CAR_Public/060626.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 125

                            Headlines

ADJMI APPAREL: Recalls Children's Windsuits with Detachable Logo
ALABAMA: Judge Delays Hearing in Suit Against Corrections Dept.
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Judge Allows Suit Against Firm, Accountant
ARIBA INC: Stock Suit Against Officials May be Sent to Calif.
AUDIBLE INC: N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval

AUDIBLE INC: Withholds Dismissal Motion on N.J. Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: County Settles Suit Over Mentally-Ill Juveniles
CALIFORNIA: Youth Law Center Sues for Young Parolees Rights
CANADA: Settlement Process in Residential School Suit Ongoing
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Reaches Deal in N.Y. Global Crossing Case

CELLPHONE INSURERS: Sued Over Alleged Deceptive, Outrageous Acts
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Settles 'ID Security' Follow-On Lawsuits
CHINA LIFE: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval
GEORGIA: Advocacy Groups File Lawsuit to Block Sex-Offender Law

GOOGLE INC: Judge to Rule on KinderStart.com's Antitrust Suit
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Business Record at Center of Consumer Suit
HOEGANAES CORP: Judge Okays $1.45M Settlement with Boat Owners
KERZNER INT'L: Enters $1.5M Deal in Breach of Contract Lawsuit

METRORAIL: Fails to Convince High Court to Split Damages Claims
MITSUBISHI PHARMA: Japan Told to Award $2M to Hepatitis Victims
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Calif.
NET PERCEPTIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval
OCEANIC: Recalls Faulty Digital Dive Computer for Replacement

PUERTO RICO: Seeking New Hearing Date for Subscribers' Lawsuit
ROGERS INT'L: Lane Family Trustees Voluntarily Dismiss Lawsuit
RUBY RESTAURANT: Recalls 200T Defective Yo-Yos for Replacement
SEQUENOM INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
SPEAR & JACKSON: October 2006 Trial Set for Fla. Stock Lawsuit

TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Amends Complaint in Ill. Suit
TRINSIC INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
UNITED STATES: Army Agency Resolves Race Discrimination Claims
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Suits Stayed Pending Exit from Bankruptcy
WYOMING: ACLU Proposes New Remedial Plan for State Penitentiary

           
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit
ESCALA GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Pa.
HOME SOLUTIONS: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Calif.
HOME SOLUTIONS: Scott + Scott Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit

INFOSONICS CORP: White, Klafter File Securities Suit in Calif.


                            *********


ADJMI APPAREL: Recalls Children's Windsuits with Detachable Logo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adjmi Apparel Group, of New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 55,000
Reebok Children's Windsuits.

The company said the Reebok logo applique on the clear rubber
zipper pull on the jacket can detach, posing a choking or
aspiration hazard to young children.

Reebok has received one report of a child that began to choke
from a detached Reebok logo applique.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled Reebok children's windsuits are full-zip boys
polyester jacket and pants sets with a cotton lining and the
name "Reebok" and/or Reebok's Vector logo embroidered on the
chest of the jacket.  The suits were sold in eight different
color combinations: orange/navy, light blue/royal blue,
red/navy, yellow/gunmetal, yellow/navy, blue/navy, green/navy
and red/black.

The windsuits were madein Bangladesh and are being sold
exclusively at Mervyns and Toys "R" Us/Babies "R" Us nationwide
from December 2005 through May 2006.  The suits were priced by
size including: newborn/infant about $18, toddler between $22
and $28 and ages 4 to 7 about $24.

Pictures of the recalled windsuits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06193a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06193b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06193c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled product
away from young children.  Consumers have a choice of either
returning the recalled suit in exchange for receiving a free
replacement suit, or cutting off and discarding the clear rubber
zipper pull and continuing to use the original suit.

Adjmi is an authorized licensee of children's apparel products
of Reebok International Ltd., of Canton, Massachusetts.

For more information, contact Adjmi at (800) 873-5570 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.Reebok.com.


ALABAMA: Judge Delays Hearing in Suit Against Corrections Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge William Shashy postponed a
hearing set June 20, 2006 in a class action filed by 67 counties
seeking to reduce overcrowding at county jails, the Montgomery
Advertiser reports.

Previously, Judge Shashy told Alabama Corrections Commissioner
Richard Allen that he would not dismiss a class action against
his department until a 2002 court order requiring state inmates
to be moved from county jails to state prisons within 30 days is
followed (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2006).

The suit was filed back in 1992 on behalf of the state's 67
counties, which were voicing concerns on overcrowding at county
jails.  Attorney Ken Webb represents the counties, (Class Action
Reporter, May 2, 2006).

Judge Shashy put off the hearing after learning of Commissioner
Allen's actions in reducing the number of state inmates in
county jails.  

The commissioner specifically reduced the prisoner backlog to
285 from 585.  In spring, Judge Shashy ordered the number to go
down to 400 by the June 20 hearing and the backlog cleared by
Sept. 5.

For the past few months, corrections officials have been
attempting to alleviate the problem of overcrowding county
jails.

In fact, officials have negotiated a contract with a prison
management company to house 600 inmates in Louisiana.  They also
converted empty minimum-security beds into ones for medium-
security prisoners.

Other efforts to ease overcrowding include a new prison in
Limestone and the placement of more inmates in community-based
programs.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Judge Allows Suit Against Firm, Accountant
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith has allowed a shareholder
lawsuit against American Italian Pasta Co. to go ahead,
according to the Kansas City Business Journal.

Judge Smith let stand claims against several of the company's
directors and top officials, including former president and
Chief Executive Officer Timothy Webster, as well as that against
the company's outside accountants, Ernst & Young LLP.

But he dismissed all claims against one former executive plus
all derivative claims and derivative defendants, including those
linked to company founder, Richard Thompson.  He found arguments
for a derivative action insufficient.  He also found
insufficient claims that former Executive Vice President David
Potter was involved in alleged widespread fraud regarding the
company's finances.

Shareholders have filed lawsuits against American Italian since
August when the firm started reviewing its accounting practices.  
The suit accuses the company of improper inventory,
underreporting marketing allowances paid to distributors and
improperly capitalizing costs that should have been listed as
expenses.

American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs.


Seven suits were consolidated in December.  Judge Smith
designated three Iron Workers' Union locals as lead plaintiffs.  
The ironworkers' locals had used Kent T. Perry & Co. LC of
Overland Park for local counsel.  Judge Smith accepted Perry &
Co.'s motion to make the New York law firm of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross lead counsel.

The suit is proposing a class period of between Jan. 23, 2002
and Aug. 17, 2005, inclusive.  

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  Plaintiff firms involved in the case:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, E-mail:
         info@abbeygardy.com;

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

     (3) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-687-
         1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
         Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E., Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (8) Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000,
         San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax:
         (415) 421-7105, E-mail: info@schneiderwallace.com;

     (9) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         St., Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877-891-9880, Fax:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com;

    (10) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215-638-4847, Fax: 215-638-
         4867; and

    (11) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th St., New
         York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310-209-2468, Fax: 310-209-
         2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


ARIBA INC: Stock Suit Against Officials May be Sent to Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported securities class action against Ariba, Inc.'s
chairman and chief executive officer and a former executive and
director is expected to be transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The company is
not named as defendant in the suit.

On Oct. 31, 2005, a purported class action, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.    

The action was brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased
the company's stock from Jan. 28, 2004 through Jan. 31, 2005.

It alleges that the defendants artificially inflated the
company's stock price between those dates by failing to
disclose, in public statements that the company made about its
products, market position and performance, that some of those
products allegedly infringed patents belonging to a third party.

On Jan. 18, 2006, plaintiff Jonathan Crowell filed a motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which has not
yet been ruled upon by the court, according to the company's 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.

It is anticipated that defendants' time to respond to the
complaint will be extended until after lead plaintiff and lead
counsel are selected, and an amended complaint is filed.

It is further anticipated that the case will be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
before defendants file a responsive pleading.  

The suit is "Crowell v. McCormick, et al., Cae No. 1:05-cv-
01252-JCC-LO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District or Virginia under Judge James C. Cacheris with referral
to Judge Liam O'Grady.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Mark Campbell Shuford of Kaufman
& Canoles, 1051 E Cary St., 3 James Center, 12th Fl., Richmond,
VA 23219, Phone: (804) 771-5700.  

Representing the defendants is Jonathan Richard DeFosse of
Shearman & Sterling, LLP, 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,
DC 20004, Phone: (202) 508-8000, Fax: (202) 661-7374.


AUDIBLE INC: N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated securities class action against
Audible, Inc.

In June 2001, the company and certain of its officers were named
as defendants in a securities class action filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York related to
its initial public offering in July 1999.

The suits also named certain of the underwriters of the IPO as
well as certain of the company's officers and directors and
former directors as defendants.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.

