY: Ill. Suit is "Manufactured," Defense Counsel Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for National City Mortgage charged at a hearing on a
motion for summary judgment in Madison County Circuit Court that
the suit over fax fees filed against the company is
"manufactured," The Madison County Record reports.

The Lakin Law Firm, representing plaintiffs Donald and Patricia
Agney, are accusing the lender of charging an unreasonable fee
for faxes in refinancing their loan.  The fee is stated in the
loan agreement, which the plaintiffs were made to sign under
compulsion, according to the plaintiffs' lawyer, Steve
Schweizer.  

While asking why didn't the plaintiffs complain at the signing,
the judge asked whether the plaintiffs were recruited.  He also
asked how they got involved in the suit, to which Mr. Schweizer
answered: "...I don't know."  Mr. Schweizer said he joined the
firm a year ago.

Defendant's lawyer Troy Bozarth alleged the Agneys were
contacted by a lawyer looking through loan closings at Centerre
Title.  

Judge Weber took National City's motion for summary judgment
under advisement, according to the report.

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229,
         Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127 and
         (800) 851-5523, Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/;and  

     (2) Troy A. Bozarth of Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, MacDonald,
         Hebrank & True, LLP, Two Mark Twain Plaza, Suite 300,
         103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville,
         Illinois 62025-0510, (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-
         0184, Telecopier: 618-656-1364, Web site:
         http://www.ilmolaw.com.


NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Settlement Reached in Calif. Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Semiconductor Corp. and a number of its suppliers
settled a class action pending in California Superior Court,
County of Santa Clara, alleging damages for personal injury.

Plaintiff James Harris filed the suit in January 1999 on behalf
of the company's former and present employees, alleging that
cancer and/or reproductive harm were caused to employees as a
result of alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while working at
the company.  Plaintiffs claim to have worked at sites in Santa
Clara and/or in Greenock, Scotland.  

In addition, one plaintiff claims to represent a class of
children of company employees who allegedly sustained
developmental harm as a result of alleged in utero exposure to
toxic chemicals while their mothers worked at the company.  

Although no specific amount of monetary damages is claimed,
plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of the classes for personal
injuries, nervous shock, physical and mental pain, fear of
future illness, medical expenses and loss of earnings and
earnings capacity.  

The court has required the Scottish employees to seek their
remedies in Scottish courts.  The court has also denied
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a medical monitoring
class.

In February 2006, the case was settled and dismissed and the
case is now completed.  The parties have agreed to keep
confidential the terms of the settlement, which did not have a
material effect on the company's financial position or results
of operations.


PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pegasus Communications Corp. is defendant in a putative
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Filed on Nov. 8, 2005, the suit also names as defendants the
company's chief executive officer, and two former chief
financial officers.  

The class action plaintiff's claims are based on the allegation
that certain public statements made by Pegasus Communications
during the period from November 2000 to March 2004 were false
and misleading for substantially the same reasons set forth by
the AIG Plaintiffs.

The class action seeks class certification, damages together
with interest thereon, and costs and expenses of the litigation.  
No dollar amount is set forth in the complaint for any alleged
damages.

The suit is "Madden v. Pagon, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05868-
AB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Anita B. Brody.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq., LLC, P.O.
         BOX 30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235,
         E-mail: jacobagoldberg@comcast.net; and

     (2) Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 350 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, US, Phone: 212-
         686-1060.

Representing the defendants are Robert L. Hickok and Christopher
J. Huber of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, 3000 Two Logan Sq., 18th &
Arch Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-4583 and
215-981-4446, E-mail: hickokr@pepperlaw.com and
huberc@pepperlaw.com.


RALPHS GROCERY: Reaches Settlement in "The Great Escape" Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ralphs Grocery Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Kroger
Co., reached a tentative settlement for a purported class action
pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.

The company is the defendant in a group of civil actions
initially filed in 2003 and for which a coordination order was
issued on Jan. 20, 2004, "The Great Escape Promotion Cases
pending, Case No. JCCP No. 4343."

