CAR_Public/060622.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 123

                            Headlines

AT&T INC: Judge to Hear Oral Arguments in Wiretapping Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces New Suit Over Use of Fiduciary Accounts
BC HYDRO: Canadian Citizens Group Drops Anti-Privatization Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: Managed Care Litigation Suit in Fla. Dismissed
DANIEL LEATHER: Canadian Supreme Court to Rule in Appeal Motion

DRUGSTORE.COM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Settlement
EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Two Shareholder Lawsuits in Ind.
FLORIDA: Plaintiffs in Kissimmee Voter Rights Suit Abandon Case
FOERSAEKRINGS AB: Plan Holders Have 6 Months More to Move Policy
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Litigation in Florida

GREAT SENECA: Sued in Calif. Over "Fraudulent" Debt Collection
HJ BAKER: Recalls Livestock Feed Over Possible Contamination
INDIAN TRUST: D.C. Appeals Court Suppresses "Tainted" Documents
IPO LITIGATION: U.S. Brief Sought in Suit Against Underwriters
JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Workers Suit Over Share Sale Dismissed

LEASECOMM CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Mass. Lease Suit
OPTA CORP: Hawthorne Man Wins Appeal in Lawsuit Claiming Fraud
PETTERS CONSUMER: Recalls Gas Range Without Proper Heat Shields
PHARMOS CORP: N.J. Court Mulls Nixing of Consolidated Stock Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Orders Return of Cash Securing Appeal Bond

ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Drill Bits with Incomplete Warning Label
SPORTSMAN'S GUIDE: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Planned Disposal
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Labor Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: Continues to Face FLSA Violations Suit in Tex.
SUMMIT TREESTANDS: Recalls Certain Harnesses for Replacement

UNIPROP MANUFACTURED: Settles Property Damage Suit in Mich.
UNITED STATES: FBI, DHS Face Lawsuit Over Re-Entry Procedures
UNITED STATES: Judges Back Out from Milberg Weiss Kickback Case
UNITED STATES: Officials to Testify in N.Y. Suit Over Detentions
VISION FITNESS: Alerts Public of Defect in Treadmill Console


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Pa.
INFOSONICS CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Calif.
INFOSONICS CORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Suit in Calif.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in Calif.


                            *********


AT&T INC: Judge to Hear Oral Arguments in Wiretapping Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California will hear on June 23, at 9:30
a.m. oral arguments on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss
the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class suit against AT&T
Inc.

EFF's suit, filed in January, accuses the telecom giant of
collaborating with the National Security Agency in illegal
spying on millions of ordinary Americans.  The government
contends that even if the NSA program is illegal, the lawsuit
should not go forward because it might expose state secrets.

On the trial, the judge will also hear requests from media
organizations to intervene and unseal critical evidence filed in
the lawsuit.

Earlier, the judge declined to hear motions by EFF to issue a
preliminary injunction against the alleged data collection until
after he considers whether to dismiss the case (Class Action
Reporter, June 13, 2006).

For more information about attending the hearing, mail to:
press@eff.org.

EFF on the Net: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/.

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

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

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

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces New Suit Over Use of Fiduciary Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six beneficiaries of fiduciary accounts presently or formally
overseen by Bank of America, N.A. filed a complaint in federal
court against:

     -- Bank of America,
     -- its parent, Bank of America Corp., and  
     -- various subsidiaries and affiliates

arising out of the bank's investment of assets held in the  
bank's fiduciary accounts in its proprietary mutual funds, the  
Nations Funds, now named the Columbia Funds.

The claims in the complaint are brought under and pursuant to
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission; the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as well as
state and common law.

The class in this litigation consists of all beneficiaries,
owners, beneficial owners, or principals of trusts, accounts or
other entities -- including Individual Retirement Account and
investment management accounts, employee benefit plans and
guardianships -- for which the bank or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors or assigns
acted as a trustee, fiduciary or agent and that were directly or
indirectly invested in Nations or Columbia Funds mutual funds at
any time from Sept. 8, 1998 to the present.

The class defined above has already been stipulated to by each
of the defendants, their affiliates and others in connection
with the settlement of certain related claims against them in
"In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, where it
was designated as a "Fiduciary Sub-Class."  Those members of the
class who directly or indirectly invested in Nations Funds by
means of Conversions of interests in Common Trust Funds into
shares of Nations Funds are referred to as the "Conversions Sub-
Class."

Other members of the class who, through their fiduciary accounts
at the bank purchased shares of Nations or Columbia Funds within
the applicable limitations period are referred to as the
"Federal Securities Sub-Class."

Additionally, for fiduciary accounts which originated in and/or
affected beneficiaries in the states of Missouri and California,
the litigation is also brought on behalf of Missouri and
California state Sub-Classes.

The complaint alleges that the bank improperly used assets in
its fiduciary accounts to "bulk up" the Nations Funds by buying
shares of the various Nations Funds for these accounts despite
the availability of other mutual funds, such as those offered by
the Vanguard Group or Fidelity Investments, which were well-
managed, had good reputations and had lower expenses than the
Nations or Columbia Funds.

The complaint also alleges that the bank distributed various
Nations and Columbia Funds prospectuses that misrepresented
material facts and/or omitted material facts as to, among
others, the conflicts of interest between and among the other
Defendants, the expenses that would be absorbed by the
beneficiaries of the affected fiduciary accounts and the failure
of the Trustees of the Nations and Columbia Funds to seek
advisory and administrative services in the best interests of
the holders of their shares

Interested parties may request to be appointed as lead plaintiff
by the court by Aug. 21, 2006.

The case is Kutten v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No: 4-06:cv-
937.  

For more details, contact Richard D. Greenfield, Greenfield &
Goodman, LLC, 7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410)
745-4149, E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net.

Also, contact Steven M. Hamburg, Summers, Compton, Wells &
Hamburg, 8909 Ladue Rd., St. Louis, MO 63124, Phione:(314) 991-
4999 E-mail: Shamburg@scwh.com.


BC HYDRO: Canadian Citizens Group Drops Anti-Privatization Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BC Citizens for Public Power in Canada dropped its class suit
opposing the privatization of BC Hydro after reaching an out-of-
court settlement, the Vancouver Sun reports.

The class action to save BC Hydro was launched by BCCPP in 2002,
with tens of thousands of British Columbians joining.  It
demanded that Premier Gordon Campbell stop the privatization of
BC Hydro.

According to the group's Web site, the lawsuit claims:

     -- Breach of fiduciary duty: the group argues that BC
        Hydro, and the government of British Columbia have an
        obligation to taxpayers and customers.  They said they
        did not authorize officials, nor elect them, to break-up
        BC Hydro, sell part of the company to Accenture and
        charge consumers more for electricity;

     -- Breach of contract:  the group said that as taxpayers
        and customers, they "invested" in BC Hydro, and now
        expects to benefit from that investment of tax dollars
        with affordable energy.  The selling of BC Hydro
        allegedly takes their Return on Investment, which is a
        breach of contract; and

     -- Unjust enrichment: the group said it built BC Hydro
        since the 1960s; and so, neither BC Hydro itself, nor
        any private company, should be permitted to profit at
        the expense of taxpayers and customers.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Managed Care Litigation Suit in Fla. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Federico A. Moreno issued a summary
judgment order in favor of Coventry Health Care, Inc.,
dismissing all remaining claims filed against the company as
part of the "Charles B. Shane, et al., vs. Humana, Inc., et al."
litigation.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, Multi-District Litigation,
No. 1334.  It was brought by a group of physicians as a class
action against Coventry and nine other companies in the managed
care industry.  

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy to violate RICO and
aiding and abetting a scheme to violate RICO.  In addition to
these federal law claims, the complaint included state law
claims for breach of contract, violations of various state
prompt payment laws and equitable claims for unjust enrichment
and quantum meruit (Class Action Reporter, March 29, 2006).  

The trial court previously dismissed several of the state law
claims and ordered that all physicians who have an arbitration
provision in their provider contracts must submit their direct
RICO claims and all of their remaining state law claims to
arbitration (Class Action Reporter, March 29, 2006).

In March, all plaintiffs who have arbitration provisions
voluntarily dismissed all of their claims that are subject to
arbitration.  The trial court, however, ordered that the
plaintiffs' claims of conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and
abetting violations of RICO are not subject to arbitration
(Class Action Reporter, March 29, 2006).

The defendants' appeal to the 11th Circuit challenging the trial
court's arbitration decision was denied.  The trial court
certified various subclasses of plaintiffs.  The 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals overturned the class certification order as to
the plaintiffs' state law claims but affirmed the certification
with respect to the plaintiffs' federal law claims (Class Action
Reporter, March 29, 2006).  

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition to review
the 11th Circuit's class certification decision.  As a result of
the class certification decision, the only causes of action
remaining in the lawsuit are the claims of conspiracy to violate
RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO.  Seven
defendants entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs, which have received final approval from the trial
court (Class Action Reporter, March 29, 2006).

For more details, contact Bethesda Shawn M. Guertin or Drew
Asher both of Coventry Health Care, Inc., Phone: 301-581-5701 or
301-581-5717.


DANIEL LEATHER: Canadian Supreme Court to Rule in Appeal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision today at
9:45 a.m. on whether it will grant or deny a request for leave
to appeal in the "Kerr v. Danier" class action.

Since the decision will be released during Toronto Stock
Exchange trading hours, Danier will request that trading in
Danier's shares be halted on Thursday morning until Danier
issues a press release announcing the result of the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision.

Danier Leather Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and retailer of
high-quality leather and suede clothing and accessories.  The
company's merchandise is marketed exclusively under the well-
known Danier brand name and is available only at its 95 shopping
mall, street-front, and power centre stores, and through its
corporate sales division and online through its website
division.

Fore more information, contact Jeffrey Wortsman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Danier Leather Inc., Phone: (416)
762-8175 ext. 302, Fax: (416) 762-7408, E-mail:
leather@danier.com; Bryan Tatoff, Senior Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer, Phone: (416) 762-8175 ext., Fax: 328
(416) 762-6072, E-mail: bryan@danier.com.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls 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 drugstore.com, inc., according to the company's May 12,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended April 2, 2006.

On and after July 6, 2001, eight stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York naming the company as a defendant, along with the
underwriters and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, in connection with the company's July 27, 1999
initial public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary offering.

Complaints against the company were later consolidated into a
single action and a consolidated amended complaint, which is now
the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.

The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period July
28, 1999 to Dec. 6, 2000.  

In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses through
which the company conducted the Offerings were materially false
and misleading for failure to disclose, among other things,
that:

      -- the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of shares
         issued in connection with the Offerings and

      -- the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
         exchange for which customers agreed to purchase
         additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies or their
former officers and directors.

On July 15, 2002, the company moved to dismiss all claims
against the company and the Individual Defendants.  On Oct. 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed
by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the company.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the court
certified a class in nine of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.

The underwriter defendants sought leave to appeal the class
certification decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit has accepted the appeal.  Plaintiffs have not yet
moved to certify a class in the case.

The company approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
it, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
issuer defendants or, in the case of bankrupt issuers, their
directors and officers.

Among other provisions, the settlement agreement provides for a
release of the company and the Individual Defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.  

The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the company may have against the
company's underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to the plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of
the approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent that the
underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1
billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  These modifications were made.  

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, but has not yet issued
a ruling.

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


EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Two Shareholder Lawsuits in Ind.
------------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corp. is a defendant in purported
shareholder class actions pending in Marion County (Indiana)
Superior Court.

In May 2006, two lawsuits were filed on behalf of Emmis
shareholders seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection
with an offer of Emmis chairman and chief executive officer,
Jeffrey H. Smulyan, to purchase the outstanding common equity of
the company.  The suits sought class-action status.

The company is in the process of evaluating these lawsuits,
according to the company's May 12, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Feb. 28, 2006.


FLORIDA: Plaintiffs in Kissimmee Voter Rights Suit Abandon Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for four residents alleging Kissimmee election
procedures unfairly diluted the voting power of Hispanics have
asked the U.S. District Court in Orlando for a voluntary
dismissal of their suit, according to the Orlando Sentinel.  The
request was filed after plaintiffs found that the minority group
now outnumbers registered white voters.

According to Armando Ramirez, one of the four residents behind
the lawsuit, it is unsustainable to pursue the suit because the
number of registered Hispanic voters outnumbers white voters by
about 900 and it does not fall within federal guidelines.

The suit, originally filed in 2005, alleges that the "at-large"
method of electing city commissioners dilutes the power of the
Hispanic vote and violates a section of the Voting Rights Act.

"We filed this lawsuit because we wanted fair and affordable
elections for all Kissimmee citizens.  We have decided that
given the changing demographics, we can achieve those goals
better through a registration and informational drive," Mr.
Ramirez said.