An amendment complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.  The
complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from
investors and that some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed
with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the company's
stock.

The company and certain of its officers, directors, and former
directors were named in the suits pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934, and other related provisions.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorneys' and expert
fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the IPO Litigations, including
the action involving the company.

On July 15, 2002 the company along with other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases also moved to dismiss the
IPO Litigations.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions.  The court
granted the company's motion to dismiss the claims against the
company under Rule 10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the
allegations against the company.

The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the defendants
in the consolidated cases, including the company.

The company's individual officers, directors and former director
defendants in the IPO Litigation signed a tolling agreement and
were dismissed from the action without prejudice on Oct. 9,
2002.

In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this litigation was
reached among the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release for
the company and for the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged to be wrongful in the amended complaint.

The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the company that
may have against the underwriters.  Any direct financial impact
of the proposed settlement is to be borne by the company's
insurance carriers.

In June 2004, the proposed settlement was submitted to the court
for preliminary approval.  The court requested that any
objections to preliminary approval of the settlement be
submitted by July 14, 2004, and the underwriter defendants
formally objected to the settlement.

Plaintiff and issuer defendants separately filed replies to the
underwriter defendants' objections to the settlement on Aug. 4,
2004.  

The court granted preliminary approval on Feb. 15, 2005, subject
to certain modifications.  On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued a
preliminary order further approving the modifications to the
settlement and certifying the settlement cases.

The court also appointed a Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on Nov.
15, 2005 and completed by Jan. 15, 2006.

The settlement fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006, and
the court reserved decision, according to the company's May 15,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.  

The suit is "In Re Audible, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5258 (Sas)(Hb)," related
to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

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

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


AUDIBLE INC: Withholds Dismissal Motion on N.J. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. agreed not to file its motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey until a
briefing is complete.

Starting on or about Feb. 22, 2005, several class actions were
filed against the company and two of its executives.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons -- other than Audible's officers and directors and their
affiliates -- who purchased the company's securities between
Nov. 2, 2004 and Feb. 15, 2005.  

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under
by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures concerning
the company's future plans and prospects.  

Individual defendants are also alleged to be liable under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  All of the defendants are
alleged to have sold stock at inflated prices during the class
period.  

On or about April 20, 2006, the company provided the plaintiffs'
counsel in the consolidated securities class actions with a
memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

Plaintiffs' counsel is scheduled to provide the company with a
memorandum in opposition to the motion on or about June 26,
2006.  The company will then have thirty days to provide the
plaintiffs' counsel with a reply memorandum.  

At the suggestion of the court, the company has agreed with the
plaintiffs' counsel not to file the motion to dismiss and the
supporting papers until the briefing has been completed.

The suit is "Carter v. Audible, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
01027-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with
referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;

     (2) William J. Pinilis of Pinilis Halpern, LLP, 237 South
         Street, Morristown, NJ 07960, Phone: (973) 401-1111, E-
         mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert A. Assuncao of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US
         LLP, 379 Thornall Street, Eighth Floor, Edison, NJ
         08837-2226, Phone: 732-590-1850, E-mail:
         robert.assuncao@piperrudnick.com; and

    (ii) John E. Keefe, Jr. of Lynch Keefe Bartels, ESQS., 830
         Broad Street, Suite 1, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702-4216,
         Phone: (732) 224-9400, E-mail: jkeefe@lkblaw.com.


CALIFORNIA: County Settles Suit Over Mentally-Ill Juveniles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The County of San Bernardino agreed under a class-action
settlement to treat juvenile offenders with learning,
behavioral, and emotional disabilities, both during their time
under their custody and after their release, The Los Angeles
Times reports.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, the class action was brought on behalf of six
juveniles with mental health difficulties who were in county
custody.  It alleged violations of state and federal disability
rights laws by the county.

Under the unique agreement, the county will provide mental
health screening for juveniles taken into custody.  It will also
require officials to arrange for counseling, educational
support, medication and other services from a team of doctors,
nurses, and county mental health specialists.

In addition, it will also require monitoring and tracking of
officers' use of force against juveniles with special needs.

Paula Pearlman, deputy director of advocacy projects for the
Disability Rights Legal Center in Los Angeles, which represented
the juveniles, explains that the arrangement transforms the
probation-detention system from punitive to therapeutic.

Even though the county denied wrongdoing, the plaintiffs will
also receive a combined $50,000 as part of the settlement,
according to Ms. Pearlman.

Approximately 600 juveniles are hosed in San Bernardino County's
three detention facilities in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino
and Apple Valley.

The suit is "John Doe 2 v. San Bernardino Co of, et al., Case
No. 5:02-cv-00962-SGL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Stephen G. Larson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Paula D. Pearlman of Disability
Rights Legal Center, 919 S. Albany St., Los Angeles, CA 90015,
Phone: 213-736-1031, E-mail: Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu.  

Representing the defendants is Richard R. Clouse of
Cihigoyenetche Grossberg & Clouse, 8038 Haven Ave., Suite E,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Phone: 909-483-1850, E-mail:
riclouse@yahoo.com.


CALIFORNIA: Youth Law Center Sues for Young Parolees Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is
facing a suit over allegations that young people on parole in
the state are denied the same basic constitutional rights
usually granted to adult parolees, according to The Mercury
News.  Specifically, it is accused of denying youthful offenders
who violate parole access to attorneys.

The suit was filed by two law firms and the Youth Law Center in
San Francisco.  It is a supplemental complaint to an earlier
court filing demanding adult parolees access to attorneys and
timely hearings.

An earlier court settlement requires both the department and the
parole board to supply adult parolees with legal representation
and probable cause hearings.

That settlement also requires officials to consider alternatives
to sending adult parolees back to prison if they are found to
have violated conditions of their parole.

The suit is "Williams v. CA Dept of Corrections, et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01373-MCE-PAN (JFM) (PC)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California under
Judge Morrison C. England with referral to Peter A. Nowinski.

For more details, contact Michael W. Bien of Rosen, Bien &
Asaro, LLP, 155 Montgomery Street, Eighth Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-6830, Fax: (415) 433-7104, E-mail:
rba@rbalaw.com.


CANADA: Settlement Process in Residential School Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courts across Canada are informing former students of the Indian
residential school system and their families about their legal
rights in the settlement of class actions over the schools.

The settlement notification process will occur in phases.  
First, through initial notices, which will be published, mailed,
and broadcast throughout Canada, former students and their
families will learn how to give their views about the fairness
of the settlement.  Then, Courts across Canada will hold public
hearings.

If all of the courts approve the settlement after those
hearings, another notice will be distributed to explain how to
get a payment from the settlement or be excluded from it.

Considering the 80,000 living Aboriginal people who are former
students of the residential school system, the settlement
provides:

     -- at least $1.9 billion available for "common experience"
        payments to former students who lived at one of the
        schools.  Payments will be $10,000 for the first school
        year (or part of a school year) plus $3,000 for each  
        school year (or part of a school year) after that;

     -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious
        physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious
        psychological effects, to get between $5,000 and
        $275,000 each.  Students could get more money if they
        also show a loss of income; and

     -- money for programs for former students and their
        families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and
        commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses
        suffered: $125 million to the Aboriginal Healing
        Foundation, $60 million to research, document, and
        preserve the experiences of the survivors, and $20
        million for national and community commemorative
        projects.

The government will pay lawyers representing former students up
to approximately $100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes.

In May, the federal government has agreed to pay $80 million to
Regina-based Merchant Law Group and a national consortium of 20
law firms.  Survivors, meanwhile, are to get an average of
$30,000.
                   
Canada and churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian,
Anglican and United Church operated residential schools in
Canada from 1848 until the 1970s.  Their objectives included
separating aboriginal children from their traditional languages
and cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society.
The Merchant Law Group represents 9,000 survivors, which the
firm's Web site says is half of all those who sought justice by
means of class action (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).

                   Deadline to File Objection

Deadline to file objection to the settlement is Aug. 25, 2006.  
Objections must be addressed to Residential Schools Settlement,
Suite 3-505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3G9,
Phone: 1-866-879-4913, E-mail:
objections@residentialschoolsettlement.ca.

