CAR_Public/060619.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 120

                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Deal
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit
BROWN SHOE: Plaintiffs in Redfield Lawsuit Appeal $1M Award
CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit

COMPUWARE CORP: Mich. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
DIOCESE OF PEMBROKE: Compensation Sought in Alleged Sex Abuse
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. Hearing Set for Overtime Suit Settlement
EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Settlement Hearing Set for M53XX Suit
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: High Court Denies Appeal on "Schindler"

INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Interior Head in Contempt
LAZARD LTD: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
MATAV-CABLE: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Mondial Tournament Ads
MERRILL LYNCH: Federal Judge Dismisses "Shelf Space" Lawsuit
MRL INC: Recalls Defective Automatic External Defibrillators

NAPLES COMMUNITY: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Overcharging
NINE WEST: Recalls Sandals on Risk of Metal Tacks Detaching
NORDSTROM INC: Briefs on Objections to Calif. Settlement Filed
NORTHERN MARIANA: Court Orders Transfer of MFN Funds to GOB
NYFIX INC.: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

OHIO: Motorists Ask Refund for Multiple Fees on Single Violation
PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
PETCO ANIMAL: Plaintiffs Withdraw Claims of Labor Law Breaches
ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Judge Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
SIMON & SCHUSTER: Recalls Books with Pop-up Toy Characters

STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Judge Reconsiders Tip Disbursement Suit
TENNESSEE: Knox County School Board Balks at Attorneys Fees
THOMAS NELSON: Investors Sue Over Planned Merger with InterMedia
UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots File Discrimination Suit in Va. Court
UNIVERSAL ACADEMY: Facing Complaint Over Muscle Stimulators

VALUEVISION MEDIA: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Posing Fire Hazard


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CSK AUTO: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in Fla.
INFOSONICS CORP: Charles J. Piven Files Calif. Securities Suit
INFOSONICS CORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Calif.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Stull, Stull Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
AT&T Litigation, Case No. 02-6801."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased AT&T
Corp. common stock between Nov. 29, 1999 and Oct. 25, 2000,
inclusive, and/or AT&T Wireless Tracking and/or common stock
between May 2, 2000 and June 14, 2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before July 12, 2006.  Deadline for submission of
proof of claim is Sept. 12, 2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
site: http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/and  
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/publications/firmnewsUser2.cfm?pubid
=380.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO 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 Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., according to the
company's June 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 29, 2006.

On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class
actions for violations of the federal securities laws was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters for the company's initial public
offering of securities.

A consolidated amended class action, "In Re Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation," was filed on April 19, 2002.

The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters
engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in the company's initial public offering.  
It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to December 6,
2000.

The lawsuit against the company is being coordinated for
pretrial proceedings with a number of other pending litigations
challenging underwriter practices in over 300 cases as "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)."

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice from the action, pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims against the company.  

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer defendants, including the company, was submitted to
the court for approval.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness
hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the
settlement.

The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final
approval at the fairness hearing.  The settlement remains
subject to a number of conditions, including final approval by
the court.

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


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc.

Beginning on or about May 19, 2005, several securities class
action complaints were filed against the company and certain of
its current and former officers.

These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005.  They came on
the heels of the company's restatement of certain financial
results due to stock-based compensation accounting issues.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On April 14, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock from May 2000 to May 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among others, violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It generally alleges that the company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
the company's business and operations and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.

The reference complaint 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 named in complaint are:

     (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, (San Francisco, CA), 100
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;

     (2) Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, 205 Linda Drive,
         Daingerfield, TX, 75638, Phone: 903.645.7333; and
  
     (3) Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, Century
         Bank Plaza - Suite 400; 2900 St. Michael Drive,
         Texarkana, TX, 75503, Phone: 903-334-7000, Fax: 903-
         334-7007, E-mail: website@pattonroberts.com.


BROWN SHOE: Plaintiffs in Redfield Lawsuit Appeal $1M Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the $1 million damage award granted to
them by a Colorado jury in a class action they filed against
Brown Shoe Co., Inc., in relation to the operations at its
Redfield, Colorado site.

The suit was filed in March 2000 in Colorado State Court,
District Court for the City and County of Denver.

Plaintiffs alleged claims for trespass, nuisance, strict
liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and exemplary damages
arising from the alleged release of solvents contaminating the
groundwater and indoor air in the areas adjacent to and near the
site.

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages.

The company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial
interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions
imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute
between the parties.

In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost
recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a
settlement agreement between the company, its co-defendant in
the class action, and an insurer, which resolved all remaining
sanctions issues related to the class action.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury
verdict, and the ultimate outcome and cost to the company may
vary, according to the company's June 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended April 29, 2006.


CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 16, 2006 for the proposed
$5,250,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Carreker Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-CV-0250-B."

The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Carreker Corp. from July 30, 1999 to Dec. 10, 2002.

It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants --
the company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori and Terry L.
Gage -- except Ernst & Young LLP, violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, and
violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against
defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori (Class
Action Reporter, June 15, 2006).

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle at
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100
Commerce St., Dallas, Texas 75242.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made before Aug. 2, 2006 and July 17, 2006, respectively.  Claim
forms must be submitted before Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Carreker Corp.
Securities Litigation, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., P.O.
Box 270, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0270, Phone: 1-800-252-5745, E-
mail: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/carr/.


COMPUWARE CORP: Mich. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit  
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Compuware Corp.

The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Jan. 1, 1999 to April 3, 2002 alleging the
company failed to disclose under the securities laws its
problems with the misappropriation of its software source code
by IBM Corp.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the company omitted and/or
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
concerning its deteriorating relationship with IBM.  

The court entered judgment in favor of the company on Sept. 13,
2005.  Plaintiffs did not appeal and the matter is now closed,
according to the company's June 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
march 31, 2006.


DIOCESE OF PEMBROKE: Compensation Sought in Alleged Sex Abuse  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for an alleged victim of sexual abuse by a Pembroke,
Canada priest plans to seek compensation from the Catholic
Church, according to the Ottawa Citizen.  

The London-based lawyers announced the plan at a press
conference in Pembroke early in June.  They said they have
approached the Pembroke diocese with a potential compensation
plan, including monetary compensation and immediate counseling.

The lead plaintiff in the suit is Ledroid Beckett, who is
representing a group of victims at a Cornwall public inquiry
into institutional response into allegations of sexual abuse.  
The accused is Msgr. Bernard Prince, who is alleged to have
sexually assaulted 12 young males in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Diocese of Pembroke on the Net: http://www.diocesepembroke.ca/.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. Hearing Set for Overtime Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 22, 2006 hearing is set for the final approval of the
settlement in a class action pending in the Superior Court in
San Mateo, California against Electronic Arts, Inc.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 14, 2005 under the caption, "Hasty
v. Electronic Arts Inc.," alleges that the company improperly
classified "engineers" in California as exempt employees.  It
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.  

On March 16, 2005, the company received a first amended
complaint, which contained the same material allegations as the
original complaint.  The company answered the first amended
complaint on April 20, 2005.

On May 16, 2006, the court granted its preliminary approval of a
settlement pursuant to which the company agreed to make a lump
sum payment of $14.9 million, to be paid to a third-party
administrator, to cover:

      -- all claims allegedly suffered by the class members;

      -- plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, not to exceed 25% of the
         total settlement amount;

      -- plaintiffs' costs and expenses;

      -- any incentive payments to the named plaintiffs that may
         be authorized by the court; and

      -- all costs of administration of the settlement.

The hearing for the court to consider its final approval of the
settlement is set for Sept. 22, 2006.


EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Settlement Hearing Set for M53XX Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio will hold a
fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "David Heitbrink and Robert Rattner,
et al. v. eMachines, Inc., Case No. G-4801CI200501229."

The case was brought on behalf of all owners of eMachines M5305,
M5309, M5310, M5312 and M5313 series notebook computers (M53XX
Series).

The suit alleges that the M53xx Series computers were defective
in design, therefore causing them to overheat or shut down or
experience a significant reduction in processing speed as a
result of overheating during normal usage.  

It further alleges that eMachines knew of and concealed the
existence of these issues at the time it sold the M53xx Series.  

It is thus asking claims for violation of state consumer
protection statutes, uniform written misrepresentation, common
omission, and breach of warranty.

The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Osowik, at the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 700 Adams Street, Toledo,
Ohio, in Courtroom 10.  In that hearing the court will consider
whether to grant final certification to the class for settlement
purposes, and whether to approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate.  

In addition, the court will also consider at this hearing the
request of class counsel for $2,250,000 in fees and the class
representative awards to the two class representatives in the
amount of $2,000.00 each, which eMachines has agreed to pay as
part of this settlement over and above the other remedies.

Deadline for any objections or exclusions to or from the
settlement is on July 25, 2006.  Postmark deadline for
submitting claim form unless the effective date of the
settlement is extended is on Oct. 22, 2006.

For more details, contact eMachines, Class Action Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 91146, Seattle, WA 98111-9246, Phone: 1-
866-817-6513, E-mail: M53xxSeriesSettlement@gardencitygroup.com,
Web site: http://www.m53xxseriessettlement.com/.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: High Court Denies Appeal on "Schindler"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court kept a court of appeals decision dismissing a
class action by Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime
against Austria, according to reports.

The suit was filed in 2000 by present and former nationals of
Austria and their heirs and successors who suffered from Nazi
persecution between 1938 and 1945.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year dismissed the
action, clearing the way for a $210 million payout from a 2001
settlement fund.  Back then, the appeals court panel, in a 2-1
decision, agreed that dismissing the case would improve U.S.
relations with Austria, Israel and European nations.

The settlement fund set up for the suit has so far made more
than 2,000 payments to Austrian Jews whose properties were
confiscated during the Nazi era and World War II, according to
the report.

The case is Schindler v. Whiteman, 05-1296.
Claims conference: http://www.claimscon.org/


INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Interior Head in Contempt
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Indian plaintiffs in the 10-year-old class action,
"Cobell v. Norton," are asking U.S. District Judge Royce
Lamberth to make Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne the third
successive Interior secretary held in contempt in the case,
Associated Press reports.

Plaintiffs are charging that the Interior Department head has
continued to conceal computer security problems in violation of
a 2005 court ruling requiring it to report weaknesses that could
put Indian records at risk.

In the past, Judge Lamberth has found Mr. Kempthorne's
predecessors, Bruce Babbitt and Gale Norton, in contempt and has
more than once ordered the department's computers disconnected
from the Internet to protect Indians' records.  Ms. Norton's
contempt charge was vacated on appeal.

Commenting on the case, a department spokesman told The
Associated Press that officials were aware of the motion and
would respond later in court documents.

Case Background

Filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, the case
became the longest and largest class action brought against the
government, involving royalties for farming, grazing, mining,
logging and other economic activities on tribal lands (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  

The suit dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to
break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40
to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans.  Back then the
government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and
coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians
and their survivors (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).

As of the moment the case involves 500,000 Native Americans who
are asking the Interior Department to account for the billions
of dollars in their ancestors' land and natural resource assets
the federal government has held in trust since 1887.  The issue
of how to determine what is owed the Indians has gone back and
forth from Judge Lamberth to the appeals court repeatedly during
the last 10 years (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own behalf
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;  
  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;  
  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:  
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and
  
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:  
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.  

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact The Committee on Indian Affairs,  
Phone: 202-224-2251, Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and    
House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web site:  
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


LAZARD LTD: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lazard, Ltd. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

The company and Goldman Sachs & Co., the lead underwriter of the
company's equity public offering of its common stock, as well as
several members of the company's management and board of
directors, have been named as defendants in several putative
class actions.

Plaintiffs in the putative class actions later filed a
consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss that complaint.

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who purchased
securities of the company in connection with an equity public
offering or in the open market.

It alleges various violations of the federal securities laws and
seek, inter alia, compensatory damages, rescission or rescissory
damages and other unspecified equitable, injunctive or other
relief.

The first identified suit in this litigation is "Arlette Miller,
et al. v. Lazard Ltd., et al., case no. 05-CV-05630," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Victor Marrero.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

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

     (4) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite
         202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax:
         610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.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) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com;

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

    (10) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10022, phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-   
         5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com;


MATAV-CABLE: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Mondial Tournament Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd., Golden Channels & Co. and Tevel
Israel International Communications Ltd. (the Cable Companies)
and D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998) Ltd. (YES) are facing a
class action in the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court.

Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Cable Companies and YES
included advertisements in the "Mondial Tournament" (World Cup)
broadcasts, causing damages to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a group of approximately
200,000 subscribers to the "Mondial Tournament" broadcasts.  
They are claiming total damages of NIS106,000,000 ($23.8
million).

Matav said it is in the initial stage of reviewing and
evaluating this lawsuit.

Based in Netanya, Isarel, Matav -- http://www.matav.co.il-- is  
one of Israel's three cable television providers, serving
roughly 25 percent of the Israeli cable subscriber market.  
Matav's current investments include 1.2% of Partner
Communications Ltd., a GSM mobile phone company and 18.5% of
Barak I.T.C. (1995) Ltd., one of the three international
telephony providers in Israel.


MERRILL LYNCH: Federal Judge Dismisses "Shelf Space" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Owen dismissed a lawsuit filed
against Merrill Lynch & Co. in relation to its "shelf space"
mutual funds, according to Associated Press.

The company is accused of violating securities laws and
breaching fiduciary duty for paying incentives to brokers for
steering investors into purchasing "shelf space" mutual funds as
well as of charging excessive fees against investors.

In an opinion made public on June 13, Judge Owen said plaintiffs
failed to show the company made statements that are misleading,
or that investors suffered a loss as result of the alleged
misrepresentations.

The complaint had sought class-action status for investors in
Merrill Lynch mutual funds from May 1999 to May 2004.


MRL INC: Recalls Defective Automatic External Defibrillators
------------------------------------------------------------
MRL, Inc., a Welch Allyn company, is initiating a voluntary
worldwide Class I recall of 580 AED20 automatic external
defibrillators manufactured in Buffalo Grove, Illinois between
April and October of 2003.  The defibrillators have serial
numbers 205199 through 205786.

The company said these 580 AED20's may experience failure or
unacceptable delay in analyzing the patient's ECG and may fail
to deliver appropriate therapy, which possibly could result in
failure to resuscitate the patient.  This will occur in
combination with an error message on the device display reading
"DEFIB COMM FAIL SELF TEST FAILED."  This problem occurs because
of an intermittent electrical connection within the device.

The company has received 30 related complaints about devices in
this group of AED20's, corresponding to 5 percent of the 580
recalled devices which the company deems an unacceptable risk.

In one instance the "Defib Comm" error delayed patient
resuscitation.  The company has taken corrective action and no
other devices besides those manufactured between the above dates
are subject to this recall.

MRL, Inc. initiated notification via certified mail on June 14,
2006 to its customers who purchased AED20's in this group of
devices 369 of which were sold within the U.S. and 211 outside
of the US.  Owners of this defibrillator should contact MRL,
Inc. to obtain a loaner AED20 at no cost while their unit is
being serviced.  MRL, Inc. will pay all costs associated with
shipping, handling and replacement of the units "DEFIB" board.

This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The FDA has determined that
this action is a Class I recall.  The FDA defines Class I as a
situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use
of or exposure to the product will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death.

For more information, contact MRL Inc., Phone: 1-800-462.0777 or
1-847-520-0300.


NAPLES COMMUNITY: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Overcharging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Naples Community Hospital in Florida is facing a lawsuit filed
by a Cape Coral resident in Lee County Circuit Court, alleging
improper debt collection, Naplesnews.com reports.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of other former
patients.

Gladys Nikolai alleged in the suit the hospital did not submit a
bill to Medical Savings Insurance, but billed her directly at a
higher rate than what is reasonable.  Her suit claims the
hospital routinely charge full rates to the uninsured or to
those insured patients whose insurance it does not recognize.

The NCH Healthcare System -- http://www.nchmd.org/-- is an  
alliance of more than 500 independent physicians and medical
facilities in dozens of locations throughout Collier County and
southwest Florida.


NINE WEST: Recalls Sandals on Risk of Metal Tacks Detaching
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nine West Footwear Corp. of White Plains, New York, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
recalled about 6,700 pairs of Sam & Libby Girl's Thong Sandals.

The company said the sandals' metal tacks, which help to hold
down the sides of the strap to the sole, can detach or be pulled
out, posing a laceration hazard.  No incident or injuries were
reported.

The recalled models are the Fish, Starfish and Angelfish.  The
models can be identified by the decoration attached to the
sandals' straps -- a fish, a starfish or an angelfish. The
sandals' straps are bright pink for Starfish and bright
turquoise for Fish and Angelfish.  The top of the sole looks
like wood and the bottom is pink for Starfish and turquoise for
Fish and Angelfish.  The top of the sole has a pink label with
the words "Sam and Libby" written in silver.  The sandals were
sold in little girls' size 11 through girls' size 5.

The thong sandals were made in China and are being sold at
Stride Rite, Brothers, Century 21, and Marshalls stores
nationwide from March 2006 through April 2006 for about $12 to
$20.

Consumers are advised to stop wearing these sandals immediately
and return them to the store where they were purchased for a
full refund.

Picture of the recalled sandal:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06190.jpg.

For additional information, contact Nine West Footwear's
Customer Relations Department at (800) 999-1877 between 9 a.m.
and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, E-mail
recall@SamAndLibby.com, or visit: http://www.jny.com.


NORDSTROM INC: Briefs on Objections to Calif. Settlement Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and defendants filed briefs on objections to the
settlement of the California antitrust class action, "Azizian,
et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.," in which
Nordstrom, Inc. is a defendant.

The suit against the company and other department stores and
specialty retailers were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The company was originally named as a defendant along with other
department store and specialty retailers in nine separate, but
virtually identical class actions filed in various Superior
Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998.  
The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court.

In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a
number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two
other retailers as additional defendants.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and
manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and
the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the
retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics
and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores.

Plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on
behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased
cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the
defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the
original complaints.

While the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit, it entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003 in order to
avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation.

In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re-
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently
reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store"
cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994
through July 16, 2003.

The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a
summary notice of class certification and the terms of the
settlement were disseminated to class members.  

On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the
claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety.

On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the
settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other
filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006.  Plaintiffs' and
defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006.   

The suit is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111-5630,
Phone: 415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail:
guido@saveri.com.  

Representing the Company is Larry S. Gangnes, 1420 Fifth Avenue,
Ste. 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2338, Phone: (206) 223-7036, E-
mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com.


NORTHERN MARIANA: Court Orders Transfer of MFN Funds to GOB
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands Judge Alex
R. Munson ordered the transfer of withheld settlement monies in
a class action against the garment industries and some
retailers, according to the Saipan Tribune.

The suit was filed by New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP in 1999 on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions.  A settlement
reached five years after, provided an award close to $20 million
(Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006).

The complainants' counsel set aside a reserve consisting of
withheld "Most Favored Nations" funds after Levi Strauss and Co.
was dismissed from the lawsuit in November 2003 as among the
defendants, and certain previously-settling retailers informally
asserted a right to a refund of all of their payments under the
MFN provisions of the settlement agreement, Judge Munson said in
his order.

The MFN fund was set aside after the retailers made initial
contacts with workers' counsel regarding claims.  But the
retailers did not pursue the matter, nor participated in a
settlement status conference held on June 6.  Hence, on June 12,
Judge Munson ordered counsel of the complainants to deliver to
the Garment Oversight Board (GOB) the portion of the withheld
MFN monies designated for the repatriation fund within 15 days.

On June 6, plaintiffs' lawyer Pamela Parker told the judge via
telephone that the disbursement of checks to the workers may be
completed by the end of the month.  A San Francisco firm that is
representing the plaintiffs will compute the amount due to
workers, said Timothy H. Bellas, chairman of the Garment
Oversight Board.  About 20,000 to 25,000 workers are entitled to
benefit from the distribution.  The recipients are in China,
Philippines, Bangladesh, among others.

Under the original settlement, the money is to be distributed
as:

  Payment to workers                            $5.8 million
  Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000
  Repatriation fund for garment workers         $400,000
  Monitoring fund                               $4 million
  Milberg Trust fund                            $565,254.80
  Plaintiffs lawyer                             $8.75 million

Of the $400,000 allotted as repatriation fund, the GOB got only
a little over $350,000 because two factories did not contribute
into the settlement funds, according to the report.

The trust fund is to be administered by the non-profit Tides
Foundation.

Representing the defendants is Steven Pixley.  The claims
administrator is Gilradi and Co. LLC.


NYFIX INC.: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
dismissed an amended securities class action filed against
NYFIX, Inc. in relation to its investment in NYFIX Millennium.

The suit, initially styled "Johnson et al. V. Nyfix, Inc., et
al.," also names as defendants the company's chairman and chief
executive officer, its former and chief financial officers and
certain of its directors.

The complaint was initially filed as a purported class action
claim on behalf of all buyers of the company's stock between
March 30, 2000 and March 30, 2004.  It alleged violations of the
federal securities laws based on NYFIX's issuance of a series of
allegedly false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning, among other things, NYFIX's investment in
NYFIX Millennium (Class Action Reporter, July 5, 2005).  It
sought unspecified amount of damages.

On July 20, 2004, the court appointed three different lead
plaintiffs after Fuller & Thaler Asset Management withdrew as
the named plaintiff.  The action was renamed "Johnson, et al. v.
NYFIX, Inc., et al."  The newly named plaintiffs filed a first
amended class action complaint, which added, among other things,
allegations of violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The new allegations are
based fundamentally on the same allegations as the plaintiffs
asserted in the original complaint.

On June 9, the defendants filed a stipulated notice of
dismissal, in which plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal without
costs or attorneys' fees or any consideration of any kind being
paid to any party.


OHIO: Motorists Ask Refund for Multiple Fees on Single Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Cleveland men filed a suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court against what they alleged an illegal practice by local
courts of charging defendants multiple costs for a single
traffic violation, the Sun News reports.

The courts charge between $50 to more than $100 to cover
operating expenses.  The men claims to have been overcharged in
Berea, Parma and Rocky River municipal courts.  They are seeking
reimbursement for "tens of thousands of individuals" charged in
courts throughout Ohio over the past 11 years starting after
June 8, 1995.

The suit wants the state to put an end to the practice of
assessing court costs on a per-offense basis and to reimburse
all defendants.

No local courts are defendants, but the clerks of Berea, Rocky
River and Parma municipal courts have been subpoenaed, the
report said.  


PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to rule on PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company.

In April 2005, the company and certain senior company officers
were named as defendants in several purported class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock from Nov. 18, 2004 to April 14, 2005.

They allege that during such period the defendants
misrepresented the company's financial position and that the
plaintiff and the purported class of purchasers during that
period were damaged in unspecified amounts by paying
artificially and falsely inflated prices for the company's
stock.

In October 2005, a consolidated complaint was filed extending
the class period from Aug. 18, 2004 to Aug. 25, 2005, adding
additional but similar causes of action, and naming additional
defendants, including other senior company officers, several
former and current members of the company's board of directors,
and two former stockholders of the company.

In January 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the ground that it failed to state
facts sufficient to state a claim under the securities laws.

A hearing on the motion was held on May 22, 2006, and the court
took the matter under submission.  The company has tendered
these matters to its insurance carriers.

The first identified complaint is "Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local 51 Pension Fund, et al. v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (5) 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;

     (6) 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;

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (8) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (9) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

    (10) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100;

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

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


PETCO ANIMAL: Plaintiffs Withdraw Claims of Labor Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against PETCO Animal
Supplies, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, voluntarily dismissed their
claims that the company has violated California Labor Code.

The suit was filed on June 27, 2005.  It named as plaintiffs,
Wayne Boyd, Anthony Castro, Gilbert Hernandez, and Daniel
Lepkosky.  It purported to represent all current and former
hourly, non-exempt employees of the company's California stores
from June 27, 2001 to the present.

These plaintiffs alleged that during this period they were not
paid all wages, were not paid overtime, were not authorized and
permitted to take rest breaks as required by law, were not
provided meal breaks as required by law, were not paid
"reporting time" pay, and were not paid all wages upon
separation from employment.  

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages in the form of
unpaid wages, penalties and other relief.

On March 2, 2006, plaintiff Gilbert Hernandez requested that his
claims against the company be dismissed.  This request is
subject to court approval.

On March 17, 2006, plaintiff Wayne Boyd requested that his
claims against the company be dismissed and the court approved
this request.


ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Judge Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a
final order and judgment approving Royal Ahold's settlement of
the securities class action, "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities
& ERISA Litigation."

Under the terms of the agreement in the securities class action,
the lead plaintiffs in the securities class action agree to
settle all claims against Ahold for US$1.1 billion (EUR937
million).

The settlement covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the individual defendants and the underwriters.

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The
settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23,
2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their
Ahold shares (Class Action Reporter, November 30, 2005).

The settlement affects shareholders in nearly a half-dozen
countries, Andrew J. Entwistle, an attorney for the
shareholders, told the court.  The settlement must be approved
by at least 180 million shares from about 800 million qualifying
shares.  The average payment is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A
share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to
court documents.  Claims are to be made about 12 months after
the court's final approval (Class Action Reporter, January 10,
2006).

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
Company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.  
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia.  It
maintained that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an
inaccurate financial picture of the Company to stockholders and
inflating the price of its common stock.  The Company though
denies any wrongdoing in the settlement  (Class Action Reporter,
January 10, 2006).

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING
Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on February 24, 2003
(Class Action Reporter, November 30, 2005).

The suit is "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-md-01539-CCB," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C.
Blake.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle and Cappucci, 299 Park  
         Ave., New York, NY 1171, Phone: 12128947200, Fax:  
         12128947251, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com;

     (2) Daniel L. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger and  
         Grossmann, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY  
         10019, Phone: 12125541406, Fax: 12125541444, E-mail:
         dan@blbglaw.com;

     (3) Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament  
         and Rubenstein PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800,
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13125212725, Fax:  
         13125212100, E-mail: ccrowley@muchshelist.com;

     (4) Seth D. Goldberg of Seth D. Goldberg PC, 5335 Wisconsin  
         Ave. NW Ste. 440, Washington, DC 20015, Phone:  
         12022430594, Fax: 12026865517;

     (5) Robert Ira Harwood of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488  
         Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, NY 10022, Phone:  
         12129357400, Fax: 12127533630, E-mail:
         rharwood@whesq.com;

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

     (7) Andrew J. Levander of Dechert, LLP, 30 Rockefeller  
         Plz., New York, NY 10112, Phone: 12126983500, Fax:  
         12126983599, E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com;

     (8) Lester Levy of Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones,  
         845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022

     (9) Christopher Lometti and Frank R Schirripa of Schoengold  
         and Sporn, PC, 19 Fulton St., Ste. 406, New York, NY
         10038, Phone: 12129640046, Fax: 12122678137;

    (10) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World  
         Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,  
         MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:
         piven@pivenlaw.com;

    (11) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind Labation Rudoff and
         Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017-5563,  
         Phone: 12129070863, Fax: 12128837063

    (12) Ronald B. Rubin of Rubin and Rubin Chtd, One Church  
         St., Ste. 301, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13016109700,
         Fax: 13016109716, E-mail: rrubin@rrubin.com;

    (13) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman and Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax:  
         16313671173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;

    (14) Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling Schachter and Zwerling,
         LLP, 41 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010, Phone:  
         12122233900, Fax: 12123715969, E-mail:  
         rschachter@zsz.com;

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

    (16) Steven Donald Silverman of Silverman and Thompson, 201  
         N. Charles St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:  
         14103852225, Fax: 14105472432, E-mail:
         ssilverman@mdattorney.com;

    (17) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone and Bonner, LLP, 485  
         Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10018, Phone: 12122394340;  
         and

    (18) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll,  
         PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., NW West Tower, Ste. 500,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 12024084600, Fax:
         12024084699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) John Arak Freedman of Arnold and Porter, 555 12th St.,
         NW Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: 12029425000, Fax:
         12029425999, E-mail: john_freedman@aporter.com;

    (ii) Gerard J Gaeng of Rosenberg Martin Funk and Greenberg,
         LLP, 25 S. Charles St., Ste. 2115, Baltimore, MD 21201-
         3305, Phone: 14107276600, Fax: 14107271115, E-mail:  
         ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com;

   (iii) Glenn M. Kurtz of White and Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of
         the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 12128198200,  
         Fax: 12123548113, E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com;

    (iv) Richard A. McGuirk and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon  
         Peabody, LLP, Clinton Sq., P.O. Box 31051, Rochester,  
         NY 14603, Phone: 15852631000, Fax: 15852631600, E-mail:  
         rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com and          
         cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com;

     (v) Charles P. Scheeler of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US,
         LLP, 6225 Smith Ave., Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone:  
         14105803000, Fax: 14105803001, E-mail:  
         charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com; and

    (vi) Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell and Moring, LLP, 1001  
         Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595, Phone:  
         12026242500, Fax: 12026285116, E-mail:
         adegramont@crowell.com.


SIMON & SCHUSTER: Recalls Books with Pop-up Toy Characters
----------------------------------------------------------
Simon & Schuster Inc. of New York, New York, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about
9,000 units of Curious Buddies children's books.

The company said the felt ears and limbs on the pop-up
characters can detach or come apart when pulled, which may pose
a choking hazard to young children.

Simon & Schuster has received reports of two 6-month-old infants
who detached felt from the pop-up parts of the book.  One child
was able to mouth the torn material.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled Curious Buddies cloth books are titled "Hello,
Curious Buddies!" Pictured on the cover of the books are the
Curious Buddies' characters.  Inside the book are two plush pop-
up toy characters.

These cloth books were made in China and are being sold at
bookstores, discount department stores and other retailers
nationwide from October 2005 through May 2006 for about $10.

Consumers are advised to immediately clip off the felt ears and
limbs of the pop-up characters and place them out of a child's
reach.  Simon and Schuster will provide consumers with
information on how to return the felt pieces or the copyright
tag from the book to receive a free replacement book.

Picture of the recalled cloth books:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06189.jpg

For more information, call Simon & Schuster at (800) 732-9531
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday visit,
http://www.simonsays.com,or contact Paul Crichton, Phone: (212)  
698-2809, E-mail: paul.crichton@simonandschuster.com.


STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Judge Reconsiders Tip Disbursement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowet said she is
reconsidering a preliminary ruling indicating she is prepared to
rule in favor of Starbucks Corp. in a suit over the disbursement
of employee tips, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.  

The class suit, certified March 30, alleges Starbucks allowed
shift supervisors to share in the weekly distribution of
customer tips at each store, violating California state law that
prohibits employers from taking tips from their employees.  The
suit claims that supervisors are part of management and not
entitled to the tips intended for counter workers, or baristas.

According to Coronado attorney Terry Chapko, these tips are the
property of employees and not the employer.

Attorney Chapko filed the suit on behalf of Jou Chou, a former
worker at Starbucks outlets in La Jolla and Hemet.  Mr. Chou is
a student at the University of California San Diego.

Starbucks attorney Rex Heinke said Starbucks denies the claims,
insisting that shift supervisors do many of the same job duties
as baristas and are not management employees.

Like many restaurants, Starbucks uses tip pooling, which means
all tips are collected during the week and then disbursed to
employees based on the number of hours they worked that week,
the report says.

Attorney Chapko cited the California Labor Code that defines an
agent of management as being "every person other than the
employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee,
or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees."

If Judge Cowett lets the case proceed, a trial would likely
begin next May.

Representing Starbucks is Rex S. Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los
Angeles, California 90067-3012,Phone: 310-229-1000, Fax: 310-
229-1001.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Terry J. Chapko of
Chapko & English LLP, 1111 Orange Avenue, Suite A Coronado, CA
92118, Phone: 619 522 2100, Fax: 619 522 2104.


TENNESSEE: Knox County School Board Balks at Attorneys Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Knox County Law Department asked the state Court of Appeals
on June 1 to reconsider a lower court's order awarding almost
$48,000 to two plaintiff attorneys in a suit over the school
district's alternative school program, the Knoxville News
Sentinel reports.  

Attorneys Dean Rivkin and Brenda McGee are due to receive
$45,000 in legal fees and $2,971 in expenses for their services
under a lower court ruling.  The attorneys had fought for the
rights of expelled and suspended students to education while
under disciplinary action.  They argued in court filings they
deserved to be paid because their suit resulted to the
improvement of education services for suspended or expelled
students.  

The school system set up an alternative program in the 2003-04
school year where students could attend classes for a few hours
at night.

Mr. Rivkin and Ms. McGee also challenged the quality of a
revised program offered by the school in 2004-05.  In September
2005, Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler refused to judge on the
matter.  He also rejected claims that the district violated the
due-process rights of the suspended students.  Plaintiffs have
appealed Judge Fansler's ruling in the 2004-05 program.

The suit was filed in April 2003 in Knox County Chancery Court
against the Knox County school board and Superintendent Charles
Lindsey on behalf of some 500 suspended and expelled students.  

For more information, contact Dean Hill Rivkin, College of Law,
The University of Tennessee College of Law, 1505 West Cumberland
Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1810, Phone: 865-974-4241,
865-974-6595.


THOMAS NELSON: Investors Sue Over Planned Merger with InterMedia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Nelson, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action in
the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee in relation to
its merger agreement with an affiliate of InterMedia Partners,
L.P.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the company and each of its directors were
named as defendants in the suit, "City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., et al."  

The suit was brought in connection with the company's announced
agreement and plan of merger with an InterMedia affiliate and
certain agreements related thereto with the company's chairman,
Sam Z. Moore.

Plaintiffs in the action allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, pursuing a
transaction without regard to the fairness of the transaction to
all of the company's shareholders and without properly valuing
the company and allowing a competitive bidding process to take
place.  

They also allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by taking steps to discourage other acquisition
proposals, including by agreeing to an excessive termination fee
in the Merger Agreement.

The suit seeks among other things, certification as a class
action, a determination that fiduciary duties were breached,
injunctive relief against the proposed transaction and recovery
of costs of the plaintiffs, including attorneys' fees.  


UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots File Discrimination Suit in Va. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 15 United Airlines employees filed a federal lawsuit
against the Air Line Pilots Association union for discriminating
against nonunion pilots.

According to the complaint, the ALPA union hierarchy
purposefully and illegally failed to inform nonunion employees
of their right to sell future United stock shares issued during
the airline's bankruptcy reorganization plan.

The workers filed the class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia for all nonmember United
pilots -- a number estimated to exceed 200.

The airline and ALPA union officials agreed that, prior to the
issuance of the new United stock upon its emergence from
bankruptcy, each pilot would have the option to sell their
future right to receive the stock.  Any pilot could exercise
that option by authorizing ALPA union officials to sell his or
her interest in the claim for the highest price achievable in
the market.

As a result of this agreement, employees who participated in the
auction profited from the new United stock at a substantially
greater amount than what the shares could be sold for when
subsequently distributed.

But ALPA union officials informed only union members -- not
nonmembers -- of this option to participate in the auction.
Information regarding the option to sell future stock, and the
forms required to participate in the auction, were secluded to a
remote "members only" portion of the union's Web site accessible
only with a password not given to nonmembers.

According to Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National
Right to Work Foundation, the ALPA union hierarchy deliberately
and unlawfully misled nonmembers in an attempt to retaliate
against the union for refusing formal union membership.

"Union officials wanted to send a message to all employees that
they had better toe the union line," Mr. Gleason said.

Employees who are not formal members of the ALPA union are still
forced to accept the terms of the union's monopoly bargaining
contract and all of its provisions regarding salary, benefits,
seniority, and pensions.

Under the Railway Labor Act, it is unlawful for employees to
negotiate their own, more- favorable contracts with their
employer.  The Act also stipulates that the ALPA union owes
nonmembers in the bargaining unit a so- called "duty of fair
representation," which supposedly prevents union officials from
acting against the interests of those refraining from formal
union membership.

The United pilots' lawsuit seeks an order declaring that the
ALPA union breached its duty of fair representation, as well as
damages for each employee equal to the share difference between
the auction sales price for the claims and the actual trade
price of the stock at the time it was issued, plus interest.

For more information contact, Patrick Ashby of the National
Right to Work Foundation, Phone: 703-770-3306.


UNIVERSAL ACADEMY: Facing Complaint Over Muscle Stimulators
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. authorities have filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court in New Haven, Connecticut seeking the seizure and ultimate
forfeiture of numerous muscle stimulators and their component
parts and accessories imported by Universal Academy, Inc. of
Markham, Ontario, Canada.  The devices were stored in a
distribution warehouse in Meriden.

According to Kevin J. O'Connor, U.S. Attorney for the District
of Connecticut, and Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, Acting
Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the
complaint alleges that the muscle stimulators violated a series
of FDA statues in that the devices are both adulterated and
misbranded.  The muscle stimulators are being sold as "Dr. Ho's
Double Massage" and "Dr. Ho's Muscle Massage."

On June 8, the U.S. Marshals Service, accompanied by FDA
officials and State of Connecticut Department of Consumer
Protection Drug Control Agents, executed a warrant to seize the
items, which have an estimated retail value of more than $1
million, from Fosdick Fulfillment Corporation in Meriden.

U.S. Attorney O'Connor noted that Fosdick has cooperated fully
in the investigation.

The devices, components, and accessories, are allegedly
adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
because they are unapproved class III medical devices and they
do not meet mandatory performance standards.

In addition, the devices are labeled for use to treat serious
medical conditions, including diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia,
arthritis, and migraine headaches.  Since these devices have not
been approved by FDA, the safety parameters associated with
their use and the efficacy of the devices for use to treat
diseases have not been determined.

These devices are misbranded because their labeling lacks
adequate directions for intended use, they are not labeled
prescription use only, and they are not being used by consumers
by order of a licensed practitioner.  They are further
misbranded because they were manufactured at an unregistered
facility.

U.S. Attorney O'Connor noted that the U.S. Attorney for the
Western District of New York also has filed a civil complaint
and has seized approximately $2.7 million worth of Dr. Ho
medical devices.

Protecting the public against products illegally marketed
without FDA approval is an important part of the mission of our
agency," stated FDA Acting Commissioner von Eschenbach.  "The
unapproved claims on products such as these often lead patients
to forego proven therapies, which can cause serious health
consequences."

The FDA under the direction of Gail T. Costello, New England
District Director, is investigating this case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William M. Brown, Jr., and Jennifer
Caruso -- a trial attorney from the FDA Office of Chief Counsel
-- are prosecuting the case.

The case has been assigned to Senior United States District
Judge Alfred V. Covello in Hartford.


VALUEVISION MEDIA: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Posing Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
ValueVision Media Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, recalled about 2,200 units of
Dragonfly, Petunia, Iris, and Rose Torchiere Lamps imported by
River of Goods, of Eagan, Minnesota.

The company said an electrical problem can cause the torchiere
lamps to spark, smoke or burn posing a fire or burn hazard to
consumers.

ValueVision has received five reports of the recalled lamps
sparking, smoking and/or burning, including minor property
damage.  One minor burn injury has been reported.

The torchieres are Tiffany-style lamps with glass shades with
either dragonfly, petunia, iris or rose designs.

The Dragonfly torchiere has a dragonfly design glass shade.  It
was sold as part of a three-lamp set including a floor lamp, a
table lamp and a torchiere lamp.  Only the torchiere lamp in the
set is included in this recall.  The Dragonfly torchiere was
sold as item numbers V38109 and K18266.  The item numbers are
located on the products' packaging.

The Petunia torchiere has a pastel floral design glass shade and
was sold individually as item number V38762.

The Iris torchiere has an iris design glass shade and was sold
individually as item number V38763.

The Rose torchiere has a rose design glass shade and was sold
individually as item number V38764.

The torchieres were manufactured in China are being sold at
ShopNBC, which is ValueVision's television home-shopping
channel, and at http://www.shopnbc.combetween November 2005 and  
April 2006 for about $200 for the set that includes the
Dragonfly lamp, and about $50 to $90 for the other individual
lamps.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
torchiere lamps and contact ValueVision to receive a full
refund.  ValueVision is contacting consumers who bought these
lamps directly.

Picture of the recalled torchieres:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558d.jpg

For more information, contact ShopNBC at (800) 676-5523 between
6 a.m. and midnight CT Monday through Friday, and between 9 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday, or visit
http://www.ShopNBC.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CSK AUTO: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of CSK
Auto Corp. between Sept. 2, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive.  
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

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 financial performance and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of CSK Auto securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Aug. 8, 2006, in which to move for
Lead Plaintiff status.  

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


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of GlobeTel
Communications Corp. (AMEX:GTE) between December 30, 2005 and
April 11, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges GlobeTel and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning GlobeTel's business and prospects caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

GlobeTel provides an integrated suite of telecommunications
products and services, utilizing Stored Value, Voice over
Internet Protocol, and wireless access technologies.  

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
repeatedly touted a purportedly $600 million joint venture with
a Moscow based LLC, Internafta, to install wireless networks and
provide Internet service throughout Russia.

The company announced the "binding agreement" in a Dec. 30, 2005
press release.  Based on the news, GlobeTel shares surged from
$2.19 to $3.68 per share, a more-than-75% increase on extremely
heavy trading volume.

The complaint alleges that almost immediately after the deal's
announcement in January 2006, Internafta failed to pay GlobeTel
the first $150 million installment required under the joint
venture agreement, and then repeatedly missed the agreement's
payment deadlines.

Finally, on April 11, 2006, an article published in The Motley
Fool questioned the credibility of the entire deal.  As a result
of this news, GlobeTel's stock plunged 15% the next day, on
unusually heavy trading volume, to close on April 12, 2006, at
$1.78 per share.

Interested parties have no later than June 27, 2006, ask the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


INFOSONICS CORP: Charles J. Piven Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
InfoSonics Corp. (IFO) between May 9, 2006 and June 9, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Aug. 14,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


INFOSONICS CORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
InfoSonics Corp. between May 9, 2006 and June 9, 2006,
inclusive.

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

Specifically, defendants had improperly accounted for warrants
issued in connection with a January 2006 private placement.  In
addition, it is alleged that while in possession of material
nonpublic information regarding an investigation into its
accounting for warrants, defendants sold large amounts of their
personal holdings for proceeds exceeding $3 million.

Before the market opened on June 12, 2006, InfoSonics disclosed
that it would need to restate its previously reported financial
results, and that it would need to revise downward its first
quarter net income from $1.738 million to $1.173 million as a
result of the improper accounting treatment of the warrants.

On this news, shares of InfoSonics fell to a close of $17.38 on
June 12, down $6.84 from the previous close of $24.22.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, request that
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Stull, Stull Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corporation or
otherwise acquired Vonage common stock pursuant or traceable to
the company's May 23, 2006 initial public offering.  

This claim is also being brought on behalf of Vonage customers
who purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock through
the Vonage Directed Share Program.

The Complaint charges Vonage, the underwriters of its IPO, and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that Vonage's technology platform experienced problems
         carrying telephone data over the networks of certain
         Internet service providers, including Time Warner
         Inc.'s AOL;

      -- that Vonage's Voice over Internet Protocol technology
         did not properly allow facsimile transmissions;

      -- that the Company did not adequately inform investors
         about the history of Vonage's management team;

      -- specifically, that Vonage failed to disclose that
         Tyco's ADT Security division took $600 million in
         charges for accounting improprieties while defendant
         Michael Snyder was President of the division;

      -- that the Company did not adequately inform Vonage
         customers that opened brokerage accounts and
         participated in Vonage's Directed Share Program
         concerning the customers' obligations to purchase
         allocated shares; and

      -- specifically, that Vonage customers that participated
         in the Directed Share Program were obligated to
         purchase allocated shares before they received notice
         that their conditional offers had been accepted, and
         were led to believe that the IPO would take place later
         than May 23, 2006.

Immediately following Vonage's IPO, shares of Vonage plunged
from the offering price of $17.00 per share to close, on May 24,
2006, at $14.85 per share, a loss of $2.15, or 12.6 percent, on
concerns about the Company's ability to compete in the
marketplace.

Following these concerns, shares of Vonage continued to fall on
news that serious technical and logistical issues plagued the
Company's Directed Share Program.  In the seven days after the
IPO, shares of Vonage declined over 30 percent.

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than Aug. 1, 2006.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.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  * * *