CAR_Public/060607.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 112

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Consumer Fraud Charges in Illinois
AUTOBYTEL INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK of IPO Suit Settlement
AUTOWEB.COM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK of IPO Settlement
AVANEX CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Settlement
AXONYX INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.Y.

BAYER CORP: Baycol Suit Plaintiff Wants Milberg Out, Report Says
BOH BROTHERS: Plaintiffs in "Berthelot" File Amended Complaint
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Planned in Minot Chemical Spill Lawsuit
CARLETON FARMS: Facing Lawsuit in Mich. Over Landfill Odor
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 28

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitrator OKs FL Student Suit Arbitration
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Calif. Education Code Lawsuit
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Oklahoma Securities Suit Dismissed
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Seeks to Settle Canadian Payday Loans Lawsuits
GOREMOTE INTERNET: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Settlement

GUARANTY NATIONAL: Bank Exec Says Investors Could Recoup $11M
HYPERCOM CORP: Wants Arizona Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
IMMERSION CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Settlement
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.C.
IPASS INC: Calif. Court to Hear Securities Suit Dismissal Motion

ISRAEL: Trial Opens in Suit Against Minister Over 2002 Bombing
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Lawsuit Over Kidney Transplant Program
LES SCHWAB: EEOC Files Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Wash.
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Pact
LOEWEN GROUP: Securities Settlement Hearing Set for June 29

PHONE COMPANIES: Face Wiretapping Suit in Indiana Federal Court
RCN CORP: N.J. Court Partially Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit
STARTEK INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Colo.
SYNCON HOMES: Inks $7 Million Settlement with Nevada Homeowners
UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans File Suit Over Data Theft

VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Ninth Circuit Reviews Class Status for "Dukes"
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Consolidated Suit in Wash.


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Yourman Alexander Files Pa. Stock Suit
XM SATELLITE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in D.C.


                            *********

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Consumer Fraud Charges in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Stephen Tillery of St. Louis filed a class action
against Allstate Insurance Company on claims it charged clients
different premiums for the same risks, the Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

The suit, filed May 25 in St. Clair County Circuit Court,
Illinois, alleges that Allstate violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The plaintiffs claim the use of multiple and differing scoring
schemes is not based on sound actuarial principles.  They also
allege Allstate has used them as a basis for charging varying
premiums even though they all have similar risks, and that they
were unaware of Allstate's alleged wrongful conduct until 2006.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to:

     -- order that this action be maintained as a class
        action; and

     -- award plaintiffs and class members compensatory damages,
        prejudgment interest, costs of the suit and attorneys
        fees.

The suit names Gail Humiston, Jeffrey DePillo, Christopher and
Brandi Harrison, April Pedrero, Priscilla Spencer, Frank
Barunica, Rosewell Bennett, Jr., and Louis Farenzena Jr. as
plaintiffs.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen M. Tillery of Korein
Tillery LLC, Gateway One on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite
300, St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1820, Phone: 314-241-4844,
Telecopier: 314-588-7036, Web Site:
http://www.koreintillery.com.


AUTOBYTEL INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK of IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue a final order regarding the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action against Autobytel, Inc.

In August 2001, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and certain of the company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the
company's initial public offering.

The complaints against the company were consolidated with two
other complaints that relate to its initial public offering but
do not name it as a defendant.  A consolidated amended
complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on
April 19, 2002.

This action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs
allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock
in the company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for the company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  It is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.

A motion to dismiss issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.  On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed the
Autobytel individual defendants from the case without prejudice
based upon stipulations of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and
the Autobytel individual defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the company.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  The underwriter
defendants sought leave to appeal this decision and the Second
Circuit has accepted the appeal.

Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the company
case.  The company has approved a settlement agreement and
related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement
between it, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 issuer defendants.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the Autobytel individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The company would
agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
the company may have against its underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.

It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and
paid by its insurance carriers.

The company currently is not aware of any material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.  Its carriers are
solvent, and the company is not aware of any uncertainties as to
the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any
recovery by plaintiffs.

Therefore, the company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by it.  If material limitations on the
expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the
plaintiffs from the company's insurance carriers should arise,
the company's maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs
pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4
million.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and any other objections to the
settlement at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006.  There is no
assurance that the court will grant final approval to the
settlement.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


AUTOWEB.COM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK of IPO Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order regarding the final approval of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action against
Autoweb.com, Inc., an automotive web site owned and operated by
Autobytel, Inc.

According to Autobytel's May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006, between April and June 2001, eight separate
purported class actions were filed against, certain of the
company's current and former directors and officers and
underwriters involved in the company's initial public offering.

The complaints against the company have been consolidated into a
single action.  A consolidated amended complaint, which is now
the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.

The foregoing action purports to allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

They also allege that the prospectus for the company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  It is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.

A motion to dismiss issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Autoweb individual
defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
stipulations of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Autoweb individual defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
without prejudice and with leave to replead but denied the
motion to dismiss the claim under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against Autoweb.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that
the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all
parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.

The underwriter defendants sought leave to appeal this decision
and the Second Circuit has accepted the appeal.  Plaintiffs have
not yet moved to certify a class in the Autoweb case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
Autoweb, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the Autoweb individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.

The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims Autoweb may have against its
underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.

It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and
paid by its insurance carriers.

The company currently is not aware of any material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.  Its carriers are
solvent, and the company is not aware of any uncertainties as to
the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any
recovery by plaintiffs.

Therefore, the company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by it.  If material limitations on the
expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the
plaintiffs from the company's insurance carriers should arise,
the company's maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs
pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4
million.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the Court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and any other objections to the
settlement at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006.  There is no
assurance that the court will grant final approval to the
settlement.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


AVANEX CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Avanex Corp., according to its May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

On Aug. 6, 2001, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and various underwriters in its initial public
offering (IPO) were named as defendants in a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned, "Beveridge v. Avanex Corporation et al., Civil
Action No. 01-CV-7256."

This action and other subsequently filed substantially similar
class actions have been consolidated into "In re Avanex Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
01 Civ. 6890."

The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally
alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the company's IPO.

Plaintiffs have brought claims for violation of several
provisions of the federal securities laws against those
underwriters, and also against the company and certain of its
directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Feb. 3, 2000, and Dec. 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies.

All of these "IPO allocation" securities class actions currently
pending in the Southern District of New York have been assigned
to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial
proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the claims against Avanex's directors and
officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to
dismiss all common pleading issues, which the court granted in
part and denied in part in an order dated Feb. 19, 2003.

The court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section
11 claims against the company.  In June 2004, a stipulation of
settlement for the claims against the issuer defendants,
including Avanex, was submitted to the court.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness
hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the
settlement.  The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for
final approval at the fairness hearing.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


AXONYX INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003 through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx Chief Executive Dr. M. Hausman, and
Axonyx CEO Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named as defendants in the
lawsuits.  These actions were consolidated into a single class
action in January 2006.

Plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

The suit is "In Re: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Evan Jay Kaufman and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs),
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,
         Phone: (631) 367-7100, Fax: (631) 367-1173, E-mail:
         ekaufman@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (3) Darren J. Robbins and William S. Lerach of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San Diego), 401 B
         Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, May Orenstein and Sigmund
Samuel Wissner-Gross of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP,
(NYC), Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 209-
4800 and 212-209-4930, Fax: 212-938-2804, E-mail:
morenstein@brownrudnick.com and swissnergross@brownrudnick.com.


BAYER CORP: Baycol Suit Plaintiff Wants Milberg Out, Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York state's pension fund has asked a federal judge to
dismiss Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as lead counsel in
its shareholder suit over Bayer Corp.'s cholesterol drug Baycol,
according to the Los Angeles Times.

Milberg Weiss and senior partners, David Bershad and Steven
Schulman have been indicted for alleged conspiracy to pay
kickbacks to plaintiffs in class actions.

The Baycol suit is filed in Manhattan federal court in 2003.  It
accused the German drug maker of making false statements about
the safety of Baycol.  It has since agreed to pay more than $1
billion in settlements.  New York state Comptroller Alan Hevesi
is lead plaintiff in the suit

On Aug. 8, 2001 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced
that Bayer withdrew Baycol from all markets in which it
distributed Baycol and/or Lipobay, other than Japan.

According to the FDA, the recall was announced for a number of
reasons, including the fact that more than 480 Baycol users
developed rhabdomyolysis after being prescribed the Baycol.
Rhabdomyolysis is a condition that results in muscle cell
breakdown and release of the contents of muscle cells into the
bloodstream.


BOH BROTHERS: Plaintiffs in "Berthelot" File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the Greater New Orleans Metropolitan Area homeowners
insurance policyholders, who were denied or refused insurance
coverage for losses caused by Hurricane Katrina, have filed an
amended class complaint.

The suit, brought against 15 insurance companies, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
May 24, 2006, according to Insurance Journal.  It was filed as
part of the consolidated action "Berthelot et al. v. BOH
Brothers Construction LLC, et al."

The suit was originally lodged in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana as, "Gladys Chehardy, et al. v.
J. Robert Wooley, et al."

The amended class action was filed in response to a plan by U.S.
District Court Judge Stanwood R. Duval to consolidate
homeowners' suits.

The amended and restated complaint seeks compensatory and
punitive damages.  It accuses the insurance company defendants
of failing to exclude from coverage hurricane damage or any
failure of the New Orleans levees in the policies that they sold
in the New Orleans area.

The policyholders lawyers are The McKernan Law Firm, Fayard &
Honeycutt, P.C., Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., Ranier, Gayle &
Elliot, LLC and Bruno & Bruno.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan Beauregard Andry of The Andry Law Firm, 610
         Baronne St., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-586-
         8899, E-mail: jandry@andrylawfirm.com; and

     (2) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the Law Offices of Daniel E.
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P. O. Drawer H,
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) William David Aaron, Jr. of Goins Aaron, APLC, Siegen
         Lane Office Center, 9270 Siegen Lane, Suite 404, Baton
         Rouge, LA 70810, Phone: 225-757-4991, E-mail:
         waaron@goinsaaron.com; and

     (2) Neil Charles Abramson of Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Canal
         Place, 365 Canal St., Suite 2000, New Orleans, LA
         70130-6534, Phone: (504) 566-1311, Fax:
         abramson@phelps.com.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Planned in Minot Chemical Spill Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota lawyer Mike Miller filed a notice with the 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the dismissal of the class
action filed in Bismark, North Dakota against Canadian Pacific
Railway over a 2002 derailment and chemical spill in Minot, the
Associated Press reports.

The notice intends to challenge a ruling by U.S. District Judge
Daniel Hovland, of Bismarck, who threw out the case in March.
Judge Hovland then ruled that the Federal Railroad Safety Act
pre- empts state law, making the railroad immune from legal
action (Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).

Meanwhile, Canadian Pacific attorney Tim Thornton plans to
challenge a Hennepin County, Minn., jury's decision in February
to award four people nearly $1.86 million for injuries they
suffered in the 2002 wreck.  That case was in state court.

The Canadian railway class actions stemmed from the January 2002
derailment and massive release of anhydrous ammonia from five
ruptured tank cars in Minot, South Dakota.  Thirty-one cars on
the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west
edge of Minot and five broke open early on the morning of Jan.
18, 2002.  The National Transportation Safety Board said the
wreck was caused by inadequate track maintenance and
inspections, a conclusion disputed by Canadian Pacific (Class
Action Reporter, July 11, 2005).

The suit is "Mehl, et al. v. Canadian Pacific RR, et al., Case
No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L. Hovland with
referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mike J. Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller Johnson Tjon
         Kennelly, Ltd., P.O. BOX 1897, FARGO, ND 58107-1897,
         Phone: 701-237-3166, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com;
         and

     (2) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. Law
         firm, 106 W. 7 ST., PO Drawer H., Reserve, LA 70084,
         Phone: 985-536-1186.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James S. Hill of Zuger Kirmis & Smith, 316 N. 5 ST.,
         P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, ND 58502-1695, Phone: 701-223-
         2711, E-mail: jhill@zkslaw.com; and

     (2) Kevin M. Decker of Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80
         S. 8TH ST., Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-977-8400.


CARLETON FARMS: Facing Lawsuit in Mich. Over Landfill Odor
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Macuga & Liddle, P.C. filed a lawsuit against
Carleton Farms on behalf of Sumpter residents in Michigan, the
UPI Top Stories reports.

The suit is filed in Wayne County court.  It claims that
Carleton Farms landfill receives a significant amount of waste
from Canada whose noxious odor interferes with residents'
ability to use and enjoy their property.  They are seeking
damages "in excess of $25,000."