                        Hearings Schedule

Hearing       Location                 Hearing date         Time

Ontario    Ontario Superior         Aug 29-31, 2006   10:00 a.m.
           Court of Justice
           Court House
           361 University Avenue
           Toronto, ON  M5G 1T3

Quebec     Superior Court           Sept 8, 2006    9:30 a.m.
           of Quebec
           Palais de justice
           1 Notre-Dame Street East
           Montreal, QC  H2Y 1B6

Saskatchewan  Court of Queen's       Sept 18-20,     10:00 a.m.
              Bench                    2006
              Court House
              2425 Victoria Avenue
              Regina, SK  S4P 3V7

Northwest    Court House             Oct 3-4, 2006  10:00 a.m.
              Territories   
              4903 - 49th Street
              Yellowknife,
              Northwest Territories
              X1A 2N4

Manitoba      Court of Queen's        Oct 5-6, 2006  10:00 a.m.
              Bench
              Law Courts Building
              408 York Avenue
              Winnipeg, MB  R3C 0P9

Nunavut       Nunavut Court           Oct 10-11, 2006  9:30 a.m.
              of Justice
              Arnakallak Building
              (Building #224)
              Iqaluit, Nunavut
              X0A 0H0

British       The Supreme Court       Oct 10-12, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              Columbia
              of British Columbia
              The Law Courts
              800 Smithe Street
              Vancouver, B.C.
              V6Z 2E1

Alberta       Court of Queen's        Oct 12-13, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              Bench
              Court House
              611 - 4 St. S.W.
              Calgary, AB  T2P 1T5

Yukon         Supreme Court of        Oct 16-17, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              the Yukon Territory
              2134 Second Avenue
              Whitehorse, Yukon
              Y1A 5H6

With the exception of those who attended the Mohawk Institute in
Brantford, Ontario, former students and their families should
attend the hearing in the Province/Territory in which they now
reside.  Those living in Labrador, New Brunswick, Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or outside Canada, are
affected by, and may attend, the Ontario hearing.  Former Mohawk
Institute students are affected by the Ontario hearing
regardless of where they now live.

For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement
Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Reaches Deal in N.Y. Global Crossing Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce settled a three-year-old
class action that was brought on behalf of shareholders of
Global Crossing, Ltd.

According to CIBC, settlement for the shareholder suit was
attained several months back.  Specifically, the bank said,
"CIBC has reached an agreement in principle in Q2, 2006, to
settle the Global Crossing shareholder class actionlawsuit for
an amount that is not material."

Initially, various lawsuits were filed in relation to Global
Crossing, a telecom company that soared during the technology
boom, and then later plunged into one of the biggest bankruptcy-
protection proceedings ever in the U.S.

A consolidated class action was later filed in New York in
January 2003, on behalf of everyone who bought Global Crossing
stock between Feb. 1, 1999 and Jan. 28, 2002.  That suit was
launched against multiple defendants, including CIBC, Goldman
Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Arthur Andersen and Salomon Smith Barney.

Last July, the court approved a $75 million settlement with
Salomon Smith Barney and analyst Jack Grubman.  In October, a
$25 million settlement was approved with Arthur Andersen and all
Andersen-related defendants.

Global Crossing filed for chapter 11 protection on Jan.28, 2002
(Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-40188).  When the Debtors filed for
protection from their creditors, they listed $25,511,000,000 in
total assets and $15,467,000,000 in total debts.  Global
Crossing emerged from chapter 11 on Dec. 9, 2003.

For more details, contact Global Crossings Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6152, Merrick,
NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-866-808-3497, Web site:
http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com/index.php3#2.  


CELLPHONE INSURERS: Sued Over Alleged Deceptive, Outrageous Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Dade County, Florida residents are still awaiting
certification for a proposed class action filed against phone
insurance companies, according to The Roanoke Times.

Plaintiffs in the suit filed in Miami federal court accused
phone insurers, including Asurion Insurance Services in
Tennessee, Lock/Line LLC in Missouri, and Signal Holdings in
Pennsylvania, of using "deceptive and outrageous" practices,
such as charging a $35 to $100 deductible for insurance that
costs consumer $4 or $5 per month.  They also accused the
companies of using cheap, used or refurbished phones as
replacement for their lost ones, according to the Consumers
Affairs.

The plaintiffs claim unfair trade practices and other violations
against the company for "falsely representing that the purchase
of wireless phone protection provides a benefit."  They also
accused insurers of imposing unlawful and unfair conditions for
filing a claim, including requiring a police report even if a
phone is lost instead of stolen.

The suit was filed on behalf of consumers in Florida who bought
insurance from any of the three defendants from July 1, 2001 to
the present, and consumers nationwide who purchased insurance
during the same period from Lock/Line, which provides coverage
to customers of AT&T Wireless and Cingular.

Plaintiffs are asking refunds for monthly premiums in addition
to any deductibles they paid greater than the actual cost of
replacement phones, plus interest, costs and attorney fees.


CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Settles 'ID Security' Follow-On Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the follow-on class-action complaints that arose in
connection with the ID Security Systems Canada Inc. litigation.

Subject to the provisions of this settlement agreement,
Checkpoint will be obligated to pay $1.45 million in cash and
provide credits for the purchase of 90 million Model 410 RF Tag
vouchers at a retail selling value of $0.035 each.

The settlement agreement is subject to various conditions,
including, but not limited to court approval.  The stipulated
class includes certain specified purchasers of Model 410
disposable radio frequency tags from Checkpoint Systems, Inc. on
Aug. 2, 1998 to Dec. 31, 2002.

"Settling this remaining action was in the best interest of the
company and our shareholders.  With this resolution, we will
avoid the added risks, burden, and costs relating to litigation.  
Our previously announced financial guidance did not include
charges associated with this agreement and should be adjusted
accordingly," said George Off, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Checkpoint Systems.

                Follow-On Class-Action Complaints

In 2004, a certain number of follow-on purported class actions
have arisen in connection with the jury decision in the ID
Security Systems Canada Inc. litigation.  The purported class
action complaints generally allege a claim of monopolization and
are substantially based upon the same allegations as contained
in the ID Security Systems Canada Inc. case (Civil Action No.
99-CV-577) as discussed below:

     * On Aug. 1, 2002, a civil action was filed in United
       States District Court for the Eastern District of
       Pennsylvania, designated as Civil Action No. 02-6379(ER)
       by plaintiff Diane Furs, Inc. t/a Diane Furs against
       Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and served on August 21, 2002.
       On August 21, 2002, a Notice of Substitution of Plaintiff
       and Filing of Amended complaint was filed by the
       plaintiff, and the named plaintiff was changed to Medi-
       Care Pharmacy, Inc;

     * On August 2, 2002, a civil action was filed in the United
       States District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden)
       designated as Docket No. 02-CV-3730(JEI) by plaintiff
       Club Sports International, Inc., d/b/a Soccer CSI against
       Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and served on Aug. 26, 2002;

     * On Oct. 2, 2002, a civil action was filed in the
       United States District Court, District of New Jersey
       (Camden) designated as Docket No. 02-CV-4777 (JBS) by
       plaintiff Baby Mika, Inc. against Checkpoint Systems,
       Inc. and served on Oct. 7, 2002;

     * On Oct. 18, 2002, The United States District, District
       of New Jersey (Camden) entered an Order staying the
       proceedings in the Club Sports International, Inc. and
       Baby Mika, Inc. cases referred to above. In accordance
       with the Order, the Stay will also apply to the
       Washington Square Pharmacy, Inc. case referred to above.

       In addition, the Medi-Care Pharmacy, Inc. case, referred
       to above, will be voluntarily dismissed, and it has been
       re-filed in New Jersey and is included in the Stay Order.
       The Stay is expected to remain in place until such time
       as the ID Security Systems case, referred to above, is
       either terminated or any appeals have been exhausted in
       the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

     * On Oct. 23, 2002, a civil action was filed in the
       United States District Court, District of New Jersey
       (Camden) designated as Docket No. 02-CV-5001 (JEI) by
       plaintiff Washington Square Pharmacy, Inc. against
       Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and served on November 1, 2002;

     * On November 13, 2002, a civil action was filed in the
       United States District Court, District of New Jersey
       (Camden) designated as Docket No. 02-CV-5319 (JEI) by
       plaintiff 1700 Pharmacy, Inc. against Checkpoint Systems,
       Inc. and served on November 15, 2002;

     * On December 30, 2002, a civil action was filed in the
       United States District Court, District of New Jersey
       (Camden) designated as Docket No. 02-CV-6131 (JEI) by
       plaintiff Medi-Care Pharmacy, Inc. against Checkpoint
       Systems, Inc. and served on Jan. 3, 2003.

Both the 1700 Pharmacy, Inc. case and the Medi-Care Pharmacy,
Inc. case were consolidated with the previously mentioned cases
and are included in the Oct. 18, 2002 Stay Order.  

No liability has been recorded for any of the purported class
actions as management believes that, based on input from outside
legal counsel, it is not probable that the court of appeals will
reverse the decision of the lower court in the ID Security
Systems Canada Inc. litigation as it relates to the antitrust
claims (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2004).

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. -- http://www.checkpointsystems.com--  
is a multinational manufacturer and marketer of integrated
systems solutions for retail security, labeling, and
merchandising.

For more information, contact Craig Burns of Checkpoint Systems,
Inc., Phone: 856-848-1800; or Christine Mohrmann or Jim Olecki
both of Financial Dynamics, Phone: 212-850-5600.