The plaintiffs allege that the company violated various laws
protecting consumers in connection with a promotion pursuant to
which Ralphs offered travel awards to customers.  

On Feb. 22, 2006, the Court in The Great Escape Promotion Cases
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.  

The date set for final approval of the class action settlement
is set for Aug. 25, 2006.  


SEMPRA ENERGY: Judge Keeps Terms of Natural Gas Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald Prager rejected a request by the plaintiffs and
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to amend wording in the
settlement to resolve claims that Sempra Energy conspired to
gouge consumers during the California energy crisis, Bloomberg
reports.

The attorney general expressed concern in an April filing with
the California Superior Court that the state's legal actions
against the company on behalf of ratepayers might be in danger
if the settlement is interpreted to include public entities as
part of the settlement class, which included "all individuals
and entities in California who purchased gas and/or electric
power for their own use and not for resale or generation of
electric power from September 1996 to the date of the agreement"
(Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2006).

Mr. Lockyer, who opted out of the settlement, is pursuing claims
against Sempra in state court, at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and in an arbitration proceeding.  He is asking that
the settlement terms be modified to specify that the agreement
doesn't prevent him from proceeding with additional suits on
behalf of state agencies.

Sempra has said parties should not be able to pursue claims
covered by the proposed settlement, which is valued at $1.9
billion by plaintiffs' attorneys but which Sempra says will cost
it about $375 million in direct cash payments.

The parties agreed to the proposed settlement in early January,
after more than two months of arguing the case in Superior Court
in San Diego.

After hearing arguments for and against the proposed changes in
the ruling, Judge Prager opted to leave it alone.

The Continental Forge litigation, consisting of class action and
individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
consolidated in San Diego Superior Court, allege that Sempra  
Energy and the California Utilities, along with El Paso and
several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to control natural
gas and electricity markets and claim damages of $23 billion
after applicable trebling (Class Action Reporter, March 1,  
2006).   

Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and
electric consumers served by the California investor-owned
utilities.  The settlement of Continental Forge would also
include the settlement of class action price reporting
litigation, consisting of antitrust and unfair competition
lawsuits coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging
that Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported
natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and
engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions.   

A second settlement agreement relates to class action brought by
the Nevada Attorney General in Nevada Clark County District
Court and involves virtually identical allegations to those in
the Continental Forge litigation.   

                      Settlement Terms  

To settle the California and Nevada litigation, the company
would make cash payments in installments aggregating $377
million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge
and California class action price reporting litigation and $30
million relates to the Nevada antitrust litigation.  Of the $377
million, $83 million would be paid within thirty days of final
approval of the settlement by the San Diego County Superior
Court, and an additional $83 million would be paid on the first
anniversary of that approval.    

Of the remaining amount, $27.3 million would be paid on the
closing date of the settlement and $26.3 million would be paid
on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the
seventh anniversary of the closing date.  At any time after the
first anniversary of the closing date, the company would have
the option to prepay all or any portion of the remaining unpaid
settlement amounts at a discount rate of 7%, with any partial
prepayment applied to and reducing each remaining payment on an
equal and proportionate basis.  

Additional consideration for the California settlement includes
an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the California
Utilities, subject to CPUC approval, re-gasified liquefied
natural gas from its liquefied natural gas terminal being
constructed in Baja California, Mexico at the California border
index price minus $0.02.  The volumes to be purchased and sold
would be up to 500 million cubic feet per day that Sempra Energy
subsidiaries currently have contractual rights to purchase and
that is not delivered or sold to Mexican entities.   

The California Utilities also would seek approval from the CPUC
to integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to
develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for
access to their combined intrastate transmission system and
SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system.  In addition,  
Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce the price that it
charges for power and limit the places at which it would deliver
power under its contract with the Department of Water Resources  
(DWR).  

The California settlement is subject to the approval of the San  
Diego Superior Court, which has preliminarily approved the
settlement, and authorized providing notice to the plaintiff
class.  The Los Angeles City Council has not yet voted to
approve the City of Los Angeles's participation in the
settlement and it may elect to continue pursuing its individual
case against Sempra Energy and the California Utilities.   

