CAR_Public/060522.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 100

                            Headlines

AIRGATE PCS: Ga. Court Allows Specific Claims in Securities Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: July Trial Set for Securities Suit Settlement
AMERICAN CORRECTIVE: Consumers Allege Abusive Debt Collection
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Wage Suit
ARIZONA: Judge Refuses Request to Temporarily Prohibit AIMS Test

ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Settles Remaining Claims in Tex. Stock Suit
AT&T INC: Journalists File Privacy Rights Violation Suit in Tex.
AUSTRALIA: Church to Borrow for $4M Sexual Abuse Suit Settlement
BEA SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Suits Over Plumtree Acquisition
BIG LOTS: Facing FLSA Violations Litigations in Three States

CALIFORNIA: Baseball Team Faces Sex, Age Discrimination Lawsuit
CARGILL INC: Asks Fla. Court to Dismiss Water Pollution Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Employment-Related Lawsuits in Three States
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Mediation Ordered for Securities Suit in Tex.
ENTROPIN INC: Appeals Court Revives $20M Securities Fraud Suit

GANDER MOUNTAIN: Appeal Dropped in Minn. Stock Suit's Dismissal
GEICO: Breach of Contract, Consumer Fraud Suit Trial Set May 22
GENESCO INC: Working to Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuits in Calif.
GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: Calif. Court Approves Overtime Suit Deal
JAI BHAVANI: Recalls Raisins with Undeclared Sulfites Content

NESTOR TRAFFIC: Faces Suits Over City of Akron's Speed Program
RAINBOW PLAY: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of 18,400 Swing Seats
ROSS STORES: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Managers' Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Reaches $215M Settlement in Ill. Securities Suit
SELECT FINANCIAL: Standby Letters Investors Pursue Legal Action

SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Privacy Laws Violation Suit in Ken. Court
TIVO INC: Faces Consumer Suit in Calif. Over Gift Subscriptions
TOTAL HEALTH: Employees File Labor Lawsuit in Common Pleas Court
UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Partners Indicted Over Kickbacks
U.S. POSTAL: Court Refuses to Hear Suit Over 2001 Anthrax Attack

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in R.I. for Revealing Phone Records
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Residents File Wiretapping Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
CHINA ENERGY: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
CHINA ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

CHINA ENERGY: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
ESCALA GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: June Deadline Set to File for Lead Plaintiff
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in Minn.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Spector, Roseman Files Calif. Stock Suit


                            *********


AIRGATE PCS: Ga. Court Allows Specific Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ruling on AirGate PCS, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action against it, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia stated that
the plaintiffs' case could proceed only as to claims under
Sections 11 and 15 and only as to the network build-out claim.

In May 2002, putative class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against:

      -- AirGate PCS, Inc., Thomas M. Dougherty, Barbara L.
         Blackford, and Alan B. Catherall (the AirGate
         defendants), and

      -- Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, UBS
         Warburg LLC, William Blair & Company, Thomas Wiesel
         Partners LLC and TD Securities (the underwriter
         defendants).

The complaints alleged that the prospectus used in connection
with the secondary offering of AirGate stock by certain former
stockholders of iPCS, a former subsidiary of AirGate, on Dec.
18, 2001 contained materially false and misleading statements
and omitted material information necessary to make the
statements in the prospectus not false and misleading.  After
initially denying motions for appointment of lead plaintiffs and
lead plaintiffs' counsel, the Court granted a modified renewed
motion for appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs'
counsel on Aug. 17, 2004.  Pursuant to a consent scheduling
order, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on Oct. 15, 2004, naming the same defendants (the
Consolidated Complaint).

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on a number
of purported false or misleading statements in the prospectus.  
Plaintiffs' claims are premised on allegations, among others,
that:

      -- AirGate's business plan was not "fully funded,"
         contrary to what was asserted in the prospectus;

      -- disclosures in the prospectus regarding the churn rate
         experienced by AirGate were untrue and/or misleading;

      -- AirGate did not have strong future revenue and profit
         growth prospects based on its rapid customer growth,
         contrary to what was allegedly asserted in the
         prospectus;

      -- AirGate's allowance for doubtful accounts was
         understated in its fiscal 2001 financial statements,
         and hence AirGate understated its net losses for 2001
         and the prospectus incorrectly stated that AirGate's
         financial statements complied with generally accepted
         accounting principles;

      -- iPCS's network build-out was not nearly complete,
         contrary to what was allegedly asserted in the
         prospectus; and

      -- the iPCS merger did not significantly enhance
         shareholder value, contrary to alleged assertions in
         the prospectus.

On Dec. 30, 2004, the AirGate Defendants and the underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On Sept. 30, 2005, the court issued an opinion and order (the
Order) ruling on these motions.  

The order dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act, and also dismissed the remaining Section 11
and Section 15 claims as to five of the six alleged
misstatements pled in the consolidated complaint, while
declining to dismiss the claims related to allegation concerning
the iPCS network build-out.

The order permitted plaintiffs to file a further amended
complaint, which plaintiffs did on Oct. 19, 2005 (the second
amended complaint).  The second amended Complaint repeats the
allegations of the consolidated complaint, and adds certain
additional allegations regarding the underwriter defendants and
regarding plaintiffs' "allowance for doubtful accounts" claim.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the AirGate defendants and the underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court ruled on these motions in an opinion
and order that effectively reaffirmed the prior order, holding
that plaintiffs' case could proceed only as to claims under
Sections 11 and 15 and only as to the network build-out claim.

The suit is "In re AirGate PCS, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-01291-JOF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Andrew Bain and Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood
         Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900,
         Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com and
         mdc@classlaw.com; and

     (2) Howard K. Coates, Jr. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton,
         FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000.

Representing the company are Tracy Cobb Braintwain and B. Warren
Pope of King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA
30303-1763, Phone: 404-572-2714 and 404-572-4600, E-mail:
tbraintwain@kslaw.com and wpope@kslaw.com.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: July Trial Set for Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Northern Division
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $15.050 million
settlement of Allegheny Energy Securities Litigation on Jul. 14,
2006, 11:00 a.m.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc. between Apr.
23, 2001 and Oct. 8, 2002, inclusive.  The class includes all
persons or entities who purchased Allegheny Energy Common Stock
(CUSIP Number AYE017361106) and/or Allegheny Energy 7.75% notes
due 8/1/05 (Cusip Number 017361aa4), and all persons or entities
who Purchased call options or sold put options on Allegheny
Energy Common stock, during the class period.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Andre M. Davis in
the U.S. District Court, Garmatz Federal Courthouse, Suite 4415,
101 West Lombard St., Baltimore, MD 21201.  Deadline to submit
proof of claim is Aug. 14, 2006.  Deadline to file for exclusion
is Jun. 26, 2006.  Objections must be filed by Jun. 30, 2006.

To receive the full printed notice of pendency of class action
and proposed settlement, motion for attorneys' fees and
settlement fairness hearing and a proof of claim form, contact:

Allegheny Energy Securities Litigation, c/o Archway Claims
Administration, 28220 Industry Drive, Valencia, CA 91355, Phone:
(800) 903-9994, E-mail: http://www.alleghenysettlement.com.

For more information, contact:

     (1) Deborah R. Gross, Esq. of the law Offices Bernard M.
         Gross, P.C. 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450,
         Philadelphia, PA  19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600, or

     (2) Robert A. Wallner, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad      
         & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY   
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300           

From October 2002 through December 2002, plaintiffs claiming to
represent purchasers of the company's securities filed 14
putative class actions against the company and several of its
former senior managers in U.S. District Courts for the Southern
District of New York and the District of Maryland.  

The complaints alleged that the company and senior management
violated federal securities laws when the company purchased
Merrill Lynch's energy marketing and trading business with the
knowledge that the business was built on illegal wash or round-
trip trades with Enron, which the complaints alleged
artificially inflated trading revenue, volume and growth.  The
complaints asserted that the company's fortunes fell when  
Enron's collapse exposed what plaintiffs claim were illegal
trades in the energy markets. All of the securities cases were
transferred to the District of Maryland and consolidated.

