CAR_Public/060608.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 8, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 113

                            Headlines

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Ordered to Post Bond in Residents' Suit
BROCADE COMMUNICATION: Suit Reveals Hefty Option Grants to VP
ESPEED INC: N.Y. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Keep Original Complaint
GUAM: Pension Fund Director Subpoenaed in COLA Increase Suit
GUIDANT CORP: Appeals Disclosure in Tex. Suit Over Defibrillator

HEALTHSOUTH CORP: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 27
IBASIS INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Suit Deal
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Court Refuses to Junk Stock Suit
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Stay for Non-Bankrupt Defendants Opposed
J2 GLOBAL: Calif. Court Sets June Demurer Hearing for eFax Case

JUPITERMEDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Ask to Amend Calif. Antitrust Suit
LOOKSMART LTD: Court Orders Mediation, Stays Click Fraud Case
MANNATECH INC: Seeks Transfer of Consolidated Stock Suit to Tex.
MATTHEW BRANNELLY: Westpoint Investors Sue in Aussie High Court
MEDIACOM LLC: Appeals Mo. Court Order Over Class Relief in "Ogg"

MIVA INC: Ark. Court Stays "Click Fraud" Case, Orders Mediation
MIVA INC: Payday Advance Files Click Fraud Suit in S.D. N.Y.
MIVA INC: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Fla. Securities Lawsuit
NETWORK ENGINES: Settles Mass. Suit Over EMC Agreement for $2.9M
NORTH SHORE: Continues to Face Suit in Ill. Over Builders' Fees

NORTH SHORE: Still Faces Ill. Gas Reconciliation Procedures Suit
NORBOURG ASSET: Court Orders Return of $32M to Shareholders
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval for IPO Suit Deal
PENNSYLVANIA: Town Tax Collectors to Appeal Suit's Dismissal
PRICELINE.COM: Conn. Court Assigns New Judge in Securities Suit

PRICELINE.COM: Del. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in "Marshall"
PRICELINE.COM: Still Faces Suit Over Calif. Tax Law Violations
PXRE GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25
RIDLEY INC: Refused Stay in Suit Arising from Beef Import Ban

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued in Mo. Over Alleged Unpaid Workers Time
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
SSA GLOBAL: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Plans to Sell Firm for $1.4B
TRAVEL COS: Calif. Court Stays Los Angeles Occupancy Tax Case
TRAVEL COS: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for "Findlay" Case

TRAVEL COS: Motions to Add Revenue Official in Ga. Tax Lawsuit
TRAVEL COS: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal, Remand for "Fairview"
TRAVEL COS: N.C. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in "Pitt" Lawsuit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Paying $49M in Pregnancy Bias Settlement
WYETH: Judge Approves $1.28B Fund to Settle Fen-Phen Lawsuits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June 12
HOME DEPOT: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Yourman Alexander Files La. Securities Suit


                            *********


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Ordered to Post Bond in Residents' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Independence County Circuit Judge John Norman Harkey on May 26
gave Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas Inc. 10 days to post an
"appeal bond" in a class action over alleged violation of
nursing home residents' rights, the GuardOnline.com reports.

The $25 million bond being asked is for security because of
Beverly Enterprises' "uncertain financial status and "multitude
of claims pending" against it, the report said.  The company is
also facing class actions in Bradley and Saline counties.

The suit, filed last year by Helen Cook, a former resident of
Batesville Nursing and Rehab in Arkansas, was granted class
status on May 1.  It included all residents of the facility from
Sept. 13, 2000 to June 30, 2004.

The suit accuses the nursing home of causing Ms. Cook's
condition to dramatically worsen in the four months she was
there.  Annette Thomas, guardian of Cook's estate, accuses the
facility of medical malpractice and ordinary negligence.

Defendants are Beverly Enterprises Inc., Beverly Health and
Rehabilitative Services Inc. and Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas
Inc., doing business as Batesville Nursing and Rehab.

J. Scott Davidson is representing plaintiffs.  His suit is
alleging violation of the state's Residents Rights Act against
the defendants, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Northwest.  

Beverly Enterprises Inc. was bought in March by Pearl Senior
Care Inc., a subsidiary of San Francisco-based Fillmore Capital
Partners LLC.

Joining Mr. Davidson are attorneys Tom Thompson and Casey
Castleberry of Batesville, and Philip Bohrer and Scott E. Brady
of Baton Rouge, La.

For more details, contact Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey,
LLP http://www.davidsonberquist.com/DB_gowdey.html.


BROCADE COMMUNICATION: Suit Reveals Hefty Option Grants to VP
-------------------------------------------------------------
The former vice president of Brocade Communication Systems Inc.,
David Smith, was offered generous option grants months before he
joined the company in 2000, a class action against the company
revealed, according to Mercury News.

A Jan. 6, 2000 offer letter sent to him by then Brocade chief
executive Greg Reyes showed Mr. Smith was offered a relocation
bonus and 200,000 options to buy Brocade's stock at $149.06 a
share.  The grant date was his first day of employment in April
2000.  He was also offered a base salary of $240,000 a year.  

Mr. Smith was among a number of employees who benefited from
Brocade's "pervasive scheme" to manipulate option grants,
according to the suit filed by shareholders.  

Mr. Smith eventually netted $7.4 million from his sale of
Brocade shares in 2000 and 2001, the report said citing the
company's court filings.

Shareholders filed the suit against the company in May 2005
alleging the company violated its own rules for granting
options, hid the actual costs from shareholders and regulators,
and defrauded investors.  It was consolidated as a class action
in April.  The Arkansas Public Employee Retirement System is the
lead plaintiff in the shareholder suit.

Mr. Reyes stepped down as CEO in January 2005 after the company
announced it would restate financials.  He stayed with the
company as consultant until June 2005.

Brocade, as well as several other companies, is being
investigated by the Justice Department and the Securities and
Exchange Commission for option practices during the dot-com
boom.

The first identified suit is "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade
Communication Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

Representing the company is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
(http://www.wsgr.com/).

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Ave., Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Ave., Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York
         Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT, 06106
         Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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

     (9) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Ave.,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;

    (10) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com;

    (11) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th St., New
         York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;

    (12) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax:
         info@whhf.com; and

    (13) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison
         Ave., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax:
         212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com.


ESPEED INC: N.Y. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Keep Original Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs chose not to file an amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
eSpeed, Inc.

On Feb. 15, 2005, Mircuz Partners, LLC filed a purported class
action complaint against the company, Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.
and certain affiliated entities, as well as Howard Lutnick and
Lee Amaitis, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of the company from Aug. 12, 2003 to July 1, 2004.  
The suit alleges that the company made "material false positive
statements during the class period" and violated certain
provisions to the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and certain rules and regulations thereunder.  

Two similar class action complaints were subsequently filed.  On
April 8, 2005, the court consolidated the three actions as, "In
re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CIV 2091."  
Subsequently, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.

On Sept. 27, 2005, lead plaintiffs served their consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The amended complaint named
Howard Lutnick, Lee Amaitis, Jeffrey Chertoff, Joseph Noviello
and eSpeed, Inc. as defendants in the action.

The amended complaint alleged inter alia that defendants made
material misstatements regarding eSpeed's Price Improvement
product in violation of certain provisions to the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules
and regulations thereunder.

Defendants filed and served their motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint on Nov. 16, 2005.  
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed by February
2006.

On April 3, 2006, the court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  
The court granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead within 20 days
from the date of the opinion and order.

By subsequent stipulation and order, plaintiffs had until May 3,
2006 to submit an amended pleading.  Plaintiffs chose not to
file an amended complaint.  

The suit is "In Re Espeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-02091-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         212-867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
         rljacobs@pipeline.com;

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com; and

     (3) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
         1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Joseph De Simone of Mayer, Brown,
Rowe & Maw, LLP, (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, E-mail:
jdesimone@mayerbrownrowe.com.


GUAM: Pension Fund Director Subpoenaed in COLA Increase Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Guam's Retirement Fund Director Paula Blas was subpoenaed on
June 6 in relation to a suit over increases in cost-of-living
allowances to government retirees, the Pacific Daily News
reports.

Mike Phillips, an attorney for the retirees' class action,
sought the subpoena.

Guam has filed a motion challenging court-ordered retroactive
increases in cost-of-living allowances to government retirees,
the Pacific Daily News reports (Class Action Reporter, June 5,
2006).

The government lodged a challenge, instead of complying to an
order to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees, Mr.
Philipps had said.

In March, Superior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas ordered
the governor to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees,
and provide that information by May 31.  

An earlier Class Action Reporter story stated that lawyers for
the class action are in disagreement over the base year for the
computation of payments.

The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order
for the award, said it is 1990.  On the other hand, the
retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the
court.