                     Final Approval Hearing  

The final approval hearing for the Continental Forge settlement
is scheduled to occur on June 8, 2006.  The Nevada settlement is
subject to approval by the Nevada Clark County District Court,
which has not yet approved notice to the class or scheduled a
final approval hearing.  Both the California and Nevada
settlements must be approved for either settlement to take
effect, but the company is permitted to waive this condition.   
The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the  
California Public Utilities Commission, the DWR, or any other
governmental or regulatory agency to be effective.   


SOLECTRON CORP: Calif. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to a settlement in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Solectron Corp. and
certain of its officers.

On Mar. 6, 2003, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements in certain press releases and Securities
and Exchange Commission filings issued between Sept. 17, 2001
and Sept. 26, 2002.  

In particular, plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to
disclose and to properly account for excess and obsolete
inventory in the former Technology Solutions business unit
during the relevant time period.

Additional complaints making similar allegations were
subsequently filed in the same court, and pursuant to an order
entered June 2, 2003, the Court appointed lead counsel and
plaintiffs to represent the putative class in a single
consolidated action.  

The consolidated amended complaint, filed Sept. 8, 2003, alleges
an expanded class period of June 18, 2001 through Sept. 26,
2002, and purports to add a claim for violation of Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative
class of former shareholders of C-MAC Industries, Inc., who
acquired Solectron stock pursuant to the Oct. 19, 2001
Registration Statement filed in connection with Solectron's
acquisition of C-MAC Industries, Inc.

In addition, while the initial complaints focused on alleged
inventory issues at the former Technology Solutions business
unit, the consolidated amended complaint adds allegations of
inadequate disclosure and failure to properly account for excess
and obsolete inventory at Solectron's other business units.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 14, 2004 the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification seeking to have the court declare this matter as a
class action.  The court heard the motion on Oct. 1, 2004 and
granted the motion.  In August 2005, the parties reached an
agreement in principal to settle the litigation on terms not
material to the company.  The parties are currently negotiating
the terms of the formal written settlement agreement, which they
expect to execute and file with the Court in November 2005.  

Court approval of the settlement terms was obtained at a Mar. 3,
2006 hearing.

The suit is "In re Solectron Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. C-03-0986 CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Charles R.
Breyer.  Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

     (2) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710; and

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

Representing the defendant is Ellen H. Ehrenpreis, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA
94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, by Fax: 650-565-5100.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face RICO Violations Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. is defendant in a purported class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Plaintiff filed this civil action in federal district court in
Miami, Florida on Mar. 2, 2005 on behalf of itself and a
purported class consisting of most of the acute care hospitals
in the U.S., alleging that the company's past pricing policies
and receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated the federal
RICO Act, causing harm to plaintiffs.  

The civil complaint asserts claims of RICO violations, as well
as claims of fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.  It seeks unspecified amounts
of damages, including treble damages under RICO, restitution,
disgorgement and punitive damages.

The company was served with this suit on Mar. 2, 2005.  It filed
a motion to dismiss on Apr. 8, 2005.

The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Patricia A. Seitz.  Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Greenberg Traurig, P.A, 1221 Brickell Avenue, Miami,
         Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-579-0500,
         Fax: 305-579-0717, Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com;and

     (2) Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600, Boca
         Raton, Florida 33486, (Palm Beach Co.), Phone: 561-361-
         5000, Telecopier: 561-367-8400, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendant are:

     (i) Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector,
         P.A., 1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard,
         Miami, FL 33131, Phone: (305) 373-1000, Fax: (305) 372-
         1861; and

    (ii) Holland & Knight of Holland & Knight, LLP, 701 Brickell
         Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade
         Co.), P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101, Phone: 305-374-
         8500, Fax: 305-789-7799, Web site:
         http://www.hklaw.com.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Potential $5B Suit Over NSA Link
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in federal
court in Manhattan alleging the phone company violated privacy
laws by participating in a secret surveillance program with the
National Security Agency, reports say.