The suit is styled "In re: v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., Securities  
Litigation, case no. 1:03-md-01518-AMD," filed in the United  
States District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge  
Andre M. Davis.  Representing the company is William J. Snipes,  
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-
2498, Phone: 12125584000, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:  
snipesw@sullcrom.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and  
         Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         12125454600, Fax: 12125454653

     (2) Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman  
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz 49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-
         0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E-mail:  
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com  

     (3) Mark C. Gardy, Abbey Gardy LLP, 212 E 39th St., New  
         York, NY 10016, Phone: 12128893700  

     (4) Deborah R. Gross, Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC  
         John Wanamaker Bldg Ste 450, Juniper and Market Sts,  
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 12155613600, Fax:  
         12155613000, E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com    
  
     (5) John Bucher Isbister, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP, 100 E  
         Pratt St 26th Fl, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:  
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:  
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com   


AMERICAN CORRECTIVE: Consumers Allege Abusive Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
At least six class actions covering consumers in 13 states are
currently pending over alleged mistreatment by check diversion
companies, Deepek Gupta, a staff attorney for Public Citizen's
Litigation group said, according to the Courant.com.  Most
notable of these check diversion companies is California-based
American Corrective Counseling Services Inc., the report said.

Check diversion companies are private, for-profit debt
collectors working with prosecutors to collect returned checks.  
Several state and local prosecutors across the country are using
check diversion companies to operate restitution programs aimed
at reducing bounced checks.

But Public Citizen and the National Consumer Law Center have
reported to the media and to Congress that some check diversion
companies are engaging in abusive and deceptive collection
practices.  They say consumers are deprived of a fair chance to
address problems in their bounced check before being sent
threatening letters and assessed excessively high fees.

Meanwhile, a legislation to exempt check diversion companies
from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has already been
approved Congress, and is now being considered by the Senate.  
The legislation stands to grant check diversion companies the
same exemption prosecutors get under the federal debt collection
law.


ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County granted class
status to an employment related lawsuit against Anthropologie,
Inc., a subsidiary of Urban Outfitters, Inc.

On Mar. 26, 2004, an employee filed the suit seeking class-
action status, unspecified monetary damages and equitable
relief.  The complaint alleges that, under California law, the
plaintiff and certain other employees were misclassified as
employees exempt from overtime and seeks recovery of unpaid
wages, penalties and damages.

On Oct. 6, 2005, the Superior Court granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.


ARIZONA: Judge Refuses Request to Temporarily Prohibit AIMS Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth Fields of Maricopa County Superior Court has
refused a request for a temporary restraining order against the
enforcement of the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards
(AIMS) to graduating high school students, Associated Press
reports.  He has scheduled a hearing on Jul. 5 and 6 on a
request for a preliminary injunction.

Advocacy groups, The William E. Morris Institute for Justice,
and the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest and
Phoenix attorney Jeremy Butler filed the suit on behalf of two
seniors who are expected to have met all graduation requirements
by May, except for passing the AIMS test.  Defendants are
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, along
with the state and the Arizona Board of Education (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 21, 2006).

The suit is "Espinoza v. State of Arizona" after Perla Espinoza
of Nogales High School.  The other plaintiff is Hannah Gonzales
of Scottsdale's Coronado High School.  The lawsuit alleges that
because inadequate funding for schools students are not prepared
well for the test.  It calls the state's educational funding
system "arbitrary" and not based on educational needs.

The suit wants high school seniors, who completed their required
course work but did not pass the statewide AIMS test, to earn
their diplomas.  The AIMS tests students in reading, writing and
math.  The graduating class of 2006 is the first in the state's
history that must pass all three parts of the test to graduate.

Ellen Katz, litigation director for the Morris Institute for
Justice, is the lead attorney on the case.  The legal team also
includes Tim Hogan of the Center for Law in the Public Interest,
lead attorney in the English learner litigation, according to
the Tribune.

The William E. Morris Institute for Justice on the Net:
http://www.azji.org/;The Arizona Center for Law in the Public  
Interest on the Net: http://www.aclpi.org/.


ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Settles Remaining Claims in Tex. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascendant Solutions, Inc. settled for a confidential amount the
remaining individual claims in the consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, which was filed against it and certain of its directors,
and a limited partnership of which a director is a partner.

Between Jan. 23, 2001 and Feb. 21, 2001, five putative class
actions were filed against the company.  The suits assert causes
of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of a putative class of individuals who
purchased the company's common stock between various periods
from Nov. 11, 1999 to Jan. 24, 2000.  It also claim that the
company and the individual defendants made misstatements and
omissions concerning its products and customers.

In April 2001, the Court consolidated the lawsuits, and on Jul.
26, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
or about Sept. 9, 2002.  On Jul. 22, 2003, the court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  On
September 2, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs then commenced discovery.  On Sept. 12, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on Feb.
17, 2004, the company filed the company's opposition.

On Jul. 1, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
certification.  On Sept. 8, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit granted plaintiffs' petition for permission to
appeal the denial of class certification.

On Aug. 23, 2005, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of class certification.  The company settled the
lead plaintiffs' remaining individual claims for a confidential
amount, which was paid by the company's directors' and officers'
insurance carrier.  Accordingly, the district court entered a
final judgment dismissing the claims with prejudice on Feb. 24,
2006.

The suit is "Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-00166," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, under Judge David C Godbey.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) W. Kelly Puls of Puls Taylor & Woodson, 2600 Airport
         Frwy, Fort Worth, TX 76111, Phone: 817/338-1717, Fax:
         817/338-1416, E-mail: kpuls@ptwlaw.com;

     (2) Jeffrey S. Abraham, 60 East 42nd St., Suite 4700, New
         York, NY, 10165, Phone: 212-692-0555;

     (3) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310-209-2468, Fax: 310-209-
         2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (4) Weiss & Yourman, (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212-682-3025, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com.

Representing the company is Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, Austin, 300 W Sixth St., Suite 2100,
Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512/499-6250, Fax: 512/499-6290, E-
mail: pbessette@akingump.com.


AT&T INC: Journalists File Privacy Rights Violation Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin attorney R. James George of George & Brothers, LLP filed
on May 18 a class action against AT&T Inc.  The suit is
"Harrington et al. v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00374-LY,"
filed in the local division of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.

The suit was filed on behalf of Texas subscribers or customers
who have had telephone records divulged by AT&T to the National
Security Agency (NSA) and includes subclasses of journalists,
reporters, newspaper editors, and lawyers, all of whom are duty-
bound to maintain confidentiality with respect to their sources
and clients.

One of the lead plaintiffs, attorney Richard A. Grigg, currently
represents an individual detained in the U.S. Government's
detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Though he may not
communicate with his client over the phone, Mr. Grigg uses AT&T
telecommunications equipment and services to communicate with
other habeas attorneys concerning his client and his client's
case.

For a copy of the complaint, contact Eric Wetzel at 512-474-7514
or eric@shipleyassociates.net.  

Representing the plaintiffs are D. Douglas Brothers and R. James
George, Jr., George & Brothers, 1100 Norwood Tower, 114 West 7th
Street, Suite 1100, Austin, TX 78701, Phone: (512) 476-0237 and  
(512) 495-1400, Fax: 512/499-0094, E-mail:
dbrothers@georgeandbrothers.com and
rjgeorge@georgeandbrothers.com


AUSTRALIA: Church to Borrow for $4M Sexual Abuse Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Australia's Anglican Church plans to finance the
settlement of a sexual abuse suit filed against a former youth
worker through borrowings, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Earlier this year, the church reached a deal to pay $4 million
in compensation to 36 victims of former youth worker Robert
Brandenburg.  Under the deal, some claimants stand to receive up
to $100,000 each.  Some compensation had already been paid to
some victims but there are still some left unpaid, according to
South Australia's Anglican Archbishop Jeffrey Driver.  The
church will detail plans on how to pay the remaining claimants
to the Anglican Synod in October.  

The plan "probably will include some element of borrowing over
the next number of years," he said.  The costs of paying the
compensation would be spread across the Adelaide diocese,
according to him.

Mr. Brandenburg is chief commissioner of the former Church of
England Boys Society in the 1990s.  He admitted committing a
number of child sex crimes but committed suicide the same day he
was due to appear in court in mid-1999.


