CAR_Public/060620.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 121

                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Sued Over Stock Option Grants to Executives
ALBERTSONS INC: Facing Lawsuit Over Disposal, Executive Payout
AVERY DENNISON: ERISA Violations Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
AVERY DENNISON: Securities Fraud Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
AVERY DENNISON: Webtego, D.R. Ward Abandon Label Stock Lawsuits

BAUSCH & LOMB: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Contact Lens Solution
BRISTOL-MYERS: Distributes Settlement in N.Y. Securities Suit
CHAPARRAL RESOURCES: Faces Del., N.Y. Suits Over LUKOIL Merger
CONCORD CAMERA: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
CONCORD CAMERA: November 2006 Trial Set for Fla. Securities Suit

CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure of Casuarina Project
ENRON CORP: Vinson & Elkins' Motion for Summary Judgment Opposed
ENRON CORP: July Hearing Set for $37.5M ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
EXELON CORP: Judge Gives Green Light to Ill. Chemical Spill Suit
FITNESS QUEST: Recalls Gazelle Crosstrainers After Injury Report

GUAM: Appeals Court Declines to Review AG's Role in EITC Suit
H&M USA: Recalls Water Shoes Putting Wearers at Risk of Slipping
INDIANA: Suit Filed Over Limitation on Medicaid for Dentures
KOPPERS INC: Tex. Court Stays Somerville Injury, Damage Suit
LG SOURCING: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of Swivel Rockers

LOUISIANA: Video Game Industry Files Suit to Strike Down HB 1381
MICHELIN: Judge Dismisses Grand Prix Fans' Compensation Claims
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Sued in Ohio Over "Excessive" Insurance Fees
NEW MEXICO: Rio Arriba County Faces Suit Over Strip Searching
NORBOURG ASSET: Quebec Court Hears Shareholders Arguments

POLO RALPH: Ex-Club Monaco Employees File Labor Suit in Calif.
POLO RALPH: Settlement Reached in Calif. Dress Policy Lawsuit
SALTON INC: Enters Settlement for Ill. Securities Fraud Suits
SALTON INC: Plaintiffs in "DiNatale" Seek Certification of Suit
THORATEC CORP: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Stock Option Grants
UNITED STATES: Immigration Law Upheld in 9/11 Detention Suit
WILD OATS: Trial in Calif. Overtime Wage Suit Slated for 3Q 2006
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Product Liability Suit in Okla. Continues


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in Pa.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Pa.
INFOSONICS CORP: Hulett Harper Files Securities Suit in Calif.
INFOSONICS CORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Ohio
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Mass.


                            *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Sued Over Stock Option Grants to Executives
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director
stock option grants, also known as back-dated stock options.

Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and
directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the
company's internal documents -- such as the company's stock
option plan -- as well as state laws governing officer and
director fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing
securities and taxation.

In addition, the practice results in lower payments to
companies, results in those companies under-reporting
compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or
executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of
dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate
coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the
company.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody, Phone: (800) 337-4983, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail:
tbrody@ssbny.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


ALBERTSONS INC: Facing Lawsuit Over Disposal, Executive Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder of Albertsons Inc. in Sacramento California filed
a new suit against the former chief executive and board members
of Boise, Idaho-based grocery chain, according to
IdahoStatesman.com.

Frank Norby filed the suit in Idaho state court alleging that
former Chief Executive Larry Johnston and the members of the
company's board breached their responsibilities to shareholders
when they accepted the lesser of two buyout bids for the entire
company and agreed to pay Mr. Johnson a generous $105 million
when he left.

According to Mr. Norby's lawyers, his suit is seeking:

     -- payments to compensate what shareholders would have
        received had the company accepted the higher buyout bid;
        and

     -- the return of the "golden parachute" awarded to Mr.
        Johnston.

Mr. Nordby already filed a lawsuit against Mr. Johnston and
Albertsons' board in May over the same transaction.  The case is
still pending.

                      The Carmona Lawsuit

Albertstons is facing a lawsuit filed by another shareholder,
Christopher Carmona of California over its alleged failure to
disclose details of the buyout bid the board rejected.  It
reached a settlement in the suit weeks ago after explaining in a
report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an
offer from an unnamed suitor that could have paid shareholders
up to $30 a share was too risky.

According to Tom Banducci, an attorney with Greener, Banducci,
Shoemaker, the law firm representing Mr. Nordby, they want the
court to halt the settlement, which has yet to receive approval,
because it could bar other shareholders from filing similar
lawsuits against Albertsons.

Albertsons was split into three parts on June 2, with its
grocery stores going to SuperValu Inc. and a private company
called Albertsons LLC, and its stand-alone drug stores going to
CVS Corp.


AVERY DENNISON: ERISA Violations Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
approved parties' stipulation to stay the class action filed
against Avery Dennison Corp., alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

The suit also names as defendants the company's chief executive
officer, Philip M. Neal; vice president and treasurer, Karyn
Rodriguez; and vice president, compensation and benefits, James
Bochinski.

Ronald E. Dancer filed the suit on May 18, 2005, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA to the company's Employee
Savings Plan and Plan participants.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that permitting
investment in and retention of company common stock under the
plan was imprudent because of alleged anticompetitive activities
by the company, and that failure to disclose such activities to
the plan and participants was unlawful.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to compensate the
plan for any losses and other relief.  

Parties have stipulated to transfer the case to the judge in the
consolidated case, "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities
Litigation."  

The court approved the parties' stipulation to stay the matter
pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the company, according to the
company's May 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 1, 2006.

The suit is "Ronald Dancer v. Avery Dennison Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-03708-NM-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M.
Manella.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Wayne T. Boulton, Robert A. Izard, Andrew M. Schatz,
         Schatz and Nobel, 20 Church Street, 17th Floor,
         Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, E-mail:
         wboulton@snlaw.net or firm@snlaw.net;

     (2) Michael D. Braun, Marc L. Godino, Braun Law Group,
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA
         90025, Phone: 310-442-7755, E-mail:
         service@braunlawgroup.com; and  

     (3) Joseph Gentile, Ronnen Sarraf, Sarraf Gentile, 485
         Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-
         3610, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com.


AVERY DENNISON: Securities Fraud Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Avery Dennison Corp.,
Chief Executive Officer Philip M. Neal, Chief Financial Officer
D. R. O'Bryant and controller, Michael A. Skovran, remains
stayed.

On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed a purported
stockholder class action seeking damages and other relief for
alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful
competitive practices.  Subsequently, another similar action was
filed in the same court.  

On Sept. 24, 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel and ordered the two actions
consolidated as, "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities
Litigation."

Pursuant to court order and the parties' stipulation, the
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004.  
The court approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing
date in June 2004.  

In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the consolidated
action, including the proposed briefing schedule, pending the
outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the company.

The court has approved the parties' stipulation to stay the
consolidated actions.  There has been no discovery and no trial
date yet, according to the company's May 11, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended April 1, 2006.

The suit is "Sekuk Global Ent., et al. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-03175-NM-FMO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Nora M. Manella.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael M. Goldberg,
         Glancy & Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150;

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706; and

     (3) David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller
         Bowman Coates & Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Rd, Ste 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7263, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com or srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the company is William J. Meeske of Latham &
Watkins, 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071-
2007, Phone: 213-891-8108, E-mail: bill.meeske@lw.com.


AVERY DENNISON: Webtego, D.R. Ward Abandon Label Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac
are defendants in several class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of label stock in various state courts.  

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock.  The
suit asks treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful
competitive practices.

Three similar complaints were filed in various California
courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the
California Judicial Council ordered the cases coordinated for
pretrial purposes.

The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the
Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004.

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
Maricopa County, Arizona on Nov. 6, 2003.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice on
Oct. 4, 2004.