The suit was filed on May 12 by New Jersey attorneys Bruce Afran
and Carl Mayer.  It asks the court to stop the company from
turning over any more records to the NSA without a warrant or
consent of the subscriber, and is seeking $1,000 for each
violation of the Telecommunication Act, or $5 billion once the
case is certified as class action.

Verizon Communications, Inc. -- http://www.verizon.com--   
provides communication services worldwide in domestic telecom,
domestic wireless, information services, and international
segments.  The company was incorporated in 1983 as Bell Atlantic
Corporation and changed its name as Verizon Communications, Inc.
in 2000.


WAL-MART STORES: Canadian Court Rejects Unionized Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld last November's decision by
the Quebec Superior Court, rejecting an effort by unionized
employees at the closed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in Saguenay,
Quebec, Canada to launch a class action against the retail
giant, the Canadian Press reports.  The court said it was a
matter best decided by the province's labor relations board.

Unionized workers at a Wal-Mart store in Quebec, which closed
last April 2005, argued that Superior Court Justice Beaudoin
erred when he made the ruling.  According to the workers'
lawyer, Gilles Gareau, the conflict stems from a "violation of
fundamental rights" protected by Quebec's charter of rights and
freedoms (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2005).

Alain Pednault, the plaintiff in the case, wants to sue on
behalf of the former employees who lost their jobs when the
store closed Apr. 29, 2005.  Mr. Pednault claimed that the real
motive for the store closure was its unionization by some
employees.

Court records showed that the store was closed on Apr. 29 as
workers sought to form a union.  Wal-Mart continues to maintain
that the closure was not related to the workers actions argues
that it was shut because it was not making money (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 8, 2005).

The 182 workers, who are seeking CA$20,000 in damages, became
the first Wal-Mart employees to unionize since a Windsor,
Ontario outlet was briefly accredited in the 1990s.  The
Arkansas-based retailer though closed the Quebec store before
the workers could obtain a collective agreement (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 28, 2005).

Mr. Gareau said he will review the ruling before deciding
whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.


YAHOO INC: Facing Spyware Click Fraud Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Online dating service Metrodate.com filed a class action against
Yahoo Inc., its Overture advertising network, and unspecified
third party affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, accusing the portal of using
spyware to distribute ads, TechwebNews.com reports.

Metrodate's lawsuit, which seeks "actual and/or compensatory
damages," restitution for click overcharges, and attorneys'
expenses, accused Yahoo of knowingly serving ads from dubious
sources, including spyware and adware software and sites, as
well as "typosquatting" sites that typically hold down domain
names a character or two off a real URL, then rake in fees from
ads served to users who unintentionally type in a wrong Web
address.

The suit is "Draucker Development and True Communication Inc v.
Yahoo! Inc et al, Case No. 2:06-cv-02737-JFW-RC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge John F. Walter with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.
Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick A. DeBlase and Paul R.
Kiesel of Kiesel Boucher & Larson, 8648 Wilshire Boulevard,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910, Phone: 310-854-4444 E-mail:
deblase@kbla.com and kiesel@kbla.com

To see the complaint, visit:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?88a.

Yahoo is facing a similar class action in New Jersey over
allegations the company engaged in "syndication fraud" against
online advertisers. The advertisers pay Yahoo to display their
ads on search results and on the Web pages of partner Web sites.  
But instead, the suit says, Yahoo displayed these ads via
spyware and adware products and on so-called "typosquatter" Web
sites. The suit is "Crafts by Veronica v. Yahoo, Inc., Overture
Services, Inc. and John Doe Companies, Inc.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Class Action
Reporter, May 4, 2006).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a June 5, 2006,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities
of America Service Group, Inc. (ASGR) between Sept. 24, 2003 and
Mar. 16, 2006, inclusive.  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

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 ASG 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 and (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


CHINA ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of China Energy
Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV) between Apr. 21, 2005 and Feb.
15, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant China Energy and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.  

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 June 30,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock 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 Discovery
Laboratories Inc. (DSCO) publicly traded securities between Mar.
16, 2004 and Apr. 25, 2006.