The COLA increases were due to more than 4,000 retirees for the
years 1990 and 1995.  Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling,
determined that the formula for most of the payout will be based
on the consumer price index of 1988.  The lawsuit was filed in
1993 and based on a law that was implemented in 1988 but
repealed in 1995.

Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and
$100 million, according to the report.

Representing the government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP,
Suite 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive,
Tamuning 96913, Guam, Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223,
Web site: http://www.guamlawoffice.com.


GUIDANT CORP: Appeals Disclosure in Tex. Suit Over Defibrillator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corp. is appealing a court order to make public 22
documents that it said contain potentially sensitive
information, Marketwatch reports.

Judge Jack E. Hunter of the 94th State District Court in Nueces
County, Texas on June 5 ruled that plaintiffs attorneys can make
the documents public.  

In response to the order, the company made an emergency appeal
to stop the disclosure of the document.  It filed the appeal
with the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi.  It said
it was not given enough time to evaluate the confidentiality of
the document.

Guidant's appeal wants the court to reverse its order, and to
issue an emergency order prohibiting plaintiffs attorneys from
passing along any other documents until the appeals motion is
resolved.

The suit was filed by two Corpus Christi residents who have
suffered mental anguish upon discovery that the company's
defibrillator heart devices can malfunction.  The case is set
for trial on Sept. 18, 2006.  It stands to become the first case
to go to trial against Guidant over defibrillator problems.

The company is facing more than 300 class actions and individual
lawsuits connected to defibrillator problems.  Most of them were
filed in U.S. District Court and transferred under
"Multidistrict Litigation" rules to the court in Minnesota.

For more information, contact plaintiffs attorney Robert C.
Hilliard, and Robert J. Patterson of Watts Law Firm, L.L.P.,
Tower II Building, 14th Floor, 555 North Carancahua Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78478-0801 (Nueces Co.), Phone: 361-887-
0500, Fax: 361-887-0055.

Guidant's attorney is Elmore James Shepherd of Shook, Hardy &
Bacon L.L.P., JP Morgan/Chase Tower, 600 Travis Street, Suite
1600, Houston, Texas 77002-2911 (Ft. Bend, Harris & Montgomery
Cos.), Phone: 713-227-8008, Fax: 713-227-9508.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
will hold a fairness hearing on June 27, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "HealthSouth Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. CV-03-BE-1700."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who were
participants in the HealthSouth Corporation employee stock
benefit plan from Jan. 1, 1996 to June 3, 2005, or a
beneficiary, alternate payee, representative, or successor-in-
interest of any such person.

The court will hold the fairness hearing at the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Hugo L. Black U.S.
Courthouse, 1729 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203, in
Courtroom 509.  

Any objection to the settlement must be made by June 13, 2006.

For more details, contact

     (1) Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq., Derek W. Loeser, Esq., Gary
         A. Gotto, Esq. of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., 1201 Third
         Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone:
         (800) 315-0177, Fax: (206) 623-3384, E-mail:
         healthsouth@kellerrohrback.com, Web site:
         http://www.erisafraud.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1075;and  

     (2) Richard R. Rosenthal of Law Offices of Richard R.
         Rosenthal, 200 Title Building, 300 North Richard,
         Arrington Jr. Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)
         252-1146, Fax: (205) 252-4907, E-mail:
         rosenthallaw@bellsouth.net.


IBASIS INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order on the final approval of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action against
iBasis, Inc.

Beginning July 11, 2001, the company was served with several
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and several of
its officers, directors, and former officers and directors, as
well as against the investment banking firms that underwrote the
company's Nov. 10, 1999 initial public offering of common stock
and the company's March 9, 2000 secondary offering of common
stock.

The complaints were filed on behalf of persons who purchased its
common stock during different time periods, all beginning on or
after Nov. 10, 1999 and ending on or before Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaints are similar to each other and to hundreds of
other complaints filed against other issuers and their
underwriters.  They allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on
the assertion that there was undisclosed compensation received
by the company's underwriters in connection with the company's
public offerings and that there were understandings with
customers to make purchases in the aftermarket.

Plaintiffs have sought an undetermined amount of monetary
damages in relation to these claims.  On Sept. 4, 2001, the
cases against the company were consolidated.  On Oct. 9, 2002,
the individual defendants were dismissed from the litigation by
stipulation and without prejudice.

On June 11, 2004, the company and the individual defendants, as
well as many other issuers named as defendants in the class
action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-principle to
settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this settlement was
presented to the court.

The district court granted a preliminary approval of the
issuers' settlement on Feb. 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications to the proposed bar order, to which plaintiffs and
issuers agreed.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  The court appointed Garden City Group as
the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered that
notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement class
members beginning on Nov. 15, 2005 and completed by Jan. 15,
2006.

The deadline for filing objections to the settlement was March
24, 2006, and the fairness hearing was held April 26, 2006.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange
for a termination and release of all claims against the company
and the individual defendants and certain protections against
third-party claims, the company will assign to the plaintiffs
certain claims it may have as an issuer against the
underwriters, and its insurance carriers, along with the
insurance carriers of the other issuers, will ensure a floor of
$1 billion for any underwriter-plaintiff settlement.

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


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Court Refuses to Junk Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
German semiconductor manufacturer Infineon Technologies AG is
facing a class action in the U.S. that could affect plans for a
flotation of Qimonda, the group's memory chip subsidiary, the
Financial Times reports.

In mid-May, a California district judge rejected Infineon's
application to have a complaint of share price manipulation
against it dismissed.  The suit is charging Infineon of pushing
up its share price by entering into cartel agreements a few
years ago.

Infineon investors are also accusing Ulrich Schumacher, the
former chairman, and Peter Fischl, current chief financial
officer, of chip price manipulation.  A first assessment from
the claimants' side estimates damages of about $500 million.

In 2004, Infineon was forced to admit price manipulation in a
San Francisco court and paid penalties of $160 million to the
U.S. Ministry of Justice.

The lawsuit raises doubts over the planned flotation of Quimonda
because of questions on whether class action claims would remain
with Infineon or pass over to Qimonda.

The suit is "In Re:Infineon Technologies AG Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04156-JW," filed in the U.S.
Disctrict Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the defendants are Mark R.S. Foster and Mia A.
Mazza of Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-268-6335 or 415-268-7000, Fax:
415-268-7522, E-mail: mfoster@mofo.com and mmazza@mofo.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc Lawrence Godino of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los Angeles, CA
         90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-
         mail: godino@glancylaw.com;

     (2) John K. Grant of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: johnkg@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com; and

     (4) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San
         Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423,
         E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Stay for Non-Bankrupt Defendants Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. have rejected the company's
argument that the suit against it was stayed in light of the
company's bankruptcy.

On March 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a partial opposition to
company's suggestion of bankruptcy arguing that the action
against non-bankrupt co-defendants was not stayed.  

Between Aug. 20 and Oct. 4, 2004, five putative securities fraud
class actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The five lawsuits were consolidated as
"In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:04-CV-3342."

On March 23, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborer' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to
the parties' agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its
amended complaint on June 6, 2005.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements during the proposed
class period of Nov. 10, 2003 to Aug. 13, 2004.  

It also alleges that defendants misrepresented the company's
financial condition in 2003 and 2004 as evidenced by the
restatement, violated generally accepted accounting principles,
and misrepresented the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls so that they could engage in insider trading at
artificially-inflated prices, retain their positions at the
company, and obtain a credit facility for the company.

On Aug. 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Defendants argued,
among other things, that the amended complaint fails to allege
fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the heightened
pleading requirements for securities fraud class actions under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Defendants also argued that the amended complaint does not
allege fraud with particularity as to numerous Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles violations and opinion statements
about internal controls, fails to raise a strong inference that
defendants acted knowingly or with severe recklessness, and
includes vague and conclusory allegations from confidential
witnesses without a proper factual basis.

The lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Sept. 28, 2005, and defendants filed their reply in support
of the motion to dismiss on Nov. 14, 2005.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the court held a telephonic hearing relating
to the motion to dismiss.  On Jan. 10, the court issued a
memorandum and order dismissing with prejudice all claims filed
against the defendants.  Plaintiff in the securities class
action filed its notice of appeal on Feb. 2, 2006.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy
informing the court that the action was automatically stayed
because the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On March 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a partial opposition to
company's suggestion of bankruptcy arguing that the action
against non-bankrupt co-defendants was not stayed.  No dates for
briefing the appeal have been set or determined.

The suit is "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Roger B. Greenberg of Schwartz Junell, et al., 909
         Fannin, Ste. 2700, Houston, TX 77010, E-mail:
         rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com; Phone: 713-752-
         0017, Fax: 713-752-0327

     (3) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard, et al., 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414; and

     (4) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein, et al., 1100 New York
         Ave., NW Ste. 500 W. Twr., Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         202-408-4600.