The landfill has an area of 640 acre, and is one of the largest
in North America.  It receives more than 1 million tons of
garbage from Toronto annually, the law firm said.  About 10 to
20 percent of the waste received by the landfill is reportedly
sewage sludge.

A statement from Macuga & Liddle said Sumpter officials are
aware of the problem but the township collects an estimated 65
percent of its annual general fund from its trash royalties.

For more information, contact Steven D. Liddle of Macuga &
Liddle, P.C., 975 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207-3101,
Phone: (313) 392-0015, Fax: (313) 392-0025, Web site:
http://www.mlclassaction.com.


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

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

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

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

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

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitrator OKs FL Student Suit Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator ruled in favor of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s
motion to compel arbitration in the class action filed against
it in Florida State Court, according to the company's Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2006, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2006.

The suit is "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University."

Similar suits are also pending against the company captioned:

      -- "Jennifer Baker et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
         Florida Metropolitan University, Inc.;"

      -- "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
         Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan
         University, Inc.;" and

      -- "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc. and Florida Metropolitan University."

The Baker complaint names nine plaintiffs while the Alvarez
first amended and supplemental complaint names 99 plaintiffs.

Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case recently granted the
plaintiffs motion to add an additional seven plaintiffs to the
first amended and supplemental complaint.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former students in
the company's Florida Metropolitan University (FMU) campuses in
Florida and online.  Plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the
fact that it is not accredited by the Commission on Colleges of
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and that
FMU credits are not transferable to other institutions.

Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as a class action
and recovery of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for
themselves and all similarly situated people.

The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the company on all
counts in a July 5, 2005 award on the company's motion to
dismiss.

The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement
with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and
is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.  Mr. Satz filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the arbitrator recently denied.

The company has filed motions to compel arbitration in "Baker"
and "Alvarez," and the Travis court recently compelled that case
to arbitration.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Calif. Education Code Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is a defendant in a putative class
action demand in arbitration entitled "Michelle Sanchez v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.," which is pending in California
Superior Court, according to its May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006.

The suit was filed by a former diagnostic medical sonography
student from the company's Bryman College campus in West Los
Angeles, alleging violations of the California education code
and of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
The company believes the demand is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations, the company
said in a regulatory filing.


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Oklahoma Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dobson Communications Corp. asks the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors, according to the company's May 10, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The securities class actions, filed on Oct. 22, 2004, against
the company and several of its officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities in the
period between May 6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004.

The suits allege among other things:

      -- that the company concealed significant decreases in
         revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its
         business, including that the company's rate of growth
         in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and
         that the company had experienced negative growth in
         October 2003;

      -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming
         customer, had notified the company that it wanted to
         dispose of its equity interest in the company that it
         had held since the company's initial public offering,
         significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing
         roaming capacity from the company;

      -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         company;

      -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

      -- that the company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits further allege that the company issued various
positive statements concerning its financial prospects and
subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM
network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and
that those statements were false and misleading.

The court consolidated these actions into "Central Laborers
Pension Fund v. Dobson Communications, et al., Case No. CIV-04-
1394-C."

On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were filed.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to
dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005.  The company filed its reply briefs on
Oct. 3, 2005.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Dobson
Communications, et al., Case No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge
Robin J. Cauthron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart W. Emmons, William B. Federman and Jennifer F.
         Sherrill of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave.,
         Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-
         1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com,
         wfederman@aol.com and jfs@federmanlaw.com.

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory Castaldo of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         tborum@sbclasslaw.com and gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jeffrey A. Berger of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP-
         Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
         312-701-8583, Fax: 312-706-8400, E-mail:
         jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com; and

    (ii) Warren F Bickford, IV, Fellers Snider Blankenship
         Bailey & Tippens-OKC, 100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax:
         405-232-9659, E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Seeks to Settle Canadian Payday Loans Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary is
working to resolve several class actions filed by customers who
were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan
transactions, according to its May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006.

Smith Action

On Aug. 19, 2003, Margaret Smith, a former customer in Ontario,
Canada, commenced an action against the company and its Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of Canadian borrowers
(except those residing in British Columbia) who, Ms. Smith
claims, were subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan
transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury and seeks restitution and damages, including
punitive damages.

The company's Canadian subsidiary's motions to stay the action
on grounds of arbitrability and lack of jurisdiction were
denied.

Mortillaro Action

On Oct. 21, 2003, Kenneth D. Mortillaro, another former
customer, commenced a similar action against the company's
Canadian subsidiary, but this action has since been stayed on
consent because it is a duplicate action.

Young Action

On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
purported class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from the company's Canadian subsidiary in Alberta,
alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in
connection with the loans is usurious.

On Dec. 9, 2005, the company's Canadian subsidiary settled this
action, subject to court approval.  On March 3, 2006, prior to
the date scheduled for final court approval of the settlement,
the Plaintiff's lawyer advised that they would not proceed with
the settlement and indicated their intention to join the
purported national class action.

MacKinnon Action

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced
an action against the company's Canadian subsidiary and 26 other
Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of British
Columbia residents who, Mr. MacKinnon claims, were overcharged
in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, Mr. MacKinnon obtained an order
permitting him to re-apply for class certification, which was
appealed.  The Court of Appeal has granted Mr. MacKinnon the
right to apply to the original judge to have her amend her order
denying certification.

Parsons Action

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for Mr. MacKinnon
commenced a proposed class action against the company's Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons.

The certification motion in this action is scheduled to proceed
in November 2006, but will not proceed if Mr. MacKinnon obtains
an order allowing him to re-apply for class certification.

Other Similar Actions

Similar purported class actions were commenced against the
company's Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland.  The company was named as a defendant
in the actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland but it
has not been served with the statements of claim in these
actions to date.  The claims in these additional actions are
substantially similar to those of the Ontario actions referred
to above.


GOREMOTE INTERNET: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc., according to
iPass, Inc.'s May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March
31, 2006.
GoRemote Internet was acquired by iPass on February 15, 2006.

In July and August 2001, GoRemote and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in five purported securities class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York, captioned as "In re GoRemote Internet Communications,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ
6771 (SAS)," and consolidated with more than three hundred
substantially identical proceedings as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The consolidated amended class action complaint for Violation of
the Federal Securities Laws was filed on or about April 19,
2002, and alleged claims against certain of GoRemote's officers
and against CIBC World Markets Corp., Prudential Securities
Incorporated, DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., underwriters of the company's
Dec. 14, 1999 initial public offering (underwriter defendants),
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Citing several press articles, the consolidated complaint
alleged that the underwriter defendants used improper methods in
allocating shares in initial public offerings, and claimed the
underwriter defendants entered into improper commission
agreements regarding aftermarket trading in the company's common
stock purportedly issued pursuant to the registration statement
for the initial public offering.

It also alleged market manipulation claims against the
underwriter defendants based on the activities of their
respective analysts, who were allegedly compromised by conflicts
of interest.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint sought damages as
measured under Section 11 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Act of 1933, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' and expert witnesses' fees and other
costs; no specific amount was claimed in the plaintiffs' prayer
in the consolidated complaint.

In October 2002, certain of GoRemote's officers and directors
who had been named as defendants in the consolidated complaint
were dismissed without prejudice upon order of the presiding
judge. In February 2003, the presiding judge dismissed the
Section 10(b) claims against the company and its named officers
and directors with prejudice.

From September 2002 through June 2003, GoRemote participated in
settlement negotiations with a committee of issuers' litigation
counsel, plaintiffs' executive committee and representatives of
various insurance companies (Insurers).

The GoRemote's Insurers were actively involved in the settlement
negotiations, and strongly supported a settlement proposal
presented to the company for consideration in early June 2003.

The settlement proposed by the plaintiffs would be paid for by
the Insurers and would dispose of all remaining claims against
the company.

After careful consideration, GoRemote decided to approve the
settlement proposal in July 2003.  Although GoRemote believed
that plaintiffs' claims were without merit, it decided to accept
the settlement proposal (which does not admit wrongdoing) to
avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation.

Because the settlement would be funded entirely by its Insurers,
GoRemote did not believe that the settlement would have any
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class
for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to modification of certain orders
contemplated by the settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive order, and directed that Notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members beginning Nov. 15,
2005.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against
certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be
assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the Court held a final fairness hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  A
decision is expected this summer.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


GUARANTY NATIONAL: Bank Exec Says Investors Could Recoup $11M
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a class action filed against Guaranty National
Bank could return more than $11 million to shareholders who lost
money in the collapse of the company in 2004, David Barr, a
spokesman for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said,
according to the Tallahassee Democrat.

The Federal Deposit Insurance took over Guaranty National in
March 2004 after the bank was closed by the federal office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, who said at the time the bank
was mismanaged and committed bad banking practices.  Guaranty
National had assets of $71 million when it was closed, according
to the Comptroller at the time.

A suit filed against Guaranty National and Commonwealth Bank of
North Virginia alleged the banks and Residential Funding Corp.
conspired to mislead borrowers about loan costs, interest rates
and actual value of its second-mortgage program.

The suit was filed in Pittsburgh on behalf of more than 44,000
borrowers in eight states who participated in the program.

A settlement was reached in the lawsuit in December 2003, but it
was appealed by a group of plaintiffs.  A Philadelphia federal
appeals court has ordered the Pittsburgh judge supervising the
case to review the settlement.

Bruce Carlson, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents the
plaintiffs, told the Tallahassee Democrat that a settlement had
not been reached yet.


HYPERCOM CORP: Wants Arizona Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corp. asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and certain of its executive officers and
members of its board of directors.

In February and March 2005, various shareholder class action
complaints were filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of its
common stock in the period from April 30, 2004 to Feb. 3, 2005.

The complaints alleged that the company, and certain of its
executive management, violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on its February 2005 announcement that certain leases
in the United Kingdom had been incorrectly accounted for as
sales-type leases, rather than operating leases, and that the
company would restate its financial statements for the first
three quarters of 2004.

In May 2005, these class actions were consolidated into one
action and the designated lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.

In January 2006, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
class action complaint, and in February 2006, the plaintiffs
filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint in April
2006.

The suit is "Ray v. Hypercom Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-00455-NVW," filed in the U.S. District Court for District of
Arizona under Judge Neil V. Wake.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. of Bonnett Fairbourn
         Friedman & Balint, PC, 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 1000,
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-
         274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com; and

     (2) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Nicole Healy, Bruce Gordon Vanyo
and Lloyd Winawer of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page
Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-496-4334, 650-320-4904
and 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nhealy@wsgr.com,
bvanyo@wsgr.com and lwinawer@wsgr.com.


IMMERSION CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Immersion Corp., according to its May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

The company is involved in legal proceedings relating to a class
action filed on Nov. 9, 2001, "In re Immersion Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. Civ. 01-
9975," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92."

The named defendants are the company and three of its current or
former officers or directors (Immersion Defendants), and certain
underwriters of the company's Nov. 12, 1999 initial public
offering (IPO).  Subsequently, two of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of the company
from the date of the IPO through Dec. 6, 2000.

It alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration
statement for the IPO did not disclose that:

      -- the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
         commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and

      -- the underwriters arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  It does not claim any specific
amount of damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions to
dismiss.

The motion was denied as to claims under the Securities Act of
1933 in the case involving the company, as well as in all other
cases (except for 10 cases).

The motion was denied as to the claim under Section 10(b) as to
the company, on the basis that the complaint alleged that the
company had made acquisition(s) following the IPO.

The motion was granted as to the claim under Section 10(b), but
denied as to the claim under Section 20(a), as to the remaining
individual defendant.

The company and most of the issuer defendants have settled with
the plaintiffs.  In this settlement, plaintiffs have dismissed
and released all claims against the Immersion Defendants, in
exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of certain claims
the company may have against the underwriters.

The Immersion Defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the company believes is
remote.

The settlement will require approval of the Court, which cannot
be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to
object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.  The
Court took the matter under submission of whether the settlement
should be approved after a hearing on April 24, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported
shareholder class action complaints was filed against the
company and certain of its senior officers.

Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, and focused on statements that are
claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical
trial of the company's dry eye product candidate, ProlacriaTM
(diquafosol tetrasodium).

Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during
the period from June 2, 2004 through Feb. 8, 2005.

On March 27, 2006, following consolidation of the lawsuits into
a single civil action and appointment of lead plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint (CAC).

The CAC asserts claims against the company and certain of its
present or former senior officers or directors.  It also asserts
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 based on statements alleged to be false and misleading
regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of Prolacria, and also adds
claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The CAC also asserts claims against certain parties that served
as underwriters in the company's securities offerings during the
period relevant to the CAC.  The CAC seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from May 10, 2004 through Feb. 8,
2005.