CHINA LIFE: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Life Insurance Co. said the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission has ended a probe into its Hong Kong and U.S. initial
public offerings in 2003, according to the People's Daily
Online.  The SEC did not recommend any action.

The end of the SEC's informal investigation, however, doesn't
mean the closure of a class action filed against China Life by
nine law firms from March to May 2004, the report said.

Shareholders of China Life had accused the company and some of
its directors with violations of federal securities laws.  The
breaches included an alleged failure by China Life to disclose
financial irregularities relating to the insurance giant's
state-owned parent, which artificially inflated its share price
(Class Action Reporter, July 16, 2004).

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood is defending the company in the class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit is "In Re China Life Insurance Company Limited
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-02112-TPG," filed under
Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  Representing the defendant is Isaac S.
Greaney of Sidley Austin LLP(NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York,
NY 10019, Phone: (212)-839-7324, Fax: 212-839-5599, E-mail:
igreaney@sidley.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter D.. Bull of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, 18 East 41st
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)213-6222, Fax:
         212 213-9405, E-mail: pdb@nyclasslaw.com;

     (2) William B. Federaman of Federman & Sherwood, P.C., 120
         North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone:
         (405) 235-1560;

     (3) Mark A. Gardy of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, L.L.P., 212
         East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-
         3700; and Stephen Thran Rodd, Phone: (212) 889-3700,
         Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail: srodd@abbeygardy.com;

     (4) Ann Meredith Lipton of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: (212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 868-1229, E-mail:
         alipton@milberg.com;

     (5) David Avi Rosenfeld of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 58 South Service Road,
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com;
         and

     (6) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:  
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated securities class action against
eGain Communications Corp., according to the company's May 15,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

Beginning on Oct. 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the company, and certain of the
company's former officers and directors and underwriters
connected with the company's initial public offering of common
stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suits were consolidated into "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation."

The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which
such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions
received by the underwriters.  It also claims allegations of
"laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.

The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the common stock between Sept. 23, 1999
and Dec. 6, 2000.  

Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000
complaints were consolidated into a single action.

The company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve
the cases as to the company's liability and that of the
company's officers and directors.  The settlement involved no
monetary payment or other consideration by the company or its
officers and directors and no admission of liability.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006.  A January 2006 hearing was
postponed to April 2006 because of difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members.

On Oct. 27, 2005, the court issued an order making some minor
changes to the form of notice to be sent to class members.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order modifying the
preliminary settlement approval order to extend the time within,
which notice must be given to the class, at which time had
expired on Jan. 15, 2006.

The underwriter defendants filed further objections to the
settlement on March 20, 2006 and asked that the April 24, 2006
final settlement approval hearing be postponed until after the
Second Circuit rules on the underwriters' appeal from the
court's class certification order (which appeal is briefed and
awaiting oral argument).

On March 29, 2006, the court denied the request, stating that it
would address the underwriters' points at the April 24, 2006
hearing.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a public hearing on
the fairness of the proposed settlement.  The court took the
matter under submission.

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

The suit is "In Re Egain Communications Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case no. 01 Civ. 9414 (Sas),"
related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,  
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,  
         Phone: 212.594.5300;  

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New  
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:  
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

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


GEORGIA: Advocacy Groups File Lawsuit to Block Sex-Offender Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two advocacy groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Rome against HB 1059
which limits registered sex offenders' access to public places.

The Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Georgia asked the court to certify the
lawsuit as a class action and to issue an injunction blocking
the enactment of House Bill 1059, which takes effect on July 1,
the Rome News-Tribune reports.

HB 1059 broadens the law governing where registered sex
offenders may reside by prohibiting them from living or working
within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or
"area where minors congregate," including parks and recreation
facilities, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools and bus stops.

The suit alleges HB 1059 turns the law "from one tailored to
keep offenders away from children into one that essentially
drives every person on the registry from all urban areas and
many rural areas."

According to Southern Center for Human Rights attorney, Sarah
Geraghty, the measure "violates a host of constitutional
grounds" as the federal rules prohibit states from making laws
that punish people who have already been convicted and
sentenced.

Plaintiffs seek to prove the bill denies sex offenders due
process under the law, and infringes on their religious freedom,
amounts to an illegal taking of their property and imposes cruel
and unusual punishment.

Plaintiffs named in the suit, which was filed on behalf of
11,000 Georgia-registered offenders, include 22-year-old Jeffery
York of Cedartown, who pleaded guilty at the age of 17 to an act
of consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old and was sentenced to
five years probation.

Fellow plaintiff Lori Sue Collins, who also lives in Polk
County, was forced to relocate after being told she could no
longer live at the Door of Hope Ministry in Rockdale County,
according to the suit.  Ms. Collins was convicted of statutory
rape in 2002 for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old when
she was 39.

Named defendants in the suit are Sonny Perdue, governor of the
State of Georgia, Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker,
Chief of Probation in Cedartown Scot Dean and Polk County
Sheriff Robert Sparks.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?bdb

The suit is "Whitaker et al v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Brooks Bright of the Southern Center for Human
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sbright@schr.org;

     (2) Margaret Fletcher Garrett of the American Civil
         Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514
         75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: mgarrett@acluga.org;

     (3) Sarah E. Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org;

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:
         404-688-1202;

     (5) Elizabeth Lynn Littrell of the American Civil Liberties
         Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75
         Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: blittrell@acluga.org; and

     (6) Gerald R. Weber of the American Civil Liberties Union
         Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75 Piedmont
         Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-6201, E-mail:
         gweber@acluga.org.


GOOGLE INC: Judge to Rule on KinderStart.com's Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge will rule next week in the suit filed by
KinderStart.com against online search engine Google Inc. for
alleged wrongful banning of the company's Web site from the
latter's list, Send2Press reports.

The hearing will be on June 30, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in U.S.
Federal Court, 280 S. First Street, Courtroom #3, San Jose,
California.

Norwalk, California-based company KinderStart filed a civil
complaint on March 17 in U.S. District Court in San Jose, asking
to represent owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's
search engine since January 2001.  It is seeking class
certification for the suit, according to Associated Press (Class
Action Reporter, March 22, 2006).

KinderStart's complaint relates to Google's system of ranking
Web sites according to the content's relevance to a request.  
Because competition is high, some Web sites engage in devious
schemes to raise their status.  Google ensures the veracity of
its index by taking these fraudsters' Web sites off.  In worst
cases, it exiles these Web sites, according to the report.

In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google have
wrongfully banned some Web sites.  It also said that these Web
sites could no longer be restored because Google does not
disclose its procedures.  It said it was dropped from Google's
index a year ago without being informed.

KinderStart alleges the practice is anti-competitive.  According
to the company, its Web site traffic has plunged by 70% after it
was dropped from Google's index.  It claims to have more than 10
million visits a month.

KinderStart also claims Google misled the public by positioning
its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet
content.  The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and a
court order that would require Google to change its practices.

KinderStart's lawyer is Gregory Yu of Chen-Yu Enterprises LLC
1601 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 311, Burlingame, California, (San Mateo
Co.).


HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Business Record at Center of Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for consumers in a lawsuit against Hendrick Automotive
Group asked Guilford County, North Carolina Superior Court Judge
John Craig to compel the company to reveal in full certain
business records, the Charlotte Business Journal reports.

Judge Craig already gave some of the records that have been
turned over to him to the consumers' attorneys.  But John
Hughes, a lawyer with Wallace & Graham of Salisbury, which
represents the consumers, also wanted to see those that have not
been turned over, as well as some in which information has been
blocked out.  His group also asked Judge Craig to determine if
relevant records have been withheld or redacted.

Judge John Craig ordered the records returned to Hendrick in
November, according to John Arrowood of James McElroy and Diehl,
which represents Hendrick.

The suit, filed in late 2004 in Union County, is seeking class-
action certification.  It accuses the company of including
hidden costs in dealerships' sales and lease contracts that
could cost individual customers up to $1,000.

In April 2005, Hendrick sued Tony Harris, who had been finance
and insurance manager at Hendrick Acura, on accusations he stole
confidential customer records when he left the company.  Other
managers were also sued, but they were later dismissed in the
case.

The following month, Harris sued Hendrick alleging he had been
forced by Hendrick to engage in improper and unfair sales
practices such as those laid out in the consumer suit.  He also
said he was fired after reporting the activities to superiors.  
The suits have been combined and are scheduled for trial in
Mecklenburg Superior Court in September, according to the
report.

Meanwhile, Judge Craig has denied a motion by Mr. Harris'
attorney, David Puryear of Greensboro, to combine the Union
County case with the other suits.  He has yet to rule on the
certification of the suit as a class action, but he already
allowed a second plaintiff, Misty Owens of Fort Mill, to join
Reginald Mills of Union County in the suit.  He has also allowed
some additional counts to be added to the case.  Mr. Mills wants
to include in his suit customers for Hendrick dealerships across
North Carolina.  No date has been set for the suit.