On Jan. 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corp.
filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers
in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.

Similar actions were filed by Webtego on Feb. 16, 2005, in the
Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio; by D.R. Ward
Construction Co. on Feb. 17, 2005, in the Superior Court for
Maricopa County, Arizona; by Richard Wrobel on Feb. 16, 2005, in
the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas; and by Chad and
Terry Muzzey, on Feb. 16, 2005 in the District Court of Scotts
Bluff County, Nebraska.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state
class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

On Oct. 7, 2005, Webtego voluntarily dismissed its complaint. On
Feb. 16, 2006, D.R. Ward voluntarily dismissed its complaint,
according to the company's May 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
April 1, 2006.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Contact Lens Solution
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Daytona Beach law firm of Sands White & Sands, P.A. filed a
lawsuit in the Circuit Court in Flagler County against Bausch &
Lomb, Inc. on behalf of a Flagler County woman diagnosed with
Fusarium keratitis in her right eye after using ReNu with
MoistureLoc manufactured by the company.  

The complaint alleges that the woman's use of Bausch & Lomb's
soft contact lens sterilizing solution, ReNu with MoistureLoc,
caused her to develop a severe fungal infection in her right
eye, eventually forcing her to undergo two corneal transplants.

Susan Nettles, a resident of Palm Coast, Florida, developed the
fungal infection in January of 2006 after a few months of use of
Bausch & Lomb's ReNu with MoistureLoc.  The infection was caused
by Fusarium, a fungus that is widely distributed in plants, soil
and water.  ReNu with MoistureLoc is specifically designed to
kill Fusarium fungus and other microorganisms that would be
harmful if exposed to the human eye.

Bausch & Lomb first introduced ReNu with MoistureLoc into the
U.S. and several foreign markets, including Hong Kong and
Singapore, in late 2004.

In November of 2005, the Hong Kong Department of Health asked
Bausch and Lomb to investigate a rising trend in keratitis among
Hong Kong contact lens wearers.

In February of 2006, the Singapore Department of Health
identified ReNu as the common brand of lens solution of 21 of 22
Singapore patients with Fusarium keratitis.

As a result, Bausch & Lomb withdrew ReNu with MoistureLoc from
the Hong Kong and Singapore markets, but took no action at that
time to withdraw the product from the U.S. market.

On March 8, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control received a
report from an ophthalmologist in New Jersey regarding three
patients with contact lens associated Fusarium keratitis.

Initial contact by the CDC with several corneal disease
specialty centers in the U.S. revealed that other centers also
have seen recent increases in Fusarium keratitis.

As of April 9, a total of 109 patients with suspected Fusarium
keratitis were under investigation in multiple states.  
According to the CDC, of the 30 patients interviewed at that
time, 28 had worn contact lenses, and 26 could specifically
recall using a contact lens solution manufactured by Bausch &
Lomb.

On April 10, the same day as the public release of the CDC data,
Bausch & Lomb announced that it was suspending shipments of ReNu
with MoistureLoc to stores in the U.S.

On May 15, Bausch & Lomb announced that it was permanently
removing ReNu with MoistureLoc(R) from worldwide markets.  In
announcing the decision, Bausch & Lomb Chief Executive Ronald L.
Zarella acknowledged that "some aspect of the MoistureLoc
formula may be increasing the relative risk of Fusarium
infection in unusual circumstances."

According to subsequent statements by Mr. Zarella, the company
has determined that certain comfort- enhancing polymers unique
to the ReNu with MoistureLo formula may actually have had the
inadvertent effect of preventing the product's fungal
disinfectant from killing the Fusarium fungus.

As of May 18, the CDC had received reports of 130 confirmed
cases of Fusarium keratitis since June 1, 2005, including 26
cases in Florida, more than any other State.

More information on ReNu with MoistureLoc is available at:  
             http://www.renulawsuit.com,and  
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/renu_contact_solution.
  
For more information on the Florida case, contact Kenton Sands
of Sands White & Sands, Phone: +1-386-258-1622, E-mail:
info@sandswhitesands.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Distributes Settlement in N.Y. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An initial distribution of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation Net Settlement Fund recently has been made to all
class members who submitted a claim to the Claims Administrator,
The Garden City Group, Inc., and who did not receive from the
Claims Administrator notice that such claim had been recommended
for complete rejection.

In May, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company settled all securities
class actions and derivative suits filed against it in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Class
Action Reporter, May 12, 2006).

Case Background

The suits were filed in 2002 and 2003, against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and accountant,
PricewaterhouseCoopers.  They alleged violations of federal
securities laws and regulations in connection with sales
incentives and wholesaler inventory levels, breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the company's conduct
concerning:  

     -- safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV;  

     -- the company's sales incentives to certain wholesalers  
        and the inventory levels of those wholesalers;  

     -- the Company's investment in and relations with ImClone  
        and ImClone's product ERBITUX; and  

     -- alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with  
        BUSPAR and TAXOL (paclitaxel).  

The suit is "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-02251-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Loretta A.  
Preska.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr.,
Gustavo Bruckner and Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein,
Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com or  
kolker@whafh.com.

Representing the company are Elizabeth L. Grayer and Evan R.
Chesler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-
mail: egrayer@cravath.com or echesler@cravath.com.

For more information on the initial distribution of net
settlement fund, contact Leslie Stern, Esq. of Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300; or Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq. of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1400.


CHAPARRAL RESOURCES: Faces Del., N.Y. Suits Over LUKOIL Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Resources, Inc. is defendant in both a consolidated
class action in the Court of Chancery in the state of Delaware
in and for New Castle County, and a purported class action in
the Supreme Court of the state of New York over its proposed
merger with LUKOIL Overseas Holding Limited.

On March 13, 2006 the company announced that it had entered into
an agreement to effect a merger into a wholly owned subsidiary
of LUKOIL.  On the effective date of this merger, all issued and
outstanding common stock of the company will be exchanged for
$5.80 per share in cash.

Following the issuance of the press release announcing the
execution of the merger agreement, the first of three separate
complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Shortly thereafter, an additional complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, to commence class
actions lawsuits on behalf of the company's stockholders against
LUKOIL, the company and its board of directors.  

The complaints in these actions, which purport to be brought on
behalf of all stockholders, generally alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by Chaparral, its board of directors and LUKOIL
and that the merger consideration offered by LUKOIL is
inadequate.  

These suits generally seek to enjoin the merger or, in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in
the event a merger occurred pursuant to the merger agreement.

On March 31, 2006 the three lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery were consolidated into one.  

Parties have agreed that defendants need not respond, and that
plaintiffs will file a consolidated amended complaint as soon as
practical after the preliminary proxy statement is filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


CONCORD CAMERA: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers remained
defendants in a consolidated securities class action in a
federal court in Florida.  

In September 2004, individuals purporting to be shareholders of
the company filed a class action complaint against the company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

In August 2005, an amended consolidated complaint was filed
adding a former officer of the Company as a defendant.  The lead
plaintiff in the amended complaint seeks to act as a
representative of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock from Aug. 14, 2003 to Aug.
31, 2004, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

Allegations in the amended complaint are centered around claims
that the company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in
press releases it made to the public during the class period
regarding its operations and financial results:

      -- the full extent of the company's excess, obsolete and
         otherwise impaired inventory;

      -- the departure of a former officer from the company
         until several months after his departure; and

      -- that Kodak would cancel its DMS contracts with the
         company due to the company's alleged infringement of
         Kodak's patents.

The amended complaint also alleges that the company improperly
recognized revenue contrary to accounting principles generally
accepted in the U.S. due to an inability to reasonably estimate
digital camera returns.  It claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the common stock.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other and further
relief from the court.

The first identified complaint is "Martin Brustein, et al. v.
Concord Camera Corp., et al., Case No. 04-CV-61159," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Andrea M. Simonton.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

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

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

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

     (6) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com.