The suit is "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L.
Osteen.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel Of Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P.,
         P.O. Box 58186, RALEIGH, NC 27658-8186, Phone: 919-872-
         3000, Fax: 919-790-9273, E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com; and

     (2) Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600, Boca
         Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5022, Fax: 561-367-
         8400, E-mail: kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William Mark Conger of Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.,
         1001 W. Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone:
         336-607-7309, Fax: 336-734-2633, E-mail:
         mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) Barry m. Kaplan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100, Seattle, WA 98104, US,
         Phone: 206-883-2500, Fax: 206-883-2699.


IPASS INC: Calif. Court to Hear Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is set to hear on July 31, 2006, iPass, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the securities class action filed against the company certain of
its executive officers.

Beginning Jan. 14, 2005, three purported class action complaints
were filed.  On March 2, 2005, these cases were consolidated as
"In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00228-MHP."
On April 22, 2005, David Lutzke and Rhonda Lutzke were named
lead plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Named as defendants together with the company are
officers Kenneth D. Denman, Donald C. McCauley, Anurag Lal, and
Jon M. Russo.

The consolidated amended complaint (CAC) alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during an alleged "class period" from April
22, 2004 to June 30, 2004 by failing to inform investors of
certain operational issues that allegedly led to declines in the
company's revenue, earnings and growth prospects.

Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC, and on Feb. 28, 2006, the
court granted the motion with leave to amend.  On March 30,
2006, plaintiffs filed a Second consolidated amended complaint,
(SCAC) which set forth, the same claims against the same
defendants relating to the same alleged class period.

On May 1, 2006, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
SCAC, and pursuant to an agreed-upon schedule, the motion is to
be heard on July 31, 2006.  The case is at an early stage and no
trial date has been set.  No discovery is expected to take place
unless defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

The suit is "In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-
cv-00228-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA
         90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
         mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen Mistein Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98104,
         Phone: 206 521-0080, Fax: 206 621-0166, E-mail:
         afriedman@cmht.com; and

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy of Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265
         Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963, Phone: 772-231-4202,
         Fax: 772-231-4042.

Representing the company is Mary Beth O'Connor of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 94306, Phone: (415) 843-5594, Fax: (650) 849-7400, E-
mail: mboconnor@cooley.com.


ISRAEL: Trial Opens in Suit Against Minister Over 2002 Bombing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Israel's internal security minister, Avi Dichter,
presented on May 31,2006, arguments on a class action filed over
a bomb attack on a Gaza city neighborhood in 2002, according to
the JTA Daily.

The minister is facing a suit filed by the Center for
Constitutional Rights on behalf of Palestinian survivors and
families of those killed in the attack in July 2002.  The attack
killed Salah Shehada, a top Hamas terrorist, and 14 other
people, including children.  As the Shin Bet at the time,
Dichter helped plan the attack.

During the May 31 hearing, Dichter's lawyers argued that the
minister is immune from prosecution as a foreign official.

The suit is asking unspecified damages for what it calls a
"targeted assassination."

The suit is "Matar v. Dichter (S.D.N.Y., 05 Civ. 10270" filed
before Judge Pauley in the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, Courtroom 11D.

Plaintiffs are represented by: Center for Constitutional Rights
attorneys Maria LaHood, Jennifer Green and Kelly McAnnany; CCR
Cooperating Counsel Judith Brown Chomsky and Michael Poulshock;
and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.  Web site:
http://www.ccr-ny.org.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Lawsuit Over Kidney Transplant Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed in San Francisco Superior
Court against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., who closed
its kidney transplant program in San Francisco in May.

The lawsuit was filed by Irvine attorneys Eisenberg & Gray LLP,
who are also lead counsel in the transplant litigation against
the UCI Medical Center.

"It appears that Kaiser was more concerned about the bottom line
than the health of their member patients.  They forced their
Northern California kidney transplant patients to leave the
University of California at San Francisco and University of
California at Davis and become patients at Kaiser's in-house
transplant facility in San Francisco.

Kaiser did not want to pay for ongoing kidney transplant medical
care for approximately 2,000 Northern California patients, so
they attempted to open their own facility but totally failed in
the process," said Irvine attorney Larry Eisenberg.

"This is an outrageous example of gross mismanagement at the
highest level.  Kaiser interrupted ongoing transplant medical
care and rejected donor kidneys, which caused patient deaths and
severely compromised the health of their members," said Mr.
Eisenberg.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, fraud and misrepresentation due
to Kaiser's inability to properly administrate the San Francisco
Kidney Transplant Program.

"It is clear that Kaiser patients did not receive proper medical
care and kidney transplants were delayed.  There was a complete
lack of oversight in the operation and administration of the
Kaiser program and the patients and their families paid the
price," said Mr. Eisenberg.

For more information, contact Irvine Larry Eisenberg of
Eisenberg & Gray LLP, Phone: 949-753-1500, E-mail:
leisenberg@eglawyers.com.


LES SCHWAB: EEOC Files Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Les Schwab Tire Centers violated federal law by failing to hire,
train, and promote women into management jobs because of their
sex, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
charged in a lawsuit it filed on May 31 with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.

Plaintiffs Megan Morris and Jennifer Strange worked in various
Les Schwab stores in the Puget Sound area in Washington,
including Tacoma, Bellevue, SeaTac, and Puyallup.  Although they
requested to work in the tire bays, they were repeatedly denied
these jobs and the opportunity for promotion due to their
gender, according to the EEOC.  The women brought charges of
discrimination to the EEOC that form the basis of the lawsuit.

The EEOC also alleges that Les Schwab failed to hire female
applicants into sales and service department jobs.  These
positions -- which involve mounting, dismounting, repairing and
rotating tires -- are held mainly by males and are a
prerequisite for entry into more lucrative management jobs.  The
agency found that Les Schwab excluded women from those roles for
more than 50 years and only recently promoted one woman to the
position of assistant manager.

"In 1996, I started at the bottom and worked up to sales and
management for an independently owned Les Schwab Tire Center.
But when Les Schwab corporate took over this store, they demoted
me to bookkeeper," said Ms. Strange.  "When I asked about my
prior position, I was told 'No gal in the company would ever
make that kind of money.  Gals should work in admin.' I stayed
for almost two years trying to move back into sales and
management, but the company refused to consider me for that kind
of job.

EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich noted,
"Company founder Les Schwab's own published book exposes a
corporate culture where men get the better jobs.  Mr. Schwab's
book describes in great detail how men get ahead in the company,
and it reinforces a decades-old idea that men do certain jobs
and women do others.  Mr. Schwab published the book some time
ago, but a copy is still available for sale in every Les Schwab
store.  Our lawsuit should go a long way toward bringing women
into a workplace that historically has shut them out."

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "It is shocking
to see a sex-segregated work force where qualified and capable
female applicants and employees who want to move up the ladder
of success are held back due to their gender.  Our suit seeks
monetary relief for a potentially large class of women, and we
are also seeking corrective measures to remove the barriers of
discrimination."

He noted that the EEOC filed this suit only after first
attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation,
and seeks monetary damages, training on anti-discrimination
laws, posting of notices at the work site and other injunctive
relief.

According to the company's website, http://www.lesschwab.com,
there are over 400 Les Schwab Tire Centers in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, Utah and Nevada. The company
is based in Prineville, Ore.

The suit is, "Strange et al. v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of
Oregon Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00045-RSM," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
under Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Kenneth J Diamond of Winterbauer & Diamond, 1200 Fifth
         Ave., Ste 1910, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-676-8440,
         Fax: 676-8441, E-mail: mail@winterbauer.com;

     (2) Charles N Eberhardt of Perkins Coie, 411 108th Ave., NE
         Ste 1800, Bellevue WA 98004-5584, Phone: 425-453-6980,
         Fax: 425-450-7467, E-mail: ceberhardt@perkinscoie.com;
         and

    (3) Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth of Perkins Coie, 1201 3rd
        Ave., Ste 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: 206-583-
        8888, Fax: 583-8500, E-mail:
        JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lewis Lynn Ellsworth of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca
         Peterson & Daheim (TAC), 1201 Pacific Ave., Ste 2100,
         P.O. Box 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401, Phone: 253-620-6500,
         Fax: 1-253-620-6565, E-mail: lellsworth@gth-law.com;
         and

     (2) Warren E Martin of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca
         Peterson & Daheim, PO BOX 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401,
         Phone: 253-620-6500, Fax: 1-253-620-6565, E-mail:
         wmartin@gth-law.com.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., according to its May 10,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On or about July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action
captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al." (01-
CV-6770) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
company's initial public offering.

The complaint in this action asserted, among other things, that
omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in the company's initial public offering to
the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the
claims against the company and its officers and directors (the
case remained pending against the underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but
also the company and certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration
and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating
to, among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct
in allocating shares in the company's initial public offering
and the disclosures contained in the company's registration
statement.

The company understands that various plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies in connection with the underwriting of their public
offerings.

On July 15, 2002, the company, together with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal
grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.

In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court issued
its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims
under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could
proceed against the company and a majority of the other issuer
defendants.

In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the company and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  It does provide that
the class members in the class action cases brought against the
participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of
$1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.  The company's expects that its
insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and
that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the
proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement depends upon obtaining
approval by the Court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
all class members.

Thereafter, the Court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006,
at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.
After the fairness hearing, the Court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


LOEWEN GROUP: Securities Settlement Hearing Set for June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing for proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re Loewen Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 98-CV-6740."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired The Loewen Group, Inc.,
publicly-traded common stock, preferred stock, call options, or
Monthly Insured Preferred Securities on the open market from
March 5, 1997 through Jan. 14, 1999, inclusive, and were injured
thereby you could receive a payment from a class action
settlement.

The settlement resolves class action litigation over whether
Loewen Group and certain of its former officers and directors
intentionally or recklessly misled investors about Loewen
Group's financial status.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing at 10:00 a.m., on June
29, 2006, at the U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Deadline for submitting proofs of claim is on Oct. 24, 2006.
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by June 8, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sherrie R. Savett of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215)
         875-3000;

     (2) Chet B. Waldman of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600;

     (3) Karin E. Fisch of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 889-3700; and

     (4) In re Loewen Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
         Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, L.L.P., P.O. Box 710,
         Philadelphia, PA 19105-0710, Phone:  1-800-768-8450,
         Fax: 1-215-665-0613, Web site:
         http://hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/loe/.


PHONE COMPANIES: Face Wiretapping Suit in Indiana Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis attorney Russell Sipes filed class suits in federal
and state courts, that allege companies like AT&T, MCI, and
Nextel allowed the U.S. government to intercept, monitor and
conduct surveillance on phone calls made by private citizens,
the WISH reports.

Named as defendants in the suit are:

     -- AT&T Communications Inc.,
     -- AT&T Corp.,
     -- Bright House Networks, LLC,
     -- Cingular Wireless, LLC,
     -- Comcast Telecommunications, Inc.,
     -- Sprint Communications Company LP,
     -- T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
     -- TDS Communication Solutions, Inc.,
     -- Verizon Wireless Services, LLC,
     -- MCI Communications Services, Inc.,
     -- McLeod USA Telecommunications Services, Inc.,
     -- Nextel West Corp.

The plaintiffs in the class action are people Mr. Sipes
contacted, including individuals as well as organizations like
Indiana's Libertarian Party.

Mr. Sipes filed a similar class action in Michigan and is
working on other suits in New York, New Jersey and Georgia.

The suit is "Cross et al. v. AT&T Communications, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00847-RLY-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard
L. Young with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Linda S. George of Luadig George Rutherford & Sipes,
         156 East Market Street, Suite 600, Indianapolis, IN
         46204, Phone: (317) 637-6071, Fax: (317) 685-6505, E-
         mail: lg@lgrslaw.com;

     (2) Donald A. Migliori of Mortley Rice LLC, 321 S. Main
         Street Providence, RI 02940; and

     (3) W. Russell Sipes of Luadig George Rutherford & Sipes,
         156 East Market St, Suite 600, Indianapolis, IN 46204,
         Phone: (317) 637-6071, Fax: (317) 685-6505, E-mail:
         wrsipes@lgrslaw.com.


RCN CORP: N.J. Court Partially Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
certain claims in the consolidated class action against RCN
Corp., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries
of the former RCN Savings and Stock Ownership Pan (Savings Plan)
asserted claims against the company and its current and former
directors, officers, employee administrators, and managers for
alleged violations of ERISA.

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage and monitor the
Savings Plan in light of the drop in the trading price of the
company's then-outstanding common stock, which comprised a
portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings Plan.

In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York permitted the filing of a consolidated
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its current and
former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would
not be permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in
excess of any applicable RCN insurance coverage.  The class
action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005.

In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to
all defendants, except for

      -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with
         respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings
         Plan, and

      -- certain individuals who comprised the former
         administrative committee of the Savings Plan with
         respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest
         Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and
         early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
         occurred.

The suit is "In re: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.

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


STARTEK INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
according to its May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March
31, 2006.

Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in
two purported class actions in the U.S. District Court, District
of Colorado:

      -- "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
         Inc., et al.," filed on July 8, 2005, and

      -- "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.," filed on July
         20, 2005.

The federal court later consolidated those actions.  The
consolidated action is a purported class action brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company's
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between Feb.
26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company and the
company's business and prospects in the prospectus for the
secondary offering, as well as in filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during the
class period, and that the market price of the company's common
stock was artificially inflated as a result.

It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs in both cases
seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class and
award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

The suit is "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under
Judge Phillip S. Figa.

Representing the plaintiffs is Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone,
P.C., 1600 Stout Street, #1100, Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone:
303-534-4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com.

Representing the company are James E. Nesland and Matthew Voss
of Cooley Godward, LLP-Colorado, 380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
Broomfield, CO 80021-8023, U.S.A., Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax:
720-566-4099, E-mail: neslandje@cooley.com and mvoss@cooley.com.


SYNCON HOMES: Inks $7 Million Settlement with Nevada Homeowners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Gibbons of the Ninth Judicial District Court
accepted on May 31 a settlement of a class action against Syncon
Homes and its subcontractors over drainage and other
construction problems, according to The Record Courier.

Under the settlement, a group of north Douglas County, Nevada
residents will receive more than $7 million.  Syncon will
contribute more than $2 million and more than 20 subcontractors
will provide the balance.  The amount will be distributed
between 181 homeowners involved in the suit based on individual
claims.

The settlement releases the company from liability.

A settlement hearing is set June 26, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. before
Judge Mike Fondi.  A second and final hearing is set in District
Court on June 27, 2006 at 10 a.m.  Homeowners have until July
31, 2001 to claim settlements.  They must be paid by July 15,
2006.

The suit was filed by lead plaintiffs Wayne and Leah Carlson in
2003 after finding water in their crawlspace and mold in their
Silverado Drive home, according to the report.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs include Robert Maddox of Robert C.
Maddox & Associates, 3811 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 110
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.).  Syncon is represented by
Griffith Hayes and Susan Bush of Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy &
Woog, 3930 Howard Hughes Way, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada
(Clark Co.)


UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans File Suit Over Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) joined four other national
organizations and several individual veterans in filing a class
action seeking judicial oversight and protection of the Veterans
Affairs (VA) computer files with personal information of about
26.5 million veterans.

"It is appalling to all veterans that their personal information
-- information that is supposed to be held in confidence -- is
potentially in the hands of individuals who can wreak identity-
theft havoc," said John Rowan, national president of VVA and a
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"VA Secretary Nicholson has said he is 'mad as hell' over this
incident and the breakdown in command and control of his
department, and we believe him.  However, he has yet to answer
some critical questions: What was an employee of the VA doing
with the names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth of
all these veterans, the vast majority of whom have never availed
themselves of VA services? Why is the VA collecting this
information in the first place?"

VVA is joined by four other national organizations and
individual veterans in the lawsuit, which was filed in federal
district court on June 6, 2006, by attorney Douglas Rosinski of
the law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
They are the National Gulf War Resource Center, Radiated
Veterans of America, Citizen Soldier and Veterans for Peace.

"Saying 'We're sorry' is hardly comforting to veterans and their
families," Rowan said.  "The VA has been criticized for years
about lax information security and that includes criticism from
the VA's own Inspector General.  The VA still hasn't properly
secured all the personal information under its control.  We've
just seen the largest known unauthorized disclosure of Social
Security numbers in history.  We hope this lawsuit will help
Secretary Nicholson correct the known vulnerabilities in how the
VA protects private information.  If the VA can't solve the
problem, maybe the courts can help.  Since all previous attempts
at protecting privacy of individual veterans by heads of the VA
have failed, perhaps the weight of the judiciary can make the
difference.  This lawsuit seeks to insure that no harm will come
to veterans as a result of this theft, and that such an incident
can never occur again."

The veterans' complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, seeks:

      -- a declaratory judgment that the VA's loss of these
         records violated and continues to violate both the
         Privacy and Administrative Procedure Acts;

      -- a court order that the VA disclose the exact nature of
         its compromised records system and to individually
         inform each veteran of every record it maintains on
         him or her;

      -- an injunction preventing the VA from altering any data
         storage system and prohibiting any further use of these
         data until a court-appointed panel of experts
         determines how best to implement safeguards to prevent
         any further breaches; and

      -- a judgment awarding $1,000 to each veteran who can show
         that he or she has been harmed by the VA's violation of
         the Privacy Act.

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is the nation's only
congressionally chartered veterans service organization
dedicated to the needs of Vietnam-era veterans and their
families.  VVA's founding principle is "Never again will one
generation of veterans abandon another."

For more information, contact Mokie Porter of Vietnam Veterans
of America, Phone: 301-585-4000, ext. 146.

The suit is "Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al v. Mcnamara
et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-02123-RMC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Rosemary M.
Collyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David J. Cynamon of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
         LLP, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1128,
         Phone: (202) 663-8772, E-mail:
         david.cynamon@shawpittman.com; and

     (2) Douglas J. Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
         Stewart, P.C., 1320 Main Street Suite 600, Columbia, SC
         29201, Phone: (803) 252-1300, E-mail:
         douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard Montague of the U.S. Department of Justice
         Civil Division, P.O. Box 7146, Washington, DC 20044,
         Phone: (202) 616-4158, Fax: (202) 616-4314, E-mail:
         Rich.montague@usdoj.gov; and

     (2) Kenneth Alan Stahl of the U.S. Department of Justice,
         1425 New York Avenue, NW, Room 8150 Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: (202) 616-1024, Fax: 202-616-4314, E-
         mail: kenneth.stahl@usdoj.gov.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Vitria Technology, Inc., according to its May 10, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

In November 2001, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, now captioned, "In re Vitria Technology,
Inc. IPO Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10092."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
company, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering, or the
IPO, violated federal securities laws because company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding
the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
hundreds of public companies, or the Issuers, which first sold
their common stock since the mid-1990s, or the IPO Lawsuits.

The IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before
U.S. Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.  Defendants filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO-
related lawsuits on July 15, 2002.

In October 2002, company's officers and directors were dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and tolling
agreement with the plaintiffs.  On Feb. 19, 2003, Judge
Scheindlin issued a ruling denying in part and granting in part
the Defendants motions to dismiss.

In June 2003, company's Board of Directors approved a resolution
tentatively accepting a settlement offer from the plaintiffs
according to the terms and conditions of a comprehensive
Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between the plaintiffs
and the Issuers.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff class will
dismiss with prejudice all claims against the Issuers, including
the company and its current and former directors and officers,
and the Issuers will assign to the plaintiff class or its
designee certain claims that they may have against the IPO
underwriters.

In addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the
event that the plaintiffs recover less than $1.0 billion in
settlement or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the
IPO Lawsuits, the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1.0 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers.

In June 2004, the company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the Memorandum
of Understanding.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval
of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive Order, and directed that Notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members beginning Nov. 15,
2005.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the Court dismissed litigation filed against
certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be
assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  A
decision is expected this summer.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


WAL-MART STORES: Ninth Circuit Reviews Class Status for "Dukes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Appeals court has yet to rule in a gender discrimination case
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. after hearing oral arguments for
the discretionary review of the suit's certification, according
to the company's June 2, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 30,
2006.

The company is defendant in the suit, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.," a class action commenced in June 2001 that was brought on
behalf of all past and present female employees in all of the
company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The suit alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.

It seeks, among others, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Following a hearing on class certification on Sept. 24, 2003,
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 21, 2004 issued an order granting in part and denying in
part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the District Court's ruling is
incorrect.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
granted the company's petition for discretionary review of the
ruling.  The court of appeals heard oral argument from counsel
in the case on Aug. 8, 2005.

The suit is "Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., case no.
3:01-cv-02252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund,
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473
ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

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


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Consolidated Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second consolidated amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.

On April 8, 2005, a holder of the company's common stock, on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company stockholders, filed an action against the company and
some of its current and former officers, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws arising out of, among other things,
its announcement on March 15, 2005 that it was restating some of
its financial results for interim periods of 2004.

Subsequently, other holders of WatchGuard's common stock later
filed a number of related purported class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  The Washington Court
later consolidated the various actions.

On Oct. 3, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the Action and the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On April 21, 2006, the Washington Court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint.  The
Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint and on
May 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaint.  The company expects to file a motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.

             Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2006
INTERACTIVE MASTER CLASS ON TRIAL ADVOCACY FOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
The Westin New York at Times Square, New York, NY
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 15-16, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago, Gleacher Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15-16, 2006
LITIGATING, SETTLING AND MANAGING ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino , Las Vegas, NV
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 20-21, 2006
12TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY
INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Union Square , San Francisco, CA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 20-22, 2006
PREVENTING, MANAGING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF OBSTETRIC
MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Park Hyatt, Philadelphia, PA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2006
5TH INTERNATIONAL GUIDE TO REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTIONS
American Conference Institute
Park Central, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 29 - 30, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Swiss"tel Chicago , Chicago, IL
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

June 30, 2006
INFLUENCING DAMAGE AWARDS
Bridgeport CE
Westin Bonaventure Hotel, LA
Contact: 818-783-7156

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

July 19-20, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

July 27-28, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

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

October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

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

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

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

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

June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 13, 2006
ETHICS IN CLASS ACTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of China Energy
securities during the period between April 21, 2005 and Feb. 15,
2006, both dates inclusive.  The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

China Energy is a Nevada corporation, which maintains its
principal office in Wanchai, Hong Kong.  The company engages in
the development, manufacture, sale, and distribution of energy-
saving products for use in commercial and industrial settings in
the People's Republic of China.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company
failed to disclose insider sales and self-dealing transactions
in an adequate or timely basis.  Moreover, the company failed to
disclose, as a "risk factor" in its quarterly or annual reports
or elsewhere, that self-dealing transactions in the company's
stock by insiders could lead its stock being halted by Nasdaq.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to disclose that:

      -- the company's insiders were engaging in self dealing
         involving the company's January 2006 private placement;
         and

      -- the company was in violation of SEC Rules regarding
         limitations on sales of restricted stock that resulted
         in the stock being halted by Nasdaq.

On Feb. 15, 2006, after the market closed, the Nasdaq announced
that it had halted trading of China Energy stock.  The press
release stated only that "additional information" was requested
from the company and that trading would be suspended until the
company provided the requested information.

Interested parties have until June 30, 2006 to move the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the Class.

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


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Yourman Alexander Files Pa. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. during the period March 16, 2004 through
April 25, 2006, inclusive.  The matter is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the progress of FDA approval concerning its
"lead product" Surfaxin.

For example, it is alleged that during the proposed class
period, defendants represented that FDA approval of Surfaxin was
anticipated in April of 2006.

However, it is further alleged that on April 25, 2006, when the
company ultimately revealed that the "stability" of the product,
which is the ability to be stored for long periods of time
without any change in efficacy or chemical profile, had never
been achieved, and that there would be a "significant delay in
the U.S. regulatory process," Discovery shares fell 53% to close
at $2.20 per share.

The deadline to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is June
30, 2006.

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


XM SATELLITE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class
action In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
against XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (XMSR) and Hugh Panero,
President and Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of the company during the period from July
28, 2005 -- Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

XM Satellite, a Delaware Corporation, operates as a satellite
radio service company primarily in the U.S.  The complaint
alleges that throughout the class period defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements, all of which
misrepresented that XM Satellite was able to reduce the cost of
its new subscribers as it reached its goal of 6 million
subscribers by yearend 2005.

The true fact was that XM Satellite would be forced to spend
extraordinarily large sums of money in the fourth quarter of
2005, in order to stay on track to achieve its stated goal.

The complaint also alleges that despite defendants' knowledge
that XM Satellite would be making those huge expenditures,
defendants failed to disclose to the market that the company's
cost of subscriber acquisition would rise to extraordinary
levels, leading to huge increases in net losses, which was in
complete reversal of the trends of declining subscriber
acquisition costs and net losses defendants were reporting
throughout the class period.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the company's stock price closed at $25.25. On
Feb. 16, 2006 defendants issued a press release announcing the
previous undisclosed truth about the skyrocketing level of the
company's subscriber acquisition costs in the fourth quarter of
2005. With the disclosure, on Feb. 17, 2006, XM Satellite's
common stock fell 13%, to close at $21.96.

Interested parties have until June 3, 2006 to move the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the Class.

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