The complaint charges Discovery Labs and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

Discovery Labs is a biotechnology company whose lead product is
Surfaxin(R) (Surfaxin), which is being developed for the
prevention of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) in premature
infants.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
Discovery Labs issued aggressive statements and opinions
concerning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
approval process of Surfaxin.

However, unbeknownst to investors, these statements were
materially false and misleading since, among other things:

      -- the company was experiencing difficulties in
         manufacturing Surfaxin;

      -- the company was unable to produce a consistent sample
         of Surfaxin;

      -- the FDA's approval of Surfaxin would, at the very
         least, be "significantly" delayed; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, the company's future
         revenue streams and growth from Surfaxin would be in
         serious doubt.

On Apr. 5, 2006, the company announced that the FDA had
requested more information regarding the Chemistry,
Manufacturing and Controls section of the New Drug Application
for the approval of Surfaxin.

Specifically, the FDA requested "further tightening of active
ingredient and drug product specifications and related
controls."  Following this announcement, shares of Discovery
Labs' common stock declined $2.07 per share, or 29%, to close at
$5.02 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then on Apr. 24, 2006, the company announced that the FDA had
expressed its concerns regarding its analysis of the ongoing
stability data on Surfaxin.  The FDA indicated that "certain
stability parameters have not been achieved and, therefore,
additional process validation batches will likely have to be
produced."

As a result of the FDA's need for more information, the company
admitted that it "anticipates a potentially significant delay in
the U.S. regulatory approval process for Surfaxin" and that it
will abandon plans to commercialize the drug and seek "entering
into strategic partnerships."  Moreover, the company was unsure
"whether this issue will have any impact on the Surfaxin
European regulatory approval process."

Upon this shocking news, shares of Discovery Labs' common stock
plummeted $2.49 per share, or 53%, to close at $2.20 per share,
on extraordinarily heavy trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than June 30,
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/discoverylabs/.


ESCALA GROUP: Ann D. White to File Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann D. White Law Offices has been retained to commence 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 action alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omitted
information regarding the true nature of Escala's business
dealings with its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles
S.A.

On May 9, 2006, it was publicly reported that Spanish police had
made arrests and raided the offices of Afinsa.  The raid was
part of an investigation of fraud over an alleged pyramid type
scheme.  The raid followed an article in Barron's May 23, 2005,
entitled "Sticky Situation," which reported questionable and
possibly fraudulent practices.

As a result of these revelations, regarding Escala and Afinsa's
business operations, ESCL stock dropped from $32.00 to $12.23
per share on heavy volume.

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

Our firm's attorneys have considerable experience in securities
fraud class actions.  The firm will answer all questions, and
provide information, at no cost or obligation to you.

For more details, contact Ann White, Mandy Roth and Ronald Lopit
of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274, E-
mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com.  


ESCALA GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESCL).  
No class has yet been certified in this action.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.

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

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 fell dramatically, falling from
$32.00 per share to $12.23 per share on heavy volume.

For more details, Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, Phone: l-
866-467-1400, ext. 100 and 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Escala
Group, Inc. (ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006,
inclusive.

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

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose 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.

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.

On this news, given the high level of the integration between
Afinsa's and Escala's business operations, ESCL stock fell more
than 50% on May 9, 2006.

Interested parties may, no later than Jul. 10, 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.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Newpark Resources, Inc.
(NR) common stock between Feb. 28, 2005 and Apr. 17, 2006.

The complaint charges Newpark and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Newpark, together with its subsidiaries, "provides
integrated fluids management, environmental, and oilfield
services to the exploration and production industry."

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, defendants
caused Newpark's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's financial statements,
business and prospects.

As alleged in the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the class period, were:

      -- that Newpark was improperly processing and paying
         invoices inconsistent with and in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP);

      -- that Newpark had inadequate and deficient internal
         controls and systems;

      -- that, as a result of (a)-(b) above, Newpark's financial
         statements were grossly inflated and materially
         misleading; and

      -- that, as a result of (a)-(c) above, Newpark had no
         reasonable basis upon which to issue financial guidance
         for fiscal 2005.

The complaint further alleges that on Mar. 22, 2006, without
warning, Newpark reported that defendant James P. Cole had been
replaced as chief executive officer by Paul L. Howes in order to
allow Cole to "devote his full energies to the development of
the new water treatment technology as chairman and CEO of
Newpark Environmental Water Solutions, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Newpark."

Then, on Apr. 17, 2006, Newpark shocked the investing public
when it reported that it had commenced 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."  Moreover,
although not specifically mentioned, defendant Cole had been
placed on administrative leave.

Investor reaction was quick and negative with shares of Newpark
stock falling more than 17% on Apr. 17, 2006, on more than eight
times normal trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than June 20,
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/newpark/.  


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. (VTSS) and certain of its officers
and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Vitesse between Oct. 23, 2003 and
Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive.

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

In particular, the complaint alleges that on Apr. 18, 2006,
Vitesse announced that its Board of Directors had appointed a
Special Committee to conduct an internal investigation relating
to past stock option grants, the timing of such grants and
related accounting and documentation.

At the same time, Vitesse announced that three of its top
executives had been placed on administrative leave.  It was
subsequently announced that the administrative leaves were
imposed because of such individual's involvement with issues
related to the integrity of documents relating to the company's
stock option grant process.

It is further alleged that on Apr. 26, 2006, the company
announced, among other things, that its board had determined
that Vitesse's previously reported financial statements for the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2005 and the three years ended Sept.
30, 2005 and possibly earlier periods should not be relied upon
and that reports previously issued by the company and its
auditor relating to the company's internal controls as of Sept.
30, 2005 should not be relied upon.

The company further disclosed that in the course of the
investigation relating to stock options, additional issues had
arisen which leads the company to believe that accounts
receivable and revenues may have been misstated during certain
periods.

It is alleged that as a result of the company's recent
disclosures, the price of Vitesse stock has declined
approximately 42%, from $3.11 per share on Apr. 18, 2006 to
$1.82 per share on Apr. 27, 2006.

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

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


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Yourman Alexander Files Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.
(VTSS) from Oct. 23, 2003 through Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive.  The
matter is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants, which
include certain officers and directors of the company, violated
federal securities laws by failing to present the true financial
condition of Vitesse.  

It is further alleged that defendants committed these violations
by issuing false and misleading statements to the investing
community concerning the company's current financial condition,
and that by omitting to disclose the truth about Vitesse's
financial performance during the class period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of the company's securities for
their own personal gain.

For example, it is alleged that defendants made material
misrepresentations and omitted information regarding the timing
of certain stock option grants made to key executives.  

On Apr. 26, 2006, the company announced that certain financial
statements should not be relied upon and that it was restating
financial statements for fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 2003,
Sept. 20, 2004 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well as the quarter ending
Dec. 31, 2005.

The complaint also alleges that as a result of these
disclosures, and others, Vitesse shares dropped from $2.51 to
$1.82 per share, or approximately 27.5%.

The deadline to move for appointment as Lead plaintiff in the
case is on Jul. 3, 2006.

For more details, contact Vahn Alexander of Yourman Alexander &
Parekh LLP, Phone: (800) 725-6020, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite
3000, Manhattan Beach, California 90266 by telephone, E-mail:
valexander@yaplaw.com.  


XM SATELLITE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
XMSR) between Jul. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006.  No class has yet
been certified in this action.

The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented XM's
ability to reduce its subscriber acquisition costs, and that
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that
excessively large marketing expenditures would be needed through
2005 to reach XM's goal of 6 million subscribers.

It was only on Feb. 16, 2006, that XM disclosed to investors the
fact that XM's subscriber acquisition costs were skyrocketing.

Shares of the company immediately fell 13% to close at $21.96 on
Feb. 17, 2006 and have subsequently fallen further to around
$17.00 per share.

During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge
sales of their personal holdings in the fourth quarter of 2005,
taking advantage of the artificial inflation of XM's common
stock and selling almost $70 million in company stock during
that time.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com,
Web site: http://www.kglg.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=4799.  


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *