CAR_Public/060621.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 122

                            Headlines

ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Priest Accused of Sexual Abuse
CANADA: Quebec Man Files Suit Over Concert Ticket Surcharges
CANADA: Province to Pay for Hassle Caused by Caledonia Land Row
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 28
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Several Suits Over Membership Procedures

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Gender Bias Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Labor Law Breach Suits in Calif.
C&S WHOLESALE: New Plaintiffs Added to Labor Suit Against Grocer
DE BEERS: Reaches $45M Settlement in Trade-Related Lawsuits
ENRON CORP: July 24 Trial Set for ERISA Suit Settlement in Tex.

EXPLOSIVES INDUSTRY: Judge Distributes $49T Settlement Leftover
FIRST STUDENT: Baltimore Workers Sue Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
GEORGIA: Motorist Seeks Class Status for Suit Over Extra Fees
GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Amends Complaint in Copyright Suit
H.A. BERKHEIMER: Penn. Court Rejects Fraud Lawsuit Settlement

HAMILTON MEDICAL: Recalls Old Model Ventilators for Replacement
HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Face MDL-1720 Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Ill. Stock Suit to Close July 24
LOUISIANA: Defendant in Sales Tax Suit to Ask Summary Judgment
LOUISIANA: Appeals Court to Hear Suit Over Encephalitis Outbreak

MERISANT CO: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Equal Sugar Lite
NEBRASKA: High Court Rejects Claims Placards Fee Violates ADA
NETGEAR INC: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to Consumer Suit Deal
NOVARTIS CONSUMER: Consumer Complaints Prompt Vapor Patch Recall
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Over Contraceptive Patch

PHIL VASSIL: Recalls Rug that Fails U.S. Flammability Standard
RED HAT: N.C. Court Dismisses Claims in Consolidated Stock Suit
RED HAT: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
REFCO INC: Unnamed Firm in Stock Suit Turns Out as Mayer, Brown
REMY INT'L: Responds to Appellate Brief in SCDC Suit in S.C.

REPUBLIC COS: Subsidiary Faces Suit in La. Over Insurance Policy
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit
STONEPATH GROUP: Dismissal of Pa. Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
TRIPLE-S INC: Fla. Court Mulls Further Stay for Physicians' Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: P.R. Court Dismisses RICO Violations Suit

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Dismisses Fla. Provider Litigations
VIXEL CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Settlement
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Consumer Suit in D.C. Over Ovcon 35 Deal
WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Mulls Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Amend Complaint

ZORAN CORP: Shareholder Sues Over Alleged Short-Swing Profits


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ESCALA GROUP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Pa. Stock Suit
INFOSONICS CORP: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in Calif.

PXRE GROUP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lovell Stewart Files N.J. Stock Fraud Suit


                            *********


ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Priest Accused of Sexual Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is facing a class action filed
by two boys from North Philadelphia, accusing the now-deceased
Roman Catholic priest, Reverend David Hagan, of "routinely"
abusing them in 1977 and 1978, the Philadelphia Daily News
reports.

The lawsuit alleges that Reverend Hagan abused Thomas and Willie
Magnum at both his house in North Philadelphia and at the Jersey
shore, but it offers no details or any facts to substantiate the
charges.  It seeks unspecified damages and costs for attorneys'
fees.

According to plaintiffs' lawyer, Stewart J. Eisenberg, the
Archdiocese has those files on the priest, but won't let them
see it.

C. Clark Hodgson Jr., an attorney for the Archdiocese, said the
Archdiocese would be responding to the lawsuit in court and
declined further comment.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stewart J. Eisenberg of
Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Schleifer, Weinstein & Winkler, P.C.,
1634 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 546-6610
or (888) 546-6610 (Toll Free), Fax: (215) 546-0118.

The Archdiocese is represented by C. Clark Hodgson Jr. of
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP, 2600 One Commerce Sq
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-7098, Phone: (1-215) 564-8000,
Fax: (1-215) 564-8120, E-mail: chodgson@stradley.com; Web site:
http://www.stradley.com.


CANADA: Quebec Man Files Suit Over Concert Ticket Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
A Madonna fan from l'Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec is suing local
ticket sellers for alleged hidden fees they charge to people who
will watch the celebrity's concert, the Canadian Press reports.  

Regis Giguere initiated the suit seeking class-action status in
the Quebec Superior Court against Reseau Billetech of Quebec,
Reseau Admission of Montreal and Ticketmaster.

According to Mr. Giguere, he bought four tickets for $95 each to
see Madonna at the Bell Centre in Montreal, where she will
perform June 21 and 22.  However, when he got his tickets, he
saw that he had been charged an extra $14.90 for processing fees
from the ticket sales agent.

Mr. Giguere said the company is taking advantage of being able
to sell the tickets exclusively by adding the surcharges which
he says violates consumer protection laws.  He is seeking a
refund of the surcharges and $100 in damages.


CANADA: Province to Pay for Hassle Caused by Caledonia Land Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
The government of Ontario said it would spend $1 million to
compensate businesses in Caledonia for losses that arose after
native protesters barricaded roads to the Douglas Creek Estates
property this year, Edmonton Journal reports.

During a recent court hearing, the province also reached a
tentative agreement to buy back the land occupied by native
protesters since February.  The natives are claiming the
subdivision is being built on land that belongs to them under a
historical treaty.

Earlier, two unnamed businesses in Caledonia filed a class
action complaining of financial loss arising from the road
closure, the Hamilton Spectator reports (Class Action Reporter,
June 15, 2006).

The suit was filed on June 12 against the Corporation of
Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner
Gwen Boniface and the Cayuga Detachment Commander of the OPP.  
The Government of Ontario was put on notice as additional
defendant.

The suit is based on the failure of the parties to keep roads
open and follow court injunctions issued in March to remove the
protesters from Douglas Creek Estates, said John Findlay, the
Hamilton lawyer representing the group.  

Mr. Findlay's address is 66 James St. N. Hamilton, Ontario
(Regional Munic. of Hamilton).


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

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

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

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

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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Several Suits Over Membership Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is a defendant in putative class actions
brought on behalf of certain present and former Costco members
in state courts in California and New York.

These suits are:

      -- "Barmak v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., No.
         BC348857, Superior Court for the County of Los
         Angeles;"

      -- "Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No.
         BC351869, Superior Court for the County of Los
         Angeles;" and

      -- "Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No. 06-007555,
         Supreme Court of Nassau County, New York."

In "Barmak" it is asserted that the company violated various
provisions of the common law and California statutes in
connection with its former practice of paying executive members
who downgraded or terminated their memberships a 2% reward for
less than twelve months of eligible purchases.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and
punitive damages.

The company removed the case to federal district court, where
proceedings are pending on whether the action should be remanded
to state court.

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the challenged practice, while it was still in
effect, was appropriately disclosed to executive members.

Counsel for the plaintiff in "Barmak" has also sent a letter
purporting to invoke consumer protection statutes in
Massachusetts and Texas.

In "Evans" and "Dupler" it is asserted that the company violated
various provisions of California and New York common law and
statutes in connection with a certain membership renewal
practice.

Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late
generally have their twelve-month membership renewal periods
commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than
the time of the late payment.

Plaintiffs in these two actions seek compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest, and punitive damages.  

The company is yet to file responses in these two complaints,
according to the company's June 16, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
May 7, 2006.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Gender Bias Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. remains a defendant in a class action on
behalf of certain present and former female managers in the U.S.
District Court in San Francisco, California.

In "Shirley 'Rae' Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case
No. C-04-3341-MHP," plaintiffs allege denial of promotion based
on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.  

Plaintiffs, thus, seek compensatory damages, exemplary and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees,
according to the company's June 16, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
May 7, 2006.

The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bill Lann Lee of Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-
1008, E-mail: blee@lchb.com.

Representing the defendants is David D. Kadue of Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: 310-201-5211, Fax: 310-201-5219, E-mail:
dkadue@seyfarth.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Labor Law Breach Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. remains a defendant in several purported
class actions pending in both California federal and state
courts that allege various claims under the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The suits are:

      -- "Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
         District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ
         (JFS) up from Superior Court for the County of San
         Diego, Case No. GIC-792559";

      -- "Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Superior
         Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-
         296369";

      -- "Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
         Superior Court for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG-
         04150447"; and

      -- "Kevin Doty v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, U.S.
         District Court (Los Angeles), Case No. CV-05-3241 FMC
         (JWJ)."

The first two suits were purportedly brought as class actions on
behalf of certain present and former Costco managers in
California.  Plaintiffs principally allege that they have not
been properly compensated for overtime work.

The third case is an overtime compensation suit brought as a
class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in
California.  Plaintiffs principally allege that the company's
semi-annual bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive
overtime pay.