Hispanics interested in continuing the suit have until June 30
to respond to a legal notice published in the Orlando Sentinel.
They would have to object to the motion to dismiss, according to
the advertisement.

The New York-based Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
and two Orlando lawyers signed on last year to represent Ramirez
and his son John and John Cortes and his wife, Caridad.


FOERSAEKRINGS AB: Plan Holders Have 6 Months More to Move Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The organization Class Action against Skandia is extending its
agreement with Handelsbanken Liv for another six months.  This
means that the group's approximately 18,000 members will
continue to be able to move their insurance policies from
Foersaekrings AB Skandia to Handelsbanken Liv at no cost.  The
extension applies until Dec. 31, 2006, inclusive.
    
The Class Action against Skandia first contacted Handelsbanken
Liv in spring 2005 and an agreement was entered into for 2005.  
In December the same year, the agreement was extended until 30
June 2006.  This agreement is now being extended for another six
months.

Briefly the agreement implies that:

     -- Handelsbanken Liv pays all the transfer fees charged by
        Skandia for customers wishing to move their savings,
        including the repurchase charge on endowment policies;

     -- No premium fees will be charged for the capital moved to
        Handelsbanken Liv;

     -- The transferred capital will be split into 85 percent
        guaranteed capital and 15 percent conditional bonus.  
        This is a much higher guaranteed level than applies for
        the average of the Class Action's members.

"Interest from the members in moving their capital to us has
been very large and many of them have already done so.  Since
the agreement was entered into, insurance assets corresponding
to approximately SEK50 million have been moved to Handelsbanken
Liv.  So we are delighted that the Class Action against Skandia
has again opted to extend the collaboration," comments Hans
Hagman, deputy chief executive of Handelsbanken Liv.

Handelsbanken Liv has a strong offering for new customers who
have transferred their money.  The return received is entirely
individual.  The company is responsible for the guarantees and
also allows policyholders to move their funds to other
companies.  Customers can swap between a guaranteed rate of
interest and unit-linked insurance and vice versa, as often and
whenever they like.

"And if we don't meet up to their expectations, they can move
their funds to another company.  This means that customers can
move both old and new capital from us -- and there are no
complicated rules or expensive fees," concludes Hans Hagman.

For further information, contact Hans Hagman, Deputy Chief
Executive of Handelsbanken Liv, Phone: +46 8 701 72 84; or Johan
Lagerstrom, Deputy Head of Corporate Communications of
Handelsbanken Liv, Phone: +46 8 701 13 95, Mobile: +46 70 - 265
80 14.


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Litigation in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Globetel Communications Corp. and certain of its top ranking
executives are defendants in a purported securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

On April 28, 2006, the law firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,
commenced a securities fraud class action on behalf of those
investors who acquired the securities of GlobeTel Communications
Corp. from Dec. 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Richard Stevens, et al. v.
GlobeTel Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-21071,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

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

     (2) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,
         Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,
         Fax: (215) 638-4867;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Boca Raton),
         The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax:
         561.367.8400, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005,
         New York, NY, 10018, Phone: 212.868.3610, Fax:
         212.918.7967;

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

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

     (7) Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, (New York), 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212)
         239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         lawyer@lawssb.com.  


GREAT SENECA: Sued in Calif. Over "Fraudulent" Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two California consumers, Shane Satey and Kenneth Holtzclaw,
initiated a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against
Great Seneca Financial Corp. and the debt collection law firm of
Wolpoff & Abramson, alleging unfair and fraudulent debt
collection and credit reporting practices.

The suit, "Holtzclaw/Satey vs. Great Seneca Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. 06 E 02709," alleges that Great Seneca was
collecting debts in California for months without being properly
registered as a California corporation.  Hundreds, even
thousands, of California consumers who paid money to Great
Seneca to settle debts may be entitled to relief, according to a
statement by plaintiff's law firm Brennan, Wiener & Associates.

The story began with Shane Satey, a Southern California resident
claiming to be a victim of identity theft.  An identity thief
allegedly stole Mr. Satey's Chase credit card information and
used it to charge up over $8,000 at a local retailer in
Glendale.  Although Mr. Satey sent a copy of the police report
to Chase, Chase credit-reported the alleged debt and also sold
it to debt collectors.

In late 2005, debt collector Great Seneca purchased the debt and
sued Mr. Satey, who hired the La Crescenta consumer protection
firm Brennan, Wiener & Associates to obtain justice for the
identity theft.  On the very day when Brennan, Wiener &
Associates contacted Great Seneca's attorneys, Wolpoff &
Abramson, Great Seneca allegedly mysteriously dismissed the case
without comment.

A few months later, Great Seneca sued Kenneth Holtzclaw on an
alleged debt which was many years older than the four-year
limitations period for collecting debts in California.  Seeking
information about his rights, Mr. Holtzclaw coincidentally
contacted Brennan, Wiener & Associates, according to the
statement.  Brennan, Wiener & Associates learned that Great
Seneca was not licensed or registered as a California
corporation, so Brennan, Wiener & Associates filed an answer and
cross-complaint against Great Seneca and Wolpoff & Abramson.

According to the statement, suddenly, Great Seneca became
properly registered as a California corporation on April 10,
2006, although it had been collecting debts in California for
several months before then.

"Their conduct was no accident," commented lead class action
counsel Robert F. Brennan of Brennan, Wiener & Assoc.  "By not
properly registering itself as a corporation, Great Seneca
avoided paying taxes and other fees that it would have paid had
it properly registered with the State of California.  Even more
important, Great Seneca was insulating itself from any kind of
cross-complaint for unfair debt collection practices or unfair
credit reporting because it had no agent for service of process
in California."

Mr. Brennan also commented on the relationship with the Wolpoff
& Abramson law firm.  "As far as we can tell, Wolpoff & Abramson
and Great Seneca are two peas in a pod.  Our preliminary
research suggests that Wolpoff & Abramson set up Great Seneca
just to try to insulate itself from unfair debt collection
lawsuits.  For licensed attorneys to be collecting upon
thousands of consumer debts through an unregistered corporation
is positively inexcusable.  One, two, maybe half a dozen
instances is one thing, but here we have several months of such
collection practices.  I cannot believe Wolpoff & Abramson did
not know that Great Seneca was not properly licensed and
registered in California."

The class action seeks damages for the class members as well as
an injunction that Great Seneca repay the State of California
any penalties, taxes or fees it should have paid when it first
began collecting debts in California as an unlicensed
corporation.  Further, Mr. Brennan states that he will request
that the court compel Wolpoff & Abramson to publicly disclose
the full nature of its relationship with Great Seneca.

Plaintiffs are represented by Robert F. Brennan, Esq. of
Brennan, Wiener & Associates, 3150 Montrose Avenue, La
Crescenta, CA 91214, Phone: (818) 249-Law1(5291) or  1-888-453-
6665 (Toll Free), Fax: (818) 249-4Fax(4329), E-mail:
rbrennan@socallemonlaw.com or info@socallemonlaw.com, Website:
http://www.socalcreditdamage.com.


HJ BAKER: Recalls Livestock Feed Over Possible Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
H.J. Baker & Bro. of Westport, Connecticut, in cooperation with
the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, is recalling PRO-PAK with
porcine meat and bone, PRO-LAK, and PRO-AMINO II produced at its
Albertville, AL facility.  These products are used as an
ingredient in the manufacturing of livestock feed, including
feed for dairy animals.

The company said the recall is being taken to address potential
risk of unintentional contamination with ruminant derived
protein that may have occurred at this facility from August 2005
to June 2006.

Certain mammalian protein is prohibited for use in ruminant
feed.  These products were distributed in bulk or bags to feed
manufacturers and dairy farms in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan,
Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, California, and
Louisiana.

"All production and shipment of these products from the
Albertville mill have ceased and all of our customers are being
notified of the potential contamination.  With the advice and
support of the FDA, we were able to respond rapidly to address
this matter," said Christopher Smith, President & CEO.

Consumers are advised to discontinue use immediately.  These
should be quarantined so that it cannot be inadvertently used in
the manufacture of feeds and contact the manufacturer at 501-
664-4870 for further instructions.

For more information, contact Mark Hohnbaum, Phone: 501-664-
4870.


INDIAN TRUST: D.C. Appeals Court Suppresses "Tainted" Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
suppressed three documents containing information that the U.S.
Department of the Interior allegedly destroyed documents related
to the class action, "Cobell v. Norton," according to Holly
Manges Jones of the JURIST.

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

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

The suppressed documents were written by Alan Balaran, who
personally visited Indian reservations and federal depositories
during his tenure in 1999 as a "special master" to oversee the
exchange of information between the parties in "Cobell."

Mr. Balaran claimed that Interior Department officials neglected
to report problems and also destroyed documents, sometimes
purposefully.  He resigned as special master in April 2004.

However, in its June 9, 2006 opinion, the D.C. Circuit allowed
the reports to be suppressed due to Mr. Balaran's hiring of a
former Interior Department contractor who had previously accused
the department of fraud, according to the report.

The expert was able to edit Mr. Balaran's reports, which the
court determined was a "biased way of conducting and reporting
upon an investigation."

The court's opinion is available free of charge at:

           http://researcharchives.com/t/s?bc9.

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

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

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

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


IPO LITIGATION: U.S. Brief Sought in Suit Against Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has requested a brief from the U.S. Solicitor
General's office regarding an appeal from several major Wall
Street firms in a class action over the allocation of initial
public offerings in the late 1990s, FinancialWire reports.

The government brief is expected to be filed sometime before the
end of 2006, according to the report.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard on June 6 oral arguments
from lawyers of a group of Wall Street underwriters seeking to
decertify focus cases that accuses them of violating federal
antitrust laws by engaging in tie-in agreements.

Vincent DiBlasi, a lawyer for the defendants, then said the
class, as currently defined, would allow individuals or
institutions which are also party to wrongdoing to benefit from
the possible compensation should the banks lose (Class Action
Reporter, June 12, 2006).

The suit is filed against underwriters Credit Suisse Group,
Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers Inc., Morgan Stanley and
Merrill Lynch & Co., among others.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. was the fist to resolve the claims by
agreeing in principle in April to pay $425 million to settle the
litigation without admitting wrongdoing.  Last year, Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $40 million
each (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006).

Representing the defendants is Vincent A. Diblasi, 188 Montague
St, Brooklyn, NY 11201-3609.


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Workers Suit Over Share Sale Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court in Madison, Wisconsin dismissed a class action
filed by former employees of Perry Printing, a subsidiary of
Journal Communications, Inc., the Associated Press reports.

In the recent ruling, the Supreme Court said the lawsuit was
filed after a two-year statute of limitations had expired and
must therefore be dismissed.

In 2001, Circuit Judge John Ullsvik of Jefferson County,
Wisconsin, ruled that former employees of Perry Printing may
proceed with their class action against Journal Communications.
The plaintiffs claimed they lost money because they were not
allowed to sell their stock over a decade when Journal
Communications sold it in 1995 (Class Action Reporter, June 26,
2001).

Journal Communications, an employee-owned company, requires
workers who leave to sell their stock immediately, unless they
retire.  Retirees are permitted to sell their stock back over a
decade.  However, the company had waived the immediate stock
sale requirement when it sold Perry Printing, allowing former
employees to sell their stock over five years.  The plaintiffs
argue that they should have been considered retirees after the
sale and permitted to sell their stock over ten years.
Initially, Judge Ullsvik dismissed most of the lawsuit, saying
the sale did not make the employees retirees (Class Action
Reporter, June 26, 2001).

A lawyer for Journal Communications says the recent ruling means
the company will not have to pay four former employees who, at
trial, won more than $200,00 in damages and attorneys' fees.


LEASECOMM CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Mass. Lease Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Microfinancial,
Inc., reached a tentative resolution for a purported class
action pending against it in the Superior Court in
Massachusetts.

In March 2003, a purported class action was filed in Superior
Court in Massachusetts against Leasecomm and one of its dealers.
The class to be certified is a nationwide class, excluding
certain residents of the State of Texas, who signed identical or
substantially similar lease agreements with Leasecomm covering
the same product.

After the company had filed a motion to dismiss, but before the
motion to dismiss was heard by the court, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  

The amended complaint asserted claims against the company for
declaratory relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability,
and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section
11.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which was allowed in March 2004.  In May 2004, a purported class
action on behalf of the same named plaintiffs and asserting the
same claims was filed in Cambridge District Court.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which
was heard in August 2004, and denied by the district court.  

On Sept. 16, 2004, the company filed an answer and counterclaims
to the amended complaint denying the plaintiffs' allegations.

On March 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, which the court allowed.  The amended
complaint added a claim for usury against the company.

The company filed an answer, affirmative defenses and
counterclaims to the amended complaint denying the plaintiff's
allegations.

In April 2006, the parties reached a tentative resolution of
this action and are in the process of negotiating the terms and
conditions.  Any resolution will be subject to court approval.


OPTA CORP: Hawthorne Man Wins Appeal in Lawsuit Claiming Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court reversed an opinion by Passaic County, New
Jersey Superior Court Judge Glenn Wenzel, allowing Peter J.
Lamont to pursue his suit against Opta Corp. and several related
companies, NorthJersey.com reports.

Mr. Lamont initiated a suit against videodisc recorder maker,
Optra Corp., and several related companies, alleging fraud.  He
alleged the companies were aware the machine worked only with
certain discs, but failed to warn purchasers.

He had filed suit after he bought a $408 recorder advertised on
QVC home shopping television network, court papers show.  
Several months later, he discovered that the machine recorded
only on certain brands of DVD, according to the papers.

The defendants asked Judge Wenzel to dismiss the case, saying
Lamont didn't demonstrate an "ascertainable loss."  The company
also said that he could not argue that the machine didn't work
because he admitted that it worked with some discs.  The appeals
court rejected that argument.


PETTERS CONSUMER: Recalls Gas Range Without Proper Heat Shields
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petters Consumer Brands, LLC, of Minnetonka, Minnesota, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 3,600 units of Sunbeam Gas Range.

The company said these ranges lack an adequate heat shield, and
can cause scorching of certain flooring materials directly under
the appliance.

Petters Consumer Brands has received two reports of scorched
floors.  No injuries or other damage has been reported.

The recalled Sunbeam branded gas ranges are various colors and
show the Sunbeam brand name on the backguard panel.

These gas ranges were manufactured by Atlas Industrial S.A. of
San Jose, Costa Rica and are being sold by Appliance stores
nationwide from February 2006 through May 2006 for between $200
and $400.

Customers who purchased a recalled Sunbeam gas range are advised
to contact Petters Consumer Brands to confirm that their unit
needs to be repaired and, if so, to schedule a free, in-home
repair.  Until the repair is completed, consumers should
immediately stop using the oven portion of the range.  Consumers
can continue using the stovetop portion of the range.

Picture of the recalled gas ranges:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06181.jpg.

To make a repair appointment, consumers can call the firm toll-
free at (888) 597-8660 between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. on Saturday, and
between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on Sunday.  The firm on the Net:
http://www.sunbeammajorappliances.com.


PHARMOS CORP: N.J. Court Mulls Nixing of Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on Pharmos Corp.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current officers.

Beginning in January 2005, the company along with other
defendants was named in several purported shareholder class
actions alleging violations of federal securities laws.

These lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaints allege generally that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false or misleading statements regarding the
effectiveness of dexanabinol in treating Traumatic Brain Injury,
which had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the
company's common stock.  

The complaints seek unspecified damages.  These class actions
were consolidated by an order of the court and lead plaintiffs
and lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed.  An amended
complaint was filed in September 2005.  

In November 2005, the company moved to dismiss the litigation,
and the motion was fully briefed on Feb. 10, 2006.  Decision on
the motion is pending.

The suit is "Cohen, et al. v. Aviv, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
00338-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 are:

     (1) Pamela E. Kulsrud and Joanne M. Cicala of Kirby
         Mcinerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-371-6600, E-mail:
         pkulsrud@kmslaw.com and jcicala@kmslaw.com;

     (2) Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss, LLP, 550 Broad
         Street, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 639-9100, E-
         mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com; and

     (3) Jean-Marc Zimmerman of Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky,
         LLP, 226 St. Paul Street, Westfield, NJ 07090, Phone:
         (908) 654-8000, E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com.

Representing the defendants is Douglas S. Brierley of Schenck,
Price, Smith & King, Esqs., 10 Washington St., CN-905,
Morristown, NJ 07963-0905, Phone: 973-539-1000, E-mail:
dsb@spsk.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Orders Return of Cash Securing Appeal Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court, with consent from both parties,
ordered the return to Philip Morris USA of the approximately
$2.15 billion in cash securing the appeal bond in the Price
"lights" case.

The company said that a $6 billion note, which also secured the
2003 judgment, would be returned to the company if the U.S.
Supreme Court declines to hear the plaintiffs' appeal.

Philip Morris' obligations to deposit payments on the note and
to pay administrative fees to the Madison County clerk were also
terminated by the court's order.

Last month, the court said it will not rehear a case that threw
out a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris last year,
according to the San Diego Union Tribune (Class Action Reporter,
May 10, 2006).

In December, the court ruled 4-2 that the verdict handed down by
a Madison County court was invalid and ordered the lower court
to dismiss the case.  The court said Philip Morris did not
improperly mislead customers about the health effects of its
cigarettes.

In the December ruling, the court found that the Federal Trade
Commission allowed companies to characterize their cigarettes as
light and low tar.  As a result, Philip Morris could not be held
liable under state law even if the terms they used could be
found false or misleading, Justice Rita Garman wrote.

The suit is "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112," filed under Judge Nicholas
Byron.  Class counsel is Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery,
Mail: 10 Executive Woods Court, Belleville, IL 62226, Phone:
(618) 277-1180, Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail:
contact@koreintillery.com.

Lawyers for the company are:

     (1) James R. Thompson, George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M.
         Wagner, Julie A. Bauer and Stuart Altschuler of Winston
         & Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60601-
         9703, Phone: 312-558-5600;

     (2) Michele Odorizzi, Joel D. Bertocchi, Michael K. Forde
         of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 190 South LaSalle
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603-3441, Phone: 312-782-0600;

     (3) Larry Hepler, Beth A. Bauer of Burroughs, Hepler,
         Broom, Macdonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, 103 West
         Vandalia Street, Suite 300, Post Office Box 510,
         Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: 618-656-0184; and

     (4) Kevin M. Forde, Kevin M. Forde, Ltd., 111 West
         Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone:
         312-641-1441.


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Drill Bits with Incomplete Warning Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corp. of Mt. Prospect, Illinois, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 700,000 units of Vermont American 13-inch-Long
Masonry Drill Bits.

The company said the drill bit packages are not properly labeled
with precautionary information on proper use and operation.  
These and other manufacturers' 13-inch bits can bend when run at
a high speed without being in contact with a work surface,
resulting in loss of control of the drill and possible
lacerations.  The safety label should read:

     "! WARNING Read, understand and comply with tool manual
     before use.  Wear eye protection.  Max operating speed 600  
     RPM.  At higher speeds the bit is likely to bend if allowed
     to rotate freely without contacting the work.  Start
     drilling at low RPM and with bit tip in contact with work.  
     To avoid bit bowing - Apply pressure only in direct line
     with bit and do not apply excessive pressure.  Bits can
     bind causing breakage or loss of control.  Do not use in
     hammer drills or in drill press."

Robert Bosch Tool Corp. received one report of a minor injury.

The drill bits are 1/4-inch by 13-inches long, 5/16-inch by 13-
inches long, 3/8-inch by 13-inches long, and 1/2-inch by 13-
inches long.  They were sold separately as accessories under the
"Vermont American" brand name under catalog numbers: 14044,
14045, 14046, and 14048.

These drills were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold at
Hardware stores and home centers nationwide from January 2001
through April 2004 for between $7 and $10.

Consumers are advised to make sure that 13-inch masonry drill
bits are in contact with a work surface at all times while
operating the drill.  Consumers with these drill bits that are
missing the safety instructions should contact Vermont American
Customer Service to obtain safety warning information.

Picture of recalled drill bits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06185.jpg.

For more information, contact Robert Bosch Tool Corp. at (800)
742-3869 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday thru Friday.


SPORTSMAN'S GUIDE: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Planned Disposal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Sportsman's Guide, Inc. and members of its board of
directors are defendants in a purported class action in the
District Court for Dakota County, Minnesota over the proposed
sale of the company to Redcats USA, Inc.

On May 10, 2006, the company was served with a class action
complaint brought by Tom Krajewski on behalf of shareholders of
The Sportsman's Guide, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the company's directors engaged in
self-dealing and breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed sale.  

It thus seeks equitable relief only, including enjoining
consummation of the merger, according to its May 12, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2006.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court granted class-action status
to the suit, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Company," which
alleges labor law violations.

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.  

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.  

On March 30, 2006, the court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.


STARBUCKS CORP: Continues to Face FLSA Violations Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations, according
to the company's May 12, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 2,
2006.

On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the company filed the
lawsuit, "James Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. and Does 1 through
100."

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the company
misclassified its retail assistant store managers as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that each assistant
manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation for any
week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during the
three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for as
long as they remain an assistant manager thereafter.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include
allegations that he and other retail assistant store managers
were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they were re-classified
as non-exempt employees in September 2002.

In both claims, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all current and former assistant store managers employed by the
company in the U.S. from March 11, 2002 until the present.

Plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class,
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs.

On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to all
putative class members under the opt-in procedures in section
16(b) of the FLSA.

On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order authorizing notice
to the class of the existence of the lawsuit and their
opportunity to join as plaintiffs.

No trial date has been set for the case.

The suit is "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp., et al., Case No. 4:05-
cv-00792," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas under Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Robert R. Debes, Jr. of The Debes Law Firm, 1900 W.
         Loop, Ste. 1910, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: 713-623-
         0900, Fax: 713-623-0951, E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com;
         and

     (2) Martin A. Shellist of Shellist Lazarz, LLP,
         3D/International Tower, 1900 West Loop South, Suite
         1910, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: 713-621-2277, Fax: 713-
         621-0993, E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net.

Representing the defendant is Fraser A. McAlpine of Akin Gump,
et al., 1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-220-8129, Fax: 713-236-0822, E-mail:
fmcalpine@akingump.com.


SUMMIT TREESTANDS: Recalls Certain Harnesses for Replacement
------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Treestands LLC of Decatur, Alabama, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
106,000 units of Safety Harnesses sold with Hunting Tree Stands.

The company said the harnesses could fail during use, resulting
in consumers falling from tree stands and suffering serious
injuries or death.  No injuries were reported.

The harnesses are tan or light brown and were sold as an
accessory with the following tree stands or ladders: Viper X5,
Goliath X5, Razor X5, Bushmaster X5, Broadhead Backpacker,
Bullet Backpacker, Clearshot, Openshot, and MegaSampson. Only
harnesses with "Manufactured in 2005," and "Made in China"
printed on a label on the harness tether are included in this
recall.

These harnesses were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Sporting goods stores nationwide from June 2005 through May 2006
for between $200 and $300 for the tree stand including the
harness.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
harnesses and contact the firm for a free replacement harness.

Pictures of recalled harnesses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06183a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06183b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06183b.jpg.

For more information, contact Summit Treestands LLC at (800)
226-1157 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, or visit
http://www.harnessrecall2005.comor http://www.summitstands.com.


UNIPROP MANUFACTURED: Settles Property Damage Suit in Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund, and its
general partner P.I. Associates Limited Partnership reached a
settlement with certain plaintiffs in a purported class action
filed in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan.

The suit is claiming that the Old Dutch Farms community did not
honor its obligations with respect to operating various aspects
of the community.  It requests damages, costs and injunctive
relief.

The court denied the class-action status for the plaintiffs.  A
number of residents did choose to pursue their claims
individually.  

The Partnership has negotiated a settlement with the individual
resident group of $71,000, which has been accrued as of March
31, 2006, according to the company's May 12, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.


UNITED STATES: FBI, DHS Face Lawsuit Over Re-Entry Procedures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several Muslim and Arab-Americans filed a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, demanding that the courts protect their
civil rights with regards to re-entering the country, The New
York Times reports.

The seven named plaintiffs assert that both the U.S. Congress
and the federal government are ignoring the plight of innocent
Americans harassed repeatedly because of problems with the
terrorist watch list, the report said.

The watch list, maintained since 2003 by the Terrorist Screening
Center of the FBI, has more than 237,000 names in 2005,
according to a Homeland Security report.  

Donna A. Bucella, the center's director, told The New York Times
that matches were made every day from the list and that it was
an important tool for local law enforcement agencies.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on
behalf of the named plaintiffs.  It contends that the courts
alone can ensure that antiterrorism policies do not repeatedly
subject ordinary Americans to detention, questioning,
fingerprinting and the like.

The suit asserts that repeated border detentions and improper
actions of border guards violate the plaintiffs' constitutional
protection against unreasonable search and seizure and their
right to travel.  Expanding on one first filed a year ago, the
suit focuses on two main issues:

      -- those whose names resemble ones on the watch list and
         who find it virtually impossible to get off it (some 12
         agencies can add names to the watch list, and only the
         originating agency can remove a name); and

     -- of contention is that some people on the list are
        wrongly categorized as dangerous, resulting in agitated,
        armed border agents swarming them.

The complaint is available free of charge at:


            http://researcharchives.com/t/s?bcf.

The suit is "M. Akifur Rahman, Niaz Anwar, Khalid Bhatti,
Shimrote Ishaque, Oussama Jammal, Elie R. Khoury, Farideh
Khoury, and Sammy U. Rehman v. Michael Chertoff, Robert S.
Mueller III, W. Ralph Basham, and Julie L. Myers" Case No.
05C3761," filed under Judge Guzman, Magistrate Judge Schenkier.

For more details, contact Harvey Michael Grossman of Roger
Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., 180 North Michigan Avenue,
Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60601-7401, Phone: (312) 201-9740, E-
mail: hgrossman@aclu-il.org.


UNITED STATES: Judges Back Out from Milberg Weiss Kickback Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The fraud and conspiracy case against law firm Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman ran into unexpected delays due to recusals of
five federal judges in Los Angeles, The Los Angeles Times
reports.

The recusals caused arraignments to be postponed for two
defendants who had agreed to plead guilty.  They clearly
highlighted the New York law firm's large footprint on the legal
system.

The five judges who backed out are:

      -- Judge R. Gary Klausner,
      -- Judge Christina A. Snyder,
      -- Judge Dean Pregerson,
      -- Judge Ronald Lew, and
      -- Judge Edward Rafeedie.

They cited previous involvements with the law firm, its
securities class action cases or companies named in them, for
their decision to recuse themselves.  

Previously, Los Angeles, California attorney Richard R. Purtich
pled guilty to a felony tax offense in connection with his
participation in an alleged kickback scheme by Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, AP Worldstream reports (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2006).

In court papers, prosecutors accused Mr. Purtich of receiving
more than $2.5 million from New York-based Milberg Weiss to help
hide a payment the company made to Steven G. Cooperman, a former
client who served as a plaintiff in several class actions.  

Mr. Purtich was charged with one count of impeding the due  
administration of Internal Revenue Service laws by concealing in  
tax forms Mr. Cooperman's receipt of Milberg Weiss payments.  He  
faces up to three years in prison, one year of probation and a  
fine.

Milberg Weiss and two of its senior partners were indicted on  
May 18 by a federal grand jury for allegedly participating in a  
scheme in which several individuals were paid millions of  
dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving as named  
plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and shareholder  
derivative lawsuits.  The firm allegedly received well over
$200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the
past 20 years (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006).

The indictment charges the firm and the partners of conspiracy  
with several objects, including obstructing justice, perjury,  
bribery and fraud.  The conspiracy count outlines a scheme in  
which individuals received secret kickback payments to serve, or  
cause friends and relatives to serve, as named plaintiffs in  
lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss (Class Action Reporter, May 22,  
2006).

The federal probe into allegations against Milberg Weiss, which  
once dominated class action law in the U.S., accounting for 85%  
of all such suits filed in California and 60% elsewhere in 2001,  
came to light in January 2002, when a flurry of subpoenas went  
out to scores of lawyers and stockbrokers from major firms and  
plaintiffs who had participated in Milberg Weiss lawsuits (Class
Action Reporter, Jun. 29, 2005).  

In June 2005, Seymour Lazar, a Palm Springs investor and former  
entertainment lawyer was indicted, accused of collecting $2.4  
million in "secret and illegal kickback payments" for his role  
in dozens of lawsuits (Class Action Reporter, Jun. 29, 2005)

In August 2005, Federal prosecutors stepped up their criminal  
investigation of Milberg Weiss.  The investigation looked at  
whether the firm illegally made payments to plaintiffs to lead a
series of shareholder suits. Plaintiffs in such suits are not  
permitted to receive payments beyond those awarded by courts, to  
avoid conflict between their interests and those of the rest of  
the class (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2005)

The 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was  
drafted with Milberg Weiss in mind, limits plaintiffs to no more  
than five class actions in three years.

Copy of the indictment order is available free of charge at:

           http://researcharchives.com/t/s?bd4.


UNITED STATES: Officials to Testify in N.Y. Suit Over Detentions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior U.S. officials are required to testify at a class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the U.S. government for detaining non-citizen
Muslims, according to The New York Times.

Though Judge John Gleeson ruled the government was within its
rights to detain hundreds of non-citizens after the terror
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; he allowed the case to continue to
determine if the detention was abusive.

Essentially, the judge's order calls on top officials like,
former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert
Mueller, to testify under oath.

Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional
Rights, which is representing the detainees in the case,
denounced Judge Gleeson's ruling that the detentions were legal,
describing it as a green light to racial profiling and prolonged
detention of non-citizens at the whim of the president.

The suit is alleging that detainees were jailed on basis of
their race or religion and physically abused at a federal lockup
in Brooklyn.  Plaintiffs claim they were held for months without
evidence linking them to terrorism (Class Action Reporter, June
1, 2006).

It sought restitution for plaintiffs and an order prohibiting
"preventive detention" by the government.  Defendants in the
suit include Attorney General John Ashcroft and Federal Bureau
of Investigation Director Robert Mueller (Class Action Reporter,
June 1, 2006).

Earlier this month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Gold ordered
government employees involved in the suit to disclose
information of any government monitoring of conversations
between the detainees and their attorneys (Class Action
Reporter, June 1, 2006).

Judge Gold gave the Department of Justice employees three weeks
to comply.  He pointed out that the order applied only to those
involved in the suit (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006).  

The order came in response to a motion filed by the Center for
Constitutional Rights, asking the government to disclose
information that could prove plaintiff's telephone, e-mail or
other communication are being monitored in the U.S. since the
plaintiff left the country (Class Action Reporter, June 1,
2006).

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jo C. Bennett of McDaniel, Bennett & Griffin, 118 West
         Mulberry St., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 410-685-3810,
         E-mail: Jcb@mbglawfirm.com; and

     (2) Rachel Anne Meeropol of Center for Constitutional
         Rights, 666 Broadway 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012,
         Phone: 212-614-6432, Fax: 212-614-6499, E-mail:
         rachelm@ccr-ny.org.

Representing the defendants are:

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

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

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

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

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


VISION FITNESS: Alerts Public of Defect in Treadmill Console
------------------------------------------------------------
Vision Fitness, of Lake Mills, Wisconsin, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 480
units of 2006 Model Year Premier Console sold with Vision
Fitness treadmill frames.

The company said due to a programming defect with the console,
the treadmill can unexpectedly increase in speed and elevation
when the User Programs 4 or 5 are set for longer than 30
minutes.  If this happens, the user could fall and suffer
injuries.

Vision Fitness has received one report of these treadmills
unexpectedly increasing speed and elevation.  No injuries have
been reported.

The consoles were sold with Vision Fitness treadmill frames and
control the operation of the treadmill.  2006 Premier Consoles
can be identified by the word Premier or T9700HRT printed on the
console face under the Vision Fitness logo.  These consoles were
sold under model numbers TCFP6, TCPP6 and C9700H6.  Model
numbers are printed on the underside of the console and located
on the serial number tag.  These serial numbers are included in
the recall: Model TCPP6: Serial numbers TC175B05060002 through
TC175B05080480. Model TCFP6: Serial numbers TC176B05060002
through TC176B05080309. Model TC9700H6: Serial numbers
TC184B05070012 through TC18405080143.

These consoles are manufactured in China and are being sold at
specialty fitness retailers nationwide as one of three consoles
available on standard treadmill frames from September 2005
through October 2005 for between $1,700 and $3,000.

Consumers are advised to contact the retailer where purchased or
Vision Fitness to make arrangements for a return, repair or
replacement console.

Picture of the recalled console:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06556.jpg.

For additional information, contact Vision Fitness at (800) 335-
4348 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a July 10, 2006,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities
of Escala Group, Inc. between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006,
inclusive.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's business and the activities of its
majority shareholder, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Escala Group securities.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

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


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Herley
Industries, Inc between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who purchased in a
Secondary Offering around April 24, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning Herley's financial performance.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) that Herley's financial results were achieved through
         illegal conduct, including 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;

     (2) that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
    
     (3) that, as a result, Herley would likely be subject to
         enhanced governmental scrutiny, governmental fines, and
         the company's ability to receive new contract awards
         from the U.S. Government would be in serious doubt.

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

Then, on June 13, 2006, the company announced that its
operations in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Woburn, Massachusetts;
Chicago, Illinoi; and Herley's subsidiary in Farmingdale, New
York were suspended from receiving new contract awards from the
U.S. Government.  On this news, Herley's stock fell from $19.38
per share to a 52-week low of $9.21 per share.

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

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


INFOSONICS CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of InfoSonics
Corp. common stock between May 8, 2006 and June 9, 2006.

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

InfoSonics is a distributor of wireless handsets and accessories
in the U.S. and Latin America.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.  

As a result of defendants' false statements, InfoSonics' stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class period,
reaching a high of $33.53 per share on June 2, 2006.

On June 12, 2006, before the market opened, the company
announced that it had filed an amended 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 to include a restatement of certain non-
cash items in the financial statements for that period.

The non-cash adjustment was the result of warrants issued in
conjunction with the company's financing completed in January
2006.  The warrants were originally classified as a derivative
liability for the period of Jan. 30, 2006 through the end of the
first quarter, March 31, 2006.

However, upon further investigation, the company determined the
warrants should have been reclassified as equity at Feb. 17,
2006, the date upon which the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission declared effective the company's registration
statement on Form S-3 registering the shares underlying the
warrants.

On this news, InfoSonics' stock collapsed to as low as $16.83
per share before closing at $17.38 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the class period, were that:

      -- the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the company's projections and reported
         results issued during the class period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; and

      -- the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated for the first quarter due to the improper
         classification of warrants as liabilities instead of as
         equity.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of InfoSonics common stock during the class period.  Interested
parties must move the Court no later than 60 days from June 13,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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


INFOSONICS CORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, filed a class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of InfoSonics Corp. from
May 8, 2006, to June 12, 2006.

The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and names as defendants the
company and certain of its senior executives.

According to the complaint, the defendants issued several
statements during the relevant period, which were false and
misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company submitted a
quarterly filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and made statements to the general public regarding its
financial condition that was false and misleading when made.

In particular, it is alleged, that the company improperly
classified its previously issued warrants as derivative
liability rather than equity, thereby artificially inflating its
net income by about 33%.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Joseph Gentile of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, New York, New York 10018, Phone:
212-868-3610, E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com, Web site:
http://www.ifoclassaction.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. between Jan. 28, 2003
and April 26, 2006, inclusive.

Defendants are Vitesse, certain of its officers and directors,
including Louis R. Tomasetta, Yatin Mody, Eugene F. Hovanec,
John Lewis, James A. Cole, Alex Daly, Moshe Gavrielov, and
Vincent Chan, and KPMG LLP, the company's auditors.  The suit
alleges violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a) and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

On May 16, 2006, Vitesse issued a press release announcing that
the company's securities are subject to delisting from the
Nasdaq National Market because of its failure to file its Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.

On May 17, 2006, Vitesse announced that defendants Tomasetta,
Mody, and Hovanec were terminated by the company.

On May 18, 2006, Vitesse announced that it had received a
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York and a document request from the SEC.

As a result of this news, Wolf Haldenstein is continuing its
ongoing investigation into the matter.

Wolf Haldenstein's initial complaint alleges that throughout the
class period, defendants issued numerous, positive press
releases, statements and quarterly financial reports filed with
the SEC that described the company's financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented these adverse facts,
among others:

      -- that there were issues concerning the credits issued to
         or requested by customers (for returned products or
         otherwise) and the related accounting treatment;

      -- that the company improperly applied payments received
         to the proper accounts receivable;

      -- that the company's accounts receivable and revenues may
         have been misstated;

      -- that there was misuse of stock option grants, the
         timing of such grants, and other related accounting and
         documentation issues;

      -- that the Management Report on Internal Control over
         Financial Reporting as of Sept. 30, 2005 could not
         be relied upon;
       
      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, defendants engaged
         in improper accounting practices.

On April 26, 2006, the company revealed that the Board of
Directors retained special counsel to conduct an investigation
into a series of issues and further stated that its previously
reported financial statements for the three months ended Dec.
31, 2005 and the three years ended Sept. 30, 2005, and possibly
earlier periods, should not be relied upon.

Following the April 26th news, shares of the company's common
stock fell over 27% to close at $1.82 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume of almost 59 million shares traded.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth above, the market price of Vitesse
securities was artificially inflated during the class period.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment,
on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing
Vitesse securities.

Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the
truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or would not
have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

The case is "Neuman v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., et al."  
Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by July 3, 2006.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., Martin Restituyo, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735, E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.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  * * *