Wallace & Graham on the Net: http://www.wallace-graham-law.com/

James McElroy and Diehl contact: 600 South College Street
Suite 3000, Charlotte, NC 28202-1849, Phone: (704) 372-9870.


HOEGANAES CORP: Judge Okays $1.45M Settlement with Boat Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Superior Court Justice Marie White Bell in Mount Holly
granted preliminary approval to a $1.45 million settlement in a
class action filed by boat owners at five Delaware River marinas
against metallurgical firm Hoeganaes Corp., according to The
Philadelphia Enquirer.

The suit contends that particulate iron emissions from the
company's Cinnaminson plant had damaged clear vinyl covers on
plaintiffs' boats since 1997.  The company denied the
allegations.

A final approval hearing is set Aug. 16, 2006.  Deadline to file
proof of claim is Aug. 4.  Claims are to be submitted to Stephen
N. DeNittis, Esquire, of Shabel & DeNittis, 5 Greentree Center,
Suite 302, Marlton 08053; and Marty M. Judge, Esquire of
Drinker, Biddle & Reath, 105 College Road East, Suite 300, P.O.
Box 627, Princeton 08542-0627.

Plaintiffs attorney, Stephen P, DeNittis, said the proposed
settlement includes about 1,950 boats.  

Plaintiffs in the suit are Glen and Marilyn Staub of Burlington
Township.  They filed the suit on behalf of boat owners at
several Burlington County marinas, including Dredge Harbor
Marina, Clark's Marina, Castle Harbor Marina, Riverside Marina
and Winter's Marina.

Representing Hoeganaes is attorney Martin Judge.


KERZNER INT'L: Enters $1.5M Deal in Breach of Contract Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kerzner International Bahamas Ltd., owner and operator of
Atlantis Paradise Island Resort and the Ocean Club hotels, both
located in the Bahamas, agreed to pay up to $1.5 million to
settle a class action alleging breach of contract, according to
The Bahama Journal.

In a notice posted at the company's Web site, Kerzner continues
to deny wrongdoing and liability for complaints alleging that it
provided inadequate or misleading disclosure of hotel fees,
including a housekeeping and/or energy surcharge, tax or
gratuity.  The complaint also alleges that such conduct
constituted a breach of contract and violated California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500, et seq.

                         Settlement Terms

Kerzner has agreed to change on its Web site the term "Energy
Surcharge" to "Utility Service Fee" and the term "Housekeeping
Gratuity" to "Mandatory Housekeeping Gratuity."

Kerzner has agreed that any person in the Settlement Class who
stayed at the Atlantis or Ocean Club and paid a housekeeping
and/or energy surcharge, tax or gratuity between June 24, 2001
and the present may receive a coupon in the amount of $5.00 per
person per night by completing a declaration.  

A declaration must be submitted to the class counsel by Sept.
23, 2006 in order to be eligible for a coupon.  The Declaration
will be at http://www.kerzner.com/ and [ http://www.atlantisbahamas.com/ -- modified Feb. 19, 2015 ]
during the class notice period of 60 days commencing within 10
days after receipt by Kerzner of notice of entry of the order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  The period ends July
19, 2006.

Kerzner has agreed to not oppose an application for attorneys'
fees, costs and litigation expenses not exceeding $75,000.

                   Settlement Hearing

On Aug. 24, 2006, at 8:45 a.m., a hearing will be held on the
fairness of the proposed settlement before the Honorable James
E. Satt in Department 40 of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, located at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse,
111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California.

                          Class Members

All natural persons who paid a housekeeping and/or energy
surcharge, tax or gratuity at the Atlantis Paradise or the Ocean
Club at any time from June 24, 2001 to the present, and who were
located in or otherwise subject to the laws of the U.S. of
America at the time of booking their reservation at the Atlantis
or Ocean Club.

Requests for exclusion must be postmarked on July 24, 2006 and
sent to:

     Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
     Amber S. Healy, Esq.
     Kalcheim Salah
     2049 Century Park East, Suite 2150
     Los Angeles, California 90067

A copy of the notice is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?c15

The suit is "James Kalcheim v. Kerzner International Bahamas
Limited, Case No. BC335612," filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles under Judge James E. Satt.

Representing the plaintiffs is Mitch Kalcheim, Esq. and Amber S.
Healy, Esq. of Kalcheim Salah, 2049 Century Park East, Suite
2150, Los Angeles, California 90067.

Representing the company is Roxane A. Polidora, Esq. and Ryan
Takemoto, Esq. of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 50
Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105.


METRORAIL: Fails to Convince High Court to Split Damages Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the judges presiding in a class action against Metrorail
in South Africa was not persuaded by arguments of a lawyer for
the defendants to separate 43 damages claims arising from train
violence against the rail operator.

The suit was filed by Rail Commuters Action Group, the Congress
of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and 49 Wester Cape
victims against Transnet, trading as Metrorail and the SA
Commuter Corp., owner of the trains.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that Metrorail
and the Commuter Corp. did not sufficiently ensure the safety
and security of commuters on trains and stations.  Forty-three
of the victims are also asking personal injury claims.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to require the companies to
improve safety and security measures, and to put in place, a
monitoring system to oversee efforts to correct the alleged
shortcoming.  They are demanding results within three months.

Earlier in June, Metrorail's counsel, Thabani Masuku asked the
court to separate the 43 damages claims to make the proceedings
more manageable.  But Judge Wilfred Thring of the Cape High
Court, said in a recent hearing: "I have difficulty
understanding why it would be quicker or easier for 43 separate
judges to sit in 43 separate actions, as opposed to one judge
sitting in one long action."


MITSUBISHI PHARMA: Japan Told to Award $2M to Hepatitis Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Osaka District Court ordered the Japanese government,
Mitsubishi Pharma Corp. and its affiliate Benesis Corp. to pay
about $2,209,233.11 (JPY256.3 million) in compensation to nine
of 13 plaintiffs infected with the hepatitis C virus via
fibrinogen and blood products, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The court's ruling, which was the first for similar class
actions at five district courts, cited the defendants as being
responsible for the plaintiffs becoming infected.

The ruling likely will influence the other suits and increase
demands for relief measures from about 1.5 million people in
Japan infected with HCV.

Originally, thirteen people filed a lawsuit to demand about
$6,544,006.69 (759 million yen) in compensation.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A female financial advisor at Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. filed a
national class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, charging the company with
gender discrimination.

The lawsuit, "Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.", charges that
Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. engaged in a pattern and practice of
gender discrimination against its female financial advisors in
compensation by favoring male financial advisors in the
distribution of business opportunities and accounts and other
terms and conditions of employment throughout the company.

The named plaintiff, Daisy Jaffe, alleges violations of federal
and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act on
behalf of herself and the class.

She also claims that Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. discriminated
against her individually based on her age in violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Plaintiff Daisy Jaffe, a former Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.
Financial Advisor from the company's San Mateo, California
office, stated, "Although I was an excellent, hardworking
Financial Advisor, Morgan Stanley favored my male colleagues,
who were frequently less qualified than I was.  Because of
Morgan Stanley's favoritism, my compensation was lower than
less-qualified male brokers in my office."

"Morgan Stanley's policies and practices deny female brokers the
same opportunities for compensation that are routinely provided
to their male colleagues," said plaintiffs' attorney Kelly M.
Dermody of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of San
Francisco, California.  "By favoring men over women, the company
makes it possible for male brokers to earn more than female
brokers, even where the women equal or exceed the men in their
effort and qualifications."

"The discrimination at Morgan Stanley reflects a continuing
problem on Wall Street, where women continue to be treated like
second-class employees, no matter how well qualified they are,"
said plaintiffs' attorney Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP
of New York, New York.  "Because investment banks and brokerage
firms refuse to make changes on their own to remedy ongoing
discriminatory practices in the financial services industry, it
is up to female brokers to protect themselves and their
livelihoods through cases like this."

The complaint charges that, among other things, Morgan Stanley
discriminates against female Financial Advisors in compensation
by assigning fewer and less valuable accounts to female
Financial Advisors and by giving them fewer business leads and
referrals than men, which results in male brokers having more
accounts and greater compensation.

Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. is the retail broker-dealer subsidiary
of Morgan Stanley.  Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. has approximately
525 retail locations throughout the U.S., and provides
comprehensive financial planning advice.  It employs
approximately 9,500 financial advisors.

The named plaintiff and class members are represented by:

     (1) Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street, Suite
         3000, San Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Phone: (415) 956-
         1000, Fax: (415) 956-1008; and

     (2) Adam T. Klein Esq. of Outten & Golden LLP, 3 Park
         Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212)
         245-1000, Fax:  (212) 977-4005, E-mail:
         atk@outtengolden.com, Web site:
         http://www.outtengolden.com.


NET PERCEPTIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated securities class action against
Net Perceptions, Inc., according to the company's May 15, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On Nov. 2, 2001, Timothy J. Fox filed a purported class action
against:

     -- the company;

     -- FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., the lead
        underwriter of the company's April 1999 initial public
        offering;

     -- several other underwriters who participated in the
        initial public offering;

     -- Steven J. Snyder, the company's then president and chief
        executive officer; and

     -- Thomas M. Donnelly, the company's then chief financial
        officer.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and was assigned to the pretrial
coordinating judge for substantially similar lawsuits involving
more than 300 other issuers.

An amended class action complaint, "In re Net Perceptions, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675
(SAS)," was filed on April 22, 2002, expanding the basis for the
action to include allegations relating to the company's March
2000 follow-on public offering in addition to those relating to
its initial public offering.  

The action against the company was thereafter coordinated with
the other substantially similar class actions as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC (SAS)."

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by not disclosing certain
actions taken by the underwriter defendants in connection with
the company's initial public offering and follow-on public
offering.

The amended complaint alleges specifically that the underwriter
defendants, with the company's direct participation and
agreement and without disclosure thereof, conspired to and did
raise and increase their underwriters' compensation and the
market prices of the company's common stock following its

     -- initial public offering, and

     -- in its follow-on public offering by requiring their
        customers, in exchange for receiving allocations of
        shares of the company's common stock sold in its initial
        public offering

        * to pay excessive commissions on transactions in other
          securities,

        * to purchase additional shares of the company's common
          stock in the initial public offering aftermarket at
          pre-determined prices above the initial public
          offering price, and

        * to purchase shares of the company's common stock in
          its follow-on public offering.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
acquired the company's common stock between April 22, 1999 and
Dec. 6, 2000.

Plaintiffs have since agreed to dismiss the claims against Mr.
Snyder and Mr. Donnelly without prejudice, in return for their
agreement to toll any statute of limitations applicable to those
claims; and those claims have been dismissed without prejudice.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a
settlement reached by the plaintiffs and issuer defendants in
the coordinated class actions.

A fairness hearing took place April 24, 2006, but the court has
not yet made a final determination whether to approve the
settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable.  

The suit is "In re Net Perceptions, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675 (SAS)," filed in relation to
"In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

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

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


OCEANIC: Recalls Faulty Digital Dive Computer for Replacement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanic, of San Leandro, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 6,100
units of Versa Pro 2A Digital Dive Computer.

The company said that when using the dive computer set for "User
Selected Digital Gauge Mode," the "Elapsed Dive Time" displayed
can exceed the actual elapsed time under water.  This can cause
divers to ascend before fulfilling a decompression obligation,
resulting in decompression sickness.

Oceanic has received one report of the dive computers
malfunctioning.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Oceanic-brand Versa Pro 2A dive computers
with serial numbers 12000 through 18176 which can be accessed
and viewed on the computer's display.  The serial number and
"r2A" are printed on the side of the unit.  This recall does not
include any other Oceanic brand dive computer, or Versa Pro 2A
while operated in normal decompression dive computer mode.

The digital dive computers were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at authorized Oceanic dealers sold Versa Pro 2A
digital dive computers nationwide from March 2003 through April
2006 for between $430 and $640.

Picture of the recalled digital dive computer:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06194.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled digital dive
computers and take them to any Authorized Oceanic Dealer to get
a free replacement Versa Pro 2B.

For more information, contact Oceanic, 2002 Davis Street, San
Leandro, California 94577, Phone: (888) 854-4960 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday toll-free, e-mail:
service@oceanicusa.com.


PUERTO RICO: Seeking New Hearing Date for Subscribers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., a fixed-line subsidiary of
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc., seeks additional time
to respond in a purported class action filed against it in the
Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, and a new date for the
argumentative hearing.

On Nov. 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight business
service subscribers filed a class action with the Court of First
Instance of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.

Plaintiffs claimed that the company's charges for touchtone
service are not based on cost, and therefore violate the Act.
Thus, they requested that the court to:

      -- issue an order certifying the case as a class action,
      
      -- designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class,

      -- find that the charges are illegal, and

      -- order the company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On Nov. 1, 2004 Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion for summary
judgment requesting the dismissal of plaintiff's claim due to
plaintiff's failure to follow the procedure to object to
charges, established by Law 33.

Law 33 establishes that a telecommunication services user has 20
days from the receipt of the telecommunications service company
invoice to object to charges in the invoice.  

In the motion, Puerto Rico Telephone has argued that since
plaintiffs admittedly failed to comply with said procedure their
claims are time-barred.  The motion is still under the
consideration by the court.

On May 10, 2005 the court issued an order certifying the case as
a class action.  Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of
that decision and a hearing was held on June 20, 2005 to discuss
the merits of Puerto Rico Telephone's position.

On June 22, 2005 the court issued an order confirming its
previous decision.  As a consequence, a certiorari writ was
filed on June 22, 2005.

On Sept. 19, 2005 the P.R. Appeals Court denied the same.  
Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of that decision on
Oct. 4, 2005.

The reconsideration request was denied on Oct. 11, 2005,
therefore Puerto Rico Telephone filed a certiorari writ with the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court on Nov. 10, 2005.  The certiorari writ
was denied on Jan. 18, 2006.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion to
dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on
the enactment of Law No. 138 of Nov. 4, 2005.  This new law
grants the TRB exclusive primary jurisdiction to entertain class
actions related to telecommunication services.

The hearing scheduled for Jan. 24, 2006 was rescheduled for May
16, 2006 in response to plaintiff's request for time to oppose
Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.  

The court granted the plaintiffs until March 24, 2006 to submit
their motions opposing Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to
dismiss.  In addition the court granted Puerto Rico Telephone
until April 24, 2006 to submit its reply.  

On March 24, 2006 plaintiffs filed a request for sixty
additional days to submit their opposing motion.

On March 29, 2006 Puerto Rico Telephone opposed this request and
asked the cCourt to rule on the jurisdictional matter brought by
PRTC.  On April 3, 2006, the court denied plaintiff's request
for extension of time, but has not ruled on Puerto Rico
Telephone's motion to dismiss.

On April 12, 2006, plaintiff's filed for reconsideration, which
was not considered by the court.  Consequently, on April 28,
2006, plaintiff's filed an opposition to Puerto Rico Telephone's
motion to dismiss arguing that law 138 is unconstitutional.  

Puerto Rico Telephone will file opposition to the motion on the
grounds that the same was untimely filed, and therefore the curt
has lost jurisdiction of said motion under the Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In the alternative, and due to the fact that this is an
interlocutory proceeding, Puerto Rico Telephone said it will
request additional time to file reply and a new date for the
argumentative hearing, according to the company's May 15, 2006
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.


ROGERS INT'L: Lane Family Trustees Voluntarily Dismiss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Rogers International Raw
Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) moved to voluntarily dismiss
their complaint without prejudice, which was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
Allen D. Goodman and James Beeland Rogers, Jr. have been named
as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant, in a
class action and derivative action filed on Jan. 24, 2006 by
Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane
Family Trust dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets.  It seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's
limited partners.

On March 30, 2006, Beeland Management Company, L.L.C, Messrs.
Price and Goodman and the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.  

On April 13, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss
the complaint without prejudice.

The suit is "Lane, et al. v. Beeland Management Company, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00418," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony B.D. Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, PL, 4301 Snchor
         Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33634, US, Phone:
         (813) 289-0700;

     (2) Floyd A. Wisner of Wisner Law Firm, 934 South Fourth
         St., St. Charles, IL 60174, Phone: (630) 513-9434, E-
         mail: faw@wisner-law.com; and

     (3) Scott E. Schutzman of Law Offices of Scott E.
         Schutzman, 3700 S. Susan Street, Suite 120, Santa Ana,
         CA 92704, US, Phone: (714) 543-3638.

Representing the defendants is Thomas K. Cauley, Jr. of Sidley
Austin, LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312) 853-7000, E-mail: tcauley@sidley.com.


RUBY RESTAURANT: Recalls 200T Defective Yo-Yos for Replacement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ruby Restaurant Group of Newport Beach, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 200,000 Light-Up Yo-Yo toys.  The company does
business as Ruby's Diner Inc., and Ruby's Franchise Systems Inc.

The company said the yo-yo can separate and expose small parts.
This presents a choking hazard to young children.

CPSC and The Ruby Restaurant Group have received one report of
the yo-yo separating.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled yo-yo toys are clear plastic with red, blue or
green tinted sides and light up while in motion.  The toys are
about 2 inches in diameter and have "Ruby's Diner" printed on
the each side.

These yo-yo toys were manufactured in China and are distributed
at Ruby's Diner restaurants in Pennsylvania, Washington,
Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Colorado and California from February
2006 through March 2006 included with the purchase of a kid's
meal.

Consumers are advised to take the yo-yo toy from children
immediately and return it to the nearest Ruby's Diner for a free
replacement toy.

Picture of recalled yo-yo toy:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06182.jpg.

For more information, contact Ruby's Diner at (800) 439-7829
anytime or Doug Cavanaugh, at (949) 644-7829 Ext.103


SEQUENOM INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated securities class action against
Sequenom, Inc., according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.

In November 2001, the company and certain of its current or
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
class action shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The suit is now captioned, "In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10831."

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000.  

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company's
underwriters, certain of the company's officers and directors
and the company violated the federal securities laws because its
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding
the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation
practices of the underwriters.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  

In October 2002, the company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal
and tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.

In February 2003, the court dismissed the claim against the
company brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, without giving the plaintiffs leave to amend the
complaint with respect to that claim.

The court declined to dismiss the claim against the company
brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

In June 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the company's board of directors, the
company approved in principle a settlement offer by the
plaintiffs.

In June 2004, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.  On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement.  On Feb. 24,
2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain
underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the
plaintiffs under the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a final fairness hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  A
decision is expected during the summer of 2006.

The suit is "In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation Case
No. 01-CV-10831" related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

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

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


SPEAR & JACKSON: October 2006 Trial Set for Fla. Stock Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An October 2006 trial is slated for the consolidated securities
class action filed against Spear & Jackson, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities between July 14, 2003 and April 15, 2004, the suit
also names as defendants Sherb & Co. LLP, the company's outside
auditor, and certain of the company's directors and officers,
including Dennis Crowley, its chief executive officer and
William Fletcher, chief financial officer.  

It charges the company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

After its consolidation, the defendants filed certain motions to
dismiss with regard to the complaint and on Oct. 19, 2005, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered
its Order regarding these Motions.  

The order denied the company's motion as well as that of Dennis
Crowley, the former chief executive officer of Spear & Jackson.  
The company is in the process of preparing its answer and
defenses to the complaint.  

The court granted the motion to dismiss on behalf of William
Fletcher, the company's interim chief executive officer and also
granted the Motion to Dismiss of the company's former auditor,
Sherb & Co., LLP.  

Class plaintiff has since filed an appeal regarding the trial
court's decision to dismiss the case against Sherb & Co., LLP,
which appeal is presently pending.   No appeal was filed with
respect to the decision to dismiss the case against William
Fletcher.

The court denied the motion of Spear & Jackson's Monitor to
abate the litigation for a six-month period pending the
administration of the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission's
restitution fund.  The court also denied plaintiff's motion for
clarification and established a new cut-off for discovery until
Dec. 19, 2005.  The case had initially been set on the Court's
two-week calendar beginning March 6, 2006.  The trial date has
since been reset for October 2006.

The suit is "In re: Spear & Jackson, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-80375," filed in the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.  

Plaintiffs firm involved in the and similar cases:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL),
         515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach,
         FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;
   
     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place, 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364;

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
         1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 730, Washington, DC,
         20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

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

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

     (7) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Ave.,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;
   
     (8) Vianale & Vianale, LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355
         Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com;

     (9) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax:
         212.753.3630, E-mail: info@whesq.com; and

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

Representing the defendants is Allan Michael Lerner, 2888 E
Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306, Phone: 954-
563-8111.


TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Amends Complaint in Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint was filed in the consumer fraud class
action pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Chancery Division against Trinsic
Communications, Inc., formerly known as Z-Tel Communications,
Inc.

Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action on May 13, 2004.

The original complaint alleged that the company's subsidiary
engaged in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into
paying amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively
labeling certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes
or fees when in fact they were not.

It sought to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
persons or entities that contracted with the company for
telecommunications services and were billed for particular taxes
or regulatory fees.

Additionally, the complaint asserted a claim under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and sought
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

On June 22, 2004, the company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187.

On July 26, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the state circuit court.  On Jan. 12, 2005, the federal court
granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court.

On Oct. 17, 2005, the state court heard argument on the
company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and granted that motion,
in part with prejudice.  

The court dismissed with prejudice the claims relating to the
"E911 Tax," the "Utility Users Tax," and the "Communications
Service Tax."  It found that those tax charges were specifically
authorized by state law or local ordinance, and thus cannot be
the basis of a Consumer Fraud claim.

The court also dismissed with leave to replead the claims
relating to the "Interstate Recovery Fee" and the "Federal
Regulatory Compliance Fee."  It determined that plaintiff had
failed to allege how she was actually damaged by the allegedly
deceptive description of the charges.

On Nov. 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint alleging that the company mislabeled its "Interstate
Recovery Fee" and "Federal Cost Recovery Fee" in supposed
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

As with the original complaint, the first amended class action
complaint seeks damages, fees, costs, and class certification.

The company filed a further motion to dismiss, which was heard
by the court on April 3, 2006.  The court granted that motion by
dismissing plaintiff's claims for unfair practices under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
dismissing in part plaintiff's claims for deceptive practice
under the Act.

The court determined that the plaintiff did not state sufficient
facts indicating that her alleged damages were caused by the
company's alleged deception.  

Plaintiff was granted 21 days in which to replead the claims of
deception.  On April 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a second
amended class action complaint again alleging that Trinsic
mislabeled its "Interstate Recovery Fee" and "Federal Cost
Recovery Fee" in supposed violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The second amended class action complaint seeks damages, fees,
costs, and class certification.

The suit is "Susan Schad v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc.," filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Illinois County
Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 04CH07882," under Judge
Richard J. Billik, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Miller Faucher Chertow, 30 N
LaSalle St. 3630, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.  

Representing the company is Pretzel & Stouffer, 1 S. Wacker Dr.
#2500, Chicago, IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 346-1973.


TRINSIC INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
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 a consolidated securities class action against
Trinsic, Inc., formerly now known as Z-Tel Technologies, Inc.,
according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006.

During June and July 2001, three separate class actions were
filed against the company, certain of the company's current and
former directors and officers and firms engaged in the
underwriting of the company initial public offering of stock.  

The lawsuits, along with approximately 310 other similar
lawsuits filed against other issuers arising out of initial
public offering allocations, have been assigned to a Judge in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
for pretrial coordination.

The lawsuits against the company have been consolidated into a
single action.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
April 20, 2002.

A second corrected amended complaint, which is the operative
complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.  The amended complaint is
based on the allegations that the company's registration
statement on Form S-1, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO, contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state facts necessary
to make the statements made not misleading by failing to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly had received
additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from, and
allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated
shares in the IPO.

Plaintiffs in the amended complaint assert claims against the
company and the directors and officers pursuant to Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC there
under.

Plaintiffs in the amended complaint assert claims against the
directors and officers pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC there under.

Thus, plaintiffs seek an undisclosed amount of damages, as well
as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements.  Initial discovery has begun.  The company
believes it is entitled to indemnification from its
underwriters.

The plaintiffs, the issuers and insurers of the issuers have
reached a settlement.  The principal terms of the proposed
settlement are:

      -- a release of all claims against the issuers and their
         officers and directors;

      -- the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
         certain claims the issuers may have against the
         Underwriters; and

      -- an undertaking by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs
         receive not less than $1 billion in connection with
         claims against the Underwriters.

Hence, under the terms of the proposed settlement the company's
financial obligations will likely be covered by insurance.  To
be binding the settlement must be approved by the court.  The
court has given preliminary, but not final approval of the
settlement.  

A fairness hearing was held April 24, 2006.  The court has not
yet made its ruling as to fairness.

The suit is "In Re Z-Tel Technologies, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5074 (Sas),"
related "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.   

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

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

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


UNITED STATES: Army Agency Resolves Race Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination claims in a federal class action against the U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center that was filed
over 10 years ago were resolved with a negotiated settlement,
The Vicksburg Post reports.

The suit was filed as an equal employment opportunity class
action by 217 black people who were employed at the agency, then
known as the Waterways Experiment Station, located in Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Joseph Kaplan of Passman and Kaplan, a law firm in Washington,
D.C, brought the case on behalf of a group of present and former
employees ERDC.  A previous press release by Mr. Kaplan's firm
states:

"The complaint raises serious allegations of class-wide race
discrimination against the facility in most aspects of career
advancement."

"Class representatives claim that the agency has a practice of
delaying and limiting the compensation and career advancement of
African Americans in favor of less qualified white employees."

"Specifically, the complaint alleges that the agency
consistently hires and pays African Americans at lower rates,
and denies them promotional and training opportunities."  

"It also alleges that whites are given an unfair advantage by
management officials who rewrite position descriptions to match
the experience and abilities of pre-selected white employees."

"It goes on to state that the discrimination has burrowed itself
in every division and rank within the agency, affecting
nonprofessionals and professionals alike."

According to Lewis Burke, lead attorney for ERDC, the suit
claimed that the discrimination took place from Jan. 15, 1997,
to Feb. 25, 2005.