CONCORD CAMERA: November 2006 Trial Set for Fla. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 13, 2006 trial is slated for the securities class action
against Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
Company filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its officers.

On Aug. 20, 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and in December 2002, the court granted the company's
motion and the complaint was dismissed.

In January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed
adding certain of the company's current and former directors as
defendants.  

Lead plaintiffs in the amended complaint sought to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock issued pursuant to the
company's Sept. 26, 2000 secondary offering or from Sept. 26,
2000 to June 22, 2001, inclusive.

On April 18, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Aug. 27, 2004, the court dismissed all
claims against the defendants related to the secondary
offering.

On Sept. 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who
purchased the common stock between Jan. 18, 2001 and June 22,
2001, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.  

The allegations remaining in the amended complaint are centered
on claims:

      -- that the company failed to disclose, in periodic
         reports it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission and in press releases it made to the public
         during the class period regarding its operations and
         financial results;

      -- that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
         represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance
         due from then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc.; and

      -- that a material portion of its inventory consisted of
         customized components that had no alternative usage.

The amended complaint claims that such failures artificially
inflated the price of the common stock.  It seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and
unspecified other and further relief from the court.

Pursuant to a scheduling order of the court, trial in this
matter is scheduled to commence on Nov. 13, 2006.  

The suit is "Berger, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Patricia Seitz.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;

     (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) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net;

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400;

     (5) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
         72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
         tanya@emersonfirm.com; and

     (6) 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.


CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure of Casuarina Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-eight buyers in the $1.2 billion Casuarina Sands
development in Australia are suing Consolidated Properties, the
developer of the project, according to The Australian.

The Slater & Gordon legal firm said the parties were taking
action in the New South Wales Supreme Court to settle on the 35
blocks they had contracted to buy in 2003.  The claimants are
accusing the developer of failing to make "reasonable
endeavours" to secure development approval within the required
time frame of 30 months.

Their contracts had clauses allowing them to be rescinded if the
project did not win planning approval from the NSW government.  
According to the report, the application to develop the 133-lot
estate has not been approved and it is understood that
Consolidated Properties has withdrawn its application.

Consolidated stands to gain $30 million more if it later
develops the lots and sells them at the present values, the
report said.

Several claimants had already filed caveats over the properties
they had contracted to buy, according to lawyer James Higgins.  
He said the claimants were not asking for monetary or other
compensation.

Representing Consolidated Properties is Peter Rosengren of
http://www.deacons.com.au/,Phone: +61 7 3309 0935, Fax: +61 7  
3309 0999, E-mail: peter.rosengren@deacons.com.au.


ENRON CORP: Vinson & Elkins' Motion for Summary Judgment Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the securities suit against Enron Corp. filed
an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment before U.S.
District Judge Melinda Harmon on June 13, according to the Texas
Lawyer.

In the filing, plaintiffs accused Enron's former lead counsel
Vinson & Elkins of helping Enron commit the accounting fraud
that led to the energy trader's collapse in 2001.  The
plaintiffs also submitted five boxes of documents as evidence,
including e-mails from V&E partners to each other and to then-
Enron executives.

The report cites V&E partner Harry Reasoner saying the firm
filed a summary judgment motion under seal on April 13 showing
that the firm met the criteria for a dismissal set by Judge
Harmon.  It filed a redacted version of that motion on April 20.  

In "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al.," filed Oct. 22, 2001,
V&E is among those accused of conspiring with Enron.  V&E denies
the allegations made by the Newby plaintiffs, the report said.  
The trial is set to begin in October.

Meanwhile, on June 1, V&E agreed to pay Enron and its Committee
of Unsecured Creditors $30 million in cash to settle all claims
brought by Enron.  U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez of
the Southern District of New York has yet to approve the deal.

The suit is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al., Case No.
4:02-md-01446," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.   

Representing the defendant is J. Mark Brewer of Brewer and  
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:  
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs is William S. Lerach of Lerach
Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA
92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


ENRON CORP: July Hearing Set for $37.5M ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., for the
proposed partial settlement in the matter: "In re Enron
Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. H-01-3913."

The settlement affects these classes:

      -- Northern Trust Class:  All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Enron Corp.
         Savings Plan (401K), and/or the Enron Corp. Employee
         Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and any and all
         predecessors and successors to such plans from Jan. 1,
         1995 to Dec. 2, 2001.  

      -- Administrative Committee Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans between Jan.
         1, 1995 and June 7, 2002.

      -- Enron Corp. Class: All persons who were participants or
         beneficiaries in the Plans or the Enron Corp. Cash
         Balance Plan during from Jan. 21, 1998 to Dec. 2, 2001.

      -- Arthur Andersen Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans or the Enron
         Corp. Cash Balance Plan from Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 20,
         2005.

      -- Arthur Andersen Worldwide Class: All persons who were
         participants or beneficiaries in the Plans, the Enron
         Corp. Cash Balance Plan, and such Plans themselves, and
         all recipients of any "phantom stock" that employees of
         Enron received as compensation from Jan. 1, 1995 to
        Dec. 20, 2005.

The proposed partial settlement will provide $37.5 million, plus
interest, less attorneys' fees and costs, to pay claims to all
persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the Plans from
Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 2, 2001.  The partial settlement resolves
claims against The Northern Trust Company, which allegedly
breached its fiduciary duties by violating the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  

The court will hold the fairness hearing at the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Avenue,
Houston, Texas.

Any objections to the settlement must be submitted by June 29,
2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Lynn Lincoln Sarko and Britt L. Tinglum of Keller
         Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
         Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 206-224-7552 and 206-
         224-7572, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com and
         btinglum@kellerrohrback.com, Web site:
         http://www.kellerrohrback.com;

     (2) Steve W. Berman and Clyde A. Platt of Hagens Berman
         Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
         Seattle, Washington 98101, (King Co.), Phone: 206-623-
         7292, (206) 268-9324 and (206) 268-9320, Fax: 206-623-
         0594, Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com;and  

     (3) "In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation," Independent
         Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91116, Seattle, WA
         98111-9216, Phone: 1-866-560-4043, Web sites:
         http://www.enronerisa.comand  
         http://www.erisafraud.com.


EXELON CORP: Judge Gives Green Light to Ill. Chemical Spill Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Federal Judge Suzanne B. Conlon denied Exelon Corp.'s
motion to dismiss a class action brought as a result of Exelon's
spills of tritium-laced water into the local community in Will
County, Illinois.

The lawsuit," Duffin v. Exelon Corp., et al.," will now proceed
to the discovery phase where the plaintiffs will seek internal
documents and additional evidence from Exelon relevant to the
lawsuit.  Other individual lawsuits filed against Exelon, which
were recently consolidated with the class action, were not
affected by the ruling.

Exelon had argued that the case should be dismissed because the
plaintiffs could not state a claim that would entitle them to
recover any damages.

The court rejected this argument and held: "Viewed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiffs, the complaint states a claim
because plaintiffs could prove a set of facts, consistent with
the complaint, that entitles them to relief."

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC's class suit, filed in
March, 2006, alleges that Exelon spilled over six million
gallons of tritium-laced water into the surrounding community
from its Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant over a ten year period
and failed to notify residents and regulatory officials.

On May 25, 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission informed
Exelon that after a preliminary investigation, the Agency had
found "multiple failures" of Exelon's staff as a result of the
spills which resulted in at least five violations of NRC
regulations.

Exelon's own testing has confirmed elevated tritium levels in
the groundwater and in private wells in the vicinity of the
Braidwood plant.  Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear generation,
can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic
damage.