BEA SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Suits Over Plumtree Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bea Systems, Inc., Plumtree Software, Inc., which the company
acquired in August 2005, and Plumtree's board of directors are
defendants in two similar class actions opposing the Plumtree
acquisition.

On Aug. 23, 2005, a class action entitled "Globis Partners, L.P.
v. Plumtree Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1577-N," was filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.  The suit alleges, among other claims, that the
consideration to be paid in the proposed acquisition of Plumtree
by the company is unfair and inadequate.  It seeks an injunction
barring consummation of the merger and, in the event that the
merger is consummated, a rescission of the merger and an
unspecified amount of damages.

On Aug. 24, 2005, a class action entitled "Keitel v. Plumtree
Software, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC 05-444355" was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.  The complaint names Plumtree and all member of
Plumtree's board of directors as defendants alleging similar
complaints and seeking similar damages as the class action
brought by Globis Partners, L.P.  

In the Keitel Action, plaintiffs sought an injunction against
completion of the merger.  That motion was denied and the case
is now stayed.  The Globis Action was inactive since the merger
closed, however, there can be no assurance that the company will
be able to achieve a favorable resolution.


BIG LOTS: Facing FLSA Violations Litigations in Three States
------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. is defendant in purported class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura and
in federal courts in Texas and Louisiana, which are alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In November 2004, the company was served a civil complaint
wherein it was alleged that the company violated the FLSA
regulations by misclassifying as exempt employees its furniture
department managers, sales managers, and assistant managers.  

The suit was filed as a putative collective action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana
Division.

A similar action was filed at the end of November 2004, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
suit was also filed as a putative collective action alleging
that the company violated FLSA by misclassifying assistant
managers as exempt.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking to recover, on behalf
of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly
situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jul. 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for the company since
Nov. 23, 2001.  As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit
was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to
opt-in to the lawsuit.  

On Aug. 8, 2005, the District Court in Texas issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all current and former
employees who worked for the company as a furniture department
manager at any time between Nov. 2, 2001, and Oct. 1, 2003.  As
a result of that order, notice was sent to approximately 1,300
individuals who had the right to opt-in to the lawsuit.

The Texas case will include furniture department managers only,
whereas the Louisiana case will include only assistant store
managers.  

While the original period to opt-in to the lawsuits has passed,
the period is expected to be extended for certain individuals
based on several factors, the most significant of which is the
impact that the hurricanes of 2005 had on mail delivery in
certain areas of the Gulf Coast states.

Until such time as the opt-in period has fully lapsed, the
company will be unable to determine the number of individuals
that will be included in each lawsuit.  

As of Jan. 28, 2006, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined
the Louisiana case, and approximately 300 individuals had joined
the Texas case.  

The company has the right to file a motion seeking to decertify
the classes after discovery has been conducted.  Pending
discovery on the plaintiffs' claims, the company cannot make a
determination as to the probability of a loss contingency
resulting from either of these lawsuits or the estimated range
of possible loss, if any.

Additionally, the company is also a defendant in purported class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Ventura, which is also alleging violations of FLSA.

On Oct. 13, 2005, the company was served a civil complaint
wherein it was alleged that the company violated certain
California wage and hour laws.  The plaintiff is seeking to
recover, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid wages and
rest and meal period compensation, as well as penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and costs.

The Texas case is "Hanks, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case
No. 5:04-cv-00238-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with
referral to Judge Caroline Craven.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Michael Andrew Josephson of Fibich Hampton Leebron & Garth,
1401 McKinney, Suite 1800, Houston, TX 77010, Phone: 713/751-
0025, Fax: 17137510030, E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com.

Representing the defendant is Paul E. Hash of Jackson Lewis -
Dallas, 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75219,
Phone: 214/520-2400, Fax: 12145202008, E-mail:
hashp@jacksonlewis.com.

The Louisiana case is "Johnson, et al v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance
with referral to Judge Sally Shushan.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Philip Bohrer of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
Hwy., Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925-5297, E-
mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Dominic J. Ovella of Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box
8288, Suite 1400, Metairie, LA 70011-8288, Phone: 504-836-6500,
E-mail: novella@hmhlp.com.


CALIFORNIA: Baseball Team Faces Sex, Age Discrimination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles psychologist is suing the Angels baseball team for
alleged sex and age discrimination after being denied a tote bag
giveaway during a Mother's Day promotion.

Michael Cohn filed the suit on May 4 in Orange County Superior
Court, the Los Angeles Times reported.  It alleges thousands of
males and fans under age 18 were treated unequally with women at
a "Family Sunday" promotion.  It is seeking $4,000 in damages
for each person whose civil rights were allegedly violated by
being denied the giveaway granted to women more than 18 years of
age.

The suit names as plaintiff the team and the Corinthian
Colleges.  Corinthian oversees Bryman College, which has an
Anaheim campus and sponsored the event.

Mr. Cohn's is represented by San Diego-based lawyer Alfred Rava.


CARGILL INC: Asks Fla. Court to Dismiss Water Pollution Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cargill Inc. asked the Circuit Court Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
for Hillsborough County, Florida to dismiss the amended class
action filed against it, arising out of the sudden release of
phosphoric acid process water from the Riverview, Florida
phosphogypsum management system.

The suit, filed on Sept. 23, 2004, contains four counts,
including statutory strict liability, common law strict
liability, common law public nuisance, and negligence.  The
strict liability counts relate to the discharge of pollutants or
hazardous substances.  

Plaintiffs seek class certification and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a class of unknown size
comprising "all fishermen and those persons engaged in the
commercial catch and sale of fish, bait, and related products in
the Tampa Bay area who lost income and suffered damages because
of the pollution, contamination and discharge of hazardous
substances by the defendant."

The motion to dismiss the statutory strict liability counts was
granted in November 2005.  The company's other motions to
dismiss the action were denied.  

The plaintiffs amended their complaint.  The amended complaint
is substantially similar to the original complaint and the
company responded with an additional motion to dismiss.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Employment-Related Lawsuits in Three States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is defendant in three purported class
actions in various state courts in California, Oregon ad
Washington, which are all alleging that employees failed to
receive meal period breaks and paid rest periods as required by
law.  

In 2003, a former employee who alleged that employees did not
properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods
served the company with a lawsuit in California state court.  He
also alleged other wage and hourly violations.  The suit
requested that the California state court certify the case as a
class action.

This suit was dismissed with prejudice in May 2005, and the
dismissal has been appealed.  In May 2005, a new suit alleging
similar claims was filed in California.  

In 2005, former employees in Oregon who allege that they did not
properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods
served the company with a lawsuit.  They also allege other wage
and hour violations.  The plaintiffs requested the Oregon state
court to certify the case as a class action.

In 2006, former employees in Washington who allege that they did
not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods served the company with a lawsuit.  They also allege
other wage and hour violations.  The plaintiffs requested the
Washington state court to certify the case as a class action.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Mediation Ordered for Securities Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action against
Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors participate into non-binding mediation in
an attempt to settle the case, which remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

In the second quarter of 2004, eight lawsuits were filed in the
between Dec. 24, 2003 and Jan. 26, 2004, alleging federal
securities law causes of action against the company and various
current and former officers and directors.  The cases were filed
as class actions brought on behalf of persons who purchased
shares of company common stock in the open market generally
during the period of Jan. 14, 2003 through Dec. 18, 2003.

Under the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, the court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff in the matter.  An amended complaint was filed on Jun.
30, 2004, asserting a class period of Nov. 27, 2002 to Dec. 19,
2003 and naming additional defendants, including Ernst & Young
LLP, the company's prior auditors.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action and
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a),
20(A) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act by publishing
materially misleading financial statements that did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of company stock.  

After the company filed its Form 10-K for fiscal 2003 on Jul.
30, 2004, the procedural schedule was amended so that plaintiffs
had until 30 days after the company was current in its filings
to file an amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in September 2004.

The company filed a motion to dismiss all or some of the claims
in October 2004.  The non-evidentiary oral argument was held on
May 13, 2005.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of the former officers
from the case.  The Court dismissed the claims against one
former officer and Ernst & Young, LLP, but denied the motions to
dismiss of the company and two current officers who were
defendants.