Mr. Burke explained that under the settlement, ERDC will be
required to pay $400,000.  He pointed out though that under the
agreement ERDC does not admit to any discrimination, instead it
opted to settle to avoid protracted litigation and to achieve
better employee relations.

For more details, contact Joseph V. Kaplan of Passman & Kaplan,
P.C., 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005,
Phone: (202) 789-0100, Fax: (202) 789-0101, E-mail:
inquiry@passmanandkaplan.com, Web site:
http://www.passmanandkaplan.com/.  


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Suits Stayed Pending Exit from Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------
Two consolidated class actions pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc. are currently stayed pending the conclusion of its
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against the company and certain present and former executive
officers alleging claims under the federal securities laws.

In March and April 2004, three other putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company and certain present and former
executive officers and employees of the company alleging claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended relating to the company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

By separate court orders, both the securities laws claims and
the ERISA claims have been consolidated and will proceed as
separate, single actions.  The consolidated complaint has not
yet been filed in either action.

On Feb. 21, 2005, the company and 23 of its subsidiaries
(debtors) filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption, "In
re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-03817."

As a result of the company's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic
stay prevents the plaintiffs in the class actions mentioned
above from proceeding against the company.

In the event that any claims alleged in these lawsuits are
sustained against the company, the claims will be treated in the
company's Chapter 11 case, and to the extent any such claims are
subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b), such
claims will be subordinated to other claims against the company,
according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006.

The consolidated securities suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00071-HES-MCR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364;

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;

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

     (5) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655;

     (6) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (9) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com; and

    (10) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com;
         and

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

The ERISA suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., Suite
         801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/682-1818;

    (ii) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501/907-2555;

   (iii) Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405/235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com; and

    (iv) David B. Ferebee, P.A., 503 E. Monroe St.,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/358-7001, fax:
         904/353-2756, E-mail: ferebeeatlaw@bellsouth.net.

Representing the defendants in both litigation are:

     (a) King & Spalding LLP, 191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900,
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404/572-4600; and

     (b) Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy, 225 Water St., Suite
         1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax:
         904/634-1234.


WYOMING: ACLU Proposes New Remedial Plan for State Penitentiary
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Civil Liberties Union national attorney, Stephen Pevar,
filed a brief opposing a motion to terminate a court-ordered
improvement plan for the Wyoming State Penitentiary, according
to the Start Tribune.

Mr. Pevar said termination of the plan would be premature
because the state Department of Corrections has yet to fully
comply with a 2003 plan arising from a class action on behalf of
inmate Brad Skinner.  He wants the court to order the state to
draft a new remedial plan.

Mr. Pevar also filed six motions for contempt of court citations
against the state for various breaches in the plan, including
failure to investigate claims of inadequate staffing and to
remedy a dangerous condition, the report said.

The class action by Mr. Skinner named the Department of
Corrections officials as defendants.  It accuses prison
officials of failing to protect Mr. Skinner in a 1999 fight with
three other inmates.

The suit is Skinner v. Uphoff, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-00033-
CAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming, under Judge Clarence Brimmer.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Shirley Kingston, 418 South 12th St., Laramie, WY  
         82070, Phone: 307/745-3729, Fax: 745-3729;  

     (2) Timothy C. Kingston of Graves Miller & Kingston, 408  
         West 23rd St., Suite 1, Cheyenne, WY 82001, Phone:  
         307/638-8885, Fax: 307/637-4850, E-mail:  
         kingston@rockymtnlaw.com; and  

     (3) Stephen L. Pevar of The American Civil Liberties Union,  
         32 Grand St., Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860/293-1559,  
         Fax: 293-1016.  

Representing the defendants are David Delicath of Wyoming  
Attorney General, Herschler Building, 1st Floor NW, Cheyenne, WY  
82002, Phone: 307/777-7818, Fax: 307/777-6329.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Computer Sciences Corp.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director
stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock options).  Such
practice of awarding stock options to executives and directors
at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the company's
internal documents (such as the company's stock option plan), as
well as state laws governing officer and director fiduciary
duties and/or federal laws governing securities and taxation.

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

For more information on the case, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (Toll-Free), Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:
ssbny@aol.com, Website: http://www.ssbny.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, against Escala Group, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
company during the period from Sept. 5, 2003 to May 10, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Escala, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in New York City, operates as a global
collectibles merchant and auction house network with operations
in North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as on the Internet.

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

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

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

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

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

      -- specifically, that Afinsa, Escala's majority
         shareholder, was overvaluing its stamp inventory in
         order to attract investors and paying its investors
         with money from newly-arrived investors rather than
         generated revenue;

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

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

On May 9, 2006, while the market was open, Escala announced that
Spanish judicial authorities, as part of what appeared to be an
investigation into the company's stamps-collectibles sector,
collected documents from Afinsa, the company's majority
shareholder.

Also on May 9, 2006, before the market closed, Spanish police
announced that they had arrested nine people in an anti-fraud
swoop.  

The police stated that the people under investigation were
suspected of pocketing a "substantial" amount of the money that
investors put into guaranteed-return funds run by Forum
Filatelico and Afinsa.  On this news, shares of Escala plummeted
$19.77, to close at $12.23 per share.

On May 10, 2006, the price of Escala common stock fell an
additional $5.68, to close at $6.55 per share.  On May 11, 2006,
Spanish authorities charged 11 people for their involvement in
the pyramid scheme, including 5 Afinsa executives, and the price
of Escala common stock declined another $2.21 to close at $4.34
per share.

Interested parties have until July 10, 2006 to ask the Court to
appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.  


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who purchased securities of Herley Industries, Inc.
between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006, inclusive.  The class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Herley securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Aug. 14, 2006, in which to move
for Lead Plaintiff status.  

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, Fax: (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


HOME SOLUTIONS: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Home Solutions of America, Inc. between April 11,
2006 and June 6, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against
Home Solutions and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made a series of false and
misleading statements and or omissions regarding the company's
revenue opportunities.  

In particular, starting on April 11, 2006, Home Solutions began
announcing a series of new contract awards related to
infrastructure support for Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts.

One such deal involved American Renaissance Homes (ARH), a
builder that purportedly contracted with Home Services to
provide services in conjunction with the rebuilding efforts.

However, on June 6, 2006, the company announced that it was in
fact lending up to $800,000 to ARH for "working capital"
purposes.

The complaint further alleges that Defendants prior
representations regarding a dramatic ramp up in revenues based
on these contract opportunities was false and misleading,
concealing the company's inability to expand either revenues or
margins.

In reaction to this news, shares of Home Solutions' stock fell,
losing 29.1%, or $2.80 per share, to close on June 6, 2006 at
$6.80 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later Aug. 21, 2006 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

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


HOME SOLUTIONS: Scott + Scott Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a class action against Home Solutions
of America, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The action is on behalf of Home Solutions securities purchasers
during the period April 11, 2006, and June 6, 2006, inclusive,
for federal securities law violations.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
revenue opportunities.  

As a result, the price of the company's securities was inflated
during the Class Period, thereby harming investors.

Meanwhile, the company's officers and directors aggressively
sold shares of their Home Solutions stock, resulting in proceeds
of over $15.7 million.

According to the complaint, on April 11, 2006, Home Solutions
announced that it had been awarded a contract valued at up to
$20 million, to provide infrastructure support for Hurricane
Katrina rebuilding efforts.

Following this, the company announced a string of contract
awards, including substantial contracts with Home Depot Inc.
(HD) and American Renaissance Homes (ARH), a builder that had
purportedly contracted with Home Solutions to provide services
in connection with the Katrina rebuilding efforts.

On June 6, 2006, however, the company issued a shocking press
release, revealing that it was, in fact, lending up to $800,000
to ARH for "working capital," secured by its modular homes and
land.

As the complaint alleges, defendants' prior representations
regarding the dramatic growth in revenues based on the announced
contract opportunities were false and misleading, concealing
from the investment community the company's inability to
dramatically expand both revenues and margins, in a low-margin
and highly competitive market space.

On this news, Home Solutions' stock price plummeted, losing
29.1% or $2.80, to close on June 6, at $6.80, on unprecedented
volume of 26.2 million shares, over eighteen times normal
trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than 60 days
from June 21, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, Phone: 800-404-7770 and
860-537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com.


INFOSONICS CORP: White, Klafter File Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ann D. White Law Offices initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
with Klafter & Olsen LLP, on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of InfoSonics Corp. between May 9,
2006 and June 9, 2006 inclusive.  Defendants include InfoSonics
and certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that InfoSonics had improperly accounted
for warrants issued in connection with a January 2006 private
placement.

It also alleges that while in the possession of non-public
information regarding the investigation into its accounting for
the warrants, defendants sold large amounts of their personal
holdings.

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

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

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Aug. 14, 2006.

For more details, contact Ann White, Mandy Roth or Ronald Lopit
of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274, E-
mail: awhite@awhitelaw.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  * * *