Representing the company is N. Scott Fletcher of Vinson &
Elkins, LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-3234, Fax: 713-615-5168, E-mail:
sfletcher@velaw.com.


J2 GLOBAL: Calif. Court Sets June Demurer Hearing for eFax Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California set a June 16, 2006
hearing for J2 Global Communications, Inc.'s demurrer in the
purported class action over the its eFax service.

On Oct. 11, 2005, a complaint was filed against the company in
Los Angeles Superior Court in a purported class action alleging
violations of California law challenging the pricing policies
applicable to its eFax service and, in particular, the manner in
which users are notified about the terms and conditions of the
pricing that applies once free service thresholds are met.

The action included purported claims for false advertising,
breach of contract, fraud and violations of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Profession Code.  The lawsuit sought
damages and injunctive relief.

On Dec. 2, 2005, the company filed a demurrer to the entire
complaint.  At the demurrer hearing held on Feb. 7, 2006, the
court sustained the company's demurrer, dismissed the case
without prejudice and gave plaintiffs 45 days leave to amend.

A first amended complaint was filed against the company on March
17, 2006 and the company is in the process of preparing
responsive pleadings.

On April 21, 2006, the company filed a demurrer to the entire
complaint, and the court has scheduled a demurrer hearing for
June 16, 2006.  The company believes that the action lacks merit
and will vigorously defend the matter.


JUPITERMEDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Ask to Amend Calif. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative class action pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California against Jupitermedia Corp. have
filed a motion for leave to add a new plaintiff in the
complaint.  

The suit also names several Internet search sites and service
providers.  It was filed on Aug. 3, 2004 by Mario Cisneros and
Michael Voight, on behalf of themselves, all other similarly
situated, and/or the general public.

The suit alleges that defendants' posting of paid advertising
providing links to Internet gambling Web sites constitutes
unfair competition and unlawful business acts and practices
under California law.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits and restitution.

On Sept. 3, 2004, the company blocked all advertisements from
being published on its Web properties from third-party search
engines for the gambling-related terms specified in the
complaint.  

Moreover, the company did not accept advertisements for
gambling-related Web sites directly from companies that operate
them.  It has demanded contractual indemnity from two companies
that supplied advertisements that are the subject matter of the
lawsuit.  Neither of these two companies, however, has stated a
final position as whether it will provide indemnity.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, which accuses some of the defendants of continuing
to provide links to gambling Web sites.  The company is not
named or implicated in this motion.

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint to add a new named plaintiff.  A hearing on
both motions was set May 23, 2006, 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 suit is "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Case
No. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court in
San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ira P. Rothken of The Rothken Law
Firm, 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520, San Rafael, CA 94903,
Phone: (415) 924-4250, E-mail: feedback@techfirm.com, Web site:
http://www.techfirm.com/.

Representing the company are David T. Biderman, Robert Harvey
Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert Gidari,
Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer, Thomas P.
Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C. Rawls,
David O. Stewart.


LOOKSMART LTD: Court Orders Mediation, Stays Click Fraud Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas ordered mediation
for the remaining defendants in the class action, "Lane's Gifts
and Collectibles, L.L.C., v. Yahoo! Inc.," in which Looksmart,
Ltd. is a party.  The court further stayed the proceedings in
the case.

On March 14, 2005 the company was served with the second amended
complaint in a class action in the Circuit Court of Miller
County, Arkansas.

The complaint names 11 search engines and Web publishers as
defendants, including the company.  It alleges breach of
contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received,
and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts
allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-
click advertising or "Click Fraud".

Plaintiffs in the second amended complaint are Lane's Gifts and
Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms,
Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a
Caulfield Investigations.

On March 30, 2005 the case was removed to U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.  On April 4, 2005
plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. and
Savings 4 Merchants, Inc. filed a motion of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice.  The motion was granted on April 7, 2005.

Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C. and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations filed a motion to
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005, which was
granted in June 2005.

In July 2005, defendants, including the company, petitioned the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for an appeal of the remand
order, and moved to stay the proceedings while the appeal is
pending.  The petition was denied on Sept. 8, 2005 and the case
was remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.

The company was served with discovery requests on Oct. 7, 2005.  
It has filed and/or joined motions to dismiss on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack
of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.

Pursuant to the court's initial scheduling order, plaintiffs had
until Jan. 27, 2006 to respond to the motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; and until June
9, 2006 to respond to the motion to dismiss on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

However the court entered an order staying all proceedings for a
period of 60 days on Jan. 9, 2006.  On March 8, 2006, the court
entered an order extending the stay until March 31, 2006.

On April 1, 2006, the court further extended the stay until
April 20, 2006.  

On April 20, 2006 the court preliminarily approved a class
settlement among plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain
defendants who display Google advertisements on their Networks.

The class settlement purports to release Google of all claims
and also purports to release certain defendants, including the
company, for any claims associated with the display of Google
advertisements on their networks.  The Court scheduled a final
settlement hearing date for July 24 and 25, 2006.

On April 21, 2006, the court ordered the remaining defendants,
including the company, to mediation and further stayed the
proceedings to June 21, 2006 at which time the defendants are to
report back to the court regarding their progress at mediation.


MANNATECH INC: Seeks Transfer of Consolidated Stock Suit to Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech, Inc. seeks to transfer the consolidated securities
class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period March 31, 2006.  

Originally, three securities class actions were filed against
Mannatech.  

On Aug. 1, 2005, Mr. Jonathan Crowell filed a putative class
action against the company and Mr. Samuel L. Caster, chief
executive officer.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of Mr. Crowell
and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock between Aug. 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive,
and who were damaged thereby.

On Aug. 30, 2005, Mr. Richard McMurry filed a class action
against the company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Terry L. Persinger, the
company's President and chief operating officer, and Mr. Stephen
D. Fenstermacher, the company's chief financial officer.

On Sept. 5, 2005, Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller filed a class action
against the company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr.
Fenstermacher.

The allegations in these class actions are substantially
identical.  The complaints allege the company violated Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, alleging that defendants artificially inflated the
value of the company's common stock by knowingly allowing
independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the efficacy
of its products during the purported class period.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
three putative class actions.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into the civil action as, "In re Mannatech,
Incorporated Securities Litigation."

Also, on Jan. 4, 2006, the court granted a motion in the
consolidated putative class action to appoint "The Mannatech
Group," consisting of Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr.
John C. Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund, as lead plaintiffs.

The Jan. 4, 2006 court order also appointed the law firms Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel, and
Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg, P.A. as liaison
counsel, for the putative class.  On March 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a consolidated class
action complaint for securities fraud.

Pursuant to an order entered on April 11, 2006, the timetable
for the company and the individual defendants to move to
dismiss, answer, or otherwise plead in response to the amended
consolidated complaint is dependent on the court's rulings on
the company motion filed on April 4, 2006, to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  

The first identified complaint is "Jonathan Crowell, et al. v.
Mannatech, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-829," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

      (1) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
          Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
          wfederman@aol.com;

      (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
          Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
          201-915, Fax: 310-201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com;  

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

      (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
          (San Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA,
          92101, Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
          info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
         Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com; and

     (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,  
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com.


MATTHEW BRANNELLY: Westpoint Investors Sue in Aussie High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Mitchell Brown from Slater and Gordon is suing Matthew
Brannelly Financial on behalf of investors who were advised to
invest in the now collapsed Westpoint Corp., ABC Queensland
reports.  The suit was filed in Brisbane Supreme Court by
Queensland clients who collectively lost $1.6 million in an
investment to Westpoint, which went into liquidation in
February.

The lawsuit seeks between $150,000 and $610,000 plus interest
and costs.  It names as defendant Deakin Financial Services,
which trades as the listed DKN Financial Group, and managing
director Matthew Brannelly.  Mr. Brannelly is accused of
breaching the Corporations Act and the Trade Practices Act,
negligence, breach of contract and failure to disclose
commissions.

Slater and Gordon previously named at least 30 companies and 120
financial planners who might be involved in a lawsuit relating
to the collapse of Westpoint Corp.'s financing firms.  Joanne
Rees of Slater and Gordon said they are targeting financial
planners because there is little chance anything can be
recovered from Westpoint (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2006).

For more information, contact Slater and Gordon, Web site:
http://www.slatergordon.com.au.  


MEDIACOM LLC: Appeals Mo. Court Order Over Class Relief in "Ogg"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mediacom
Communications Corp. is appealing a court order declaring that
class relief in the putative class action pending in the Circuit
Court of Clay County, Missouri, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v.
Mediacom, LLC, Case No. CV101-2809CC," is appropriate.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-based damages for an alleged
trespassing by the company in private properties in Missouri.  
The suit was originally filed on April 24, 2001.  

Pursuant to license agreements with the relevant state and
county authorities and utility companies, Mediacom LLC placed
interconnect fiber optic cable within state and county highway
rights-of-way and on existing utility easements in areas of
Missouri not presently served by a cable franchise.  

The suit alleges that Mediacom LLC was required but failed to
obtain permission from the adjoining landowners to place the
cable.  It has not made a claim for specified damages.  

An order declaring that this action is appropriate for class
relief was entered on April 14, 2006, and Mediacom LLC is
currently pursuing its appellate remedies with respect to that
order.  


MIVA INC: Ark. Court Stays "Click Fraud" Case, Orders Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas ordered MIVA, Inc.
and other defendants to enter into mediation with the plaintiffs
in the stayed class action, "Lane's Gifts and Collectibles,
L.L.C. v. Yahoo! Inc."

On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed in Miller
County Circuit Court, Arkansas, against the company and others
in the company's sector by Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC,
U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4
Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield
Investigations, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.  

The complaint names 11 search engines, web publishers, or
performance marketing companies as defendants, including the
company.  It alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
civil conspiracy.  

All of the plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the allegation
that the plaintiffs have been charged for clicks on their
advertisements that were not made by bona fide customers.  

The suit is brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals
that allegedly "were overcharged for [pay per click]
advertising," and seeks monetary damages, restitution,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other remedies.  
    
Two plaintiffs -- Savings 4 Merchants and U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc. -- voluntarily dismissed themselves from
the case, without prejudice, on April 4, 2005.  The company
believes that it has no contractual or other relationship with
either of the remaining plaintiffs.  

On Oct. 7, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state claims on which relief may be granted.  

On Oct. 14, 2005, the company timely filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction.   The court has not yet ruled on these motions.

Google Inc. and certain other co-defendants in the case who were
customers of Google have reached settlement terms with the
plaintiffs.

The court has granted conditional approval to the class
settlement between these parties, and the court has scheduled a
final settlement approval hearing for July 13-14, 2006.

The court has stayed the case as to the remaining defendants,
including MIVA, and has ordered them to enter into mediation
from May 22, 2006 to June 19, 2006.


MIVA INC: Payday Advance Files Click Fraud Suit in S.D. N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., is defendant in a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for allegedly engaging in click
fraud.

On March 10, 2006, Payday Advance Plus, Inc. filed a putative
class action against the company and Advertising.com, Inc.  The
complaint alleges that Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network
distribution partner, engaged in click fraud to increase
revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and
participation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who have allegedly been overcharged by the
defendants and seeks monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other
remedies.  

The suit is "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01923-JGK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John G.
Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robin Bronzaft Howald and Robert
M. Zabb of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (917) 510-0009
and (310)-201-9150, Fax: (646) 366-0895 and (310)-201-9160, E-
mail: hobbit99@aol.com and info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the company is Karl Geercken of Alston & Bird, LLP,
(NYC), 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-210-9400,
Fax: 212-210-9444, E-mail: kgeercken@alston.com.


MIVA INC: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Fla. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., filed renewed motion to
dismiss the consolidated the securities class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against the company and certain of its officers and directors.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The complaints allege that the company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Act) and that the individual defendants also violated
Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA.

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
the company's investors who purchased the company's stock
between Sept. 3, 2003 and May 4, 2005.  
    
They allege generally that, during the putative class period,
the company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding:

      -- the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition,

      -- certain material weaknesses in the company's internal
         controls, and

      -- the Internet traffic generated by and business
         relationships with certain distribution partners.

Plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions in order to keep the
company's stock price high to allow certain individual
defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.  
They thus seek unspecified damages and other relief.
    
On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits under the case as, "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities
Litigation," selected lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated cases, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on Aug. 16,
2005.  The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.  
    
On Dec. 28, 2005, the court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The court granted plaintiffs leave to submit a further
amended complaint, which was filed on Jan. 17, 2006.  On Feb. 9,
2006, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.  

The suit is "Zucco Partners, LLC v. Findwhat.com et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, under Judge John E. Steele.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Chris A. Barker of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 300 W.
         Platt St., Suite 150, Tampa, FL 33606, Phone: 813/489-
         1001, Fax: 813/489-1008, E-mail:
         cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and

     (2) Christopher S. Polaszek of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Tower
         One, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561-361-5000,
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the company is Joseph G. Foster, Porter, Wright,
Morris & Arthur, P.A., 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300,
Naples, FL 34108, Phone: 239/593-2900, Fax: 239/593-2990, E-
mail: jfoster@porterwright.com.


NETWORK ENGINES: Settles Mass. Suit Over EMC Agreement for $2.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. settled in March a consolidated class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts over its agreement with EMC Corp. in relation to
the Fibre Channel HBAs.

On March 17, 2004, the court consolidated a number of purported
class actions filed against the company and certain individual
Network Engines defendants.  

These suits generally concern the timing of the announcement of
an amendment to the company's agreement with EMC regarding the
resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel HBAs.

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on June 4,
2004.  The defendants on Aug. 13, 2004 filed a motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint.

On Oct. 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss and the defendants filed a reply
to the plaintiff's opposition on Nov. 12, 2004.  

The court on Nov. 22, 2004 denied the defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On Dec. 9, 2004,
the defendants filed an answer to the amended consolidated
complaint.

Since that time the parties engaged in some informal discovery,
have exchanged formal discovery requests, and then pursued
active settlement discussions.  

On March 31, 2006, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.  On April 4, 2006, the
court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
and scheduled deadlines for the settlement approval process,
including scheduling a settlement conference for July 25, 2006.

The settlement is subject to a notice and comment period, during
which class members may object, opt out of the settlement, or
file claims under the settlement.

The terms of the settlement require the company's insurance
provider to pay $2,875,000 in full settlement of the claims
asserted by the class.  

The suit is styled "Morgan v. Network Engines Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-12529-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Representing the plaintiffs is Rachel S. Fleishman and Carlos F.
Ramirez of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-
5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and

     (2) Daniel W. Halston and John A. Litwinski, Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com or
         john.litwinski@wilmerhale.com.


NORTH SHORE: Continues to Face Suit in Ill. Over Builders' Fees  
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Gas Co. continues to face a purported class action
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois for allegedly
improperly charging fees to several Chicago-based builders.  

In June 2005, a purported class action was filed against the
company by Birchwood Builders, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois alleging that Peoples Gas Light and Coke, Co.
and the company were fraudulently and improperly charging fees
to customers with respect to utility connections,
disconnections, reconnections, relocations, extensions of gas
service pipes and extensions of distribution gas mains and
failing to return related customer deposits.

Initially, a group of Chicago builders -- Birchwood Builders of
Winnetka, and Columbia Properties and S&S Home Builders, both of
Chicago -- initiated the class action, alleging that they were
overcharged for connecting and disconnecting the company's gas
lines, The Chicago Tribune reports (Class Action Reporter, June
16, 2005).

In their suit, the builders argued that they paid "tens of
millions" of dollars in fees.  They claim that the company
should have filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission for
permission to charge the fees but never did so (Class Action
Reporter, June 16, 2005).

They are specifically claiming that they are wrongfully charged
$550 to disconnect gas service to a property before construction
on a home can begin and then charged another $780 to reconnect
service once the construction is finished.  A third fee is
sometimes charged when the defendants supplies pipeline
connecting the property to the area's main gas line (Class
Action Reporter, June 16, 2005).

Michael Johnson, an attorney for the contractors, told The
Chicago Tribune that the builders usually end up paying between
$2,000 and $4,000 in fees to the defendants.  The suit also
alleges that deposits paid upfront for work on main gas lines is
not returned (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2005).

The suit seeks a court order barring the defendants from
charging the fees and punitive damages equal to the amount of
money collected in fees from the plaintiffs (Class Action
Reporter, June 16, 2005).

For more details, contact Michael Johnson of Halunen &
Associates, 415 North LaSalle St., Suite 203, Chicago, IL 60610,
Phone: 312-222-0660, Fax: (312) 222-1656, Web site:
http://www.youhaverights.info/.


NORTH SHORE: Still Faces Ill. Gas Reconciliation Procedures Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Gas Co. continues to face a purported class action
in Illinois alleging violation of the state's Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act in relation to matters at issue
in the company's gas reconciliation proceedings.

In February 2004, a purported class action was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court against the company and Peoples Gas Light
and Coke, Co. by Stephen Alport, a Peoples Gas customer.  The
suit alleges among other things, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to
matters at issue in Peoples Gas' fiscal year 2001 gas charge
reconciliation proceedings.  It seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

Peoples Gas has been dismissed as a defendant and the only
remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that the company
acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.

The company has filed two currently pending motions to dismiss
based upon the settlement and dismissal of Peoples Gas' fiscal
years 2001 -to 2004 gas charge reconciliation cases.

For more details, contact Halunen & Associates, 415 North
LaSalle St., Suite 203, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-222-0660,
Fax: (312) 222-1656, Web site:
http://youhaverights.lawoffice.com/CM/Custom/Peoples-Gas-Class-
Action-IL.asp.


NORBOURG ASSET: Court Orders Return of $32M to Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Judge Pierre Jasmin heard arguments on June 6 from a
lawyer seeking to include the province's financial services
regulator in a class action by Norbourg Asset Management Inc.
investors, CBC News reports.

Investors' lawyer Jacques Larochelle said the Autorite des
marchers financiers did not act early enough to protect
investors.  It was only last summer when the financial regulator
discovered a $130 million dollar discrepancy in the company's
results.

According to the report, the securities regulator is expected to
argue that a class action is no longer needed because it has
already taken up steps to recover money on behalf of Norbourg
investors.  It has filed 51 security act charges of fraud,
manipulation of mutual fund values and falsified documents
against the company's founder, Vincent Lacroix.

The investors have launched a separate suit against Mr. Lacroix,
his companies, Quebec's financial services regulator and some
Norbourg managers.

Meanwhile, on June 6, a Quebec Superior Court allowed Pierre
Laporte of trustee Ernst & Young to return $32 million of the
$75 million recovered last year from Norbourg, Evolution and
Perfolio funds.  The balance will be held in reserve until the
court decides on how the funds will be distributed to creditors.  
The suit has been before Judge Richard Mongeon since January.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval for IPO Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Openwave Systems, Inc.

On Nov. 5, 2001, a purported securities fraud class action
complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit is "In re
Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

It was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock from June 11, 1999 through
Dec. 6, 2000.  The defendants are the company and five of the
company's former officers, and several investment banking firms
that served as underwriters of the company's initial public
offering and secondary public offering.

Three of the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice, subject to an agreement extending the statute of
limitations, through Dec. 31, 2003.

The complaint alleges liability as 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 offerings did not disclose that:

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

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

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.  Similar
allegations were made in over 300 lawsuits challenging public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

The company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against the Openwave Defendants, in exchange for a
contingent payment by the insurance companies responsible for
insuring the issuers, and for the assignment or surrender of
control of certain claims the company may have against the
underwriters.

The Openwave Defendants will not be required to make any cash
payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of insurance
coverage, a circumstance which the company does not believe will
occur.

The settlement requires 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 held a hearing on April 24, 2006 to consider whether
final approval should be granted and the company is awaiting a
ruling.  

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


PENNSYLVANIA: Town Tax Collectors to Appeal Suit's Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Two elected tax collectors filed a notice with the Venango
County Court that they intend to appeal to the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court the dismissal of their suit over pay cuts
last month, The Derrick reports.

Judge H. William White in May dismissed the suit filed by
William L. McDaniel, Sugarcreek Borough tax collector, and
Bonnie K. Sharrar, tax collector in Sandycreek Township.  The
court said the two has no standing to bring the action.

The court order dismissing the suit said the plaintiffs were
aware of the new payment plan while in office, ran for re-
election before filing the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, May
24, 2006).  The two filed the lawsuit as a class action issue on
behalf of the county's 29 elected tax collectors.

The compensation formula for tax collectors was changed from a
straight 3% of all tax monies collected to a flat $4 per tax
parcel or property, tied to a condition that full amount of
taxes was collected.  If not, the amount will fall to $3.  The
compensation formula agreed on Feb. 2, 2005 was to take effect
in January 2006.  The new formula would reduce the county's
annual payment to collectors from about $247,000 a year to about
$200,000.

William Cisek, a Franklin attorney and assistant county
solicitor, represented the county in the lawsuit.  Oil City
attorney Michael Hadley represented the tax collectors.

For more details, contact William Cisek of Wilson & Thompson,
LLC, 1162 Elk Street, Franklin, PA 16323, Phone: (814) 437-2121,
Fax: (814) 437-1410.


PRICELINE.COM: Conn. Court Assigns New Judge in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut replaced
Judge Dominic J. Squatrito with Judge Christopher F. Droney as
presiding the judge in the purported securities class action
against priceline.com, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

Following its announcement on Sept. 27, 2000 that revenues for
the third quarter 2000 would not meet expectations, several
suits were filed against the company:

      -- "Weingarten v. priceline.com Incorporated and Jay S.
         Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV 1901;"

      -- "Twardy v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1884;"

      -- "Berdakina v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1902;"

      -- "Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1924;"

      -- "Fialkov v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1954"

      -- "Ayach v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2062;"

      -- "Zia v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1968;"

      -- "Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1980;"

      -- "Bazag v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2122;"

      -- "Breier v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2146;"

      -- "Farzam et al. v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S.
         Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case
         No. 3:00 CV 2176;"

      -- "Caswell v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2169;"

      -- "Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. priceline.com,
         Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay
         S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV 1917;"

      -- "Cerelli v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1918;"

      -- "Mayer v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1923;"

      -- "Anish v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1948;"

      -- "Atkin v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         1994;"

      -- "Lyon v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2066;"

      -- "Kwan v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2069;"

      -- "Krim v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2083;"

      -- "Karas v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2232;" and

      -- "Michols v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, Case No. 3:00 CV
         2280."

All of these cases were assigned to Judge Dominic J. Squatrito.
On Sept. 12, 2001, Judge Squatrito ordered that these cases be
consolidated under the Master File No. 3:00cv1884 (DJS), and he
designated lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On Oct. 29, 2001, plaintiffs served a consolidated amended
complaint.  On Feb. 5, 2002, Amerindo Investment Advisors, Inc.,
which was one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action,
made a motion for leave to withdraw as lead plaintiff.  The
court granted that motion on May 30, 2002.

On Feb. 28, 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On Oct. 7, 2004, the court
issued a Memorandum of Decision granting, in part, and denying,
in part, the company's motion.  The court entered a scheduling
order on Nov. 2, 2004 and the parties are now proceeding with
discovery.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the court issued a Memorandum of Decision and
Order stating that the Nov. 2, 2004 scheduling order would be
revised, but only after the parties have provided more details
about the status of discovery.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Jan. 7,
2005 and the company filed its opposition to that motion.  

On April 4, 2006, the court issued a Memorandum of Decision
granting, in part, and denying, in part, the plaintiffs' motion.
The court certified a class and approved five of the six
proposed class representatives.

On May 4, 2006, the case was transferred to Judge Christopher F.
Droney.

The master complaint is "Twardy, et al. v. Priceline.com, Inc,
et al., Case No. 3:00-cv-01884-DJS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F.
Droney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael D. Donovan, Donovan Searles 1845 Walnut St.
         Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-732-6067
         Fax: 215-732-8060 E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com;

     (2) Justin Scott Kudler, Schatz & Nobel-Htfd One Corporate
         Center 20 Church St., Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292 Fax: 860-493-6290 E-mail:
         justin@snlaw.net; and

     (3) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
         Chester 65 Main St. Chester, CT 06412 Phone: 860-526-
         1100 Fax: 860-526-1120 E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Evan R. Chesler, Kevin J. Kehoe, Daniel Slifkin,
         Cravath, Swaine & Moore 825 8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza
         New York, NY 10019-7415 Phone: 212-474-1000 E-mail:
         dslifkin@cravath.com; and

    (ii) Joseph L. Clasen, William J. Kelleher Robinson & Cole
         Financial Centre, 695 E. Main St., Pobx 10305 Stamford,
         CT 06904-2305 Phone: 203-462-7510 Fax: 203-462-7599 E-
         mail: jclasen@rc.com.


PRICELINE.COM: Del. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in "Marshall"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of Delaware for New Castle
County has yet to rule on priceline.com, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the purported class action, "Marshall, et al. v.
priceline.com, Inc.," 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.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
allegedly similarly situated consumers.

The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et
seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to
cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances
nationwide, and service fees.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005.  
It also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its
motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court granted that stay
on May 11, 2005.

On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for
breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.  The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.  

On July 15, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the basis that it fails to allege
sufficient facts to state a cause of action.  The company's
motion to dismiss was heard by the court on Nov. 4, 2005 and the
parties are awaiting a decision.


PRICELINE.COM: Still Faces Suit Over Calif. Tax Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com, Inc. continues to face a purported consumer class
action, "Bush, et al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc., et al.," in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, 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.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Ronald Bush and three other individuals filed
a putative class action complaint on behalf of themselves other
allegedly similarly situated California consumers.  Defendants
in the suit are:

      -- Hotels.com, L.P.;
      -- Hotel.com GP, LLC;
      -- Hotwire, Inc.;
      -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
      -- Expedia, Inc.;
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.; Maupintour Holding LLC;
      -- Orbitz, Inc.;
      -- Orbitz, LLC;
      -- priceline.com, Inc.;
      -- Site59.com, LLC;
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
      -- Travelocity.com LP;
      -- Travelweb, LLC and
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

The complaint alleged each of the defendants engaged in acts of
unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 relating to
their respective disclosures and charges to customers to cover
taxes under the above ordinances of the City of Los Angeles and
other California cities, and service fees.

It sought restitution under Section 17200, relief for alleged
conversion, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
imposition of a constructive trust.  

The defendants removed this action to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  On May 9, 2005, the
District Court issued an order remanding the action to state
court.

Defendants timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which, on Oct.
6, 2005, affirmed the order of the District Court.  The case
will therefore proceed in the state court.

On July 1, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. and claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

On Dec. 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and ordered
that motions challenging the amended complaint would be
coordinated with any similar motions filed in the action, "City
of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al."

The federal suit is "Ronald Bush et al v. Cheaptickets Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-02285-PA-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Percy
Anderson with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Sabrina S. Kim and Jeff S.
Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman, LLP, 355 South
Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-617-
1200, Fax: 213-617-9185, E-mail: skim@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants is Gordon A. Greenberg of McDermott
Will & Emery, 2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl., Los Angeles, CA
90067-3208, Phone: 310-277-4110, Fax: 310-277-4730.


PXRE GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PXRE Group Ltd. said it was named defendant in two purported
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on May 3, 2006 and May 5,
2006.

The suits named as defendants, the company, Jeffrey Radke, the
company's chief executive officer, and John Modin, the company's
former chief financial officer, on behalf of a putative class
consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded
securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006.

Although PXRE has not been served a copy of the complaints,
based on a press release and a copy of the complaints posted on
a third-party website, the company understands that the
complaints allege that during the purported class period certain
PXRE executives made a series of materially false and misleading
statements or omissions about PXRE's business, prospects and
operations, thereby causing investors to purchase PXRE's
securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (1934 Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The complaint alleges, among others, that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts:

      -- that PXRE concealed from investors the full impact on
         its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- that PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes had doubled to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million;

      -- that the magnitude of the loss would cause PXRE to lose
         its financial-strength and credit ratings from A.M.
         Best;

      -- that PXRE concealed the losses in order to complete a
         $114 million secondary offering and raise more than
         $350 million from an offering of perpetual preferred
         shares; and

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, PXRE's
         statements with respect to its loss estimates for the
         2005 Hurricane season lacked in all reasonable basis.

The actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.

The first identified complaint is "Stephen Goldberger, et al. v.
PXRE Group Limited, et al., Case No. 06-CV-3410," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (5) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

     (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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

     (8) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (9) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone:
         310.725.6400, Fax: 310.725.6420.


RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25
-------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 25, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Swack v. Credit
Suisse First, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-11943-DPW."

Filed on Oct. 3, 2002, the case was brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired Razorfish, Inc. common stock between May
24, 1999 and May 4, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Douglas P. Woodlock in U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, MA 02210.  

Any objections and exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made by July 11, 2006.  Deadline for submitting a proof of claim
is on Oct. 6, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Claims Administrator, Razorfish Securities Litigation,
         c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
         Jericho, N.Y. 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax:
         (516) 931-0810; and

     (2) Thomas G. Shapiro, Edward F. Haber and Theodore M.      
         Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax:
         617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com,
         ehaber@shulaw.com and ted@shulaw.com.


RIDLEY INC: Refused Stay in Suit Arising from Beef Import Ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court has denied motions by Ridley Inc. and
the government of Canada for a stay of the proposed class action
filed against the company in the province in relation to bans on
the importation of Canadian beef and cattle.

Ridley previously disclosed that four lawsuits were commenced in
April 2005 against the company and the Government of Canada in
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.  The lawsuits each
seek damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly
incurred by Canadian cattle farmers as a result of international
bans on the importation of Canadian beef and cattle following
the May 2003 announcement of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy
diagnosis in an Alberta cow.

The plaintiff in the Saskatchewan action previously moved to
stay his lawsuit pending further decisions by the Ontario Court.
The Alberta action has also not progressed since it was filed.

In April 2006, Ridley was granted leave to appeal the Ontario
Superior Court ruling that had denied Ridley's motion for early
dismissal of the Ontario claims.  Ridley believes that the
denial conflicts with Supreme Court of Canada case law and other
appellate court decisions.  It is expected that the Ontario
Court of Appeals will hear Ridley's appeal in late 2006, at the
earliest.

In a decision released June 2, Ridley learned that the Quebec
Superior Court has denied motions by the Government of Canada
and Ridley for a stay of the proposed class action filed in the
Province of Quebec.  Ridley had sought a stay pending
determinations of law by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a
parallel lawsuit commenced in Ontario.

The Quebec court's ruling allows the Quebec case to move forward
to the class authorization stage of the proceedings, but the
decision does not impact the merits of the case, and it does not
affect the actions in any other province.  Ridley is considering
its options for an appeal of the denial of the stay motion to
the Court of Appeals.

In its motion before the Quebec Superior Court, Ridley had
requested a stay of the proposed Quebec action, arguing that the
Court should exercise its discretion to manage the case
efficiently and avoid the possibility of contradictory rulings
by the Ontario and Quebec courts.  Ridley argued that common law
applies to determine what duties if any Ridley might owe to the
Quebec plaintiff and the Quebec class.

On that basis and because of other connecting factors, Ridley
also argued that the Ontario court is the more appropriate
forum.  Nonetheless, the Quebec Court's judgment on June 2nd
held that the plaintiffs identified in the Ontario and Quebec
cases are not the same and, therefore, the Quebec case should
proceed independently, notwithstanding the progress of the
Ontario action.

Ridley continues to pursue early dismissal of the Ontario
lawsuit and will continue to aggressively defend against all of
the claims as the litigation progresses.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg,
Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies.  Ridley manufactures and/or distributes a
full range of animal nutrition products under a number of highly
regarded trade names.

For more information, contact Steve VanRoekel, president and
chief executive officer of Ridley Inc., Phone: (507) 388-9618,
Web site: http://www.ridleyinc.com.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued in Mo. Over Alleged Unpaid Workers Time
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is facing a labor lawsuit filed by
Kansas City production workers in Missouri federal court,
according to The Kansas City Star.

The suit, which is seeking class action status, alleges the
pharmaceutical giant failed to pay Kansas City production
workers for the time they needed to put on and remove
specialized protective gear and to walk to and from their
workstations.

Sanofi-Aventis' manufacturing plant in Kansas City employs about
500 people.

The suit is "Qualls et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Case No.
4:06-cv-00435-SOW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri under Judge Scott O. Wright.

Representing the plaintiffs Gary W. Qualls and Eddy D. Reber is
George A. Hanson of Stueve, Siegel, Hanson, Woody, LLP, 330 West
47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: (816) 714-
7115, Fax: (816) 714-7101, E-mail: hanson@sshwlaw.com.


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.

In November 2001, the company, various officers and certain
underwriters of the its initial public offering of securities
were named in a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596," alleges
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the company's initial public offering, including
obtaining commitments from investors to purchase shares in the
aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.

Similar suits concerning more than 300 other companies' initial
public offerings were filed during 2001, and this lawsuit is
being coordinated with those actions (coordinated litigation).

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on or about April 19,
2002, bringing claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws and seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.

On or about July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed
in the coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer
defendants, of which the company  and the company's named
officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.

On Oct. 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the
court dismissed the officer and director defendants from the
action without prejudice.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants, including the
company.  The court's order dismissed all claims against us
except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company, was
submitted to the court for approval. The terms of the
settlement, if approved, would dismiss and release all claims
against the participating defendants, including the company.

In exchange for this dismissal, D&O insurance carriers would
agree to guarantee a recovery by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants of at least $1 billion, and the issuer
defendants would agree to an assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including final court approval.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a hearing regarding the
possible final approval of the previously described preliminary
settlement between the 300 issuers and the plaintiffs.

After hearing arguments from a number of interested parties, the
court adjourned the hearing to consider its ruling on the
matter, without giving an expected date at which such ruling
will be handed down.


SSA GLOBAL: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Plans to Sell Firm for $1.4B
----------------------------------------------------------------
An SSA Global Technologies Inc. stockholder has filed a suit
against the company to stop directors' plans to sell the firm to
Infor Global Solutions for a price that the plaintiff says
undervalues the company, iSeries Network.com.

Stephen Fisch filed the suit in Cook County Circuit Court.  He
is bringing the suit as a class action on behalf of himself and
other common stockholders who together own 17 percent of the
company.

The suit alleges that SSA board of directors and majority
shareholders Cerberus Capital Management LP and General Atlantic
LLC, who own the remaining 83 percent of the company, have
breached their fiduciary duties.  

SSA is being sold for $1.4 billion, which values the company's
shares at $19.50 each.  The share price represents a 26 percent
premium over the average stock price and a 77 percent gain over
the 2005 initial public offering price of $11 per share.  

The suit says the price is low because it is based on the
company's January 2006 financial report, which was not corrected
after the company released its financial results to the public.

It names as defendants SSA Global, its directors, Chief
Executive Michael Greenough, and majority shareholders Cerberus
and General Atlantic.  

The plaintiff wants the court to keep SSA from going through
with the planned sale unless the company gets the highest
possible price for shareholders.


TRAVEL COS: Calif. Court Stays Los Angeles Occupancy Tax Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles stayed all
proceedings in the purported class action, "City of Los Angeles
v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.," on priceline.com, Inc.'s and other
defendants' motion for coordination of this matter with another
similar case in San Diego.

The stay was issued pending a decision by the Managing Judge of
the Complex Case Division of the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles.

The City of Los Angeles filed a putative class action complaint
in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of
itself and other allegedly similarly situated cities in
California, naming as defendants:  

      -- Hotels.com, L.P.;
      -- Hotel.com GP, LLC;
      -- Hotwire, Inc.;
      -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
      -- Expedia, Inc.;
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.; Maupintour Holding LLC;
      -- Orbitz, Inc.;
      -- Orbitz, LLC;
      -- priceline.com, Inc.;
      -- Site59.com, LLC;
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
      -- Travelocity.com LP;
      -- Travelweb, LLC and
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that each of these
defendants violated the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax
Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles, and allegedly similar
ordinances of other California cities, with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under such
ordinances.  Such practices also allegedly constitute acts of
unfair competition under California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200, et seq. (Section 17200).

On May 19, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery.  On Aug.
31, 2005, the City of Los Angeles filed an amended complaint
adding a claim for a declaratory judgment.

The amended complaint sought payment of alleged unpaid taxes
owed, relief from conversion, including punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and imposition of a constructive trust.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the court sustained the defendants' demurrers
on the ground of improper joinder of defendants and claims, and
therefore, dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to file
amended complaint further addressing the joinder issue.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the City of Los Angeles filed a second amended
complaint that asserts the same claims but includes additional
allegations of fact.

On March 27, 2006, the defendants filed demurrers to the second
amended complaint.  Those demurrers have been fully briefed.

On March 31, 2006, the defendants filed with the Judicial
Council of California a petition for coordination of this matter
with a similar case in the City of San Diego.  

The Judicial Council has assigned that motion to the Managing
Judge of the Complex Case Division of the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles.  In light of that assignment, the judge
currently hearing the City of Los Angeles case has stayed
further proceedings pending resolution of that motion.


TRAVEL COS: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for "Findlay" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on defendants' motion to dismiss the purported class
action, "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-07443-DAK,"

On Oct. 25, 2005, the City of Findlay, Ohio filed a putative
class action complaint in the Common Pleas Court of Hancock
County, Ohio on behalf of itself and other similarly situated
taxing entities in Ohio.  Named as defendants are:

      -- Hotels.com, L.P.;
      -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;
      -- Hotwire, Inc.;
      -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group Inc.;
      -- Expedia, Inc.;
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.;
      -- Maupintour Holding, LLC;
      -- Orbitz, Inc.;
      -- Orbitz, LLC;
      -- priceline.com, Inc.;
      -- Site59.com, LLC;
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
      -- Travelocity.com, L.P.;
      -- Travelweb, LLC and
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that each of these
defendants violated Ohio Revenue Code Section 5739 and the
Certified Ordinances of the City of Findlay and other putative
class members with respect to the charges and remittance of
amounts to cover taxes under the Ohio transient occupancy tax
ordinances.

The complaint also asserts claims for violation of Ohio Revised
Code Chapter 1345, et seq., conversion, a constructive trust and
a declaratory judgment.

It seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available
by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.  

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
That motion has been fully briefed and the parties are awaiting
a decision, according to priceline.com's May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-07443-DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio under Judge David A. Katz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John T. Murray of Murray & Murray, 111 East Shoreline
         Drive, P.O. Box 19, Sandusky, OH 44871-0019, Phone:
         419-624-3000, Fax: 419-624-0707, E-mail:
         jotm@murrayandmurray.com;

     (2) Alicia Wolph Roshong, 123 South Main Street, Fostoria,
         OH 44830, Phone: 419-435-1999, Fax: 419-435-1622, E-
         mail: awolph@aol.com; and

     (3) George L. Kentris of Kentris, Brown, Powell & Balega,
         108 East Main Cross Street, Findlay, OH 45840, Phone:
         419-423-8668.

Representing the company are Tammy Geiger Lavalette and Steven
R. Smith of Connelly, Jackson & Collier, Ste. 1600, 405 Madison
Avenue, Toledo, OH 43604, Phone: 419-243-2100, Fax: 419-243-
7119, E-mail: tlavalette@cjc-law.com and ssmith@cjc-law.com.


TRAVEL COS: Motions to Add Revenue Official in Ga. Tax Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to include the Georgia Revenue
Commissioner as party in the purported class action, "City of
Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com L.P., et al., Case No.
4:05-cv-00249-HLM."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the City of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the City of Cartersville, Georgia filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of themselves and other
cities, counties and governments which have enacted transient
occupancy taxes and/or excise taxes on lodging in the State of
Georgia.  Named as defendants are:

      -- Hotels.com, L.P.;
      -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;
      -- Hotwire, Inc.;
      -- Cheap Tickets, Inc.;
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
      -- Expedia, Inc.;
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.;

      -- Maupintour Holding, LLC;  
      -- Orbitz, Inc.;
      -- Orbitz, LLC;
      -- priceline.com, Inc.;
      -- Site59.com, LLC;
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
      -- Travelocity.com, L.P.;
      -- Travelweb, LLC;
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc.;
      -- Onetravel, Inc. (d/b/a onetravel.com) and
      -- Does 1 through 1000.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that each of these
defendants violated excise tax ordinances and sales and use tax
ordinances of cities and counties in Georgia with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under those
ordinances.  It also alleges that each of these defendants
failed to identify and categorize each of those taxes.  

In addition, the suit asserts claims for violation of Georgia's
Uniform Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, conversion,
unjust enrichment, a constructive trust and a declaratory
judgment.  It thus seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees
and other relief.

On Feb. 6, 2006, the company and certain other defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint.  That motion has been fully briefed
and the parties are awaiting a decision, according to
priceline.com, Inc.'s May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006.

On March 20, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to add Georgia
Revenue Commissioner Bart L. Graham as a party.  The Georgia
Revenue Commissioner has intervened to oppose his joinder in
this case.

The plaintiffs' motion to join the Revenue Commissioner has been
fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision, the
regulatory filing said.

The suit is "City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com L.P.,
et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00249-HLM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Harold L.
Murphy.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

Representing the company are:

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


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


TRAVEL COS: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal, Remand for "Fairview"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on litigants' motions to dismiss or remand in
the purported class action, "Fairview Heights v. Orbitz Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00840-DRH-DGW."

On Oct. 5, 2005, the City of Fairview Heights, Illinois filed a
putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court, Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois on behalf of itself
and other similarly situated taxing entities in Illinois.  Named
as defendants are:

      -- Orbitz, Inc.;
      -- Orbitz, LLC;
      -- Hotels.com, L.P.;
      -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;
      -- Hotwire, Inc.;
      -- Cheaptickets Inc.;
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
      -- Expedia, Inc.;
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.;
      -- Maupintour Holding, LLC;

      -- priceline.com, Inc.;
      -- Site59.com, LLC;
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
      -- Travelocity.com, L.P.; Travelweb, LLC and
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

The complaint alleges, among others, that each of these
defendants violated Section 36-2-1, et seq., of the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Fairview Heights, Illinois and similar
laws of other Illinois taxing entities with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the
ordinances.

The complaint also asserts claims for violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1,
similar laws in other states, conversion and unjust enrichment.

It seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Nov. 28, 2005, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
On Feb. 10, 2006, the City of Fairview Heights moved to remand
this action to state court.

Both the defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's
motion to remand have been fully briefed and the parties are
awaiting decisions on those motions, according to priceline.com,
Inc.'s May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Fairview Heights v. Orbitz Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00840-DRH-DGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge David R Herndon with
referral to Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Karl P. Barth of Lovell, Mitchell, et al., 11542 NE
         21st Street, Suite A, Bellevue, WA 98004, US, Phone:
         425-452-9800, Fax: 425-452-9801, E-mail:
         kbarth@lmbllp.com; and

     (2) Richard J. Burke, Jr. of Lakin Law Firm, Generally
         Admitted, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River,
         IL 62095-0027, Phone: 618-254-1127, E-mail:
         richardb@lakinlaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Michael A. Barlow, Karen L. Valihura and Darrell J.
         Hieber of Skadden, Arps, et al., Phone: 302-651-3000
         and 213-687-5000, Fax: 302-651-3001 and 213-687-5600;
         and

    (ii) Charles L. Joley of Donovan, Rose, et al., Generally
         Admitted, 8 East Washington Street, Belleville, IL
         62220, Phone: 618-235-2020, Fax: 618-235-9632, E-mail:
         cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com.


TRAVEL COS: N.C. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in "Pitt" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on priceline.com, Inc.'s and other
defendants' motion to dismiss the purported class action, "Pitt
County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-00030-BO."

On Dec. 1, 2005, Pitt County, North Carolina, filed a putative
class action complaint in the North Carolina General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division, on behalf of all North
Carolina political subdivisions that impose occupancy taxes on
lodging.  Named as defendants in the case are:
       
      -- Hotels.com, L.P.;
      -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;
      -- Hotwire, Inc.;
      -- Cheap Tickets, Inc.;
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
      -- Expedia, Inc.;
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.;
      -- Maupintour Holding, LLC;
      -- Orbitz, Inc.;
      -- Orbitz, LLC;
      -- priceline.com, Inc.;

      -- Site59.com, LLC;
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
      -- Travelocity.com LP;
      -- Travelweb, LLC;
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc. and Does 1 through 1000.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that each of these
defendants violated unspecified room occupancy tax ordinances of
Pitt County and other putative class members with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under those
ordinances.  It also asserts claims for violation of North
Carolina General Statute Section 75-1, et seq., conversion, a
constructive trust and a declaratory judgment.

The suit seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties
available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.

On March 13, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.  That motion is being briefed.

The suit is "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-00030-BO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina under Judge Terrence W.
Boyle.

Representing the plaintiffs are Marvin K. Blount, Jr. and
Rebecca Cameron Blount of The Blount Law Firm, P.O. Box 58,
Greenville, NC 27835-0058, Phone: 252-752-6000, Fax: 752-2174,
E-mail: mblount@theblountlawfirm.com and
rebecca@theblountlawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants is Robert Ward Shaw of Maupin
Taylor, P.A., P.O. Drawer 19764, Raleigh, NC 27619-9764, Phone:
919-981-4310, Fax: 919-981-4300, E-mail:
robertshaw@alumni.wfu.edu.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Paying $49M in Pregnancy Bias Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc. will pay approximately $48.9
million to 12,326 current and former female employees in 13
states and the District of Columbia as part of a 2002 settlement
of a landmark class action alleging pregnancy discrimination
against Verizon predecessor telephone companies NYNEX and Bell
Atlantic.

New York-based Verizon, and the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which brought the suit, jointly
submitted a final report on June 5 to U.S. District Court Judge
Denny Chin informing him that the claims process was completed
in December 2004 and the total compensation paid to date under
the settlement is more than $25.3 million.

EEOC submitted a separate letter informing the court that it
projected that an additional $23.6 million would be paid in
future pension benefits.  The size of the class and estimated
value of monetary benefits make this the largest EEOC settlement
of its kind involving pregnancy-related service credit
adjustments.

EEOC litigated the cases along with two unions representing the
non-managerial employees, the Communications Workers of America
and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The consent decree resolved employment discrimination lawsuits
filed by the EEOC's New York District Office in 1997 and 1999
against Bell Atlantic and NYNEX (now Verizon), and their
predecessor companies and related subsidiaries.  

The suits alleged that the companies violated Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978,
the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, by
denying female employees service credit related to pregnancy and
maternity leaves of absence taken between July 2, 1965 and April
28, 1979, and care for newborn children leaves of absence taken
between July 2, 1965 and Dec. 31, 1983.

"As retirement benefits become increasingly important to today's
workers, it is critical to fight back when discrimination
occurs," said EEOC's New York District Director Spencer H.
Lewis, Jr.  "Employers should be aware that pregnancy
discrimination in regard to benefits is just not acceptable --
to workers and to the EEOC."

CWA Vice President Christopher M. Shelton noted, "CWA has been
involved for many years in efforts to eliminate pregnancy
discrimination in the workplace.  This case represents an
important victory for working women who should not have had to
sacrifice their pension benefits because they had children."  
CWA represents nearly 70,000 clerical, sales, service and
technical workers at Verizon, many of whom are located in the
states covered by the lawsuit.

                           The Class

The consent decree on the suit covers all women employed at any
time since Jan. 8, 1994, by any former Bell Atlantic or NYNEX
company located in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, D.C.,
and/or West Virginia, and who took a pregnancy or maternity-
related leave of absence between July 2, 1965 and April 28,
1979, and/or a leave of absence for the care of a newborn child
(CNC) between July 2, 1965 and Dec. 31, 1983.

EEOC Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman, who oversaw the
litigation effort, said, "We are pleased that so many women were
able to come forward and participate in this settlement.  Many
of them will be seeing its results in their pension checks each
month for years to come."

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination on
the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination.  In addition
to prohibiting sex-based discrimination, Title VII prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national
origin.


WYETH: Judge Approves $1.28B Fund to Settle Fen-Phen Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth is creating a $1.28 billion fund to compensate people who
have suffered health problems arising from the company's diet
drug cocktail fen-phen, FinancialWire reports.

Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia granted final judicial approval to the creation of
the fund.  

Some 40,000 people are involved in the settlement.  These are
people who experienced relatively minor health problems in
connection with the drug.  A settlement on the suit was reached
in March 2005.

Wyeth has reserved $21.1 billion to settle fen-phen litigation,
which began in 1997.  In 1999, Wyeth created a $3.75 billion
fund to settle cases.

Around 5.8 million people have used fen-Phen.  More than 122,000
subsequently sued the company, most claiming to have experienced
heart problems as a result of using the drug.

Wyeth pulled the diet drugs Pondimin and Redux from the market
in 1997 after it was found they caused heart and lung problems
in some users.  Those drugs were combined with the generic
phentermine in the fen-phen combination.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC reminds investors that they have only until
June 12, 2006 to request the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff in a securities-fraud action against Fairfax Financial
Holdings, Ltd. (FFH) and certain officers.

On May 12, 2006, Scott + Scott filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of Fairfax securities purchasers during the period March 24,
2004 through March 21, 2006, inclusive.

According to the complaint, defendants' class period financial
statements were false and misleading as they omitted material
facts, including that the company:

      -- employed flawed and defective accounting practices and
         internal controls;

      -- understated its reserves; and

      -- utilized aggressive off-balance sheet mechanisms.

On March 21, 2006, the complaint alleges, defendants revealed
details of a broadly escalated governmental investigation into
the company, following the issuance of a subpoena in response to
defendant V. Prem Watsa's statements regarding the company's
internal review of improper accounting practices at the company
and at Odyssey Re.

On this news, the price of Fairfax Financial stock plummeted
from its closing price of $130.90 on March 21, 2006, to close on
March 22, 2006 at $113.93, for a loss of $16.97 or 12.9%, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, Phone: (800) 404-7770,
Web site: (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


HOME DEPOT: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC has filed a class action against Home Depot,
Inc. and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The action is on behalf of Home Depot securities purchasers
during the period May 29, 2001 to Feb. 22, 2005, inclusive, for
securities law violations.  The complaint alleges that
defendants made false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the company's financial statements.  As a
result, the price of the company's securities was inflated
during the class period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, former and current Home Depot
employees have revealed that the company deceived vendors and
falsified Home Depot's financial results through fraudulent
return-to-vendor (RTV) policies.  These polices inflated the
price Home Depot charged vendors to cover the cost of
merchandise determined to be damaged or defective.  The
complaint states that these practices and policies were dictated
by company management, including a senior operations executive
who issued a memo on the subject in April 2002.

The complaint further states that as of January 2006, it was
finally revealed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission already had opened an informal inquiry in August 2005
into whether Home Depot had inflated its profits through vendor
payments intended to cover the cost of merchandise determined to
be damaged or defective.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than July 11,
2006 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, Phone: (800) 404-7770,
Web site: (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Yourman Alexander Files La. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Newpark Resources, Inc.
from Feb. 28, 2005 to April 17, 2006, inclusive.  The matter is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

The complaint alleges in part that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the financial condition of Newpark.  

It also alleges that while defendants were issuing these
statements during the class period:

      -- defendants were improperly processing and paying
         invoices;

      -- the company had inadequate internal controls and
         systems; and

      -- the company's financial statements were not being
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP).

As a result of the foregoing, the complaint alleges that Newpark
securities were artificially inflated during the relevant time
period and that when the true financial condition of the company
was revealed on April 17, 2006, Newpark shares plummeted by
$1.28, to close at $6.14 per share, a 17% drop from the previous
trading day's closing price.

The deadline to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is June
20, 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.  


                            *********


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  * * *