The fourth case is purportedly brought as a class action on
behalf of present and former hourly employees in California.
Plaintiffs principally allege that the company did not properly
compensate and record hours worked by employees and failed to
provide meal and rest breaks.

Plaintiffs in these actions seek restitution/disgorgement,
compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, according to the
company's June 16, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 7,
2006.


C&S WHOLESALE: New Plaintiffs Added to Labor Suit Against Grocer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Vermont employees of C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. joined a
nationwide class action filed against the company over
allegations it routinely cheats thousands of piece-rate
warehouse workers out of millions of dollars a week in wages,
Reformer.com reports.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The two men, former piece workers in the Brattleboro warehouse,
have joined 10 other current and former employees in the suit,
originally filed in April on behalf of one current and three
former employees from C&S' Newburgh, New York warehouse.

The suit alleges C&S violated and continues to violate federal
and state laws by illegally reducing workers' wages as
punishment for mistakes on the job; failing to pay overtime;
coercing employees to work off the clock and through lunch
without pay; refusing to pay for time worked in excess of 10
hours; and failing to pay employees their agreed hourly rates.

Rick Cohen, owner and president of C&S, has been added as a
direct defendant "in light of his involvement as the architect
of the [alleged] illegal wage schemes," according to a press
release from Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, the New York City law
firm representing the 12 plaintiffs.

A copy of the Vermont complaint is available free of charge at:
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?bc1

Four C&S Wholesale employees filed the original suit in April.  
The workers seek $750 million from C&S in unpaid wages and
overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state
labor laws in each of the 14 states where the company operates
warehouses, including a 500,000 square-foot facility in
Newburgh, New York, where the plaintiffs worked.

The case applies to workers who have been employed by C&S since
2000.  The suit details how the second largest wholesale grocery
store supplier in the U.S., violates federal and state laws by:

     -- illegally chopping workers' wages as punishment for
        mistakes on the job;

     -- failing to pay overtime;

     -- failing to pay for time worked in excess of 10 hours;

     -- failing to pay employees their agreed hourly rates; and

     -- encouraging employees to work off-the-clock and through
        lunch without pay.

The four New York plaintiffs, Armando Hernandez, Michael Wands,
Michael Rodrigues and Joseph Alvarez, seek class certification
for all C&S "piece-rate incentive warehouse employees" under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar laws
in each of the 14 states where C&S warehouses are located.

The suit is "Hernandez, et al. v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
Case No. 7:06-cv-02675-CLB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Charles L.
Brieant.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jeremy Heisler and Steven Lance
Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Phone: (212) 779-3935
and (646) 723-2947, Fax: (212) 779-3956 and (646) 723-2948, E-
mail: jeremy.heisler@verizon.net and swittels@nydclaw.com.


DE BEERS: Reaches $45M Settlement in Trade-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
De Beers, the world's No. 1 diamond supplier, has settled trade-
generated class suits by Anco Industrial Diamond and Miami
Bourse head Derek Parsons for $45 million, the JCK magazine.com
reports.

In 2005, De Beers agreed to pay $250 million to settle class
actions by U.S. consumers, retailers and jewelry makers who
alleged that the company fixed prices from 1994 to 2005 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 2, 2005).  The suits were filed in New
Jersey.

According to Jared Stamell, a New York antitrust lawyer who is
involved in most of the suits, although the past settlements
contained some injunctive restriction on De Beers' behavior, the
new settlement contains no new special provisions.

When added to the $250 million settlement, plus $5 million in
what are termed settlement costs, De Beers has now paid $300
million to settle its various class actions.  The money will now
be distributed among consumers and the trade.

The New Jersey suit is "Sullivan et al. v. DB Investments, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-02819-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are, John A. Maher, 450 Springfield
Ave., Summit, NJ 07901, Phone: (908) 277-2444, E-mail:
maherlaw@att.net.


ENRON CORP: July 24 Trial Set for ERISA Suit Settlement in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 during the
         period Jan. 1, 1995 through June 7, 2002;

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

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

      -- 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 during the period
         Jan. 1, 1995 through 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.


EXPLOSIVES INDUSTRY: Judge Distributes $49T Settlement Leftover
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Sam in Utah signed on June 1 an order
distributing the leftover of a $60 million settlement of a suit
over price-fixing against manufacturers and distributors of
commercial explosives, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

The Salt Lake Community Action Program and the American
Antitrust Institute in Washington, D.C. will receive $48,887,
which is part of the interest that built up from the settlement
fund while the case was proceeding.  

The settlement arose out of a suit filed after the U.S.
Department of Justice launched in 1992 a probe into the
explosives industry on allegations companies are conspiring to
fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers among themselves.  
The allegations were brought by mining companies claiming to be
victims of an antitrust scheme.

The probe resulted to two of the largest manufacturers of
explosives -- including Salt Lake City-based DYNO Nobel Inc.--
pleading guilty to antitrust violations.  DYNO paid $15 million
in fine.  Suits that followed were either a class action
involving many smaller mining enterprises or other lawsuits
filed by the larger companies.  The class action was eventually
settled for $60 million.


FIRST STUDENT: Baltimore Workers Sue Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former employees at two First Student Inc. bus yards
in Baltimore at Philadelphia Road and Joh Avenue filed a lawsuit
against the company on June 15, alleging they were not paid
overtime and even regular wages, The Examiner reports.

Bus drivers, lot workers and attendants -- about a dozen of them
-- filed the suit in Baltimore Circuit Court.  They alleged that
the company do not keep accurate time records, and instead rely
on estimates to determine a worker's time of work.  

Baltimore lawyer Deborah Thompson Eisenberg is seeking class-
action status for the lawsuit.  She said the class could
potentially include up to 300 workers.  The workers want back
pay of at least time-and-a-half for the past three years.

First Student is based in Cincinnati with offices in Baltimore.  
It has contracts with the public school systems of Baltimore
City and Baltimore County to transport students.

For more information, contact Deborah T. Eisenberg of Brown,
Goldstein & Levy, LLP, 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (Independent City), Phone: 410-962-
1030, Fax: 410-385-0869.


GEORGIA: Motorist Seeks Class Status for Suit Over Extra Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for a plaintiff in a case seeking refunds from the
state for extra fees charged on traffic violations recorded by
cameras, is asking a superior court judge to allow the case to
become a class action, according to the Gwinnett Daily Post.  
Judge Michael Clark has yet to rule on the issue, the report
said.  

The judge heard on June 19 arguments in the suit filed by Jeff
Morgan.  He is asking the return of $24.50 for being charged
extra for a traffic ticket by the city of Duluth.  The extra fee
was charged by local jurisdictions that began ticketing red-
light runners through the mail after being caught doing so by
cameras.

The extra fee was ruled illegal a year ago.  

Mr. Morgan filed a suit to get his refund.  City attorney Harry
Gray argued Mr. Morgan should not get his fees back because he
didn't appeal before he paid.

On the June 19 hearing, however, Judge Clark seemed to disagree
with the city's attorney, according to the report.  He referred
the treatment of the violation back to how it was originally
defined when the Georgia General Assembly allowed cameras to
catch speeders.  At the time, politicians stipulated that the
offense was to be considered civil, not criminal cases, and
limited penalties at $70.

Judge Clark said the General Assembly's idea to treat the
tickets as a civil case make the legal ramifications different
than a criminal one.  He also questioned how the money is
collected when municipal courts don't have all the power
involved in civil litigation.

When the extra fee was declared illegal, the city set up a
process for those whose money had not yet been forwarded to the
state and county agencies that receive the fees.  However, it
had no way of recouping the fees from those agencies.

Representing the plaintiff is Matt Klase.


GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Amends Complaint in Copyright Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Author's Guild filed a first amended class action complaint
in its federal copyright infringement case against Google, Inc.

The suit is captioned, "The Author's Guild, et al. v. Google
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-08136-JES."  It is currently pending
before Judge John E. Sprizzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Besides The Author's Guild, whose primary purpose is to advocate
for and support the copyright and contractual interests of
published writers, these published authors were also named as
plaintiffs in the case:

      -- Herbert Mitgang;
      -- Betty Miles;
      -- Daniel Hoffman;
      -- Paul Dickson; and
      -- Joseph Goulden

According to the amended complaint, their works are contained in
certain public and university libraries and were never licensed
for commercial use.

The suit states that Google contracted with several public and
university libraries to create "digital archives" of the their
respective collections of books, including that of the
University of Michigan's Library.  

It further states that as part of the consideration for creating
the "digital archives," the company's agreement entitled it to
reproduce and retain for its own commercial use a digital copy
of the libraries' archive.

The suit alleges that the company is engaging in massive
copyright infringement by creating a digital copy of works that
are not in the public domain (Works), by reproducing for its own
use a digital copy of the Works, and by distributing and
publicly displaying said Works.  

The suit said the company infringed, and continues to infringe,
the electronic rights of the copyright holders of the Works.   

Furthermore, the suit contends that the company knew or should
have known that the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et
seq., required it to obtain authorization from the holders of
the copyrights in these Works before creating, distributing and
reproducing digital copies of the Works for the libraries, for
its own commercial use and for the use of others.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief with respect to the company's planned unauthorized
commercial use of the works.

The company recently announced plans to reproduce the Works for
use in its Web site in order to attract visitors to the site and
generate advertising revenue, according to the complaint.

To view the First Amended Class Action Complaint, visit:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?bc5.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael J. Boni and J. Kate Reznick of Kohn, Swift &
         Graft, P.C., One South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA
         19107, Phone: (215) 238-1968 and (215) 238-1700, Fax:
         (215) 238-1968.

     (2) Sanford P. Dumain and Laura Helen Gundersheim of
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-
         5300, Fax: 212-868-1229 and (212) 273-4481, E-mail:
         sdumain@milbergweiss.com and
         lgundersheim@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendant is Ronald Lee Raider of Kilpatrick
Stockton, LLP, (GA), 1100 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2800, Atlanta,
GA 30309-4530, Phone: (404)-532-6909, Fax: (404)-815-6555, E-
mail: rraider@kilpatrickstockton.com.


H.A. BERKHEIMER: Penn. Court Rejects Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bucks County, Pennsylvania judge Robert Mellon rejected a
proposed settlement of a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer Inc.,
over the collection of earned income taxes for 1,100 school
districts and municipalities in Pennsylvania, the Morning Call
reports.

In a May 4 hearing transcript, Judge Mellon found that the
taxpayers would get less than a quarter of that amount and that
a big part would go to the attorneys who sued Berkheimer as well
as Berkheimer itself.

The settlement called for a $2 million payment from H.A.
Berkheimer Inc. to as many as 115,000 state taxpayers to
reimburse them for fees that Judge Robert Mellon ruled were
illegal.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Judge Berkheimer
agreed to create a pool of $2 million.  Of that amount:

     -- the Philadelphia law firm of Bernard M. Gross, which
        represented the Cheesemans, would receive $600,000;

     -- the Cheesemans, who were named "class representatives,"
        would collect $7,500; and

     -- Judge Berkheimer would make a contribution of $183,500
        to charity.

Also, the settlement created a fund of $15,000 to cover expenses
required to notify members of the class of the settlement.

In 2005, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of Bucks County initiated
a lawsuit against Berkheimer after being slapped with two bills
totaling $57 for "collection costs" that they believed to be
unfair.  Judge Mellon certified the case that same year (Class
Action Reporter, June 21, 2005).  After Berkheimer admitted that
its costs are improper, Judge Mellon ruled that all taxpayers
who paid collection costs to Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001
are members of the class.

On May 22, Judge Mellon decertified the class and then recused
himself.  

The Cheesemans is represented by Bernard M. Gross, Suite 450
John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600 or (866) 561-3600
(Toll Free), Fax:  (215) 561-3000.


HAMILTON MEDICAL: Recalls Old Model Ventilators for Replacement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Medical, Inc. is initiating a nationwide voluntary
recall of 47 RAPHAEL ventilators with older generation software.

Current RAPHAEL Color and RAPHAEL XTC ventilators are not
affected by this action.

Only four customer facilities have been impacted by this action.  
Hamilton Medical has already contacted these facilities
regarding immediate field corrections.

The company said the RAPHAEL ventilator, under certain very
specific conditions following an oxygen cell calibration without
a compressed air supply, as instructed in the RAPHAEL Operator's
Manual, can be put into a state where no visible or audible
alarms are triggered.

Hamilton Medical investigated a single complaint and found that
a software algorithm designed to suppress false positive alarms
may preclude any alarm under this scenario.

"It should be noted," states David Costa, Vice President for
Hamilton Medical, Inc., "that the oxygen cell calibration is
intended to be performed while the RAPHAEL is connected to both
air and oxygen high pressure gas sources.  In the reported
incident, this was not the case".

These RAPHAEL ventilators are affected:

RAPHAEL (Software version 2.2x)
RAPHAEL Silver (Software version 2.2xS)
RAPHAEL Color (Software version 2.2xC, 2.2xCU)

Customers who have product affected by this recall should:

     -- verify the proper function of their devices as
        described in Section 3 of the RAPHAEL Operator's
        Manual;

     -- attach a caution sticker to the ventilator advising the
        clinician to check the LowMinVol alarm after oxygen
        cell calibration; and

     -- change their in-house test procedures for oxygen
        calibration as indicated in the corrective action
        package supplied to each affected user.

Copies of this information are available from the company
although each customer affected has already been contacted and
this information has been forwarded.

The ventilators may continue to be used after these steps are
complete.

Hamilton Medical, Inc. has also arranged for all customer units
affected by this action to receive new current generation
software at no charge, that will not only eliminate this problem
but also provide the company's valuable customers with
noninvasive ventilation and with tubing resistance compliance
along with a bi-directional apnea back-up among other
enhancements.

The RAPHAEL Ventilator is a continuous ventilator designed for
ventilation of adult and pediatric patients weighing from 5 to
200 kg.  The RAPHAEL ventilator is intended for use by properly
trained personnel under the direct supervision of a licensed
physician.  The RAPHAEL ventilator is intended for use at the
bedside and for transport within a hospital or hospital-type
facility, provided compressed gas is supplied.

Hamilton Medical identified the problem after an analysis of a
single customer complaint.  The company has received no reports
of adverse events or injuries resulting from the problem.  
Hamilton Medical notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
of its decision to voluntarily recall the product.  Customers
with questions may contact the company at 800-426-6331 for a
complete set of documentation relating to this action.

Customers outside of the U.S. and Canada are encouraged to
contact Hamilton Medical AG, Technical Support at +41 81
6606010, or e-mail at techsupport@hamilton-medical.ch for
specific information related to international devices.


HSBC FINANCE: Continues to Face MDL-1720 Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corp. and two of its affiliates remain defendants
in a class action, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720," pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Since June 2005, the company, HSBC North America Holdings Inc.,
and HSBC Holdings plc, as well as other banks and the Visa and
Master Card associations, were named as defendants in four class
actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York.  The suits are:

      -- "Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
         (D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE))";

      -- "National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v.
         Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520
         (JG))";

      -- "Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et
         al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG))"; and

      -- "American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
         (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG))."

Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations -- in
which no HSBC entity is named -- were filed across the country
against Visa, MasterCard and other banks.  

These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-
surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.

In response to motions of the plaintiffs on Oct. 19, 2005, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
consolidating these suits and transferred all of the cases to
the Eastern District of New York.

The consolidated case is known as "In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1720, E.D.N.Y."  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on April 24, 2006.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Master Docket No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-CLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge John H. Gleeson.

Representing the company is David Sapir Lesser of Wilmer Cutler
of Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8811, E-mail:
david.lesser@wilmerhale.com.


HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Ill. Stock Suit to Close July 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expert witness discovery in the consolidated securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against HSBC Finance Corp. and other
defendants is due for completion on July 24, 2006.

In August 2002, the company restated previously reported
consolidated financial statements.  The restatement related to
certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card
relationships and a third party marketing agreement, which were
entered into between 1992 and 1999.  All were part of the
company's Credit Card Services segment.

In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP,
the company treated payments made in connection with these
agreements as prepaid assets and amortized them in accordance
with the underlying economics of the agreements.

Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its
view, these payments should have either been charged against
earnings at the time they were made or amortized over a shorter
period of time.

The restatement resulted in a $155.8 million, after-tax,
retroactive reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998.  As
a result of the restatement, and other corporate events,
including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 50 states and the
District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices,
HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and
former auditors, have been involved in various legal
proceedings, some of which purport to be class actions.

A number of these actions allege violations of Federal
securities laws, were filed between August and October 2002, and
seek to recover damages in respect of allegedly false and
misleading statements about the company's common stock.

These legal actions have been consolidated into a single
purported class action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc.,
et al., No. 02 C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)," and a
consolidated and amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2003.

On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
parties stipulated that plaintiffs will not seek to certify a
class with respect to the claims brought under Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in this action or
otherwise.

The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the
Federal securities laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 23,
1997 and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the company's sales and
lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement referred
to above, the restatement and the HSBC merger.

The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., fails to specify the amount of damages
sought.

In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.  On March 19, 2004, the court granted
in part, and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.  The court also
dismissed certain claims alleging strict liability for alleged
misrepresentation of material facts based on statute of
limitations grounds.

The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants
essentially allege the defendants knowingly made a false
statement of a material fact in conjunction with the purchase or
sale of securities, that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on
such statement, the false statement(s) caused the plaintiffs'
damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable
for those alleged statements.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the court also dismissed all alleged Section
10 claims that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the
class period by 22 months.  

Discovery schedule provided that all factual discovery must be
completed by May 12, 2006 and expert witness discovery must be
completed by July 24, 2006.  However, the company expects those
deadlines to be extended.

Separately, one of the defendants, Arthur Andersen, entered into
a settlement of the claims against Andersen.  This settlement is
subject to court approval.

The suit is "Jaffe v. Household Intl Inc, et al., case no. 1:02-
cv-05893," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Gary L. Specks, Kaplan, Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100, Chicago,
IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-1584.


LOUISIANA: Defendant in Sales Tax Suit to Ask Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Franklin Parish School Board plans to file a motion for
summary judgment in a class action seeking the return of revenue
from the collection of an expired sales tax by the parish,
according to The Times-Picayune.

The suit was filed by a former teacher Shirley McManus in 5th
Judicial District Court on May 31.  Her suit argues in part that
the continued collection of the expired sales tax revenue was
unconstitutional and represents "taxation without
representation."

The five-year sales tax was passed by voters in 2000.  It was up
for renewal in April, but district officials discovered in
February that the tax renewal had expired last July 1.  The suit
is thus seeking the return of the money collected from June 30,
2005 until April 29, 2006.

All revenue collected since the expiration date has been put
into an escrow account, which now contains about $700,000.  
Revenue from the collection helped finance general school
operations.

A summary judgment will determine the legality of collecting the
expired sales tax revenue rather than the merits of the lawsuit.


LOUISIANA: Appeals Court to Hear Suit Over Encephalitis Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit of Appeal will hear arguments within days as
to who has the right to sue over the 2001 encephalitis outbreak
in Ouachita Parish, according to KTBS3.

Encephalitis is a rare disease that causes the brain to swell.   
The outbreak of the virus that caused the disease led to the
declaration of a local state of emergency by the parish in
August 2001.  It resulted to 70 confirmed human cases of the
virus and three deaths in Northeastern Louisiana.

Several Ouachita Parish residents subsequently filed a class
action against the Ouachita Parish Police Jury, its members and
Mosquito Control Inc., the company they hired to spray for
mosquitoes.  Monroe attorneys Joe D. Guerriero and Jeffrey D.
Guerriero filed the suit in state District Court in October
2001, according to an Associated Press report that time.  The
suit sought monetary damages, and certification as a class
action.  Mosquito Control was accused of using inadequate or
improper chemicals and equipment.

Plaintiffs in the suit were the descendants of Joseph S.
Guirlando of Ouachita Parish, whose father died after
contracting encephalitis; Edward and Priscilla Rice of Ouachita
Parish, who sued on behalf of their daughter, Deborah Rice;
Michael Hester of Ouachita Parish, who sued because of the death
of his horse; and Angela Roberts of Ouachita Parish, who had
symptoms of encephalitis but did not actually have the disease.


MERISANT CO: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Equal Sugar Lite
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merisant Co. filed a motion to dismiss the putative consumer
class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, which alleges that the
company's Equal Sugar Lite packaging and advertising were
misleading.

Filed on Feb. 15, 2006, the suit specifically alleges that on a
volumetric basis, Equal Sugar Lite does not deliver half the
calories of a cup of sugar.   

On April 17, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

If the court does not grant the company's motion to dismiss, the
company intends to vigorously oppose the merits of the lawsuit,
as well as the appropriateness of class certification.  

The suit is "Markowitch v. Merisant Corporation, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00846," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Eduard Korsinsky and Joseph E.
Levi of Zimmerman Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 226 St. Paul Street,
New York, NY 10006, Phone: (212) 363-7500.

Representing the defendants are Gregg F. LoCascio and Thomas M.
Monagan, III of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Phone: (202) 879-5290 and
(312) 861-2000, E-mail: tmonagan@kirkland.com.


NEBRASKA: High Court Rejects Claims Placards Fee Violates ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Nebraska Supreme Court sided with the state in a parking fee
dispute with handicapped drivers, The Associated Press reports.  
It rejected arguments that a $3 fee being charged for placards
that let handicapped persons park in spots designated for them
violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The placards may be hung from rearview mirrors, and are
interchangeable between vehicles, allowing other people driving
handicapped persons from using it too.  

In 2000, the fees were declared unconstitutional, and the state
stopped collecting them.  Lancaster County District Judge
Bernard McGinn who ruled the fees illegal, also afterwards
ordered the state to refund the fees.

The state argued that the placards were simply an option to
buying handicapped license plates, which disabled Nebraskans can
get at no extra cost.

In a ruling on June 16, Judge William Connolly said the
plaintiffs failed to prove the class has been denied access to
public accommodations because of the fee, or that the fee was
the result of irrational discrimination.

It was unknown whether the state would again start collecting
the fees, according to the report.

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney Steve Senn of Peterson &
Myers, P.A., 225 East Lemon Street, Suite 300, P.O. Box 24628,
Lakeland, Florida 33802-4628 (Polk Co.), Phone: 863-683-6511,
Fax: 863-682-8031.


NETGEAR INC: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to Consumer Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara granted
final approval to the settlement of a consumer fraud class
action filed against NetGear, Inc. on behalf of all persons or
entities in the U.S. who purchased the company's wireless
products other than for resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled, "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil
Action CV021230," was filed against the company.  The complaint
purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons or
entities in the U.S. who purchased the company's wireless
products other than for resale.  

Plaintiff alleges that the company made false representations
concerning the data transfer speeds of the company's wireless
products when used in typical operating circumstances, and is
requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and
reasonable attorney fees.  

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies within
the company's industry.  In November 2005, without admitting any
wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and
expense of continued litigation, the company and the plaintiff
received preliminary court approval for a proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company will:

     (1) issue each eligible class member a promotional code
         which may be used to purchase a new wireless product
         from NETGEAR's online store, www.buynetgear.com, at a
         15% discount during the redemption period;

     (2) include a disclaimer regarding wireless signal rates on
         the company's wireless products packaging and user's
         manuals and in the company's press releases and
         advertising that reference wireless signal rates;

     (3) donate $25,000 worth of the company's products to a
         local, not-for-profit charitable organization to be
         chosen by NETGEAR; and

     (4) agree to pay, subject to court approval, up to $700,000
         in attorneys' fees and costs.  None of the foregoing
         benefits will be provided unless and until the court
         grants final approval of the settlement agreement.

In March 2006, the company received final court approval for the
proposed settlement.  

For more details, contact Jordan L. Lurie and Zev B. Zysman of
Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300, Los Angeles,
California 90024, Phone: (310) 208-2800, Fax: (310) 209-2348,
Web site: http://www.netgearsettlement.com/.


NOVARTIS CONSUMER: Consumer Complaints Prompt Vapor Patch Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Consumer Health is conducting a nationwide voluntary
recall of all Vapor Patch product marketed under the Triaminic
brand due to the serious adverse health effects that could
result if the product is ingested by the child removing the
patch and chewing on it.

All lots are being recalled in both product lines of mentholated
cherry scent and menthol scent.  Triaminic Vapor Patch contains
camphor, eucalyptus oil and menthol.

There have been multiple reported complaints received, including
seizures.

The company said the reported adverse events associated with
swallowing products containing camphor or eucalyptus oils can
vary from minor symptoms, such as burning sensation in the
mouth, headache, nausea and vomiting, to more severe reactions,
such as seizures.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

Triaminic Vapor Patch is labeled as a cough suppressant for
children two (2) years of age and older.  The directions on the
label indicate the patch is to be applied to the throat or chest
to allow the vapors to reach the nose and mouth.  Multiple
patches can be applied. Once applied, the patch would be within
close reach for a child to remove and place in his/her mouth.  
The Vapor Patch is a topical cough product applied externally
and not for oral consumption.

The product is sold nationwide over the counter at pharmacies
and retail stores.

This recall affects only the Vapor Patch.

Consumers are advised to immediately discontinue use of this
product and return it to their point of purchase for a full
refund or discard it.  Consumers requiring more information
about this recall can contact Novartis Consumer and Professional
Affairs Call Center at 1-800-452-0051 or visit
http://www.triaminic.com.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product
should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program online at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htmor by Phone: 1-800-FDA-
1088, or by returning the postage-paid FDA form 3500, which may
be downloaded from http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmby  
mail to MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockvillle, MD 20852-9787
or Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178.