The company and those two officers filed a motion to reconsider
the order and/or motion for leave to conduct an interlocutory
appeal from the denial of their motions to dismiss.  The court
has not ruled on this motion.  In the meantime, the company and
the two current officers/directors filed an answer on Sept. 30,
2005.

The parties agreed to mediate the case and the court gave the
parties leave to participate in non-binding mediation.

The suit is "Simons v. Dynacq Healthcare, et al., Case No. 4:03-
cv-05825," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Souethrn
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore C. Anderson of Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC, 3109
         Carlisle, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214-969-9099,
         Fax: 214-953-0133;

     (2) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (3) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter, LLP, 830 Apollo
         Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-
         907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com;

     (4) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main
         Street, 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:
         jirvine@porterhedges.com;

     (5) Andrew J. Mytelka of Greer Herz & Adams, One Moody
         Plz., 18th Fl., Galveston, TX 77550, Phone: 409-797-
         3200, Fax: 409-766-6424;

     (6) Andrew M. Schatz of Schatz & Noble, PC, 20 Church St.,
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292;

     (7) David R. Scott of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave., P.O.
         Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,
         Fax: 860-537-4432; and

     (8) Andy Wade Tindel of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 112
         E. Line St., Ste. 304, Tyler, TX 75702, Phone: 903-596-
         0900, Fax: 903-596-0909, E-mail:
         atindel@andytindel.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark K. Glasser of King & Spalding, 1100 Louisiana,
         Ste. 4000, Houston, TX 77002-5213, Phone: 713-751-3200,
         Fax: 713-751-3290; and  

    (ii) John Alexander Irvine of Porter & Hedges, 1000 Main
         St., 36th Floor, Houston, TX 77002-6336, Phone: 713-
         226-6000, Fax: 713-228-1331, E-mail:
         jirvine@porterhedges.com.


ENTROPIN INC: Appeals Court Revives $20M Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th District State Appellate Court ruled May 10 that a $20
million class action against Entropin Inc. should go to trial,
reversing a decision by a county judge, The Press Enterprise
reports.

The appeals court said securities fraud suit filed against the
company in Indio, California in 2003 was wrongly dismissed.  In
2004, a Riverside County judge dismissed the suit after ruling
that statements made on the company's Web site were a warning to
investors and the statute of limitations to file a complaint
following the warning had expired.

The suit against Entropin and its executives alleges the company
projected a better image of the company than what is real by
failing to disclose unsuccessful tests for its cocaine-based
pain reliever prior to a 2000 public offering.  The drug failed
tests required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Meanwhile, a $16 million federal case alleging almost similar
claims against the company is set for trial Jul. 25, 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
Los Angeles.  The suits name as defendants former Chairman of
the Board Higgins D. Bailey and former Chief Executive Officer
Thomas G. Tachovsky.

Plaintiff's lawyer in the state class action filed in 2003 is
Laurence Rosen.

Based in Bradenton, Florida, Entropin -- http://www.entropin.com
-- is a development stage company that operates as a
pharmaceutical research and development company.  It primarily
develops ENT-103 compounds, which is in preclinical stage for
pain therapy.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Appeal Dropped in Minn. Stock Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Gander Mountain Co. has voluntarily dropped an appeal against
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's decision
to dismiss their case.

The company and certain of its present and former directors and
executive officers were named as defendants in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, entitled, "In re Gander Mountain Company Securities
Litigation," alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The action arose from the consolidation of six virtually
identical actions, which were filed between Jan. 28, 2005 and
Mar. 4, 2005.  

The lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action
complaint on Aug. 9, 2005, on behalf of themselves and all
persons (except defendants) who purchased stock in the company's
initial public offering on Apr. 20, 2004, or in the open market
between Apr. 21, 2004, and Jan. 4, 2005.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company's company, and
the company's business in the registration statement and
prospectus for the company's initial public offering, and in
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
press releases issued thereafter, and that the market price of
the company's stock was artificially inflated as a result.  They
also alleged claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

On Jan. 19, 2006, judgment was entered granting the company's
motion to dismiss the securities class action with prejudice.
The plaintiffs timely filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

On Mar. 31, 2006, the lead plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of the proposed class, filed a voluntary dismissal of the
appeal, which was entered by the court on Apr. 3, 2006, thus
terminating this case.  

In connection with the dismissal, the parties agreed to bear
their own costs and agreed not to seek attorneys' fees or costs
in connection with the litigation.

The suit is "In Re: Gander Mountain Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-00183-DWF-AJB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge
Donovan W. Frank with referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) David J. Goldsmith of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP,
         100 Park Ave., 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         202-907-0879, E-mail: dgoldsmith@labaton.com; and

     (3) John K. Grant of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-676-4409, E-mail:
         johng@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Timothy J. Becker of Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
4123, Phone: 612-341-0400, Fax: 612-341-0844, E-mail:
tjb@zimmreed.com.  

For more details, contact Shannon Burns, Director of Investor
Relations and Corporate Communications, Phone: +1-651-325-4337;
E-mail: Shannon.burns@gandermountain.com, Web site:
http://www.GanderMountain.com.


GEICO: Breach of Contract, Consumer Fraud Suit Trial Set May 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for insurer GEICO disputed arguments pushing for the
certification of a class action filed against it by clients.

In a response to a brief by plaintiff lawyer Robert Schmieder of
the Lakin firm, lawyer Joseph Brown insisted a plaintiff cannot
transform a breach of contract claim into consumer fraud, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.  Mr. Brown called on Madison
County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to decertify a class action
certified in 2003 or send the case to the Fifth District
appellate court in Mount Vernon.  

Arguments from both parties dealt on the effect of a Supreme
Court ruling on two earlier cases: the Avery vs. State Farm, a
Williamson County class action, and the Price case.

Mr. Schmieder told Judge Byron in an Apr. 5 brief that rulings
in the suits did not change the law.  Mr. Brown disagreed.  He
wrote that in the Avery requires each class member to prove
breach of contract, and both cases require each class member to
prove deception.  Under Price, he wrote, GEICO faces no
liability because it complied with directives of a government
agency.  Judge Byron has set a May 22, 2006 hearing on to decide
whether to decertify the suit.

The suit was filed in 2001 by Myron Billups, whose Pontiac Grand
Am crashed in 1998.  He was joined later by Patricia Singleton,
whose Cadillac was stolen and wrecked.  Jeff Millar of the Lakin
Law Firm in Wood River signed the complaint, which also listed
three Chicago firms and two attorneys from Marion (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 24, 2006).

The plaintiffs sought to represent drivers whose vehicles GEICO
had paid off as total losses.  Judge Byron certified their
representation in 2004, as well as a multi-state class on breach
of contract claims and an Illinois class on consumer fraud
claims.  In 2002, GEICO asked Judge Byron to postpone a decision
on a class certification pending the Supreme Court's ruling on
Avery.  In August, the Court ruled that Avery and the other
plaintiffs failed to prove deception or damages, throwing out a
verdict of more than $1 billion.

GEICO -- http://www.geico.com/-- is a personal lines auto  
insurance company based in the U.S.  GEICO stands for Government
Employees Insurance Company.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Sheila Carmody and Joshua Grabel of Snell & Wilmer
         L.L.P., One Arizona Center, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-
         2202, (Maricopa Co.), Phone: 602-382-6000, Fax: 602-
         382-6070; and

     (2) Joseph R. Brown, Jr. of Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld &
         Dawson, LLP, P.O. Box 539, Edwardsville, Illinois
         62025, (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-2321; Fax: 618-
         656-2363.

Representing the plaintiffs are Gerald R. Walters and Jeffrey
A.J. Millar of The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O.
Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0027, (Madison Co.), Phone:
618-254-1127; Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


GENESCO INC: Working to Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. is working to settle two overtime class actions
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County.

On Oct. 22, 2004, the company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles, styled, "Schreiner vs. Genesco Inc.,
et al.," alleging violations of California wages and hours laws,
and seeking damages of $40 million plus punitive damages.

On May 4, 2005, the company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to court
approval and other conditions.  

In connection with the proposed settlement, to provide for the
settlement payment to the plaintiff class and related expenses,
the company recognized a charge of $2.6 million before taxes
included in restructuring and other, net in the accompanying
Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the first quarter of
Fiscal 2006.

On May 25, 2005, a second putative class action, styled "Drake
vs. Genesco Inc., et al.," making allegations similar to those
in the Schreiner complaint on behalf of employees of the
company's Johnston & Murphy division, was filed by a different
plaintiff in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Schreiner court granted final approval of
the settlement and the company and the Drake plaintiff reached
an agreement on Nov. 17, 2005 to settle that action.

The two matters were resolved more favorably to the company than
originally expected, as not all members of the plaintiff class
in Schreiner submitted claims and because the court required
that plaintiff's counsel bear the administrative expenses of the
settlement.

Consequently, the company recognized income of $0.9 million
before tax, reflected in restructuring and other, net, in the
Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the third quarter of
Fiscal 2006.


GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: Calif. Court Approves Overtime Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Riverside County, California granted
preliminary approval to a settlement of a class action against
Gymboree Operations, Inc., which is alleging violations of the
state's overtime wage laws.

The suit was filed on Apr. 21,2005 on behalf of the manager of a
Gymboree store in Temecula, California, alleging that the
company failed to pay overtime wages and provide meal breaks.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, including interest and
penalties, under the California Labor Code and other statutes.
The complaint also seeks class action status on behalf of the
plaintiff and other managers of company stores in California.  

On May 20, 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying
the plaintiff's allegations.

As a result of mediation proceedings, the company entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding on Nov. 18, 2005 to fully
resolve all claims related to the lawsuit.

The settlement provides that the company will pay a total amount
of up to approximately $2.3 million, payable on a claims-made
basis, to fully resolve all claims related to the lawsuit.  

The settlement resulted in a charge of approximately $1.5
million after tax, which was recorded in the thirteen weeks
ended Oct. 29, 2005.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb.
8, 2006.  A final approval hearing is scheduled for the second
quarter of fiscal 2006.


JAI BHAVANI: Recalls Raisins with Undeclared Sulfites Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jai Bhavani Inc. is recalling its Bhavani Golden Raisins because
it may contain undeclared sulfites that poses risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions to people who have severe
sensitivity to it.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by food laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Bhavani Golden
Raisins in packages, which did not declare sulfites on the
label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recalled Bhavani Golden Raisins packed in 7 oz. uncoded
plastic bags, were sold to Akota Meat Market located in New York
City.

Consumers who have purchased Bhavani Golden Raisins should
return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 201-521-9070.


NESTOR TRAFFIC: Faces Suits Over City of Akron's Speed Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nestor, Inc., and the City of Akron are defendants in two
purported class actions that seeks to enjoin the city's speed
program and damages.

These cases, which were recently consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are:

      -- "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
          00139-DDD;" and

      -- "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD."

In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiff
brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified
amount against City of Akron and all of its city council members
in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and
state constitutional violations.  

The action was initially filed in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas and was later removed to federal court.  On Feb.
17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a joint
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on Mar. 24, 2006.  The judge made no
decision on that motion.  The judge stayed discovery, pending
the outcome of that motion.

In "Sipe," suit which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, plaintiffs
filed a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified
amount against the company, various past and present employees
of the company and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil
conspiracy, common plan to commit fraud, violations of the
Consumer Sales Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of
privacy, negligence, and federal constitutional violation.

The action was initially filed in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas and was later removed to federal court.  On Feb.
17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a joint
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on Mar. 24, 2006.  The judge has made
no decision on that motion.  The judge stayed discovery, pending
the outcome of that motion.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Mendenhall Plaintiff] Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Ste.
         201, 190 North Union Street, Akron, OH 44304, Phone:
         330-535-8160, Fax: 330-762-9743, E-mail:
         j.corgan@justice.com;  

     (2) [Sipe Plaintiff] Antoni Dalayanis, 5th Floor, 12 East
         Exchange Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-315-1060,
         Fax: 800-787-4089, E-mail: lawyer@bright.net.

     (3) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] Michael J. Defibaugh of
         City of Akron, Law Department, Ste. 202, 161 South High
         Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-375-2030, Fax: 330-
         375-2041, E-mail: defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us; and

     (4) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] Richard Gurbst and Donald
         W. Herbe of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 4900 Key Tower,
         127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-479-
         8607 and 216-479-8312, Fax: 216-479-8777, E-mail:
         rgurbst@ssd.com and dherbe@ssd.com.


RAINBOW PLAY: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of 18,400 Swing Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rainbow Play Systems Inc. of Brookings, South Dakota, and Super
Tech S. Corp. of Arcadia, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission are recalling about
18,400 sling swing seats.

The company said these swing seats can unexpectedly break in
half, causing the users to fall to the ground.

Rainbow has received 84 reports of broken swing seats, including
one report of an injury.  A 2-year-old girl suffered a broken
wrist when she fell to the ground after the sling swing
unexpectedly broke in half.

The recall involves sling swing seats sold as an accessory with
Carnival, Sunshine, and Rainbow Series residential play
structures manufactured by Rainbow Play Systems, Inc.  The seats
are about 25 inches in length and were sold in red, yellow, blue
and green with 64-inch yellow or green dipped chains.  The seats
have pointed ends with three black dots and black grommets.
Printed on the seat bottom is:

Warning
Improper installation maintenance, vandalism, or misuse can lead
to serious injury.

Play structures with the sling swings contain a metal plate on
the main beam with the writing, "Rainbow Play Systems Inc. 1-
800-RAINBOW."

These swing seats were manufactured in China and sold at Rainbow
distributors and dealers nationwide from July 2004 through
February 2005 as part of Carnival, Sunshine and Rainbow Series
play structures that cost between $1,500 and $2,000, or about
$50 to $60 for the swing seat when purchased as a stand alone
accessory.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these sling
swings and contact Rainbow Play Systems, Inc. or return them to
their place of purchase for a free replacement swing.  Rainbow
has contacted consumers directly who purchased the recalled
sling swing seats.  Consumers who have already had their swing
seats replaced by Rainbow are not affected by this recall.

Pictures of the recalled swing seats:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06166a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06166b.jpg

For more information, contact Rainbow Play Systems at (800) 724-
6269 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit Rainbow's Web site at http://www.rainbowplay.com


ROSS STORES: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Managers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action
pending in California's Orange County Superior Court regarding
employee payroll and wage claims.  

The court recently certified a class in the case, which involves
whether the company's assistant store managers in California are
correctly classified as exempt managers under California Wage
Orders.  

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com-- and its  
subsidiaries operate two chains of off-price retail apparel and
home accessories stores in the U.S.  Its stores offer branded
apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for men and
women between the ages of 25 and 54, as well as gift items,
linens, and other home related merchandise.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Reaches $215M Settlement in Ill. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sears
Holdings Corp. (SHLD), reached a preliminary agreement to settle
a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Sears, Roebuck
securities from Oct. 24, 2001 through and including Oct. 14,
2002.

The suit, "In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Securities Litigation,
No. 02 C 07527," had been pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  The litigation concerned
statements made by Sears Roebuck concerning its credit card
business during the class period. Sears, Roebuck sold that
business in November 2003.

"As we move forward, Sears Holdings believes it is important to
put this matter behind us so that we can continue to focus on
building a great retail company," said Aylwin Lewis, chief
executive officer and president of Sears Holdings.

Under the settlement, Sears, Roebuck is required to make a
payment of $215 million.  The company has made claims under
relevant insurance policies, and expects that, after giving
effect to anticipated insurance proceeds, the cash payment for
settlement by Sears, Roebuck will be approximately $85 million
on a pre-tax basis.  Because Sears Holdings had established a
reserve for the expected settlement by Sears, Roebuck, the
settlement is not expected to have an effect on earnings.  The
settlement is subject to judicial approval.

In agreeing to the settlement, the company did not admit any
wrongdoing and denies committing any violation of law.  The
company agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the
uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted
litigation.

The settlement will resolve all claims asserted concerning the
credit card business disclosures, other than claims asserted
under Employee Retirement Income Security Act or relating to
SRAC notes, which are described in Sears Holdings' Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2006.

Public notices detailing the settlement and providing more
information will be printed in major newspapers across the U.S.
and in a notice to be distributed to class members after
approval of the court.

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com-- is the  
nation's third largest broadline retailer, with approximately
$55 billion in annual revenues, and with approximately 3,900
full-line and specialty retail stores in the U.S. and Canada.


SELECT FINANCIAL: Standby Letters Investors Pursue Legal Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary citizens in Hamilton, Canada who lost money through an
investment in a fraudulent limited partnership in the early
1990s are continuing their effort to recover their cash through
the court.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against financial planner Bob Adams and
other defendants, including Select Financial Services Inc. of
Cambridge, Ontario, are back in court in a bid to have their
suit certified as class action, the Hamilton Spectator reports.  
They are among the more than 100 clients who invested money into
limited partnership Standby Letters of Credit.  

Standby Letters promised that for every $100,000 of investment,
investors would receive annual returns of more than $12,000,
according to the suit.  But the returns did not materialize and
the money disappeared, leaving clients at a loss, individually,
for between $25,000 to as much as $200,000.  Mr. Adams, himself,
declared personal bankruptcy in 2000.  He has not been charged
with crime.

The plaintiffs are seeking $51 million in damages for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and loss of
opportunity in their original complaint filed eight years ago.

Also named as defendant in the suit is Toronto lawyer Robert
Adourian.

Select Financial is represented by Boyd Balogh of Gowling
Lafleur Henderson LLP, 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 1600, 100
King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5X 1G5 (City of Toronto),
Phone: 416-862-7525, Fax: 416-862-7661.  Investors are
represented by Matthew Moloci of Scarfone Hawkins
(http://www.classactionlaw.ca/mainpage.html).  


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Privacy Laws Violation Suit in Ken. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mason Law Firm, P.C. filed a class action against Sprint
Nextel Corp. on behalf of millions of residential telephone or
Internet customers in the U.S.  The suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The complaint alleges that the National Security Agency (NSA)
began a classified surveillance program shortly after Sept. 11,
2001, to intercept the telephone and Internet communications of
persons inside the U.S. without judicial authorization, a
program that continues to this day.

A statement from Mason Law Firm said that the U.S. President has
stated that he authorized the program in 2001, that he has
reauthorized the program more than 30 times since its inception,
and that he intends to continue doing so.  As part of this data-
mining program, the NSA intercepts millions of communications
made or received by people inside the U.S., and uses powerful
computers to scan their contents for particular names, numbers,
words or phrases.

According to the statement, the Attorney General has admitted
that, absent additional authority from congress, the electronic
surveillance conducted by the Program requires a court order
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  The
President and other government officials have admitted that the
NSA does not seek judicial review of the program's interceptions
before or after the surveillance, whether by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court or any other court, the
statement said.

In addition, it said that on Feb. 9, 2006, U.S. Senators Russell
Feingold and Edward Kennedy sent a letter to Sprint and other
telecommunications companies requesting information regarding
Sprint's participation in the NSA's domestic surveillance
program.  The letter requested a reply by Feb. 17, 2006.  To
date, Sprint has declined to say whether NSA has approached it
or how it might have responded.  On May 11, 2006, USA Today
newspaper identified Sprint as one of the telecommunications
companies cooperating with the NSA.

The named plaintiff in the filing claims that in violation of
the Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, Sprint provided customer
records to the government.  The Privacy Act bars the telephone
carriers from turning over information about calls except in
extremely limited circumstances.  The suit seeks the minimum
penalty of $1,000 for each person whose information was
compromised.

"Private telephone companies should be held responsible for
violating the privacy of ordinary Americans," said Gary E.
Mason, the attorney for the plaintiff.  "Violations of privacy
rights can be vindicated without compromising national security.  
In providing phone records to the NSA, Sprint either complied
with the applicable statutes or it did not."

The suit is "Suchanek v. Sprint Nextel Corp., Case No.
1:06-cv-00071-JHM-ERG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky under Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., with
referral to E. Robert Goebel.  Representing the plaintiff is:

     (1) Alexander Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, PC, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632, New York, NY 10119
         U.S., Phone: 212-362-5770, Fax: 917-591-5227, E-mail:
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com;

     (2) Andrew Kierstead, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
         Portland, OR 97204, Phone: 508-224-6246, Fax: 508-224-
         4356;

     (3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, PC, 1225 19th  
         Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20038 U.S.,
         Phone: 202-429-2290, Fax: 202-429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;

     (4) Peter N. Wasylyk, 1307 Chalkstone Avenue, Providence,   
         RI 02908, Phone: 401-831-7730, Fax: 401-861-6064; and

     (5) John C. Whitfield, Whitfield & Cox PSC, 29 E. Center
         Street, Madisonville, KY 42431, Phone: 270-821-0656,
         Fax: 270-825-1163, E-mail: jcw@vci.net.


TIVO INC: Faces Consumer Suit in Calif. Over Gift Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. is defendant in a consumer class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco on Dec. 22, 2005 in relation to gift subscriptions
that it sold.

The action, "Nolz, et al. v. TiVo, Inc.," was brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's gift
subscriptions, which were allegedly sold to consumers in
violation of a California law that allegedly makes it unlawful
to sell gift certificates in California containing an expiration
date.

TiVo, Inc. -- http://www.tivo.com-- through its subsidiaries,  
provides technology and services for digital video recorders.  
The company offers a subscription-based television service that
enables consumers to record, watch, and control television.


TOTAL HEALTH: Employees File Labor Lawsuit in Common Pleas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of caregivers is suing Total Health Home Care Corp. for
alleged non-payment and underpayment for hours worked, the
Philadelphia Business Journal reports.

The home healthcare workers filed the suit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia.  They alleged the company is not
paying them for hours spent traveling between clients in
violation of a state law.  It also claims the company forfeits
some of their earnings through a wage practice that requires
them at least 38 hours of time with clients in a week, or else
their wage rate for all hours worked during that week will be
reduced to as little as the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.  The
workers claim the practice unjustly enriches Total Health at
their expense.

The case, which is seeking class-action status, is asking
hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation for current and
former workers, and an injunction that requires Total Health to
pay employees for future travel time.  


UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Partners Indicted Over Kickbacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York-based law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
and two of its name partners were indicted on May 18 by a
federal grand jury for allegedly participating in a scheme in
which several individuals were paid millions of dollars in
secret kickbacks in exchange for serving as named plaintiffs in
more than 150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200
million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20
years.

The 20-count indictment charges Milberg Weiss and two senior
partners, David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman, in a
conspiracy with several objects, including obstructing justice,
perjury, bribery and fraud.  The conspiracy count outlines a
scheme in which individuals received secret kickback payments to
serve, or cause friends and relatives to serve, as named
plaintiffs in lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss.

To conceal the illegal kickback scheme from judges presiding
over the lawsuits and other parties involved in the litigations,
the Milberg Weiss firm, Bershad and Schulman allegedly made, and
caused the paid plaintiffs to make, false and misleading
statements in documents and in under-oath depositions.

The indictment further alleges that the illegal kickbacks were
secretly paid by Milberg Weiss to the named plaintiffs through
various intermediary law firms and lawyers selected by the paid
plaintiffs.  The indictment states that three named plaintiffs
received at least $11.3 million in illegal kickbacks.

"This case is about protecting the integrity of the justice
system in America," said U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang.  "Class
action attorneys and named plaintiffs occupy positions of trust
in which they assume responsibility to tell the truth and to
disclose relevant information to the court.  This indictment
alleges a wholesale violation of this responsibility."

Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, 78, of Palm
Springs, who is alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and
received approximately $2.4 million in secret kickbacks, and
attorney Paul T. Selzer, 65, of Palm Springs, who is alleged to
have been one of the intermediary lawyers who laundered illegal
kickback payments for the benefit of Lazar.  Mr. Lazar and Mr.
Selzer were charged in an earlier version of the indictment
(see: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2005/096.html).

The indictment also names as co-conspirators two men -- Steven
G. Cooperman, 64, of Connecticut, and Howard J. Vogel, 61, of
Aventura, Florida -- who allegedly served as paid plaintiffs and
received, respectively, approximately $6.5 million and $2.5
million in secret kickbacks from Milberg Weiss.