Richard S. Lewis, a partner and an environmental legal expert
with the Cohen, Milstein firm, explained that, "the court's
well-reasoned decision allows this case to proceed.  While there
are still several legal hurdles we must face, we will now be
able to examine Exelon's internal documents and see what they
knew, when they knew it, and why they did not report it.  The
people in this community continue to believe that there is a
large amount of information that Exelon has never released to
the public about what really occurred."

Cohen, Milstein filed the class action lawsuit along with The
McKeown Law Firm of Joliet, Illinois, and Williams, Cuker &
Berezofsky of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the court's decision is available at:
           
          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?bac


The suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corporation et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-01382," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800.

For more information, contact James Pizzirusso of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, Phone: (202) 408-4600 or (703)
587-6474.


FITNESS QUEST: Recalls Gazelle Crosstrainers After Injury Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitness Quest Inc., of Canton, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
154,000 units of Gazelle Freestyle Cross Trainer and Gazelle
Freestyle Cross Trainer Pro Gliders.

The company said the resistance pistons on the glider can come
off during exercise.  If this happens, a person using the glider
can fall off the exercise machine.

Fitness Quest has received 145 reports of pistons detaching and
one report of a minor injury from a fall.

Gazelle Freestyle Crosstrainer and Crosstrainer Pro exercisers
are "glider-style" exercise equipment.  The user moves two-foot
platforms in a striding motion back and forth while grasping
handlebars attached to the platforms.  The model name "Gazelle
Freestyle Cross Trainer" or "Gazelle Freestyle Cross Trainer
Pro" is printed on the side of each product's frame.

The Gazelle Crosstrainers were manufactured in China and
Thailand and are being sold by the Home Shopping Network, The
Shopping Channel, and Dicks Sporting Goods beginning in January
2004 for between $200 and $250.

Consumers are advised to disconnect the pistons on these
exercise gliders.  They can continue to use the gliders until
they receive the repair kit as long as the pistons are detached.

Consumers who purchased a Crosstrainer Pro from Dick's are
advised to contact Fitness Quest for a free repair kit.

Consumers who purchased a Crosstrainer or Crosstrainer Pro from
the Home Shopping Network or the Shopping Channel before Jan. 1,
2006 will receive a free repair kits by mail.  Contact Fitness
Quest if you do not receive a kit by June 3, 2006.

Crosstrainer Pro gliders purchased from Home Shopping Network or
the Shopping Channel after Jan. 1, 2006 have repair kits
included.

Picture of the recalled crosstrainers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06179b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06179a.jpg

For more information, contact Fitness Quest at (800) 321-9236
between 8:30 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or log on
to http://www.fitnessquest.com.


GUAM: Appeals Court Declines to Review AG's Role in EITC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused the request of the
attorney general of Guam to review his dismissal as counsel in a
suit over tax refunds, according to Pacific Daily News.

In March, District Judge Ricardo Martinez removed Attorney
General Douglas Moylan from the case to uphold the right of
Guam's governor to retain independent counsel.  

Recently, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement to
settle the suit over Earned Income Tax Credit, the Pacific Daily
News reports (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).  Originally,
settlement talks contemplated on a $60 million payment of the
$120 million owed to taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to
1998.  It was entered into by Attorney General Moylan and then-
acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan.  But Gov. Felix Camacho did not
approve of the settlement.  He increased the settlement to $90
million, specifying this will come from 15% of the money set
aside for tax refunds each year.  

Earlier this year, District Court Judge Martinez granted
Gov. Camacho's request for global mediation.  Negotiations
resulted to a deal with lawyers representing plaintiffs Julie
Babauta Santos and Charmaine Torres.  But lawyers representing
Mary Grace Simpao with Christina Naputi disagreed, and have
asked the court to move forward with the lawsuit and select a
lead counsel.  The suits were filed in 2004.

Gov. Camacho said one of the big changes in the settlement is
that the payments will begin as soon as the court gives
preliminary approval, instead of waiting for final court
approval.

Gov. Camacho's lawyer, Daniel Benjamin, said the new settlement
also calls for the payment of what still is owed for the 1997
tax year.  According to him, when payments begin, checks will be
written to those who filed for the tax credit but were not paid
for 1997 and 1998.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike
Philips, and James Canto.


H&M USA: Recalls Water Shoes Putting Wearers at Risk of Slipping
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&M USA, of New York, New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,900 H&M
girl's water shoes.

The company said though these shoes are marketed for use around
water for traction, they become extremely slippery when wet.  
This poses a risk of slipping and falling on smooth, hard
surfaces such as tile.  No injuries were reported.

These water shoes are pink and blue shoes with a multi-colored
trim.  The shoes have a pink rubber sole with silver glitter
incased within it.  A butterfly applique is attached to the top
and flower emblems are on the back and sides.  A label inside
the shoes reads "364430" and "Made In China."

H&M Girl's Water Shoes are manufactured in China and are being
sold at H&M stores in the Northeast U.S. and California from
March 2005 through May 2006 for about $8.

Consumers are advised to stop using these shoes and immediately
return them to any H&M store for a full refund.

Picture of the recalled water shoes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06186.jpg.

For more information, call H&M toll free at (877) 439-6261
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.hm.com.


INDIANA: Suit Filed Over Limitation on Medicaid for Dentures
------------------------------------------------------------
The secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration and the state's Medicaid director are facing a
suit seeking class action status over a six-year limitation to
provide coverage for dentures, IndyStar.com reports.

E. Mitchell Roob Jr., who oversees social services in Indiana
and Jeanne M. LaBrecque, Medicaid director, is being sued by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.  ACLU is filing the
action action on behalf of Cathy McArty, who was advised by the
Indiana University School of Dentistry to get a replacement for
her dentures made in September 2002.  She was reportedly refused
by state officials in March because six years have not passed
since the program last paid for her for such services.

Ms. McArty wants Marion Superior Court Judge Cynthia Ayers to
halt the ban, according to her attorney, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess.


KOPPERS INC: Tex. Court Stays Somerville Injury, Damage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
temporarily stayed the case filed against Koppers Inc. and
several others over the company's Somerville, Texas wood
treatment plant.

In June 2005, the company along with other defendants, including
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, Monsanto
Company, Dow Chemical Company and Vulcan Materials Company, was
served with a putative class action complaint.

Plaintiffs claimed that several classes of past and present
property owners and residents in the Somerville, Texas area --
allegedly numbering in excess of 2,500 -- suffered unspecified
property damage and risk of personal injury as a result of
exposure to various chemicals used at the Somerville, Texas wood
treatment plant that is currently owned by the company.

On Dec. 23, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping
their class action allegations and identifying 602 individual
plaintiffs.  

The amended complaint seeks to recover compensatory and punitive
damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the court for,
among other things, bodily injuries, pain and mental anguish,
emotional distress, medical monitoring, medical expenses, lost
wages, loss of consortium and property devaluation.

On April 5, 2006, the court temporarily stayed the case and
ordered the plaintiffs to provide the defendants with certain
medical, exposure and other data for each plaintiff.  
Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that an additional 1,200 new
plaintiffs might be added to the case.

The suit is "Davis, et al v. Koppers Industries I, et al., Case
No. 05-CV-464," filed in the U.S. District Court Western
District of Texas under Judge Sam Sparks.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Grover G. Hankins, The Hankins Law Firm PLLC, 616 W.
         Main St., League City, TX 77573, Phone: (281) 316-9551;

     (2) Dwight E. Jefferson, Dwight E. Jefferson, PLLC, 12
         Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77046, Phone:
         (713) 993-0399; and

     (3) Bernard Smalley, Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan, Feldman &
         Smalley, 1900 Delancey Place, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: (215) 735-3894.

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Michael R. Klatt and Susan E. Burnett of Clark, Thomas,
         & Winters, P.O. Box 1148, Austin, TX 78767, Phone:
         (512) 472-8800; and

    (ii) Brent R. Austin, Robert L. Shuftan, Leonard S.
         Kurfirst, and Paul K. Freeburn of Wildman, Harrold,
         Allen & Dixon, LLP, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800,
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-201-2000.


LG SOURCING: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of Swivel Rockers
-----------------------------------------------------------
LG Sourcing Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
recalled about 1,100 units of Herrington swivel rocker.

The company said the recalled swivel rockers can be assembled
incorrectly, causing them to break at the base or tip over
backward easily.  This poses a fall hazard to consumers.

LG Sourcing had received nine reports of injuries including
bruises and abrasions when the rocker broke or tipped over.  One
individual reported having a slight concussion.  All of the
reported injuries involved display models at Lowe's stores.

The rocker is part of the Herrington collection of patio
furniture.  The rocker is dark brown with a brown cloth seat,
has a swivel base and a cut out pattern on the metal backrest.  
The item number, 119178, is printed on the rocker's packaging
and on the assembly instructions.  The rocker came in two
sections, a base and a seat, and customers were required to bolt
the seat to the base.

These rockers were manufactured by Hanamint Corp. (Jiaxing),
Inc., of China, and sold exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide
from October 2005 through February 2006 for about $420 for a set
of two rockers.

Picture of the recalled rocker:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06187.jpg.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled rockers
immediately and return them to any Lowe's store for a full
refund.

For more information, contact Lowe's stores toll-free at (866)
259-8170, or visit http://www.lowes.com.


LOUISIANA: Video Game Industry Files Suit to Strike Down HB 1381
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Entertainment Software Association said the computer and
video game industry filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana, to overturn the state's new
video game law.

Similar laws have been struck down by six courts in five years,
costing taxpayers around the country nearly a million dollars in
legal fees.

"We are confident this bill will be found unconstitutional, as
have similar statutes in other states," said Doug Lowenstein,
president of the ESA, the trade group representing U.S. computer
and video game publishers.

"As recently as March 31 of this year, The Honorable George
Caram Steeh, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
stated that video games were 'expressive free speech,
inseparable from their interactive functional elements, and are
therefore protected by the First Amendment."

Under HB 1381, vendors would be subject to fines of between $100
and $2,000 and up to a year in prison if caught selling video
games containing "violent" content to minors.

"This bill is an unnecessary effort," said Mr. Lowenstein.  
"Both parents and industry are working together to ensure that
video games are purchased responsibly.  The Federal Government
has found that parents are involved in game purchases more than
eight out of ten times.  Retailers already have increasingly
effective carding programs in place to prevent the sale of
Mature or Adult Only games to minors.  Legislators know full
well that this bill is destined to meet the same fate as other
failed efforts to ban video game sales."

"HB 1381 also directly undermines efforts legislators started
after enactment of tax credit legislation less than a year ago
designed to lure video game development and production to
Louisiana to generate needed high-paying technology jobs," noted
Mr. Lowenstein.  "Signing this bill into law would no doubt hurt
the state's economy, essentially hanging up a 'Stay Out of
Louisiana' sign on the state's borders for video game
companies."

"Louisiana legislators have decided to squander taxpayers' money
on a bet they can't win," noted Bo Andersen, president of
Entertainment Merchants Association, the not-for-profit
international trade association for the retailers and
distributors of console and computer video games and DVDs.

"Despite what the legislature has been told, the Louisiana video
game restriction law is not unique -- a very similar measure was
passed in Michigan and promptly overturned in federal court.  
The Louisiana law suffers from the same constitutional defects
as the Michigan law and the five other video game laws that have
been enjoined on constitutional grounds.  It will meet the same
fate, and the taxpayers of Louisiana will end up having to pay
for the legislature's reckless gamble."

Mr. Lowenstein said that a more effective, constitutionally
sound way to ensure that video games get into the hands of
appropriate players would be for everyone -- industry,
retailers, government, parents groups and health groups -- to
educate parents about the ESRB ratings and content descriptors
and the parental controls available in all next generation
consoles.

The ESA -- http://www.theESA.com-- is the U.S. association  
dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of
the companies publishing interactive games for video game
consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the
Internet.  ESA members collectively account for more than 90
percent of the $7 billion in entertainment software sales in the
U.S. in 2005, and billions more in export sales of entertainment
software.  

For more information, contact Entertainment Software Association
Stacey Wade, Phone: 202-223-2400, E-mail: swade@theesa.com.


MICHELIN: Judge Dismisses Grand Prix Fans' Compensation Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Indiana
Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed the 2005 class suit against
Formula One, French tiremaker Michelin and the Indianapolis
Motor Speedway, the AP Worldstream reports.

In her opinion, Judge Barker said plaintiffs, who are car racing
enthusiasts, had no basis to sue.  She also noted that each
ticket to the race clearly stated "No refund" and includes a
disclaimer of liability from all claims arising from the race.  

The decision came just weeks before the U.S. Grand Prix.

In 2005, Formula One fan, Larry Bowers initiated a class action
following the debacle at the United States Grand Prix in  
Indianapolis when 14 out of 20 cars refused to race after
Michelin earlier told its partners that racing was unsafe after
they failed to find out what had caused two crashes in practice
at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (Class Action Reporter, June
23, 2005).

The suit sought punitive damages as well as compensatory damages
for ticket costs, travel expenses and food, from the motor
sport's governing body Federation Internationale de
l'Automobile, the Formula One Administration, Michelin and Motor
Speedway, accusing them of fraud (Class Action Reporter, June
23, 2005).

After the debacle, Michelin offered to refund money to those who
bought race tickets and buy 20,000 tickets for those wanting to
return for the 2006 race.  However, some fans think the offer
was not enough (Class Action Reporter, July 22, 2005).

Also named in the suit are the seven teams that used Michelin
tires: BMW-Williams, Mercedes-McLaren, BAR-Honda, Toyota,
Sauber, Red Bull and Renault, as well as Bridgestone-Firestone
and Michael Schumacher's winning Ferrari team.

Indianapolis attorney Henry J. Price said an appeal would be
filed next week in Chicago.

The suit is "In Re: 2005 United States Grand Prix, Case No.
1:05-cv-00914-SEB-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of Indiana under Judge Sarah Evans
Barker with referral to Judge Sue Shields.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Matthew Gordon Allison of Baker & Mckenzie LLP, 130
         East Randolph Drive, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 861-2630, Fax: (312) 698-2037, E-mail:
         matthew.g.allison@bakernet.com;

     (2) Stephen E. Arthur of Harrison & Moberly, 135 N
         Pennsylvania Street, Suite 2100, Indianapolis, IN
         46204, Phone: (317)639-4511, Fax: (317)639-9565, E-
         mail: sarthur@h-mlaw.com;

     (3) James McGinnis Boyers of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, One
         Indiana Square, Suite 1800, Indianapolis, IN 46204-
         2019, Phone: 317-639-6151, Fax: 317-639-6444, E-mail:
         jboyers@woodmaclaw.com;

     (4) Lawrence F. Carnevale of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP,
         2 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, Phone: (212) 238-
         8617, Fax: (212) 732-3232, E-mail: carnevale@clm.com;

     (5) Richard P. Cassetta of Bryan Cave LLP, 211 North
         Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: (314)
         259-2823, Fax: (314) 259-2020, E-mail:
         richard.cassetta@bryancave.com;

     (6) Robert L. Gauss of Ice Miller LLP, One American Square
         Suite 3100, Indianapolis, IN 46282, Phone: (317) 236-
         2133, Fax: (317) 592-4668, E-mail: gauss@icemiller.com;

     (7) Steven P. Handler of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, 227
         West Monroe Street, Suite 5200, Chicago, IL 60606,
         Phone: (312) 984-7721, Fax: (312) 984-7700, E-mail:
         shandler@mwe.com;

     (8) Offer Korin of Katz & Korin, 334 North Senate Avenue,
         Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: (317)464-1100, Fax:
         (317)464-1111, E-mail: okorin@katzkorin.com;

     (9) John K. McDavid of Locke Reynolds LLP, 201 North
         Illinois Street, Suite 1000, P O Box 44961,
         Indianapolis, IN 46244, Phone: (317) 237-3823, Fax:
         (317) 237-3900, E-mail: jmcdavid@locke.com; and

    (10) Shon Morgan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges,
         865 South Figuero Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90017, Phone: (213) 443-3000, Fax: (213) 443-3100, E-
         mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William Bock, III of Kroger Gardis & Regas, Bank One
         Center, 111 Monument Circle, Suite 900, Indianapolis,
         IN 46204, Phone: (317)692-9000, Fax: (317)264-6824, E-
         mail: wb@kgrlaw.com;

     (2) Peter E. Borkon of Schubert & Reed LLP, Two Embarcadero
         Center, Suite 1660, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
         (415) 788-4220, Fax: (415) 788-0161, E-mail:
         pborkon@schubert-reed.com;

     (3) KC Cohen of KC Cohen Lawyer, PC, 151 North Delaware
         Street, Suite 1104, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone:
         (317) 715-1845, Fax: (317) 916-0406, E-mail:
         kc@esoft-legal.com;

     (4) Gabriel Adam Hawkins of Price Waicukauski Riley &
         Debrota, 301 Massachusetts Avenue, Indianapolis, IN
         46204, Phone: (317) 633-8787, Fax: (317) 633-8797, E-
         mail: ghawkins@price-law.com;

     (5) Robert C. Schubert of Schubert & Reed LLP, Two
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: (415) 788-4220, Fax: (415) 788-0161, E-
         mail: rschubert@schubert-reed.com;

     (6) Robert J. Schuckit of Schuckit & Associates, P.C., 10
         W. Market Street, Suite 3000, Indianapolis, IN 46204,
         Phone: (317) 363-2400, Fax: (317) 363-2257, E-mail:
         rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com; and

     (7) James L. Welsh, III of Payne Welsh & Klingensmith, 105
         Penn Plaza, Suite 208, Turtle Creek, PA 15145, Phone:
         (412) 823-8100, Fax: (412) 829-1021, E-mail:
         jwelsh@pwklawyers.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Sued in Ohio Over "Excessive" Insurance Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Company was named as defendant in a
class action filed in Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio,
over its alleged practice of collecting excessive fees on term
life-insurance policies, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

The complaint accuses Nationwide of fraud and of violating Ohio
consumer-protection laws for not disclosing the additional
amount that policyholders were charged to customers who paid
semiannually, quarterly or monthly.  Policyholders are asking
Nationwide to refund the fees.

About 231,000 current and former Nationwide term-life customers
across the U.S. has received notices explaining the class
action, according to the report.  About 26,500 of those are in
Ohio.

If the suit goes to trial, it will begin in early 2007.  
Hearings are set to begin in October, according to the report.

Nationwide denied any wrongdoing in a document filed with the
court.

Policyholders are represented by Roger L. Mandel of Stanley,
Mandel & Iola, P.C., Dallas, Texas.

Representing policyholders are:

     (1) Smith Phillips & Associates, 1225 Dublin Road, Columbus
         OH 43215, Phone: 1-888-311-LAWS (1-888-311-5297)
         TOLLFREE or (614) 846-1700, Fax: (614) 486-4987, E-
         mail: sp@smithphillipslaw.com;

     (2) Andrew Kierstead of Kierstead & Locke, 1001 SW 5th
         Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204-1147, Phone:  
         (503) 220-1822, Fax: (503) 699-7839;

     (3) Peter N. Wasylyk
         Capitol Address: Providence, RI 02903, Phone: (401)
         222-2466, Fax: (401) 222-6142;
         or
         District Address: 164 Hillcrest Avenue, Providence,
         02909, Phone: (401) 831-7730, Fax: (401) 222-6142,
         E-mail: rep-wasylyk@rilin.state.ri.us; and

    (4) Roger L. Mandel of Stanley, Mandel & Iola LLP, 1323 East
        71st Street, Suite 315, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136-5068
        (Osage & Tulsa Cos.), Phone: 918-524-5005, Fax: 918-524-
        5006, Web site: http://www.smi-dallas.com.


NEW MEXICO: Rio Arriba County Faces Suit Over Strip Searching
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Cordova woman filed a suit against Rio Arriba County for
alleged violation of her civil rights in a 2003 arrest,
Associated Press reports.

Linda Martinez was arrested after she protested the unlawful
entry into her home by two state police officers looking for her
son, her suit said.  In it, she alleges she was handcuffed to a
pole at the Espanola jail and then strip searched at the Rio
Arriba County jail in Tierra Amarilla.  The strip search
allegedly violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free of
unreasonable searches.

She initially filed the suit in state district court in Rio
Arriba in April.  The suit was transferred to the U.S. District
Court in Albuquerque in May.  It is seeking unspecified monetary
damages for embarrassment, humiliation and mental and emotional
distress that the plaintiff suffered.  It is also asking for
certification as a class action.


NORBOURG ASSET: Quebec Court Hears Shareholders Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Superior Court began hearing on June 5 arguments from a
group of Norbourg Asset Management Inc. investors seeking to
launch a class action against the mutual fund group and its
president, Vincent Lacroix, cbc.ca reports.  Also named in the
suit are Quebec's financial services regulator Autorite des
marchers financiers, and some Norbourg managers.

Autorite des marchers financiers is repeating efforts to have
all requests for class actions against Norbourg lumped into one
case, claiming that such a move would save time and money in
helping about 9,200 Norbourg clients recover the estimated $60
million they claim they were defrauded of by Mr. Lacroix.

The financial regulator is accused of not acting early enough to
protect investors, according to investors' lawyer Jacques
Larochelle.  It discovered a $130 million dollar discrepancy in
the company's results only last summer (Class Action Reporter,
June 8, 2006).

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

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

The suit has been before Judge Richard Mongeon since January.

Norbourg investors are being represented by Jacques Larochelle,
75 Rue St Jean, Quebec, PQ G1R 1N4, Canada, Phone: (418) 529-
5881.


POLO RALPH: Ex-Club Monaco Employees File Labor Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.'s Club Monaco stores
in California initiated purported class actions against the
company, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

On March 2, 2006, a former employee at the company's Club Monaco
store in Los Angeles, California filed a lawsuit in San
Francisco Superior Court.

Plaintiff purports to represent a class of Club Monaco store
employees who allegedly have been injured by being improperly
classified as exempt employees and thereby not receiving
compensation for overtime and not receiving meal and rest
breaks.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

On June 2, 2006, a second punitive class action was filed by
different attorneys on behalf of a former employee of the
company's Club Monaco store in Cabazon, California in the Los
Angeles Superior Court, alleging virtually identical claims as
to the San Francisco action and consisting of the same class
members.

As in the San Francisco action, the complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, disgorgement of
profits, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.


POLO RALPH: Settlement Reached in Calif. Dress Policy Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
scheduled a June 29, 2006 hearing for the settlement of a class
action against Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.

On Sept. 18, 2002, an employee at one of the company's stores
filed a lawsuit alleging violations of California antitrust and
labor laws.

Plaintiff purported to represent a class of employees who had
allegedly been injured by a requirement that certain retail
employees purchase and wear company apparel as a condition of
their employment.

The complaint, as amended, seeks an unspecified amount of actual
and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The company answered the amended complaint on Nov. 4, 2002.  A
hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of
whether the company's policies violated California law occurred
on Aug. 14, 2003.

The court granted partial summary judgment with respect to
certain of the plaintiff's claims, but concluded that more
discovery was necessary before it could decide the key issue as
to whether the company had maintained for a period of time a
dress code policy that violated California law.

On Jan. 12, 2006, a proposed settlement of the purported class
action was submitted to the court for approval.  A hearing on
the settlement has been scheduled for June 29, 2006.  

The proposed settlement cost of $1.5 million does not exceed the
reserve for this matter that the company established in fiscal
2005.  

The proposed settlement would also result in the dismissal of
the similar purported class action filed in San Francisco
Superior Court.

On April 14, 2003, a second punitive class action was filed in
the San Francisco Superior Court.  This suit, brought by the
same attorneys, alleges near identical claims to those in the
federal class action.

Class representatives consist of former employees and the
plaintiff in the federal court action.  Defendants in this class
action include the company and its Polo Retail, LLC, Fashions
Outlet of America, Inc., Polo Retail, Inc. and San Francisco
Polo, Ltd. as well as a non-affiliated corporate defendant and
two current managers.

As in the federal action, the complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of actual and punitive restitution of monies spent, and
declaratory relief.  

If the judge in the federal class action accepts the proposed
settlement, the state court class action would subsequently be
dismissed.

The suit is "Young v. Polo Retail, LLC et al., 3:02-cv-04546-
VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel L. Feder, Law Offices of Daniel Feder, 807
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94133, Phone: 415-
         391-9476, Fax: 415-391-9432, E-mail:
         danfeder@pacbell.net; and

     (2) Joseph Lewis Fogel, Tonita Marie Helton and Richard B.
         Levy of Freeborn & Peters, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite
         3000 Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-360-6568, E-mail:
         jfogel@freebornpeters.com or
         thelton@freebornpeters.com.  

Representing for the defendants are:

     (i) Mary L. Guilfoyle and Joseph D. Miller, Epstein Becker
         & Green, P.C., One California Street, 26th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-5427, Phone: 415-398-3500, Fax:
         415-398-0955 or E-mail: mguilfoyle@ebglaw.com or
         jmiller@ebglaw.com; and

    (ii) Patrick R. Kitchin, Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin,
         807 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA, Phone: (415)
         677-9058, E-mail: prk@investigationlogic.com.


SALTON INC: Enters Settlement for Ill. Securities Fraud Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. reached a settlement in a stockholder class action
pending against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

In May 2004, the company and certain of its executives were
served with two stockholder lawsuits:

      -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. Salton, Inc., Leonhard
         Dreimann and David M. Mulder," and

      -- "Warren Beeler v. Salton, Inc., Leonhard Dreimann and
         David Mulder."

Complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, by making certain alleged
false and misleading statements.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities from Nov. 11,
2002 through May 11, 2004.  

On March 17, 2006, the court approved a settlement of the
lawsuits and granted a final order of dismissal and judgment of
the lawsuits.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the company's insurers paid
$2.5 million and the remaining $500,000 of the settlement fund
is payable no later than July 16, 2007.  The company accrued the
future payment in other long-term liabilities at the present
value of $430,000 as of April 1, 2006.

On of the suits is "Beeler v. Salton, Inc., et al., case no.
1:04-cv-03658," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Milton I. Shadur.  

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Richard A. Maniskas, Tamary Skvirvy, Marc A. Topaz,
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza East, Suite
         400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706;

     (2) Marvin Alan Miller, Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Matthew
         Eric Van Tine, Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
         North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: (312) 782-4880;

     (3) David A Rosenfeld, Geller Rudman, PLLC, 200 Broadhollow
         Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-
         7100; and

     (4) Samuel H Rudman, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road #406, Melville, NY
         11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100.

Representing the company are Harold C. Hirshman, Christopher
Qualley King, John Randolph Labbe, Natalie J. Spears,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000.


SALTON INC: Plaintiffs in "DiNatale" Seek Certification of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York
State Supreme Court seeking damages for claims that plaintiffs
were injured by water contaminated with lead from tea kettles
the company sold under its Russell Hobbs brand.

The suit, "DiNatale v. Salton, Inc.," filed on or about Oct. 27,
2004, seeks unspecified damages.  The plaintiffs' attorney was
asking to convert the lawsuit into a class action, but no class
action has been filed, according to the company's 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended April 1, 2006.

The manufacturer of the product and its insurer are defending
this lawsuit.  The company's attorneys and its insurers are
cooperating in the defense of the lawsuit.  

Shortly after receiving notice of the lawsuit, the company
voluntarily suspended selling the product.


THORATEC CORP: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on Thoratec Corp.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers.

On Aug. 3, 2004, a putative federal securities law class action,
"Johnson v. Thoratec Corp., et al." was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004.

Subsequent to the filing of the Johnson complaint, additional
complaints were filed in the same court alleging substantially
similar claims.  

On Nov. 24, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating the
various putative class action complaints into a single action,
"In re Thoratec Corp. Securities Litigation," and thereafter
entered an order appointing Craig Toby as lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

On or about Jan. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint.  

The consolidated complaint generally alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company, its former
chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer, and
its Cardiovascular Division president based upon, among other
things, alleged false statements about the company's expected
sales and the market for HeartMate as a Destination Therapy
treatment.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover unspecified damages
on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities during the putative class period.  

On March 4, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and that motion currently is pending, according to the
company's May 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 1, 2006.

The suit is "In re Thoratec Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:04-cv-03168-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M.
Whyte.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and Jeffrey
W. Lawrence 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, Email: patc@mwbhl.com or
jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the company is Michael B. Smith of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-849-5338, Fax: 650-849-5038, Email: mbsmith@gibsondunn.com.  


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Stock Option Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and certain of its officers are
defendants in a purported securities class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in relation to
its stock option practices.

On May 5, 2006, a purported class action, "Krause v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al.," was filed against the
company, William W. McGuire and Stephen J. Hemsley.

The complaint alleges:

      -- that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company in connection with its historic stock option
         granting practices; and

      -- that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
         from May 4, 2001 to April 7, 2006 in press releases and
         other public filings that artificially inflated the
         price of the company's common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, Dr.
McGuire and Mr. Hemsley sold shares of the company's common
stock, while in possession of material, non-public information
concerning the matters set forth in the complaint.  

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit is "Krause v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Arizona under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral
to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Carolyn Glass Anderson and
Robert C. Moilanen of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall,
Ste. 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123, Phone: (612) 341-0400,
Fax: (612) 341-0844, E-mail: cga@zimmreed.com and
rcm@zimmreed.com.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Law Upheld in 9/11 Detention Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Brooklyn dismissed key arguments in a class
action filed by Muslim immigrants detained after the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, but allowed the suit to continue on other
claims, The New York Times reports.

John Gleeson of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York rejected the government's argument that the events that
time justified extraordinary measures to confine noncitizens who
fell under suspicion, but ruled that the government has wide
discretion under immigration law to detain non-citizens on the
basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them
indefinitely without explanation.  He ruled that the government
may detain people indefinitely as long as their eventual removal
is "reasonably foreseeable."

The suit was filed in September 2002 by Yasser Ebrahim, Asif-ur-
Rehman Saffi, Hany Ibrahim and Ashraf Ibrahim, who alleges
unlawful imprisonment and abuse in the wake of the Sept. 11,
2001 terrorist attack.

With no evidence of any connection to terrorism, hundreds of
Arab and South Asian Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of
racial and religious profiling and subject to allegedly unlawful
detention and abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center in
Brooklyn, New York.  All of the men were eventually cleared, and
deported.

On June 13, Judge Gleeson allowed the suit to continue only on
claims that plaintiffs were subjected to confinement that was
abusive and unconstitutional.  The ruling requires top federal
officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and
Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, to answer to those
accusations under oath, according to the report.