For more information, contact Julie Masow, Phone: 973-503-7663,
E-mail: julie.masow@novartis.com.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Over Contraceptive Patch
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc. on behalf of on behalf of a 37-year-old
woman suffered a bilateral pulmonary embolism after using Ortho
Evra for just over one year.  The suit was filed last week in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in
Newark, New Jersey.

On June 17 2005, the injured woman was admitted to Piedmont
Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia after experiencing intense lower
chest pain on her left side.  Diagnostic tests revealed a
bilateral pulmonary embolism.  Anticoagulation therapy with
Coumadin and Lovenox was immediately administered.  There is a
strong likelihood that prolonged, or even permanent, treatment
with blood thinners will be necessary.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.

In the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time
that women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen.

The FDA's announcement on this warning can be found at
www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01262.html.

It is widely understood that increased exposure to estrogen
greatly increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause
serious injury or death.

Pulmonary embolism is a sudden blockage in a lung artery,
usually due to a blood clot that traveled to the lung from the
leg, but they can also form in the pelvic vein.  Pulmonary
thromboembolism can be fatal or may result in pulmonary arterial
obstruction, pulmonary obstruction, pulmonary infarction,
chronic pulmonary hypertension, dyspenea and tachypnea.  
Symptoms may include shortness of breath, difficulty breathing,
anxiety, chest pain, fainting and convulsions.  Treatment may
include long-term use of anticoagulant medications and/or
surgery.

Recent reports have indicated that the risk of developing blood
clots, pulmonary thromboembolism, heart attack and stroke may be
significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch than with oral
contraceptive use.

It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased
medical risks associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was
approved and that, once approved, the company failed to
adequately warn patients about these risks.  Evidence shows that
the risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke associated with
Ortho Evra is significantly higher than with oral contraceptive
pills.  The incidence of embolisms and thrombotic injuries in
Phase III trials of Ortho Evra was reportedly six times greater
than the incidence of such events in oral contraceptives using
the hormone levonorgestral.

The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of adverse reactions to the
patch in a 17-month period, whereas Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth
control pill, only generated 1,237 adverse reports in a six-year
period.

During a 12-month period, 44 serious injuries or deaths have
been associated with Ortho Evra, whereas only 17 such reports
were linked to the birth control pill during a similar time
period.  The pattern is further magnified when usage rates are
considered: Ortho Tri-Cyclen has six times the number of users
as Ortho Evra.

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso.  The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours.  It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation.  The regimen is then repeated.  Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001, and over 4 million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval.  Ortho Evra continues
to be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

For more information, contact Jason Mark, Esq. and Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. both of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone: (800)
LAW-INFO or (800) 529-4636 (Toll-free), E-mail:
info@yourlawyer.com, Website: http://www.yourlawyer.com.

The suit is "Allen et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02554-KSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is Melanie H. Muhlstock of Parker &
Waichman LLP, 1 Gateway Center, Suite 2500, Newark, NJ 07102,
Phone: (973)-297-1020, E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com.


PHIL VASSIL: Recalls Rug that Fails U.S. Flammability Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Vassil Rugs, of New York, New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 55 Wool
Flokati Rugs.

The company said these rugs fail to meet the federal mandatory
standard for flammability under the Flammable Fabrics Act and
could ignite, presenting a risk of burn injuries. No injuries
have been reported.

This recall includes Phil Vassil rugs with model numbers 1500
(white) and 2000 (black), which is written on the underside of
the rugs.  The units are 5-foot by 7-foot, and are made of 100
percent wool.  The rugs bear an adhesive label that reads in
part "...Flokati Rug...hand made pure wool...made in
Greece...size approx. 5 x 7 ft.quality 1500GR/CM..."

These rugs are manufactured in Greece and are being sold by Phil
Vassil Rugs Online Store at http://www.flokatirug.netfrom  
February 2006 through May 2006 for about $100.

Picture of a Wool Flokati Rug:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06559.jpg.

Owners of the rug are advised to stop using these rugs, and
contact Phil Vassil Rugs.  The company will provide the owners
with a free replacement rug.

For more information, call Phil Vassil Rugs toll-free at (800)
844-5345 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
go to their Web site at http://www.flokatirug.net.


RED HAT: N.C. Court Dismisses Claims in Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina dismissed certain claims in the consolidated securities
class action against Red Hat, Inc. and several of its present
and former officers, according to the company's May 12, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2006.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class actions were filed against the
company and several of its present and former officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the company's securities during
various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.  In each of the actions,
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during some or all of the period from
June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.  

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial statements that the
Company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive office and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 5:04-CV-473BR."

Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have now been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), another
defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against
several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against the company,
its chief executive officer and its former chief financial
officer.  The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act in their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to
dismiss.  

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Borsellino v. Red Hat, Inc., et al.), Case No. 04-CV-473, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina under Judge W. Earl Britt.

Representing the plaintiff are William Webb and Rufus Edmisten
of The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC
27602, Phone: 919-831-8700 by E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com
and rufus@rufusedmisten.com.  

Representing the company are Pressly M. Millen and Christopher
Jones of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PO Box 831 Raleigh
NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 or E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com,
cjones@wcsr.com.


RED HAT: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Red Hat, Inc., according to the company's May 12, 2006
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2006.

Commencing on or about March 29, 2001, the company and certain
of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a
series of purported class actions arising out of the company's
initial public offering and secondary offering.

On Aug. 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order that transferred all of the so-called initial public
offering allocation actions, including the complaints involving
the company, to one judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings
(Case No. 21 MC 92).  The court has consolidated the actions
into a single action.

Plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing registration statements and
prospectuses that contained materially false and misleading
information and failed to disclose material information.

Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation practices by
underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in initial
public offering documents.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the 310 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.  
The relief sought consists of unspecified damages.  No discovery
has occurred to date.

The individual director and officer defendants have been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  The company believes
these complaints are without merit and will defend itself
vigorously in this matter.

There can be no assurance, however, that this matter will be
resolved in the company's favor.  The company, among other
issuers, the plaintiffs, and the insurers, has agreed, in
concept, to a proposed settlement whereby it would be released
from this litigation without further payment from the company.

That proposed settlement has been submitted to the court for its
consideration, and the court has accepted the proposed
settlement subject to certain amendments.  A fairness hearing on
the proposed settlement was held on April 24, 2006.

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


REFCO INC: Unnamed Firm in Stock Suit Turns Out as Mayer, Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Refco Inc. shareholders said in court documents they are
investigating the role of Chicago firm, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
LLP in the collapse of the company late last year, Dow Jones
reports.

The statement came after Mayer, Brown admitted in court papers
it was the unnamed law firm that played a key role in some of
Refco's allegedly fraudulent transactions.  Mayer, Brown has not
been named as defendant in the suit, but it said that should it
be, it would file a motion to dismiss.

Mayer, Brown served as Refco's chief outside law firm after
1994.  It said it is shielded from liability in the work it
performed for Refco as merely a "classic scrivener."  

But plaintiffs in the class action contends Mayer, Brown is
"intimately familiar with Refco's operations and structure and -
- importantly -- prepared some of the documents that lie at the
heart of this case."

Mayer, Brown already received subpoena from the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, and Refco's creditors committee.

                         Case Background
   
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of New York, was consolidated in April (Class Action  
Reporter, Apr. 7, 2006).  It claimed the collapsed commodity
brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far more than
previously thought.  It also accuses company executives, company
auditors, and investment bankers of negligence.  

This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the
company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public
offering of common stock, and only fourteen months after its
issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  The company
filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.  

In Feb. 2006, U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch appointed New  
York law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and  
Wilmington, Delaware-based Grant & Eisenhofer as counsel to the
lead plaintiffs.  RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific
Investment Management Co. were lead plaintiffs in the class
action.  

The new complaint against Refco is available for free at:        
         http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78e      

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard  
E. Lynch.  Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Max W. Berger (MB-5010), John P. Coffey  (JC-3832),  
         John C. Browne (JB-0391) and Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203)  
         of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP, 1285  
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:  
         (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and  

     (2) Stuart M. Grant (SG-8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454),  
         Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A. Almeida, Christine M.  
         Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,  
         Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax: (646)  
         722-8501 and (302) 622-7100.  


REMY INT'L: Responds to Appellate Brief in SCDC Suit in S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Remy International, Inc. responded to plaintiffs' appellate
brief in the purported class action in the Circuit Court for
Dorchester County, South Carolina over alleged wage violations
by the company's former subsidiary, Williams Technologies, Inc.

In January 2004, a class action on behalf of all prisoners who
worked in a South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC)
Services Training Program at Lieber Correctional Institute was
brought against the SCDC and Williams, which was sold to
Caterpillar, Inc., in September 2004.

In the suit, plaintiffs claim:

      -- they should have been paid industry prevailing wages
         under a South Carolina prison industries authorization
         statute;   

      -- the SCDC and Williams violated the Payment of Wages
         Act; and

      -- the SCDC and Williams committed a tort under the South
         Carolina Tort Claims Act.

Under the terms of the sale, the company retained liability and
responsibility for this claim.  The Circuit Court for Dorchester
County granted summary judgment to the Company on April 21,
2005, and decertified the plaintiff class.

On Jan. 24, 2006, plaintiff filed an appellate brief and
Williams responded to this brief in March 2006.


REPUBLIC COS: Subsidiary Faces Suit in La. Over Insurance Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Republic Companies Group, Inc. is currently
defending a statewide putative class action pending in the
District Court of the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana filed in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Plaintiffs generally allege that Republic Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company and other unaffiliated insurer defendants
breached their policies by failing to pay the face value of
policies to insureds that sustained a total loss of their homes
and improvements in part as a result of a non-covered loss from
Hurricane Katrina.

Thus, plaintiffs seek to recover face value of the policies
regardless of the anti-concurrence provisions of the company's
policies or the fact the company timely paid covered losses in
accordance with the policies' provisions.

The suit seeks declaratory relief and unspecified monetary
damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.  


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

Initially, on Sept. 26, 2005, the company, along with Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer David A. Jones, and Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Randall J. Steward, were
named defendants in a purported class action "Jain v. Spectrum
Brands Inc., David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward, Civil Action
No. 05-2494-WSD."  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

It was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities between Jan. 4, 2005 and
Sept. 6, 2005.

Plaintiff generally alleges that the company and the
individually named defendants made materially false and
misleading public statements concerning the company's
operational and financial condition, thereby allegedly causing
plaintiff to purchase company securities at artificially
inflated prices.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.

Substantially similar actions, "Dague v. Spectrum Brands Inc.,
David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-0580-
C," which was filed Oct. 3, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin (Wisconsin Action) and "Davies
v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward,
Civil Action No. 05-2814," which was filed on Oct. 31, 2005 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
were filed by other purported class representatives.

In addition, a further action captioned, "Hunkapiller v.
Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward,
Civil Action No. 05-2911-WSD," was filed Nov. 14, 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
publicly-traded securities between Jan. 4, 2005 and Nov. 11,
2005.

By Order dated Nov. 18, 2005, all cases pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia were
consolidated, and the court entered a scheduling order providing
for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and briefing
schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Dec. 22, 2005,
plaintiff in the Wisconsin action dismissed the complaint.

On Nov. 28, 2005, a motion was filed in the Georgia Action to
appoint lead plaintiffs and approve selection of co-lead
counsel.

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion.  Pursuant to the scheduling order entered on
Nov. 18, 2005, on Feb. 2, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 6, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Briefing of defendants' motion
to dismiss was completed on April 28, 2006.  

The suit is "In re: Spectrum Brands Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-02494-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge William S.
Duffey, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;

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

     (3) Trevan Borum of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-
         mail: tborum@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is James R. Carroll of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108,
Phone: 617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
jcarroll@skadden.com.


STONEPATH GROUP: Dismissal of Pa. Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Stonepath Group, Inc. are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit the dismissal of their amended complaint
filed with the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The company was named as a defendant in eight purported class
action complaints filed between Sept. 24, 2004 and Nov. 19,
2004.  Also named as defendants in these lawsuits were officers
Dennis L. Pelino and former officers Bohn H. Crain and Thomas L.
Scully.

These cases were consolidated for all purposes in that Court
under the caption, "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-4515."  

Lead plaintiff, Globis Capital Partners, LP, filed an amended
complaint in February 2005, which was dismissed on April 3,
2006.

Globis sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's shares between March 29, 2002, and Sept. 20, 2004, and
alleged claims for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These claims were based upon allegations that certain public
statements made during the period from March 29, 2002 through
Sept. 20, 2004 were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the company's Domestic Services
operations had improperly accounted for accrued purchased
transportation costs.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and further relief and filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 1, 2006.

The suit is "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04515-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart
Dalzell.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige, U. Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York,
         NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414;

     (2) Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross, Law Offices Bernard
         M. Gross, PC 100 Penn Square West, Juniper & Market St.
         John Wanamaker Bldg Suite 450, Philadelphia PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail:
         debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com;
         and

     (3) Timothy J. Macfall, Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko 310
         Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017.

Representing the company are Kendra Lee Baisinger, Steven E.
Bizar, Thomas P. Manning and, Howard D. Scher of Buchanan
Ingersoll, PC, 1835 Market St., 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-665-3878, E-mail: baisingerkl@bipc.com,
bizarse@bipc.com, manningtp@bipc.com and scherhd@bipc.com.


TRIPLE-S INC: Fla. Court Mulls Further Stay for Physicians' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to rule on parties' request for a further stay of
proceedings in the purported class action against Triple-S, Inc.
and other defendants.

On Dec. 8, 2003 a putative class action was filed by Jeffrey
Solomon, MD and Orlando Armstrong, MD, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated and the

     -- American Podiatric Medical Association,
     -- Florida Chiropractic Association,
     -- California Podiatric Medical Association,
     -- Florida Podiatric Medical Association,
     -- Texas Podiatric Medical Association, and
     -- Independent Chiropractic Physicians,

against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and
multiple other insurance companies, including TSI and all
members of the BCBSA.
  
The individual plaintiffs brought the suit on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants, which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).  

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payment due to the doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they render
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

The class action complaint alleges that the company's health
care plans are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and as
such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within the
scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).   
  
The company believes that TSI was made a party to this
litigation for the sole reason that TSI is associated with the
BCBSA.
  
On June 25, 2004, plaintiffs amended the complaint but the
allegations against TSI did not vary.  TSI along with the other
defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds,
including but not limited to arbitration and applicability of
the McCarran Ferguson Act.
  
The Court issued a 90-day stay to allow the parties to discuss
their differences and come to an amicable agreement.  The stay
expired on March 7, 2006.

Upon the expiration of the stay, both plaintiffs and defendants
agreed to request the Court to extend the stay until April 21,
2006.  The stay expired and the parties informed the court that
they need additional time to iron out the details of an amicable
solution.  

The court has not reacted to the parties' joint request.  If the
court denies another stay, the parties will have to continue the
proceedings where they were left before the issuance of the
first stay.

In the meantime, the court issued an agreed order on the
preservation of records.  This order supersedes the parties'
existing record-keeping policies in regards to the documents and
materials specified in the order.  The purpose of the order is
to avoid the disposition of documents that might be relevant for
the case.

The suit is "Jeffrey Solomon, MD, et al. v. the Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association, et al."


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: P.R. Court Dismisses RICO Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
dismissed the purported class action alleging violations under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against:

      -- Triple-S Management Corporation (TSM),
      -- certain of its present and former directors,
      -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s (TSI) present and former
         directors and others.

Filed on Sept. 4, 2003 by Jose Sanchez, the suit alleges, among
others, a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control
of TSI through illegally capitalizing TSI and later converting
it to a for-profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of
their ownership rights.

Plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of TSI's board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

On March 4, 2005 the court issued an Opinion and Order.  In this
opinion and order, of the twelve counts included in the
complaint, eight counts were dismissed for failing to assert an
actionable injury, six of them for lack of standing and two for
failing to plead with sufficient particularity in compliance
with the Rules.

All shareholder allegations were dismissed in the opinion and
order.  The remaining four counts were found standing, in a
limited way, in the opinion and order.  

Parties finished class certification discovery and fully briefed
the issue of class certification.  While waiting for the court's
decision on the issue of class certification, the Court, sua
sponte, issued an Order to Show Cause (OTC) to plaintiffs as to
why the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.

The court's OTC is predicated on the parties' submissions about
class certification.  The court then granted plaintiffs leave to
file a sur-reply, which they did on April 21, 2006.

In its OTC the court indicated that it would decide first the
sustainability of the complaint before deciding plaintiffs'
request for class certification.  The parties are in
anticipation of the court's ruling on the OTC.

On May 4, 2006, the court issued an opinion and order, which
entered a summary judgment in favor of the TSM, and the court
dismissed the case.

Plaintiffs had 10 business days to file for reconsideration with
the court.

The suit is "Sanchez, et al.  v. Triple-S Management, et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert G. Blakey, 1341 East Wayne Street North, South
         Bend, IN 46615, Phone: 219-239-5717;

     (2) Paul H. Hulsey, Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada of
         Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C., Charleston Harbor, 2
         Wharfside 3, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-723-5303,
         Fax: 843-723-5307, E-mail:
         phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com; and

     (3) Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, PO Box
         16606, San Juan, PR 00908-6606, Phone: 787-722-7745,
         Fax: 787-725-3970, E-mail: quetglaslaw@hotmail.com.  

Representing the company are Seth B. Kosto and Gael Mahony, 10
St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-523-2700, Fax:
617-523-6850.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Dismisses Fla. Provider Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno of the Southern District
Court of Florida issued a summary judgment order dismissing all
remaining claims against UnitedHealth Group in the Florida
provider class action.

William W. McGuire, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer
of UnitedHealth Group, commented, "We are pleased with
[Mon]day's decision.  Looking ahead, UnitedHealth Group will
continue to focus on the company's overarching goal: working
constructively with physicians and other partners to provide all
Americans with greater access to affordable, quality health
care."

Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against
UnitedHealthcare, a UnitedHealth Group Company; Pacificare
Health Systems; and virtually all major entities in the health
benefits business.  In December 2000, a Multidistrict litigation
panel consolidated several litigation cases involving
UnitedHealth Group and affiliates, including PacifiCare, in the
Southern District Court of Florida, Miami division (Class Action
Reporter, March 6, 2006).

Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs allege violations
of ERISA and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act
in connection with alleged undisclosed policies intended to
maximize profits.  Other allegations include breach of state
prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for failure to
timely reimburse providers for medical services rendered (Class
Action Reporter, March 6, 2006).

The suit is "In re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Federico A. Moreno.

For more information, contact Mark F. Lindsay of UnitedHealth
Group, Minneapolis, Phone: 952-992-4297.


VIXEL CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Final Approval of IPO Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Vixel Corp., according to Emulex Corp.'s May 12, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended April 2, 2006.

On Nov. 15, 2001, prior to the Emulex's acquisition of Vixel
Corp., a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York as Case No. 01 CIV.
10053 (SAS), Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) against Vixel and
two of its officers and directors and certain underwriters who
participated in the Vixel initial public offering in late 1999.

The amended complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased Vixel
stock during the period Oct. 1, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to Vixel's officers and directors until
Sept. 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement, Vixel's
officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit without
prejudice.

During June 2003, Vixel and the other issuer defendants in the
action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs that
would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.

In connection with the possible settlement, those officers and
directors who had entered tolling agreements with the plaintiffs
agreed to extend those agreements so that they would not expire
prior to any settlement being finalized.

Although Vixel approved this settlement proposal in principle,
it remains subject to a number of procedural conditions, as well
as formal approval by the court.

On Aug. 31, 2005, a preliminary order in connection with
settlement proceedings was issued by the court, which, among
other items, set a date for a settlement fairness hearing held
on April 24, 2006 and the form of notice to the settlement
classes of the issuers' settlement stipulation.

In December 2005, the settlement notices authorized by the court
were sent to former Vixel stockholders, as well as a March 24,
2006 objection deadline.

At the settlement fairness hearing held on April 24, 2006, the
court raised these primary issues:

      -- the (possible) change in value of the settlement since
         preliminary approval, and whether the benefits of the
         settlement should be evaluated at the time of approval
         or at the time of negotiation;

      -- how the class certification argument before the second
         circuit court of appeals could or would affect the
         fairness of the settlement;

      -- how to evaluate the intangible benefits of the
         settlement to the class members; and

      -- how to value the $1 billion guarantee (for the
         consolidated litigation involving Vixel and 297 other
         Issuers) by Insurers in the Stipulation and Agreement
         of Settlement Exhibit C in light of the Underwriters'
         potential future settlements.

The court did not rule on April 24, 2006 on the motion for final
approval or objections.

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


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Consumer Suit in D.C. Over Ovcon 35 Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer plaintiff filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia against Warner Chilcott
Holdings Company III, Limited and Barr Pharmaceuticals over the
two firms agreements in relation to Ovcon 35 oral
contraceptives.

Filed on March 6, 2006, the suit alleges that the Ovcon
Agreements violate sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the
antitrust laws of eighteen states and the unjust enrichment laws
of fifty states.

Thus, plaintiff seeks to certify three separate classes:

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use who
         are seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and
         restitution under the Sherman Act;

      -- all persons in the eighteen states referenced above who
         purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use; and

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use.

The consumer plaintiff seeks treble damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, disgorgement, and costs including attorney's fees.

The suit is "Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00401-CKK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly.

Representing the plaintiffs is John M. Mason of The Law Offices
of Robert W. Sink, 319 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063, US,
Phone: 610-566-0800, Fax: 610-566-4408, E-mail:
sinklawoffices@comcast.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Peter Coyne Thomas of Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP,
         555 11th Street, NW, Suite 725, Washington, DC 20004,
         US, Phone: (202) 220-7735, Fax: (202) 220-7703, E-mail:
         pthomas@stblaw.com; and

     (2) Karen Natalie Walker of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 655 15th
         Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 879-5000, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-mail:
         kwalker@kirkland.com.


WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Mulls Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia has yet to rule
on parties' motions for attorneys' fees and expenses in the
class action against Wells Real Estate Investment, Inc.'s
President and Director Leo. F. Wells, III, Wells Capital and
Wells Management.

During early 2004, a putative class action complaint was filed
against, among others, Leo. F. Wells, III, one of the company's
General Partners, Wells Capital, the corporate general partner
of Wells Partners, its other general partner, and Wells
Management (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior
Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-A-2791-
2).

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to permit voluntary
dismissal of this suit, and the case was subsequently dismissed
without prejudice.

In November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative
class action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells
Capital, and Wells Management (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells,
III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia Civil
Action No. 04A-13051-6).

The second action alleges, among other things, that:

      -- Mr. Wells and Wells Capital breached their fiduciary
         duties to the limited partners of Wells Real Estate
         Fund I (Fund I), a previously syndicated real estate
         partnership having common general partners, in
         connection with certain disclosures and prior actions
         relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds;

      -- the defendants breached an alleged contract arising out
         of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited
         partners of Fund I relating to an alleged waiver of
         deferred management fees; and

      -- certain misrepresentations and omissions in an April
         2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners of
         Fund I caused that consent solicitation to be
         materially misleading.

Plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, judgment against Mr.
Wells and Wells Capital, jointly and severally, in an amount to
be proven at trial; punitive damages; disgorgement of fees
earned by the General Partners; enforcement of the alleged
contract relating to the alleged waiver of deferred management
fees; and an award to the plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  
Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all
counts in the complaint.

Thus, this action has now been dismissed, subject to the
plaintiffs' right to file a notice of appeal within the required
time period.

On Aug. 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the
court to vacate and re-enter the orders to give the plaintiffs
an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration or notice of
appeal.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court heard argument on the plaintiffs'
motion to vacate and to re-enter the judgments previously
entered on July 1, 2005.

Following the argument, the court stated orally from the bench
that he would grant the motion, so the judgments could be re-
entered to allow the plaintiffs thirty days within which to file
a notice of appeal.  The court has not yet entered an order
granting this motion.

On or about Aug. 8, 2005, the defendants filed a motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation.  On or about Aug.
12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses of litigation as to one defense asserted by the
defendants.

On April 20, 2006, the court held a hearing addressing only the
liability aspects of the defendants' and the plaintiffs' motions
for attorneys' fees and expenses.  The court has not yet ruled
on either party's motion.


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action pending
against White Electronic Designs Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona filed an amended complaint on
April 17, 2006.

On July 22, 2004, July 29, 2004, Aug. 6, 2004 and Aug. 20, 2004,
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers.  The suits are:

      -- "McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al. Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB";

      -- "Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al., Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS";

      -- "Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al., Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT"; and

      -- "Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al., Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC.

The actions were consolidated and the Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on or about Feb. 14, 2005.

Defendants' motions to dismiss that complaint were granted on
Feb. 14, 2006.  Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on
April 17, 2006.

Like the dismissed complaint, the new complaint alleges, among
others, that between Jan. 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the company
made false and misleading statements concerning its financial
results and business, and issued a misleading registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the company's July
2003 secondary offering.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Defendants' motions to dismiss the new complaint was due June 1,
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 "McJimsey, et al v. White Electronic Des, et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01499-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Russell J. Gunyan and Samuel H. Rudman of
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
         B. St., Ste. 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         (619) 231-1058; and

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

Representing the company are:

     (i) Joseph G. Adams and Joel Philip Hoxie of Snell & Wilmer
         LLP, 1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ
         85004-2202, Phone: 602-382-6207, Fax: 602-382-6070, E-
         mail: jgadams@swlaw.com and jhoxie@swlaw.com; and

    (ii) Boris Feldman, Sherry Hartel Haus, Nicole Healy and
         Rodney G. Strickland Jr. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
         Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
         650-496-4334, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
         nhealy@wsgr.com.


ZORAN CORP: Shareholder Sues Over Alleged Short-Swing Profits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoran Corp. is facing legal action filed by a law firm on behalf
of a shareholder demanding that the company's board recover
short-swing profits made by executives and directors in
violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Act of 1934, the
Red Herring reports.

The company said it would "review the allegations and respond
appropriately."

Zoran, certain members of its board and some employees are at
the same time facing a shareholder derivative complaint in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of California.

The suit targets its options allocations during 1998-2001.  It
was initiated by a shareholder after Zoran was named by the
Center for Financial Research and Analysis as one the companies
suspected of backdating options allocations.  

Based in Sunnvvale California, Zoran -- http://www.zoran.com--  
manufactures electronic entertainment application and digital
imaging processor.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

June 22-23, 2006
5TH INTERNATIONAL GUIDE TO REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTIONS
American Conference Institute
Park Central, New York, NY
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

July 20-21, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com   

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

September 26-27, 2006
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 22, 2006
FOSOMAXr
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 28, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED? PROTECTING BUSINESS FROM THE MOST COMMON
LIABILITIES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 11, 2006
PPA AND EPHEDRA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

July 20, 2006
ASBESTOS LEGISLATION - IS A SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS AROUND THE
CORNER?
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 25, 2006
UNDERSTANDING HOW AN MDL WORKS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 27, 2006
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RETAILERS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2006
HEARING LOSS CLAIMS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time

August 10, 2006
SULFATES LITIGATION
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 15, 2006
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time

August 16, 2006
ASBESTOS SCREENINGS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 17, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS AND DEVICES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESCALA GROUP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Action Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Escala Group, Inc.
between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

Escala, formerly, Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., operates through
various subsidiaries as a global collectibles merchant and
auction house network specializing in auctions, merchant/dealer
operations and trading in various collectibles and precious
metals.

The complaint alleges that the company represented throughout
the class period that it was achieving record results --
particularly as a result of agreements entered into with its
majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. -- without
disclosing that these results were actually achieved from
questionable and potentially illegal activities.

Defendants also stated that they had complied with the reporting
requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and had
voluntarily complied with the reporting requirements of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The complaint alleges that representations Escala made about its
financial condition, business prospects, and operations were
false and misleading and the individuals in charge of managing
the Company had a duty to disclose the Company's true condition
to the investing public.

Throughout the class period, Escala suffered a range of problems
affecting its bottom line that remained undisclosed to
investors.  When investors finally learned that Escala's
majority shareholder, from whom Escala derived substantial
revenue, was engaged in a pyramid scheme, the market reacted
negatively.

Shares of the company declined approximately 85% in heavy
trading volume in the days following the Company's disclosures.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Phone: (310)
201-9150 and (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Herley Industries, Inc.
from Oct. 1, 2001 to June 14, 2006, inclusive.

On June 6, 2006, the company revealed that the U.S. Attorney's
office for the Eastern District in Pennsylvania had indicted the
company and its chairman, Lee N. Blatt, on multiple charges in
connection with excessive profits improperly earned by the
company on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

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

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

      -- that 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.

As a result of the wrongdoing, the value of the company's shares
has materially declined, wiping out millions in shareholder
value.

Interested parties have no later than Aug. 14, 2006 for
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Pa. Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers of Herley
Industries, Inc. from Oct. 1, 2001 to 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.  

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

      -- that 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 5, 2006, the company announced that its fiscal 2006
third quarter earnings would be below company expectations and
analyst consensus estimates.

Curiously, the company made no mention of an impending
indictment against the company and its chairman, Lee N. Blatt,
and its effect on the company's present and future prospects.

Upon this announcement, shares of Herley fell $1.88 per share,
or approximately 10 percent, to close at $17.50 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

On June 6, 2006, the company revealed that the U.S. Attorney's
office for the Eastern District in Pennsylvania had indicted the
company and its Chairman Lee N. Blatt on multiple charges in
connection with excessive profits improperly earned by the
company on three contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Upon this announcement, shares of Herley fell $0.98 per share,
or 6 percent, to close at $16.52 per share, on heavy trading
volume. Shares of Herley stock continued to decline on the next
trading day as news leaked out on the details of the indictment.

On the next trading day, June 7, 2006, shares of the company's
stock fell an additional $1.48 per share, or 9 percent, to close
at $15.04 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Subsequently, on June 9, 2006, the company announced that Lee N.
Blatt resigned as Chairman of the Board and as a director of the
Company on June 8, 2006.

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.

Following this announcement, shares of Herley plunged $5.19 per
share, or 34 percent, to close at $10.06 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

On June 14, 2006, the company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the fiscal third quarter of 2006, the
period ended April 30, 2006.

The company also announced that its quarterly report on form 10-
Q would be delayed since its auditors need to complete its
review of procedures in connection with the Company's recent
indictment.

Upon this announcement, shares of Herley continued to fall,
losing an additional $0.85 per share, or 8 percent, to close at
$9.21 per share, on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.  


INFOSONICS CORP: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of investors in InfoSonics Corp.

The suit seeks recovery on behalf of investors who purchased the
publicly traded securities of InfoSonics during the period May
9, 2006 to June 9, 2006.

According to the complaint, InfoSonics and its top officers
defrauded persons investing in InfoSonics securities, violating
the federal securities laws.

On May 8, 2006, defendants reported inflated results for the
quarter ended March 2006, by improperly accounting for warrants
issued in connection with a January 2006 private placement.

By means of this improper accounting, defendants falsely
reported net income of $1.738 million for the March 2006
quarter.

Recently, InfoSonics belatedly admitted that the March 2006
reported results were false.  InfoSonics disclosed that it would
need to restate the March 2006 quarter results.  As restated,
net income for the quarter would be $1.173 million, a decrease
of 32.5%.

In response to this disclosure, InfoSonics stock plunged on very
high volume.

The complaint further alleges that defendants engaged in massive
insider trading between May 11 and June 7, 2006.  Indeed, some
of this insider trading continued even after InfoSonics
determined on June 5, 2006 that it would need to restate the
March 2006 quarter results.

Interested parties have no later than Aug. 14, 2006 to move to
be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq. and Kimberly A.
Walker, Investor Relations Manager, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289
or 215-875-3000.


PXRE GROUP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of PXRE Group Ltd.
between July 28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges PXRE and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning PXRE's business and financial performance
caused the Company's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

PXRE is a worldwide provider of catastrophe reinsurance products
and services to primary insurers and reinsurers.  The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed to
disclose to the market materially adverse facts, including that:

      -- the company concealed from investors the full impact on
         its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
         (the 2005 Hurricanes);

      -- and, in fact, the company's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes
         had doubled to an estimated $758 million to $788
         million;

      -- the magnitude of the loss would cause the Company to
         lose key financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best, an influential industry-rating agency;

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

      -- as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
         statements with respect to its loss estimates for the
         2005 Hurricane season were lacking in any reasonable
         basis.

On Feb. 16, 2006, after the close of the market, PXRE shocked
investors when it announced that it would be increasing its
estimates of the net pre-tax impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
and Wilma by an amount between $281 million to $311 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2005 compared to the high end of their
prior announced estimates.

Later that same day, A.M. Best announced that it had downgraded
the financial strength rating of PXRE to B++ (Very Good) from A-
(Excellent).

This news sent shares of PXRE sharply downward on Feb. 17, 2006.  
By the end of the day, shares of PXRE had fallen $7.85 per share
-- a more than 65% drop -- on heavy trading volume, to close on
Feb. 17, 2006 at $4.05 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

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


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lovell Stewart Files N.J. Stock Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP initiated a class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Vonage Holdings
Corporation or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock pursuant
or traceable to the company's May 23, 2006 initial public
offering.

The Complaint alleges that Vonage, the underwriters of its IPO,
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws.

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

     (1) that Vonage's Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
         technology platform was unsuitable for transmitting
         facsimile communications;

     (2) that certain of its products are incompatible with the
         products and services of other VoIP providers;

     (3) that the company did not adequately inform investors of
         the history of certain officers and directors of the
         Company; and

     (4) that Vonage customers who participated in the Directed
         Share Program (the Program) were not informed of
         several key facts relating to the Program.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian
LLP.

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

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell or Imtiaz A.
Siddiqui both of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, Phone: (212) 608-
1900, Fax: 212-719-4677, E-mail: lshllp@lshllp.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  * * *