Mr. Cooperman was convicted of insurance fraud and other crimes
in 1999 in an unrelated case, and he has been cooperating in the
government's ongoing investigation.  In a plea agreement filed
in federal court in Los Angeles on Apr. 28, Mr. Vogel agreed to
plead guilty to making a false declaration to a court and to
admit that he lied under oath to conceal the existence of the
secret kickback arrangement from a court presiding over one of
the class actions in which an entity controlled by Vogel served
as a plaintiff.

In connection with his anticipated guilty plea, Mr. Vogel has
agreed, among other things, to forfeit to the U.S. $2 million
and to cooperate in the government's ongoing investigation.

The indictment returned charges the Milberg Weiss law firm, Mr.
Bershad and Mr. Schulman with one count of conspiring:

     -- to obstruct justice;

     -- to make false declarations under oath in court
        proceedings;

     -- to travel in interstate commerce and use mail facilities
        to carry on commercial bribery;

     -- to commit mail and wire fraud; and

     -- to make illegal payments to a witness.

The indictment also charges those defendants with three
substantive counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiring to
commit money laundering and two criminal forfeiture counts.  Mr.
Bershad and Mr. Schulman are also charged with one count of
racketeering conspiracy with respect to conducting the affairs
of Milberg-Weiss, and one additional criminal forfeiture count.

Mr. Lazar is named as a defendant in the conspiracy count, the
racketeering conspiracy count, six substantive mail fraud
counts, the money laundering conspiracy count, four substantive
money laundering counts, three counts of subscribing to false
tax returns, one obstruction of justice count, and the three
criminal forfeiture counts.  Mr. Selzer is named as a defendant
in the money laundering conspiracy and substantive money
laundering counts, and in one of the criminal forfeiture counts.

Postal Inspector in Charge Oscar Villanueva said: "As the law
enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service, Postal Inspectors
ensure the protection of the American public from fraud schemes
being perpetrated through the U.S. Mail.  

"With this investigation and indictment it is our intent to send
a clear message to those who use or consider using the postal
system to commit fraud.  Whether you sit in the board room or
your home office, if you choose to betray the trust placed in
you, and defraud the American public, the Postal Inspection
Service will find you and bring you to justice."

IRS Criminal Investigation Acting Special Agent In Charge Kathy
Thornton said: "The conduct of senior partners at Milberg Weiss,
as alleged in the indictment, is an insult to the judicial
system established by our forefathers.  There is no place for
this type of behavior in the legal profession.  We hope that the
charges brought [Thurs]day will show attorneys and law firms
that are involved in criminal activity that they are not immune
from criminal prosecution."  

Mr. Bershad, 66, of Montclair, New Jersey, and Mr. Schulman, 54
of New York City, will be summoned to appear for an arraignment
in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles sometime in June.  Mr.
Lazar and Mr. Selzer are currently scheduled to go to trial on
Oct. 24, but in light of [the] superseding indictment that date
may change.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has
committed a crime.  Every defendant is presumed innocent until
and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The conspiracy count alleged in the indictment carries a maximum
possible penalty of five years in prison.  The racketeering
conspiracy carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  
The mail fraud counts carry a maximum penalty of five years in
prison.  The money laundering counts carry a maximum sentence of
20 years in prison.  The charge of subscribing to a false tax
return carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison.  The
charge of obstruction of justice carries a maximum penalty of 10
years in prison.

[Thurs]day's indictment is the result of an ongoing
investigation by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and IRS
Criminal Investigation.

For more information, contact Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard E.
Robinson, Phone: (213) 894-0713; or Assistant U.S. Attorney
Robert J. McGahan, Phone: (213) 894-5416.


U.S. POSTAL: Court Refuses to Hear Suit Over 2001 Anthrax Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court refused to revive suits filed by employees at
a mail center in Washington, D.C., who were exposed to anthrax
more than four years ago, according to Associated Press.

The suit filed against the U.S. Postal Office, the postmaster
general and local Postal Service managers contend that workers
at the Brentwood postal center were deliberately kept on the job
for four days after officials knew they had been exposed to
weapons-grade anthrax in letters sent to Capitol Hill.  
Additionally, the suits say that postal employees repeatedly
were told their workplace was safe, even though congressional
office buildings where the letters were received had closed
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2005).  

Dena Briscoe of Clinton, a former Brentwood clerk, is the lead
plaintiff in the class action.  Dale Wilcox, a lawyer with
Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan advocacy group is representing
postal workers and a support group called Brentwood Exposed
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2005).


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in R.I. for Revealing Phone Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island lawyers filed class actions against Verizon
Communications Inc., BellSouth Corp., and AT&T Corp. on May 15
over the companies' alleged participation in illegal
surveillance program by the government, the Providence Journal
reports.

Warwick lawyer Michael A. St. Pierre and Providence lawyer Amato
A. DeLuca filed a single complaint against Verizon and BellSouth
claiming the companies illegally handed phone and Internet
records to the National Security Agency.  The suit was filed on
behalf of 20 plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.  The
lead plaintiff is Charles F. Bissitt of North Providence.

On the same day, Providence lawyer Peter N. Wasylyk filed a
class action against Verizon and AT&T on behalf of plaintiff
Pamela A. Mahoney of Warwick, and other customers.

The suits asks damages of no less than $1,000 per violation,
plus punitive damages, and an injunction to stop the phone
companies from turning over any more records to the National
Security Agency without authorization.

Mr. Wasylyk and several law firms have also filed a class action
in Delaware on the same day, the report said.

The suit is "Bissit et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00220-S-LDA," filed in the U.S. District
Court of Rhode Island under Judge William E. Smith, with
referral to Judge Lincoln D. Almond.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Amato A. DeLuca of DeLuca & Weizenbaum, Ltd., 199 North
         Main Street, Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 453-1500,  
         Fax: 453-1501, E-mail: bud@delucaandweizenbaum.com;

     (2) Michael A. St. Pierre of Revens, Revens & St. Pierre,
         946 Centerville Road, Warwick, RI 02886, Phone: 822-
         2900 826-3245, Fax: mikesp@rrsplaw.com.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Residents File Wiretapping Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Long Island, New York residents filed a $100 million federal
lawsuit against Verizon Communications Inc. on May 16 over
alleged illegal release of customers' calling records to the
U.S. government's surveillance program, TCMnet reports.

Lawyer Michael O'Malley of the law firm Siben & Siben filed the
suit in federal court in Central Islip.  The suit is asking
class-action status for all Verizon customers, except terrorists
and certain other individuals, according to the report.  It
claims the company violated federal telecommunications laws, the
First and Fourth Amendments and New York State consumer
protection laws by releasing phone records to the National
Security Agency without a subpoena or search warrant.

Verizon has denied reports first revealed by USA Today saying it
and BellSouth Corp. and AT&T Corp. released calls records to the
NSA, which is tracking terrorist communications in the U.S.

For more information, contact Siben & Siben, LLP, 90 East Main
Street, Bay Shore, New York 11706-8340 (Suffolk Co.), Phone:
631-665-3400, Fax: 631-665-3557, Web Site: http://www.siben-
siben.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased American mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group (Parent company is defendant
American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from Jun. 30,
2000 through Jun. 8, 2005, inclusive.

During the class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

On Jun. 8, 2005, the NASD announced that it had fined AIG in
connection with the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange
for preferential treatment for certain mutual fund companies and
certain mutual fund families (the Shelf-Space Funds).

The Shelf-Space Funds included these mutual fund families: AIG
SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American Funds, American
Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford, John
Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life, Pioneer, Putnam,
Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM Funds Distributor, Inc.

The complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the
Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards
to AIG and its personnel based on sales.

Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to
investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined
recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited
number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap
millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds,
with which they had struck secret, highly lucrative deals to
profit at shareholders' expense.  

The defendants' sales practices created a material
insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and
their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to
sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants'
overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the
process.

While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the
defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives
for selling such funds.  The conflict of interest created by the
defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear
violation of federal securities laws.

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased Fidelity mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group (Parent company is defendant
American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from Jun. 30,
2000 through Jun. 8, 2005, inclusive.

During the class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of
these broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

On Jun. 8, 2005, the NASD announced that it had fined AIG in
connection with the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange
for preferential treatment for certain mutual fund companies and
certain mutual fund families (the Shelf-Space Funds).

The Shelf-Space Funds included these mutual fund families: AIG
SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American Funds, American
Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford, John
Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life, Pioneer, Putnam,
Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM Funds Distributor, Inc.

The complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the
Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards
to AIG and its personnel based on sales.

Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to
investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined
recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited
number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap
millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds,
with which they had struck secret, highly lucrative deals to
profit at shareholders' expense.  

The defendants' sales practices created a material
insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and
their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to
sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants'
overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the
process.

While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the
defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives
for selling such funds.  The conflict of interest created by the
defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear
violation of federal securities laws.

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased John Hancock
mutual funds from the AIG Advisor Group (Parent company is
defendant American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from
Jun. 30, 2000 through Jun. 8, 2005, inclusive.

During the class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of
these broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

On Jun. 8, 2005, the NASD announced that it had fined AIG in
connection with the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange
for preferential treatment for certain mutual fund companies and
certain mutual fund families (the Shelf-Space Funds).

The Shelf-Space Funds included these mutual fund families: AIG
SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American Funds, American
Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford, John
Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life, Pioneer, Putnam,
Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM Funds Distributor, Inc.

The complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the
Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards
to AIG and its personnel based on sales.

Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to
investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined
recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited
number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap
millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds,
with which they had struck secret, highly lucrative deals to
profit at shareholders' expense.  

The defendants' sales practices created a material
insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and
their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to
sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants'
overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the
process.

While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the
defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives
for selling such funds.  The conflict of interest created by the
defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear
violation of federal securities laws.

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


CHINA ENERGY: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. initiated a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of
securities of China Energy Services Technology, Inc. (CESV)
against China Energy and certain officers and directors for the
class period Apr. 21, 2005 through Feb. 15, 2006.

The complaint alleges that China Energy and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the company's management activities, sale of restricted stock
and other insider sales which violated the federal securities
laws.

As a result of these alleged violations, the price of securities
of China Energy was artificially inflated during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose that
the company and individual officers and directors allowed
company insiders to self-deal in the company's Jan. 2006 private
placement; that the company failed to comply with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and NASDAQ rules and
regulations regarding limitations on sales of restricted stock;
that the failure to comply with such rules and regulations would
result in trading of the company's stock being halted by the
NASDAQ; and that trading of China Energy stock was, indeed,
halted by the NASDAQ as of Feb. 15, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than sixty days from May 1, 2006
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman, Esq. of Kantrowitz,
Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Chestnut
Ridge, New York 10977, Phone: 1-800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570, E-
mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com, Web site: http://www.kgglaw.com.  


CHINA ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of China Energy Savings Technology, Inc.
(CESV) between Apr. 21, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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

Interested parties have until Jun. 30, 2006, in which to move
for Lead Plaintiff status.  

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. 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: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP initiated a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself
and a class of non-management stockholders who purchased stock
in China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV) from Apr. 21,
2005 through Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive.  

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial performance, including with regard to the company's
recent $50 million private placement.  As a result, the price of
the company's securities was inflated during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges, that on Jan. 17, 2006, the company
announced an underwriting agreement to raise $50 million through
a private placement of company stock.  The very same day, China
Energy announced that defendant Sun Li resigned as chairman and
chief executive officer of the company and immediately appointed
defendant Kwun Luen Siu to replace him.  The company did not
disclose that, in fact, the $50 million private placement was a
case of massive self-dealing -- over 6 million of the shares to
be sold were indirectly owned by defendant Mr. Li.

Moreover, defendants did not disclose that defendant Li had
recommended defendant Mr. Siu as his replacement and that, prior
to being vetted by defendant Li for the role of China Energy
CEO, defendant Mr. Siu had played an active role in facilitating
defendants' self-dealing.

According to the complaint, prior to the announcement of the
company's $50 million private placement, defendant Mr. Siu
introduced the investment group that would underwrite the
company's $50 million private placement offering to defendant Li
and the company.

The lawsuit also charges that during the class period insiders
sold their company stock at artificially inflated prices,
thereby reaping more than $114 million in proceeds.

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

For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood,
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, New York 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400, Fax: (212) 753-3630, E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com.  


ESCALA GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of
Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) (formerly, Greg Manning Auctions,
Inc.) between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's business and the activities of its
majority shareholder, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Escala Group securities.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

Interested parties have until Jul. 10, 2006, in which to move
for Lead Plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. 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.  


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: June Deadline Set to File for Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP reminds investors
of Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (FFH) that Jun. 12, 2006 is
the deadline to ask the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff
for the Class.  The firm filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
the company and certain of its officers, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of the company during the period from Mar.
24, 2004 to Mar. 21, 2006, both dates inclusive.

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

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

The complaint alleges:

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

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

      -- that the company improperly accounted finite
         reinsurance contracts;

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

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

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

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


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against
UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded securities of UNH between May 15, 2001 and
May 10, 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 UNH's shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that a series of recent
reports made in The Wall Street Journal has revealed that stock
option grants to UNH's chief executive officer and other UNH
executives were regularly dated just prior to substantial run-
ups in share price, often after steep declines.

The low prices on the day of the grants means the executives
received options with unusually low exercise prices and means
there will be more profit for the executive if the option is
cashed out.  An analysis by The Wall Street Journal found that
the odds of such patterns occurring by chance is extraordinarily
remote and suggests that the grants may have been backdated to
take advantage of the low prices.

The complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2006, UNH
disclosed the results of a review being conducted by a committee
of independent UNH directors that indicated that the company
might be required to record adjustments to non-cash charges for
stock-based compensation expense in periods prior to Jan. 1,
2006, in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No.
25.

In particular, UNH estimated the impact of the matters under
review on the company's financial statements as:

      -- a reduction of net earnings for 2005 by $150 million or
         $0.11 per share, a reduction of earnings by
         approximately 4.5%;

      -- a reduction of net earnings for 2004 by $84 million or
         $0.06 per share, a reduction of earnings by
         approximately 3.2%; and

      -- a reduction of net earnings for 2003 by $52 million or
         $0.04 per share, a reduction of earnings by
         approximately 2.8%.

The complaint further alleges that UNH insiders sold UNH stock
at artificially inflated prices as:

      -- William W. McGuire, UNH's chairman and chief executive
         officer, sold approximately 6.8 million UNH shares at
         artificially inflated prices for proceeds of
         approximately $435 million during the class period;

      -- Stephen J. Hemsley, UNH's president and chief operating
         officer, sold approximately 2 million UNH shares at
         artificially inflated prices for proceeds of
         approximately $131 million during the class period; and

      -- Patrick J. Erlandson, UNH's chief financial officer and
         chief accounting officer, sold approximately 366,204
         UNH shares at artificially inflated prices for proceeds
         of approximately $20 million during the class period.

It is alleged that, overall, since Mar. 20, 2006, the first
trading day after the first Wall Street Journal article
concerning UNH stock options, that shares of UNH have declined
from $56.58 per share at the opening of trading on Mar. 20,
2006, to close at $44.37 per share at the close of trading on
May 11, 2006, a decline of $12.21 per share, or approximately
22%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jul. 7, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
Donald R. Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 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: Spector, Roseman Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. (VTSS) between Jan.
28, 2003 and Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements to the investment community regarding the company's
financial performance during the class period, which concealed
the fact that the company improperly accounted for credits
provided to or requested by customers for product-related
issues, including customer returns.

In addition, the defendants are alleged to have concealed that
they backdated the award of stock option grants to executives in
order to reflect specific dates corresponding to lows in the
price of the company's stock, thereby maximizing the value of
the option grants.

On Apr. 26, 2006, the company disclosed this adverse
information, which cased the price of Vitesse stock to drop
27.4%, from its closing price of $2.51 on Apr. 26, to close at
$1.82 on Apr. 27, on nearly five times normal trading volume.

Interested parties may no later than Jul. 3, 2006, move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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