The suit is "Turkmen et al. v. Ashcroft et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-02307-JG-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to
Judge Steven M. Gold.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jo C. Bennett of McDaniel,
Bennett & Griffin, 118 West Mulberry St., Baltimore, MD 21201,
Phone: 410-685-3810, E-mail: Jcb@mbglawfirm.com; and Rachel Anne
Meeropol of Center for Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway 7th
Floor, New York, NY 10012, Phone: 212-614-6432, Fax: 212-614-
6499, E-mail: rachelm@ccr-ny.org.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dennis C. Barghaan, Larry L. Gregg and Brian D Miller
         of The Office of the U.S. Attorney, E.D. Va.,
         Civil Division, 2100 Jamieson Ave., Alexandria, VA
         22314, Phone: 703-299-3700, Fax: 703-299-3983, E-mail:
         dennis.barghaan@usdoj.gov, larry.gregg2@usdoj.gov and
         brian.miller@usdoj.gov;   

     (2) Raymond P. Cash, 116-02 Queens Blvd., Forest Hills, NY
         11375, Phone: 718-793-1331, Fax: 718-793-4089, E-mail:
         crcash1@aol.com;  

     (3) Linda Cronin of Cronin & Byczek, LLP, 1981 Marcus Ave.,
         New Hyde Park, NY 11042, Phone: 516-358-1700, Fax: 516-
         358-1730, E-mail: lcronin@cblawyers.net;   

     (4) Joshua C. Klein of Duval & Stachenfeld, LLP, 300 East
         42nd St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-883-1700, Fax:
         212-883-8883, E-mail: jklein@dsllp.com; and

     (5) Craig Lawrence of U.S. Attorney's Office, D.D.C., 555
         4th St., NW Washington, DC 20001, Phone: (202) 514-          
         7151, E-mail: craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov.  


WILD OATS: Trial in Calif. Overtime Wage Suit Slated for 3Q 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Wild Oats Markets, Inc.,
over allegations of California labor law violations is slated
for the third quarter of 2006 in the Superior Court of the
County of Los Angeles, California.

The suit makes claims for payment of overtime and damages
relating to alleged violations of the California Business and
Professions Code by a former store director.  The former
director claims that he should have been classified as an
employee paid on an hourly basis.

In mid-2005, five additional named plaintiffs were added to the
suit, and the trials of the original plaintiff and the new
plaintiffs were bifurcated.

The company believes that all of the named plaintiffs were
correctly classified as exempt employee based upon their job
duties.  

It has settled with the original plaintiff for an immaterial
amount, and the trial date has been vacated.  A trial for the
remaining plaintiffs was set for third quarter 2006, according
to the company's May 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 1,
2006.

The suit is "Tim Auchterlonie, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and the general public, and Roes 1 to
1000 v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc. and Does 1 through 100."


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Product Liability Suit in Okla. Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc. remains a co-defendant in a product
liability case, "Cuesta v. Ford, et al.," filed in the District
Court for Bryan, Oklahoma, 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 was named co-defendant
in Oct. 1, 2004.  The suit is seeking class-action status, and
an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the class.  

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Company, CJ-04-
00511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.  

For more details, contact The Burrage Law Firm, First United
Center - Suite 100, 115 N. Washington, P.O. Box 1727, Durant, OK
74702-1727, Phone: 580-920-0700, E-mail:
dburrage@burragelaw.com, Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Herley Industries, Inc. securities between Oct. 1, 2001 and June
14, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone: (215)
886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.  


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated
a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Herley
Industries, Inc. publicly traded securities between Oct. 1, 2001
and June 14, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Herley and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Herley describes itself as a "leader in the design,
development and manufacture of microwave technology solutions
for the defense, aerospace and medical industries worldwide."

The complaint alleges that, since at least the start of the
class period, the company and Lee N. Blatt, its co-founder and
then chairman of its board of directors, engaged in a course of
conduct to defraud the U.S. Government.

The complaint further alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements concerning the
company's financial performance that failed to disclose, among
other things:

      -- that the company's financial results were achieved
         through illegal conduct, specifically the
         misrepresentation of manufacturing costs on contracts
         with the U.S. Government and the falsification of a bid
         in order to win the award of a contract;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
    
      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company would
         likely be subject to enhanced governmental scrutiny,
         governmental fines for improper conduct, and the
         company's ability to receive new contract awards from
         the U.S. Government and its ability to reap future
         revenues would be in serious doubt.

On June 6, 2006, the company announced that the U.S. Attorney's
office for the Eastern District in Pennsylvania had indicted the
company and Mr. Blatt on multiple charges in connection with
activities resulting in alleged excessive profits by the company
on three contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Then, on June 13, 2006, the company announced that its
operations in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts,
Chicago, Illinois and Herley's subsidiary in Farmingdale, New
York were suspended from receiving new contract awards from the
U.S. Government.

In response to these disclosures, shares of the company's stock
have declined from $19.38 per share to a 52-week low of $9.21
per share, losing more than 50% of their value.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/herley/.


INFOSONICS CORP: Hulett Harper Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP filed a class action complaint
against InfoSonics Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased the publicly traded securities of InfoSonics from May
9, 2006 to and including June 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that InfoSonics and its top officers
engaged in a scheme to defraud InfoSonics investors in violation
of the federal securities laws by reporting false financial
results on May 8, 2006 for its first quarter ended March 31,
2006.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew, or
with deliberate recklessness disregarded, that the company had
improperly accounted for warrants issued in connection with a
January 2006 private placement, which enabled it to report net
income of $1.738 million for that quarter.

Before the market opened on Monday, June 12, 2006, InfoSonics
shocked the market when it disclosed that it would need to
restate its previously reported net income for the first quarter
down to $1.173 million, a decrease of 32.5%, due to the improper
accounting treatment of the warrants.  InfoSonics stock
immediately plunged more than 28% that day on extraordinarily
high volume.

The complaint further alleges that, while in possession of
material nonpublic information concerning InfoSonics accounting
for the warrants, defendants sold massive amounts of their
personal holdings between May 11, 2006 and June 7, 2006 for
proceeds exceeding $3 million.

Indeed, as the company admitted in a Form 8-K filed on June 12,
2006 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
InfoSonics had determined by Monday, June 5, 2006 that it would
need to restate its previously reported financial results
because it had improperly accounted for the warrants.

Nevertheless, its chief financial officer and the president of
the company's Latin American operations continued to sell their
personal InfoSonics stock even after that determination.

Interested parties may move no later than Aug. 14, 2006 for
appointment as a lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Blake Muir Harper or Kirk B. Hulett of
Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, Phone: 619/338-1133, E-mail:
office@hulettharper.com.


INFOSONICS CORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of InfoSonics Corp. between May 9, 2006 and
June 9, 2006, inclusive.  The suit was filed against InfoSonics
and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that the company had improperly accounted
for warrants issued in connection with a January 2006 private
placement.

Before the market opened on June 12, 2006, InfoSonics announced
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.

In addition, the complaint alleges that while in possession of
material nonpublic information regarding the investigation into
its accounting for warrants, Defendants sold a large amount of
their personal holdings.

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

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman of The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.  


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of
persons who purchased the common stock of Xerium Technologies
Inc. (XRM) pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial
public offerings on or about May 16, 2005 and Nov. 15, 2005,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Xerium and certain
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Prospectus and Registration Statement issued in connection with
the company's initial public offering on or about May 16, 2005,
contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading as was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that at the time of the
IPO, Xerium was dealing with a "Cost Reduction Program" which
was dramatically impacting its business and forcing it to shift
its customers to competitors to meet their needs.

On Nov. 14, 2005, Xerium issued a press release detailing its
financial results for the third-quarter of 2005.  The company
reported that the "Cost Reduction Programs" had dramatically
impacted its business, causing the Company to experience a large
decline in net income.

In reaction to this news, Xerium shares fell from $9.51 per
share to $6.85 per share, a one-day decline of 27.9%.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Aug. 7, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman of The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.  


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *