CAR_Public/060613.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 13, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 116

                            Headlines

AMERICA SERVICE: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Tenn.
AMERICAN TAX: Sued Over "Pennies on the Dollar" Tax Service Ad
APEX OIL: Judge to Reconsider Suit Over Refinery Vapor Damages
AT&T CORP: Judge to Examine Evidences in Wiretapping Lawsuit
BEAR FORK: Pike County Residents Sue Over Coal Mine Blasting

CALIFORNIA: San Diego Reaches $173M Settlement in Pension Suit
CALIFORNIA: Judgment in Suit Over Santa Monica Accident Disputed
CALIFORNIA: Court Allows Mega Millions to Continue Operating
CANADA: Nova Scotia Settles Suit by Former Youth Center Workers
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Wash. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit

CENTRAL LIVESTOCK: Judge to Decide on Certification of Lawsuit
COLORADO: Supreme Court to Review Inmates' Voting Rights Lawsuit
HCA INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Complaint in Tenn.
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Pa. Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
SEMPRA ENERGY: Antitrust Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval

SILICON STORAGE: Stock Fraud Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Tex. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ariz. Court Dismisses Claims in Stock Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Reaches $32.5M Settlement with 3CI Shareholders
TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Ken. Gets $600T Settlement in Lupron Suit

UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Faces New Suit Over Data Theft


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CSK AUTO: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June
ESCALA GROUP: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
PIXELPLUS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June 16
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit

XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.


                            *********


AMERICA SERVICE: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
America Service Group, Inc. is defendant in multiple purported
securities class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee.

The company, and its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer individually, were named as defendants in these
securities class action lawsuits, each of which is seeking an
unspecified amount of damages:

      -- a class action filed on April 6, 2006 by Plumbers and
         Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, individually and on
         behalf of all individuals who purchased or otherwise
         acquired the company's common stock between Sept.
         24, 2003 and March 16, 2006;

      -- a class action filed on April 10, 2006 by Jeffrey
         Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all individuals
         who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
         common stock between Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16,
         2006;

      -- a class action filed on April 11, 2006 by Gail Beach,
         individually and on behalf of all individuals who
         purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
         stock between Oct. 27, 2003 and March 16, 2006; and

      -- a class action filed on May 2, 2006 by David Waggoner,
         individually and on behalf of all individuals who
         purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
         stock between Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006.

Plaintiffs' allegations in these class action lawsuits are
substantially identical and generally allege that, prior to the
company's announcement of an audit committee investigation, the
company and/or the company's chief executive officer and chief
financial officer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission by making false and
misleading statements, or concealing information about the
company's business, forecasts and financial performance.

The first identified complaint is "Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local 51 Pension Fund et al. v. America Service Group, Inc, et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed in the U.S. District Court
for Middle District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 401 B. Street, Suite 1600, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
         general_efile@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) George Edward Barrett of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley,
         217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615)
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Benjamin Lee, B. Warren Pope and Michael R. Smith of
         King & Spalding, 1180 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA
         30309-3521, Phone: (404) 572-4600, Fax: (404) 572-5100,
         E-mail: blee@kslaw.com, wpope@kslaw.com and
         mrsmith@kslaw.com; and

    (ii) Robert Jackson Walker of Walker, Bryant, Tipps &
         Malone, 2300 One Nashville Place, 150 Fourth Avenue, N.
         Nashville, TN 37219-2415, Phone: (615) 313-6000, E-
         mail: bwalker@walkerbryant.com.


AMERICAN TAX: Sued Over "Pennies on the Dollar" Tax Service Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Brooklyn woman filed a class action against American Tax
Relief for failing to deliver its promise of helping her settle
tax arrears for "pennies on the dollar," according to Associated
Press.

Willie Mae Brown, a retiree, said she paid the company $5,000 to
help resolve what was then a $50,000 tax debt.  But it later
turned out she didn't qualify for the Internal Revenue Service
settlement program the company was offering its clients.  She
eventually had to pay the IRS about $80,000, the report said.

The company is also facing a class action filed by the New York
City Department of Consumer Affairs, accusing it of overly
promising what it can do to help tax delinquents.

American Tax Relief's attorney is Charles L. Kreindler of Beck,
De Corso, Daly, Kreindler & Harris, 601 West Fifth Street, 12th
Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-2025 (Los Angeles Co.),
Phone: 213-688-1198, Fax: 213-489-7532.


APEX OIL: Judge to Reconsider Suit Over Refinery Vapor Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Illinois Circuit Judge Daniel Stack will
consider the motion by two oil companies to review an order
allowing a proposed class action filed against them to proceed,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In September 2005, Judge Stack denied the motion of former
Premcor owners Apex Oil Co. and Sinclair Oil Corp. to dismiss a
suit filed against them by residents complaining of health
hazards caused by vapors coming from the refinery.  Judge Stack
then said the statute of limitations did not protect Apex and
Sinclair from claims against them.  Plaintiff attorney Teresa
Woody accuses the company of installing faulty vapor wells.  

Also representing the plaintiff is Kevin Davidson.

Apex's attorney Bill Knapp argued his client sold its interest
in the refinery in 1988, and thus, could not commit tortuous
conduct at the site after that.  

In October, Apex and Sinclair moved to reconsider.  In May,
Judge Stack granted the defendants' request to reconsider.

The proposed class representative in the suit is Katherine
Sparks.

For more information, contact Ms. Woody of Stueve Siegel Hanson
Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City,
Missouri 64112 (Cass, Clay, Jackson & Platte Cos.), Phone: 816-
714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101; or Mr. Knapp of Knapp, Ohl & Green
6100 Center Grove Road, P.O. Box 446, Edwardsville, Illinois
62025 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-5088, Fax: 618-656-5466.


AT&T CORP: Judge to Examine Evidences in Wiretapping Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will examine classified
government documents presented in the class action filed against
AT&T Corp. for releasing records to the National Security Agency
to determine if their release would be harmful to the nation.

Judge Vaughn Walker said in a filing that it would be impossible
to proceed in the case without examining the documents to
determine to what extent state secrets privilege applied.

Last month, the same judge overturned a request by AT&T that
Electronic Frontier Foundation return information that was
provided by Mark Klein, a former technician for the telecom.

The Texas-based company has denied any wrongdoing in the case,
in which the company allegedly handed over the phone records of
millions of Americans for scrutiny by the National Security
Agency.

Redacted portions of formerly sealed documents supporting
allegations that AT&T engaged in illegal surveillance of the
American people's communications were released on May 25,
according to Wired News (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006).

The papers included a declaration written by Mr. Klein.  It also
included several snapshots of an alleged secret switching center
of AT&T in San Francisco.  Mr. Klein provided the sworn
affidavit and three other documents to EFF to support it in a
class action against the company.   

These evidences, along with a motion asking for a preliminary
injunction against the alleged spying, were originally filed by
EFF under seal with the court.  

U.S. District Judge Vaughnn Walker rejected on May 17 a request
for a closed-door hearing of a lawsuit alleging AT&T illegally
handed over its customers' telephone and Internet records and
communications to the NSA.  

AT&T wanted only attorneys and not the public in the courtroom
to protect trade secrets.  But Judge Walker said that "carefully
dealing with questions about trade secrets in an open courtroom
'is not unprecedented,'" the CNET News.com reports (Class Action  
Reporter, May 19, 2006).  

The judge also ruled that a set of internal AT&T documents
supporting EFF's allegations in the suit filed in January may be
used in the case.

Earlier, the judge declined to hear motions by EFF to issue a
preliminary injunction against the alleged data collection until
after he considers whether to dismiss the case.  The judge set a
hearing for the motions on Jun. 23.   

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

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

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

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


BEAR FORK: Pike County Residents Sue Over Coal Mine Blasting
------------------------------------------------------------
Pikeville, Kentucky attorney Ray Jones filed a class action
against two Pike County coal companies over hazards and
aggravation caused by years of mine blasting in the area, the
Appalachian News-Express reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of 13 local families against Bear
Fork Resources LLC and Frasure Creek Mining LLC.  It contends
that residents sustained damage to residential structures,
garages, outside buildings, play yards and other accessories on
their properties over the past five years because of the
blasting.

In his complaint, Mr. Jones said mine blasting near the homes
"produced violent concussions and vibration of the earth and air
which shook the property of the plaintiffs."

The residents are seeking compensation for damage, hazards and
aggravation caused by the accumulation of coal dust in the air
and mud on the roadways.

Robinson Creek residents have contacted authorities several
times this year because of the accumulation of dust along the
roadway.  They claim the company is slow at solving their
problems.

Mr. Jones alleges that the actions of the mining companies were
done with "flagrant indifference to the rights" of his clients,
a basis for his request for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ray Stanley Jones, II, 43 Tolie
Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky.


CALIFORNIA: San Diego Reaches $173M Settlement in Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of San Diego and lawyers acting for a retiree reached a
tentative $173 million settlement in a suit claiming the city
failed to contribute the required amount into its pension system
over a nine-year period, 10News.com reports.

The settlement will see some $100 million being infused into the
San Diego City Employees' Retirement System through a bond
secured through tobacco-settlement funds, the report said.  An
additional $73 million, secured through municipal property, will
be paid into the pension system over the next five years.  The
settlement includes a provision that the complaint be amended to
be a class action on behalf of all municipal retirees.  The city
will cover plaintiffs' legal fees.

The suit, filed by attorney Michael Conger on behalf of William
McGuigan, accused the city of failing to pay its full
contribution into the system between 1996 and 2005.  The matter
went for mediation before retired Judge Lawrence Irving.

Eleven lawsuits related to the pension system are still pending
against the company, according to city Attorney Michael Aguirre.

The city's outside legal counsel is Latham and Watkins (On the
Net: http://www.lw.com/).  For more information, contact  
Michael Conger of 16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14, Rancho
Santa Fe, California (San Diego Co.).


CALIFORNIA: Judgment in Suit Over Santa Monica Accident Disputed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of the July 16, 2003 tragedy in the Santa Monica
Farmers' Market argued against a motion for summary judgment
filed by The City of Santa Monica and Bayside District Corp.
before the Hon. Valerie L. Baker on Thursday, June 8, 2006 in
Los Angeles Superior Court/Santa Monica Division.

Judge Baker's ruling will determine whether or not the
plaintiffs can move forward with their civil lawsuit against The
City of Santa Monica and Bayside District Corp.  Her tentative
ruling, excused the City of Santa Monica on a technicality based
on a design immunity argument and would excuse Bayside District
Corp. as having no duty to protect the public.

Arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs against Bayside District
Corp. will be made by Geoffrey S. Wells with the Santa Monica,
California law firm of Greene Broillet & Wheeler which
represents 14 plaintiffs in their wrongful death or negligence
lawsuits against defendants, which include George Russell
Weller.

Michael J. Piuze and Stanley K. Jacobs will argue on behalf of
the plaintiffs against the City of Santa Monica.

"There are substantive issues in this lawsuit," stated Geoffrey
S. Wells, "which only a jury should determine.  To excuse the
City of Santa Monica and Bayside District Corp. on
technicalities when they are both intimately involved in
marketing, advertising and holding out that the weekly market is
a safe place to visit is wrong.  We will fight all the way to
the U.S. Supreme Court to make sure that our clients have their
day in court."

On July 16, 2003, the plaintiffs were all attending the Santa
Monica Farmers' Market and were walking along Arizona Avenue.  
At approximately 2:00 p.m., George Russell Weller lost control
of his 1992 maroon Buick LeSabre sedan and drove it westbound on
Arizona Avenue, between Fourth and Second Streets, striking and
injuring at least 63 pedestrians and killing 10 people.

The plaintiffs allege that the City of Santa Monica and Bayside
District Corp. were negligent and reckless in conducting and
regulating the weekly Wednesday Santa Monica Farmers' Market.  
They claim that the defendants' acts or failures to act created
the dangerous conditions which caused the accident to happen,
including the city's failure to install any type of bollards or
barricades to block east/westbound traffic on Arizona Avenue
between Second and Fourth Streets in Santa Monica, and its
failure to properly monitor the roadways or regulate motor
vehicle traffic on market days.

The suit is "Supino v. City of Santa Monica, et. al., Case No.
SC 080283."

Representing the plaintiffs is Geoffrey S. Wells of Greene
Broillet & Wheeler, LLP, Phone: 310-576-1200, Website:
http://www.greene-broillet.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jeanette Schachtner, Chief Deputy/Civil Liability
         Division, City of Santa Monica, CA, Phone: 310-458-
         8328;

     (2) Dana Alden Fox and Phillip M. Hayes of Lynberg &
         Watkins, Phone: 213-624-8700; and

     (3) Timothy L. Walker and Charles J. Schmitt of The Law
         Firm of Ford Walker, Phone: 562-983-2500.


CALIFORNIA: Court Allows Mega Millions to Continue Operating
------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly has ruled in a
lawsuit filed against Mega Millions, authorizing the multistate
lottery to continue its operations while mandating the Lottery
Commission to correct one conflict that was in direct violation
of the California Lottery Act.

The court held that the California Lottery Commission did, in
fact, violate California law.  The violation centered on the
differing deadlines by which California and other Mega Millions
states allow for winning tickets to be redeemed.

However, the judge determined that this contradiction did not
rise to the level necessary to halt the Mega Millions
operations.  Instead, Judge Connelly's order requires the
Lottery Commission to either seek a change in California law to
bring the California State Lottery Act into compliance with the
other state lotteries or get the other party lotteries to
conform their operations to California law.

"While this ruling gave some discretion to the Lottery
Commission as to how they will honor the judicial mandate to
correct their violation of law, we believe the only proper
course is through our elected representatives in a deliberative
and public legislative process," states Nicholas Roxborough,
partner of Roxborough, Pomerance, & Nye and the lead attorney
who argued the case for the petitioners in December of last
year.  "That was one of the primary goals of this lawsuit,
namely to hold an unelected and largely unaccountable governing
agency accountable to the people and their elected
representatives."

The petition filed last year on behalf of concerned citizens'
organizations and individuals, challenged the California Lottery
Commission's authority under Proposition 37 and its unilateral
decision to join the multistate lottery game without obtaining
legislative approval.

Commenting on their overall reaction to the ruling, Fred Jones,
general counsel for lead plaintiffs, The California Coalition
Against Gambling Expansion, adds he was "disappointed that even
though the court acknowledged that Mega Millions contradicted
California law, the judge was unwilling to immediately cease the
multistate venture."

"Although the judge denied our petition, the lawsuit was
successful in bringing to the forefront the important public
debate that should have occurred before the Lottery Commission
decided to enter in the Mega Millions agreement," explains Mr.
Roxborough.  "We hope the Legislature addresses the Commission's
violation and at the same time, reevaluates the percentage
allocated to education."

Mr. Roxborough adds that the other key goal of their petition
was to "secure more funding for California schools, teachers and
students" by providing the Legislature with the responsibility
to allot more money to education and less to the administration
of Mega Millions.

Currently, half of the money generated from ticket sales goes
toward prizes, at least 34 percent must go to education, and up
to 16 percent is spent on administration.

"We believe our percentages, particularly in a multistate
lottery, can be changed to benefit California's education
system," says Mr. Roxborough.  "In other Mega Million states, a
maximum of ten percent is earmarked for administration.  We
would like to see the same in California."

"If Mega Millions is here to stay and was approved as a revenue
raising tool for schools in our deficit-plagued system, then we
should do everything to maximize the benefit to our schools," he
concludes.  "But," adds Mr. Jones, "what ever the Lottery
Commission does, it should be done under the watchful eye of the
people's elected representatives to assure tight controls over
this gambling activity."

Petitioners' attorney is Nicholas P. Roxborough of Roxborough,
Pomerance & Nye LLP, 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250, Woodland
Hills, California 91367, Phone: 818-992-9999 or 310-470-1869,
Fax: 818-992-9991 or 310-470-9648.

Plaintiffs' attorney is Fred Jones, Esq. of Law Offices of Fred
Jones, 12120 Herdal Drive, Auburn, CA 95603, Phone: (530) 887-
9944, Fax: (530) 889-8000, E-mail: jones@california-wills-
trusts.com.

For more information, contact Linda O'Hanlon of Straightline
Communications, Phone: 818-386-1916 or 818-472-6028.


CANADA: Nova Scotia Settles Suit by Former Youth Center Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The province of Nova Scotia reached a multi-million dollar
settlement with former youth center workers wrongly accused of
abuses in the 1960s and '70s, CBC News reports.  The Supreme
Court of Nova Scotia approved the agreement June 6.

Under the deal, 79 former employees of the Shelburne Youth
Centre and Truro School for Girls will share CA$5.5 million.  
Total settlement is expected to come as high as CA$8.5 million,
including $1 million in legal fees, the report said.

Previously, the province spent about $56 million compensating
nearly 1,500 people who claimed they were abused, but it turned
out that many of the claims were fraudulent.  The suit,
originally involving 25 plaintiffs, attracted 1,457 claimants.

Later, the former youth workers were offered between $5,000 and
$20,000 each, but the offer was rejected and a lawsuit was
launched.  The settlement is the first successful class action
in the history of Nova Scotia, according to the group.

To preside over the disbursement of funds is retired Nova Scotia
chief justice Constance Glube.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Wash. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted Cell Therapeutics, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a private securities fraud class action filed
against the company.

"We are pleased with the Judge's decision to dismiss this
lawsuit," said Cell Therapeutics' President and Chief Executive
Officer, James A. Bianco, M.D.  " Cell Therapeutics will
continue to focus on its mission to develop new therapies for
cancer victims."

In March, Cell Therapeutics filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
claiming defendants violated federal securities laws by, among
other things, making false statements of material facts and/or
omitting to state material facts to make the statements not
misleading, in connection with the results of the company's
STELLAR clinical trials for its drug XYOTAX (Class Action
Reporter, March 27, 2006).

The suit is "Heywood v. Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00396-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michelle M. Backes of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia RD., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-
         mail: mbackes@sbclasslaw.com;

     (2) Tamara J. Driscoll of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 1700 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 2260,
         Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-
         9978, E-mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Douglas C. McDermott of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
         LLP, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: doug@hbsslaw.com; and

     (4) Jay H. Zulauf of Hall Zanzig Zulauf Claflin Mceachern,
         1200 5th Ave., Ste. 1414, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
         206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5901, E-mail:
         jzulauf@hallzan.com.

Representing the defendant are Daniel J Dunne, Jr. and Robin
Wechkin of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 701 5th Ave., Ste. 6100, Seattle,
WA 98104-7098, Phone: 206-447-0900, Fax: 206-447-0375, E-mail:
daniel.dunne@hellerehrman.com, robin.wechkin@hellerehrman.com.


CENTRAL LIVESTOCK: Judge to Decide on Certification of Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Hutchinson, Kansas attorney asked Senior Judge William Lyle on
June 9 to allow his civil petition against the defunct Central
Livestock Corp. to proceed as a class action, according to The
Hutchinson News.

Attorney Stan Juhnke wants to represent nearly 200 plaintiffs in
a suit against the company, which was closed in February when
auditors with the U.S. Department of Agriculture began
investigating its finances.  Cattlemen had complained about
checks from the business bouncing.

According to the report, after a short hearing, Judge Lyle
instructed Mr. Juhnke to prepare the documents necessary to
verify petition as a class action.  

Central Livestock is also facing a criminal complaint filed by
the Reno County district attorney's office.


COLORADO: Supreme Court to Review Inmates' Voting Rights Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear a suit filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union over the right of parolees to
vote, according to the Rocky Mountain News.

The suit, filed in November, is against Secretary of State Gigi
Dennis on behalf of 6,000 parolees, the Colorado Criminal
Justice Reform Coalition and Colorado-Cure.  The suit seeks a
ruling on whether a Colorado law that prevents paroled prisoners
from voting violates the inmates' rights in the Colorado
Constitution.

The point in contention is when does a parolee completes "full
term of imprisonment," and thus regains his full citizenship
status and voting right.

In May, Denver District Judge Michael Martinez dismissed the
complaint saying the inmate is still serving sentence while on
parole.  The ACLU petitioned for a hearing before the Supreme
Court saying that convicted criminals lose their right to vote
only while incarcerated.  The Supreme Court accepted the suit
June 5.

Representing parolee Michael Danielson and the Colorado Criminal
Justice Reform Coalition is Norm Mueller.  He said the Supreme
Court could issue a ruling in time for the Aug. 8, 2006 primary
election.


HCA INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Complaint in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
HCA, Inc. filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee.

In November 2005, two putative federal securities class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between Jan. 12, 2005 and July 12, 2005.

These substantially similar lawsuits asserted claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company, its
chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, executive vice president and chief financial
officer, and other officers related to the company's July 13,
2005, announcement of preliminary results of operations for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2005.

On January 5, 2006, the court consolidated these actions and all
later-filed related securities actions under the caption, "In re
HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 3:05-CV-00960."

Pursuant to federal statute, on Jan. 25, 2006, the court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs to represent the interests of the
putative class members in this litigation.  Co-lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 21, 2006.

The suit is "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-CV-00981," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul Kent Bramlett Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box
         150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734, Phone: (615) 248-
         2828, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com; and

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas, Tamara Skvirsky and Marc A. Topaz
         of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are James N. Bowen, Amy E. Neff and
Steven Allen Riley of Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC,
1906 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203, Phone: (615) 320-
3700, E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com, aneff@bowenriley.com and
sriley@bowenriley.com.


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Pa. Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
gave final approval to the securities class action filed against
Printcafe Software, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

The suit, "Citiline Holdings, Inc. v. Printcafe Software, Inc.,
Marc Olin, Joseph Whang, Amos Michelson, et al.," was filed on
June 25, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
officers violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in
connection with the company's initial public offering and
subsequent press releases.

In June 2004, an amended complaint was filed in the action
adding additional company directors as defendants.  Parties have
reached an agreement in principle to fully and finally resolve
this litigation, subject to the court's approval of the proposed
class action settlement.

Parties executed a written stipulation and agreement of
compromise and settlement in September 2005 and jointly moved
for the court's preliminary approval of the settlement.  

On Dec. 20, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement, certified the settlement class and directed the
issuance of notice.

In accordance with class action procedures, the U.S. District
Court for Western District of Pennsylvania conducted a final
hearing on April 7, 2006, wherein which it granted final
approval to the settlement.  

The final effective date of the settlement is 30 days after the
entry of the final judgment.  Absent an appeal, which the
company believes is remote given the lack of objectors, the
settlement and the final judgment will become final at that
time.

The suit is "Citiline Holdings v. Printcafe Software, et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00959-DWA-ARH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Donetta W. Ambrose.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jack G. Fruchter, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn
         Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         279-5050

     (2) David A. Rosenfield and Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, 200
         Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         (631) 367-7100

     (3) Gerald L. Rutledge and Alfred G. Yates, Law Offices of
         Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny
         Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 391-5164,
         E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

     (4) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (215) 667-7706

Representing the company are:

     (i) Roy W. Arnold and Traci Sands Rea of Reed Smith, 435
         Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886, Phone: (412)
         288-3131, E-mail: trea@reedsmith.com and
         rarnold@reedsmith.com; and

    (ii) Douglas J. Clark, David L. Lansky, and Nicholas I.
         Porritt of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page
         Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Antitrust Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager granted on June 8
tentative approval to a settlement of price-gouging claims
against Sempra Energy, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.

The suit is referred to as the Continental Forge litigation.  It
consists of class action and individual antitrust and unfair
competition lawsuits consolidated in San Diego Superior Court,
alleging that Sempra Energy and the California Utilities, along
with El Paso and several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to
control natural gas and electricity markets during the 2000-2001
energy crisis (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 1, 2006).     

The settlement of Continental Forge would also include the
settlement of class action price reporting litigation,
consisting of antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits
coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that
Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported
natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and
engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions.     

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

                          Class Members

Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and
electric consumers served by the California investor-owned
utilities.  It included customers of San Diego Gas & Electric
and other utilities across Southern California, or 13 million
ratepayers in total.

In May, Prager rejected a request by the plaintiffs and
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to amend wording in the
settlement.  

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

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

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

Sempra's attorney is Robert Cooper.


SILICON STORAGE: Stock Fraud Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. filed a second amended
complaint on May 1, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed against the company and
certain directors and officers, following its announcement of
anticipated financial results for the fourth quarter of 2004.

On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated
as, "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.)."

On May 3, 2005, the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed the
"Louisiana Funds Group," consisting of the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System and the Louisiana District
Attorneys' Retirement System, to serve as lead plaintiff and the
law firms of Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP and
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo to serve for the
class as lead counsel and liason counsel, respectively.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on July 15, 2005.  That complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws from
April 21, 2004 to Dec. 20, 2004.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 16, 2005.  
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
November 4, 2005.

The company's reply in further support of the motion to dismiss
was filed on Dec. 19, 2005.  On Jan. 18, 2006, the court heard
arguments on the motion to dismiss.  

On March 10, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave to file
an amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on May 1, 2006.

The suit is "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.  

Representing the Company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.


STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Tex. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Western District of Texas denied
Staktek Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities fraud
class action filed against the company and two of its executive
officers.

On Oct. 22, 2004, a class action complaint for violations of
U.S. federal securities laws was initially filed in the U.S.
District Court in New Mexico.

Plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to the
public an anticipated shortage of computer memory chips and that
they knew or recklessly disregarded that the anticipated
shortage would have a materially adverse impact on its revenue
and earnings.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the industry's transition to a new
generation of higher-capacity memory chips was causing computer
makers to stockpile supplies of older memory chips, increasing
the shortage.  The suit covers individuals who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004.

In April 2005, the case was transferred to federal district
court in Austin, Texas, and in June the plaintiff amended her
complaint, adding the company's chairman of the board as a
defendant.  In July 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, which the court denied on March 30, 2006.

The suit is "Holzwasser v. Staktek Holdings, In, et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-00239-LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Western District of Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow and Dale MacDiarmid of Glancy Binkow &
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, #311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, US, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax:
         (310) 201-9160; and

     (2) Howard G. Smith of Smith & Smith, L.L.P., 3070 Bristol
         Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone: (215) 638-
         4847, Fax: (215) 638-4867.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert W. Brownlie and Jennifer A. Lloyd of DLA Piper
         Rudnick Gray Cary, US, Phone: (619) 699-3665 and (512)
         457-7000, Fax: 619/699-2701 and 512/457-7001, E-mail:
         jenny.lloyd@dlapiper.com; and

    (ii) Stephanie Lucie, 8900 Shoak Creek Blvd., #125 Austin,
         TX 78757, US, Phone: (512) 454-9531, Fax: (512) 454-
         2598.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ariz. Court Dismisses Claims in Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed
with prejudice plaintiffs' claims in the consolidated securities
class action against Swift Transportation Co., 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.

Beginning in November 2004, three putative shareholder class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona against the company and certain of its directors and
officers.  The suits are:

      -- "Davidco Investors LLC v. Swift Transportation Co.,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04cv02435";

      -- "Greene v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case
         No. 2:04cv02492"; and

      -- "Tuttle v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case
         No. 2:04cv02874."

They are alleging violations of federal securities laws related
to disclosures made by the company regarding driver pay,
depreciation, fuel costs and fuel surcharges; the effects of the
FMCSA revised hours-of-service regulations; the effects of a
purported change in our FMCSA safety rating; Swift's stock
repurchase program; and certain stock transactions by two of the
individual defendants.

The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the
putative class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between Oct. 16, 2003 and Oct. 1, 2004.

On April 29, 2005, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases as, "In re Swift Transportation Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No., CV-04-2435-PHX-NVW."

On June 8, 2005, the court appointed United Food and Commercial
Workers Local 1262 and Employers Pension Plan as the lead
plaintiff.

Thereafter, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on August 19, 2005.  The consolidated amended
complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased Swift's common stock between Oct.
16, 2003 and Sept. 15, 2004.

The allegations in the consolidated amended complaint are
substantially similar to those in the previously filed
complaints.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on Oct. 21, 2005.

Both lead plaintiffs' opposition to that motion and defendants'
reply brief have been filed.  Oral arguments were heard on Feb.
17, 2006 on defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 26, 2006, the court issued an order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend, except as to
certain of plaintiffs' allegations, which were dismissed with
prejudice.

On April 28, 2006, the parties stipulated and agreed that the
plaintiffs would dismiss their remaining claims with prejudice,
and that each party would bear its own costs.  The district
court entered the corresponding order dismissing plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice on May 1, 2006.

The suit is "In re Swift Transportation Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No., CV-04-2435-PHX-NVW," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Neil
V. Wake.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. and Andrew S. Friedman of
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC, 2901 N.
         Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone:
         602-274-1100 and 602-776-5903, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-
         mail: fbalint@bffb.com and afriedman@bffb.com;  

     (2) Stephen G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Richard A. Maniskas of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280
         King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-
         7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Vaughn Eric Bunch, Kent W.
Easter, Nicole Healy and Cynthia M. Reed of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304,
Phone: 650-849-3231, 650-496-4334 and (650) 493-9300, Fax: 650-
565-5100, E-mail: vbunch@wsgr.com and nhealy@wsgr.com.


STERICYCLE INC: Reaches $32.5M Settlement with 3CI Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana
approved a $32,500,000 settlement in the class action, "Robb v.
Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 467704-A."

The settlement affects all persons and entities that held the
common stock of 3CI Complete Compliance Corp. on September 30,
1998, or acquired such stock between Sept. 30, 1998 and Feb.10,
2005.

In this case, the lead plaintiff, a 3CI stockholder individually
and on behalf of a class of 3CI's minority stockholders, and
joined by 3CI upon action by a Special Committee of independent
and disinterested 3CI directors, alleges primarily that the
defendants are liable to 3CI and the class members for abusing
their control of 3CI during the class period in violation of
attendant fiduciary duties imposed by law.  

Defendants deny that they are liable to the plaintiffs and deny
that plaintiffs suffered any legally compensable damages.

This case was litigated vigorously for approximately three and
one-half years and was nearing trial when agreement to the
settlement was reached.  Agreement to the settlement was reached
only after 17 continuous hours of mediation on Nov. 11, 2005 and
into the early morning of Nov. 12, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged damages to the class members in excess of
$200 million.  Defendants contended the amount of damages was
zero.  Settlement Web site:
http://www.3cicompletecompliancesecuritieslitigation.com/.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Kenneth R. Wynne of The Wynne Law Firm, 2730 JP Morgan
         Chase Tower, 600 Travis, Houston, Texas 77002-2910,
         (Ft. Bend, Harris & Montgomery Cos.), Phone: 713-227-
         8835, Fax: 713-227-6205, Web site:
         http://www.wynne-law.com;and

     (2) Craig B. Florence of Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP,
         Thanksgiving Tower, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000,
         Dallas, Texas 75201, (Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.),
         Phone: 214-999-3000, Fax: 214-999-4667, Web site:
         http://www.gardere.com.


TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Ken. Gets $600T Settlement in Lupron Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo announced that the state
has received $600,000 from TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. as
part of a settlement of a class action over alleged fraudulent
marketing of the company's cancer drug Lupron, Cincinnati.com
reports.  Earlier, the Attorney General's Office recovered
$503,256 from TAP on behalf of the Kentucky Medicaid Program.

In 2004, TAP pled guilty to criminal and civil charges, a
consolidation of many federal cases in U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts in Boston.  The lawsuit charged
TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Abbott Laboratories and
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited of conspiring to
fraudulently market, sell and distribute Lupron, a drug
primarily prescribed to treat prostate cancer in men,
endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women, and premature
puberty in children (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

The suit claimed that the companies forced consumers to pay
inflated prices for the drug by artificially inflating the
"Average Wholesale Price" of the drug, giving free samples to
doctors knowing they would charge patients and insurers for
them, and giving incentives to doctors so that they would
prescribe Lupron instead of cheaper alternatives (Class Action  
Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

The suit is "Citizens for Consume, et al. v. Abbott  
Laboratories, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the  
U.S. District Court of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris
with referral to Marianne B. Bowler.  

Representing Kentucky is Paula J. Holbrook, Office of Attorney
General, 1024 Capitol Center Drive, Frankfort, KY 40601-8204,
U.S., Phone: 502-696-5503, Fax: 502-573-7150, E-mail:
paula.holbrook@ag.ky.gov.

Representing TAP Pharmaceutical is Toni-Ann Citera, Jones Day,  
222 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017-6702, Phone: 212-782-
3939, Fax: 212-755-7306, E-mail: tcitera@jonesday.com.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Faces New Suit Over Data Theft
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is facing a class action
filed by three law firms on behalf of individuals whose personal
information were stolen in May, The Portland Business Journal
reports.

The suit accuses officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs
of "unreasonably" delaying to report the theft of the personal
information to law enforcers.  

The suit was filed by Mason Law Firm PC with offices in
Washington D.C. and New York City, the law offices of Peter N.
Wasylyk in Prividence, and the law office of Andrew S. Kierstead
in Portland.  The firms did not specify the amount they are
asking from the government for the loss of the files that
contain personal data, including names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, disability ratings, and certain medical
information.

The data were stolen during a burglary of the home of a Veterans
Affairs employee, who early in May copied the files from the
department's facilities onto his computer and/or external disks
and brought them home for an "unspecified purpose."  The files
have not yet been recovered.  It contains personal information
of 26.5 million veterans discharged since 1975 and as many as
1.1 million active-duty military personnel, 430,000 National
Guard members and 645,000 reserve members

The suit is "Daniel Kennedy, et al. v. United States Department
of Veterans Affairs, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet
G. Sullivan.  Defendants are the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs; R. James Nicholson, Secretary; Gordon G. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary; and John Doe, employee of the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.

A full-text copy of the complaint is available for free at:   
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?b53

A similar suit, " Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al v.
Nicholson et al, Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR," was filed in the
U.s. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
James Robertson.  Plaintiffs in the case are:

     -- Citizen Soldier, Inc.,
     -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.,
     -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc.,
     -- Veterans For Peace, Inc.,
     -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc.
     -- Charles L. Clark,
     -- David Cline,
     -- James E. Malone,
     -- John Rowan

Representing the plaintiffs in the Kennedy suit is Douglas J.
Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., 1320
Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: (803) 252-
1300, E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.co.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CSK AUTO: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
on behalf of purchasers of CSK Auto Corp. common stock between
Sept. 2, 2004 and March 24, 2006.

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

CSK Auto operates as a specialty retailer of automotive
aftermarket parts and accessories in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued false statements about CSK Auto's earnings, assets and
business prospects causing the company's stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels.

While the company's stock was artificially inflated due to
defendants' false statements, certain officers and directors
sold 75,106 shares of their CSK Auto stock for proceeds of $1.1
million.

Then on March 27, 2006, before the market opened, the company
issued a press release announcing that it would postpone the
release of its fourth quarter and fiscal 2005 financial results.

The postponement was necessary to provide adequate time for the
company to conduct a thorough review of certain accounting
errors and irregularities discovered in the course of its
ongoing assessment of internal control over financial reporting
and an internal audit.

On this news, CSK Auto stock dropped $1.26 to $14.64 per share,
after hitting a low of $14.40 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were concealed
by defendants during the class period, were:

      -- CSK's financial statements were unreliable and its
         internal controls were inadequate; and

      -- the company's published financial statements violated
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/cskauto/.


DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith sets a June 30, 2006,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities
of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq:DSCO) between December
28, 2005 and April 25, 2006, inclusive.  The shareholder lawsuit
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's operations and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Discovery Labs securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


ESCALA GROUP: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of its client and other similarly situated
purchasers of Escala Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ESCL) common stock
between September 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006, inclusive.  

The company was created in September 2003 through the
integration of the auction businesses of Greg Manning Auctions,
Inc., a stamp and coin auction house, and Auctentia, S.L. of
Spain.

Auctentia is the wholly owned subsidiary of privately-owned
Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A., the largest shareholder of Escala
as well as one of its most important sources of revenues.

Several of Afinsa's officers are also officers and/or directors
of Escala.  Escala, in turn, is the primary supplier of the
stamps sold by Afinsa.

The complaint charges Escala and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
defendants omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts
about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and
revenue expectations during the class period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the class
period, defendants issued numerous materially false and
misleading statements which caused Escala's securities to trade
at artificially inflated prices.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose that:

      -- the company's business model was based on a fraud;

      -- Afinsa was overvaluing its stamp inventory in order to
         attract investors;

      -- Afinsa was paying its investors with money from newly
         arrived investors rather than generated revenues;

      -- Afinsa's revenues were generated through fraudulent
         activities;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- as a result, the company's financial statements were
         materially false and misleading when made.

According to the complaint, on May 9, 2006, Escala issued a
press release announcing that it had been advised that Spanish
judicial authorities, as part of an investigation into its
stamps-collectibles sector, had collected and were reviewing
documents from Afinsa and also Escala's offices in Madrid.

In addition, the company announced that certain members of the
board of directors of Afinsa, including an Afinsa representative
on Escala's board, were being questioned.

The complaint alleges that in response to the company's
announcements, the price of Escala stock dropped from $32.00 to
$12.23 per share and then to $6.55 per share on May 10, 2006.

Then, on May 11, 2006, Spanish prosecutors charged 11 people
involved in the scheme, including five individuals affiliated
with Afinsa, and Escala's stock collapsed to as low as $4.01 per
share, before closing at $4.34 per share.

Interested parties have no later than July 10, 2006 to request
that the Court appoint them as Lead Plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
rsmits@cmht.com.


PIXELPLUS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June 16
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until June
16, 2006 to seek appointment by the court as lead plaintiff in
the class action filed on behalf of purchasers of Pixelplus
Corp., Ltd. (Nasdaq:PXPL) American Depository Shares between
Dec. 21, 2005 and April 11, 2006, including purchasers in the
company's initial public offering.

The complaint charges that defendants violated the Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing
materially false and misleading financial information.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company
reported materially false and misleading revenues for each
reporting period in 2005.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the company violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Federal
Securities Laws, by failing to recognize sales to one of its
affiliates, PTI, on a consolidated basis and recognizing sales
that were uncollectible, which resulted in the company
overstating its revenues for 2005.

On April 11, 2006, the company shocked the market when it
announced, among other things, that its financial statements for
2005 should no longer be relied upon because the company
improperly recognized sales to PTI because the company failed to
consolidate PTI's results and accounted for sales that had
uncertain collectibility.

The company admitted that it controls PTI as it has the ability
to elect two-thirds of PTI's Board.  As a result, the company
announced that revenues would be reduced by approximately $3.6
million and $2.5 million, for the fourth quarter of 2005 and
fiscal year 2005, respectively.  Following these adverse
disclosures, the company's stock price dropped nearly 37.2%.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060, (917)
797-4425 and (866) 767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, Fax, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com and pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired common stock
pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering of Vonage
Holdings Corp. (VG) beginning May 23, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S/ District Court for the District
of New Jersey against:

     -- Vonage Holdings Corp.
     -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
     -- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
     -- UBS Securities LLC,
     -- Vonage Chairman Jeffrey A. Citron,
     -- Vonage Chief Executive Officer Michael Snyder,
     -- Vonage Chief Financial Officer John S. Rego, and
     -- Vonage Directors Peter Barris and J. Sanford Miller.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

Potential class members may move the court no later than August
1, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven of The Law
Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, Phone:
410/986-0036.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerium Technologies, Inc. faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts filed by
Parkside Capital Ltd. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company, its chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer.

The suit was filed on June 7, 2006, and the company was served
with the complaint on June 8, 2006.  

The suit concerns the company's initial public offering of
common stock and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
and liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suit is "Parkside Capital LTD v. Xerium Technologies Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.
Zobel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and
Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-
mail: ted@shulaw.com and tshapiro@shulaw.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  * * *