CAR_Public/060627.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 126

                            Headlines

ADMIRALS COVE: Plaintiffs Allowed to Pursue Initiation Fee Suit
ADVANCE IMPORT: Recalls Sweet Potatoes with Undeclared Sulfites
AIRLINES: Transatlantic Carriers Face N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuit
ASPEN REALTY: Court Certifies Suit Over "Illegal" Commission
BJ ALAN: Recalls Rocket Fireworks that Fail Regulatory Standard

CAMBRIDGE HEALTH: Faces Worker Wage Violations Suit in Mass.
CANTERTROT INVESTMENTS: Court Certifies Thornhill Residents Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Price Fixing Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Accused of Mislabeling Emergency Food Product
DANIER LEATHER: Plaintiffs Allowed to Appeal IPO Suit Dismissal

GEICO: Wins Favorable Ruling in Breach of Contract Lawsuit
GMH COMMUNITIES: Lerach's Lead Counsel Bid in Pa. Suit Opposed
GOOGLE INC: N.Y. Legislator Drops Child Pornography Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Radiator.com Rejects $90M "Click Fraud" Settlement
HOLLYWOOD TANNING: N.J. Customer Files Suit Over Indoor Tanning

HOOSIER LOTTERY: Settles Lawsuit Over $5 Winning Ticket in Ind.
ILLINOIS: Wednesday Trial Set for Will County Strip Search Suit
MIKOHN GAMING: Seeks Dismissal of Nev. Consolidated Stock Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Facing Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in D.C.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sued Over Alleged Fraud by Financial Advisors

NEW YORK: Court Hears Arguments in Lawsuit Over WTC Cleanup
OKLAHOMA: Video Game Industry Sues to Overturn Video Game Law
PARK POINTE: Ida. Court Certifies Suit Over "Illegal" Commission
PARMALAT SPA: S.D.N.Y Judge Okays U.S. Lawyers' Italian Inquest
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Reaches Final Deal in Uninsured Patients Suit

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles with Defective Faceplate
STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Employee Tips Case
STELLENT INC: Securities Fraud Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Judge Shelves Credit Monitoring Offer to Veterans
WESTERN STOCKMEN'S: Recalls Horse Feed Containing Rumensin


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANTIGENICS INC: Faces New Securities Fraud Suit in New Mexico
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Brower Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in Pa.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Suit in Pa.
HOME SOLUTIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Tex.
INFOSONICS CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Calif.

VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set July
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Suit in N.J.


                            *********


ADMIRALS COVE: Plaintiffs Allowed to Pursue Initiation Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th District Court of Appeal allowed former members of
Admirals Cove in Jupiter, Florida to go ahead with their case
against the country club, according to TCPalm Local News.

The suit was filed in 2002 by Michael and Rosalind Skigen.  It
was later certified as a class action on behalf of more than 150
former members.  The suit alleged that the country club
arbitrarily changed the terms of the contract to state that the
club would keep a "non-refundable initiation fee" when a member
sold.  Plaintiffs are seeking for the full reimbursement of the
equity membership they sold four years ago.

According to the report, plaintiffs must now ask a judge to re-
certify the case as a class action.

Admirals Cove is a community of luxury homes on the Intracoastal
Waterway north of Palm Beach, Florida.  It was developed by
Admirals Cove Realty.


ADVANCE IMPORT: Recalls Sweet Potatoes with Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Import Inc. of Brooklyn, New York recalled 6 oz. plastic
packages of "Dried Sweet Potato" because they contain undeclared
sulfites.

People who have a severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume these
products, the company said.

The "Dried Sweet Potato" was distributed, in the New York City
area through retail stores.  The product comes in an uncoded, 6
oz., clear plastic bag.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites in the 6-ounce packages of "Dried Sweet
Potato" which were not declared on the label.

The consumption of 10 mg. of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites.  Analysis
of the "Dried Sweet Potato" revealed they contained 19 mg. per
serving.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 6-ounce packages of "Dried Sweet
Potato" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 1-718-389-2800.

For more information contact Roger Yip, Phone: 718-389-2800.


AIRLINES: Transatlantic Carriers Face N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Several airlines were named as defendants in a purported price-
fixing class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The airlines are:

     -- British Airways PLC,
     -- Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd.,
     -- AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, Inc., and
     -- UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, Inc.

Susan Saldana of Newton, Massachusetts, and Ian Reynell of
Chicago, Illinois, filed the suit, alleging that the four major
transatlantic air carriers used fuel surcharges to wrongfully
inflate prices.

Plaintiffs specifically claim that British Airways added at
least six fuel surcharges since May 2004, conspiring with the
other airlines to artificially inflate ticket prices.

The suit seeks class-action status so as to include all
travelers who bought transatlantic tickets form the defendants
over the last four years. In addition, it also seeks
reimbursement and damages against the airlines

The four airlines are the only carriers allowed to fly direct
between London's Heathrow Airport and the U.S. under bilateral
treaties.

The suit was filed days after the United Kingdom's Office of
Fair Trading said it visited British Airways' offices on June 13
as part of a civil and criminal investigation into alleged price
coordination and that its probe was "at an early stage."

At almost the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice
confirmed that it was also investigating possible anti-
competitive practices in airline passenger fares and cargo
shipments, but it did not identify which airlines were under
investigation.

The suit is "Saldana et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-04887-RMB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M.
Berman.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jason Samuel Cowart and Stanley
Merrill Grossman of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross,
LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212)-661-1100, Fax: (212)-661-8665, E-mail: jscowart@pomlaw.com
and SMGrossman@pomlaw.com.


ASPEN REALTY: Court Certifies Suit Over "Illegal" Commission
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho has certified a class action against Aspen
Realty over allegations the real estate agency is illegally
charging home buyers commissions on undeveloped property using a
technique called 'tying.'  Aspen Realty is a subsidiary of
Coldwell Banker, the nation's oldest real estate agency. -

The class action now represents thousands of home purchasers in
the Boise area.

According to the suit filed in May 2005, home purchasers are
duped into paying commissions not only on an undeveloped lot
they purchase, but on the cost of a house subsequently built on
the property.

The suit accuses the agencies of violating federal and state
antitrust and unfair competition laws, among other charges.

"These brokers control a very large percentage of the real
estate market in the red-hot Boise market," said Steve Berman,
the attorney leading the legal challenge on behalf of consumers.
"We intend to show that the defendants use their market leverage
to force homebuyers to pay these additional commissions but
provide no market value."

The complaint also claims that the defendants conspire to
maintain exclusive listings for undeveloped subdivision lots,
limit the number of builders who can build on the lots, and
refuse to sell lots without payment of commission tied to the
construction of the house.

"For example, under a standard six-percent commission schedule,
if a homebuyer pays $50,000 for a lot from a broker and then
constructs a $150,000 house on the site, that purchaser should
pay $3,000 in commissions for the land purchase," Attorney
Berman said.  "What we are alleging in our complaint is the
brokers are illegally charging $12,000 -- six percent of cost of
the land and the house construction."

Attorney Berman noted that using this example, this scheme could
lead to $1.8 million in ill-gotten commissions in a 200-lot
subdivision.

The lawsuit seeks to recover excessive commissions charged by
the defendant real estate agencies, and an injunction to stop
this practice.

A copy of the Class Certification Order is available free of
charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?c32.

The suit is "Bafus, et al. v. Aspen Realty, Inc, et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-00121-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.  Representing the
defendants is Anthony John Bohner of the Bohner Law Office, PO
Box 16789, Boise, ID 83715, Phone: (208) 376-5595, Fax: (208)
376-5595, E-mail: ktlaw@cableone.net.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W Berman of The Law Firm Hagens Berman, 1301 5th
         Ave #2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292,
         Fax: 1-206-623-0594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Rex Blackburn of Blackburn & Jones, PO Box 7808, Boise,
         ID 83707, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208) 489-8988,
         E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com;

     (3) Daniel Loras Glynn of Blackburn & Jones LLP, 1673 W.
         Shoreline Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83702, Phone:
         (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208) 489-8988, E-mail:
         daniel@blackburnjoneslaw.com;

     (4) Philip H Gordon of The Gordon Law Offices, 623 W Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345-7100, Fax: 1-
         208-345-0050, E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com;

     (5) Bruce C Jones of Blackburn & Jones LLP, PO Box 7808,
         Boise, ID 83707-7808, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208)
         489-8988, E-mail: bruce@blackburnjoneslaw.com;

     (6) Bruce M Smith of Moore, Smith, Buxton & Turcke, 950 W
         Bannock Ste 520, Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208) 331-
         1800, Fax: 1-208-331-1202, E-mail: bms@msbtlaw.com; and

     (7) Craig R Spiegel of Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 268-9328, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         craig@hbsslaw.com.


BJ ALAN: Recalls Rocket Fireworks that Fail Regulatory Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Alan Co., of Youngstown, Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 61,200
packages of Thunderstick Rocket Fireworks.

The company said these rockets are overloaded with flash powder,
violating the regulatory standard for this product.  During use,
these fireworks could explode with a greater force than expected
and cause burns and bodily harm to nearby consumers.  No
injuries were reported.

The products are a stick-type rocket with a 4-inch long, 1/2-
inch in diameter engine mounted on a wooden stick approximately
16-inches long.  The engine is wrapped in blue or purple paper
with a picture of a rocket, and the writing, "Phantom Fireworks
Thunder Stick Rocket."

Thunderstick Rocket Fireworks were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Phantom Fireworks showrooms nationwide from
December 2005 through June 2006 for about $10 per package of six
rockets.

Picture of the recalled fireworks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06191.jpg.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
contact B.J. Alan Company for a replacement product.

For additional information, contact BJ Alan Co. at (800) 777-
1691 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.fireworks.com.


CAMBRIDGE HEALTH: Faces Worker Wage Violations Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge Health Alliance was named as defendant in a purported
class action in Middlesex Superior Court, alleging that
Brazilian workers placed at its worksites by a Brockton,
Massachusetts firm were paid less than minimum wage, denied
overtime, and were subjected to illegal deductions, according to
Boston.com.

Originally filed last year against Clean Link, the contractor to
the employer, the suit was recently amended to include the
alliance as a co-defendant.  Additionally, it also names Manuel
DeSousa, owner of the cleaning company, as a defendant.

The amended suit alleges that workers placed by Clean Link
earned $7 per hour as janitors or kitchen staff, but the company
routinely deducted money from paychecks without any explanation
or reimbursement.  

The suit also alleges that the firm did not pay overtime when
employees worked weekends or stayed late weekdays, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

The alliance did not hire the Brazilian immigrants, but
according to the suit the workers took day-to-day direction from
its employees.  It noted that if workers time off they cleared
the request with the alliance and not Clean Link.

Responding to the allegations, Cambridge Health attorney Thomas
Royall Smith of Jackson Lewis, said the plaintiffs are not
employees of alliance, but of Clean Link.

Attorneys for the workers, including Shannon Liss-Riordan, are
seeking class-action status for the case.  They sought to
represent janitors and kitchen staff that were placed at
Cambridge Health by Clean Link between 1996 and 2005.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan of Pyle, Rome,
         Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont
         Street, Suite 500, Boston, Massachusetts 02108,
         (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax: 617-367-4820;
         and

     (2) [Cambridge Health] Thomas Royall Smith of Jackson
         Lewis, LLP, 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor, Boston,
         Massachusetts 02116, (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-367-
         0025, Fax: 617-367-2155, Web site:
         http://www.jacksonlewis.com.


CANTERTROT INVESTMENTS: Court Certifies Thornhill Residents Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario, Canada Superior Court Justice Maurice C. Cullity
recently certified a class action filed by Thornhill condominium
owners against developer Cantertrot Investments, according to
the Toronto Star.  

The suit was filed by a group of original purchasers in 2004
against the developer, its principals and the real estate
brokers involved in marketing the condominium units.  The suit
alleges the defendants understated common expenses shown in
their sales materials.

When Cantertrot Investments marketed condominium units in The
Residence of Beauclaire, on New Westminster Dr., in Thornhill,
between 1999 and 2002, it reportedly said that maintenance fees
for the units were "estimated at $0.32 per square foot,"
including utilities, visitor parking, concierge and one locker.  
It translates to a $413,000 "total funds" to be contributed by
all owners in the form of common expenses during the first year
following registration of the condominium.  The developer is
supposedly responsible for any shortfall between the proposed
budget and the actual budget for the first year of operation.

But the common expenses called for a greater budget during the
second year of operation so that the new board of directors was
forced to approve increases of more than 62 percent.  Even then,
there was still a deficit of $48,000, which was funded by a
special assessment of about $15 per unit each month for four
years.

It was when the group of the original purchasers retained Samuel
Marr and Vadim Kats, of the Toronto law firm, Landy Marr LLP, to
launch the class action.  

The suit alleges plaintiffs suffered increased maintenance fees
after the condominium's first year, loss of the services, and
diminished property values.  It accuses the company of
negligence, misrepresentation, breach of the Condominium Act,
and oppression, and claims that the marketing materials and
disclosure statements of the company were "inaccurate, false,
deceptive and misleading."

Damages being sought are $10,572 to $12,643 for smaller units,
and $26,004 to $31,101 for larger units.  The total loss claimed
by the class members, about 120 of them, is between $2.1 million
to $2.5 million.

None of the plaintiffs' claims have yet been proven in court,
according to the report.  Defendants lawyer have applied for
permission to appeal Judge Cullity's certification order.

The recent certification of the suit names as lead plaintiffs
Solly Lewis and Hersl Kalif.

Representing the developer is Irvin Schein and Stephen C. Nadler
of Toronto's Minden Gross.  Minden Gross on the Net:
http://www.mggg.com/;Landy Marr LLP on the Net:  
http://www.landymarr.com/.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Price Fixing Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miller County Circuit Court Judge Jim Hudson in Arkansas
recently heard arguments on the merits of a national class
action over price fixing allegations against Centerpoint Energy
Arkla, according to the Texarkana Gazette.

Attorney B. Daryl Bristow, speaking on behalf of several
lawyers, asked the court to throw out the case against
Centerpoint Energy Arkla and its subsidiaries, saying the matter
can be handled by state regulators.

Centerpoint Energy is accused of fraudulently fixing the price
of natural gas, conspiring to artificially inflate the cost of
natural gas, and passing the cost to residential and commercial
customers as a regular "add on" to their base charges.  The
scheme allegedly allowed CenterPoint to buy cheaper gas to sell
at greater profits to manufacturers, industrial users and oil
refineries.

Mr. Bristow denied that unlike residential and commercial users,
the price of gas to industrial users is not regulated.  The suit
affects about 5 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas,
Oklahoma and Mississippi.

The case was moved to federal court, but U.S. District Judge
Harry F. Barnes sent it back to Miller County.  

The lead plaintiff is Weldon Johnson.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Phillip Cockrell of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams &
         Capshaw Century Plaza, Suite 400, 2900 St. Michael
         Drive, P.O. Box 6128 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6128 (Bowie
         Co.), Phone: 903-334-7000, Fax: 903-334-7007, Web Site:
         http://www.pattonroberts.com;

     (2) Nix, Patterson & Roach as well as Keil & Goodson, 205
         Linda Drive, P.O. Box 679, Daingerfield, Texas 75638
         (Morris Co.), Phone: 903-645-7333, Fax: 903-645-5389
         Web Site: http://www.nixlawfirm.com.

Representing the defendant is Mr. Bristow of Baker Botts L.L.P.
One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002 (Ft. Bend,
Harris & Montgomery Cos.), Phone: 713-229-1234, Cable Address:
"Boterlove", Fax: 713-229-1522.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Accused of Mislabeling Emergency Food Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Low-cost retailer Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a class
action over its labeling of its "3-month emergency food supply,"
according to Sound Politics.

The suit was filed by Bellevue attorney Richard Pope against the
Issaquah-based company and its top executives.  Mr. Pope alleged
that Costco "Emergency Food Supply," which the company claims
can last a person for three months, is fraudulently labeled.  

The product reportedly promised to sustain a person for three
months with an average daily nutrition of 455 calories with 18
grams of protein.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
however, recommends 2,000 daily calories with 50 grams of
protein as minimum daily nourishment to keep adult human life,
according to the report.

The "Emergency Food Supply" is to be consumed at 3 servings per
day over a 91-2/3 day period.


DANIER LEATHER: Plaintiffs Allowed to Appeal IPO Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada has allowed plaintiffs in a class
action against Danier Leather Inc. to appeal the Ontario Court
of Appeal's dismissal of their suit over Danier's initial public
offering, according to Reuters.

The company expects the appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court
prior to the end of June 2007.

The suit is brought against the company, certain of its
directors and officers in Ontario state court.  The statement of
claim was made under the Class Proceedings Act and relates to
subordinate voting shares purchased at the time of the company's
initial public offering in May 1998.

Essentially, the suit seeks damages equal to the alleged
diminution in value of the shares after the public offering.  
The plaintiffs allege a Danier's forecast in the fourth quarter
of 1998 intentionally boosted expectations for its annual
results.  The suit got class-action status in October 2001.

In December 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the class
action.  The decision stated that the Danier Leather met its
statutory disclosure obligations during the IPO process.  It
noted that the company's achievement of its financial forecast
was a relevant consideration.  And it stated that greater
deference should have been accorded the business judgment of the
company's senior management, judgment that turned out to be
correct (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).

As a result, the company and its senior officers are not
required to pay any of the damages, interest or costs awarded by
the trial judge.  

Danier Leather Inc. (CA:DLSV) -- http://www.danier.com-- is an    
integrated designer, manufacturer, and retailer of high-quality  
leather and suede clothing and accessories.

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


GEICO: Wins Favorable Ruling in Breach of Contract Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron decertified a breach
of contract class action against insurer GEICO at a June 8
hearing, according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

Prior to the ruling, arguments between defendant and plaintiffs
dealt on the effect of a Supreme Court decision on two earlier
cases: the Avery vs. State Farm, a Williamson County class
action, and the Price case.

An April 5 brief by plaintiff lawyer Robert Schmieder in the
GEICO case argued that rulings in the Price and Avery suits did
not change the law.

Lawyer for the defendant, Joseph Brown disagreed.  He insisted a
plaintiff cannot transform a breach of contract claim into
consumer fraud, and called on Judge Byron to decertify the class
action.  He wrote in response to the brief that in the "Avery"
case, each class member is required to prove breach of contract,
and both cases require each class member to prove deception.  
Under "Price," he wrote, GEICO faces no liability because it
complied with directives of a government agency.

Judge Byron told the plaintiff's lawyer that they prevailed in
most class actions, but the Supreme Court drastically changed
the concept of complex class actions.

The suit was filed in 2001 by Myron Billups, whose Pontiac Grand
Am crashed in 1998.  He was joined later by Patricia Singleton,
whose Cadillac was stolen and wrecked.  Jeff Millar of the Lakin
Law Firm in Wood River signed the complaint, which also listed
three Chicago firms and two attorneys from Marion (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 24, 2006).

The plaintiffs sought to represent drivers whose vehicles GEICO
had paid off as total losses.  Judge Byron certified their
representation in 2004, as well as a multi-state class on breach
of contract claims and an Illinois class on consumer fraud
claims.  In 2002, GEICO asked Judge Byron to postpone a decision
on a class certification pending the Supreme Court's ruling on
Avery.  In August, the court ruled that Avery and the other
plaintiffs failed to prove deception or damages, throwing out a
verdict of more than $1 billion.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Sheila Carmody and Joshua Grabel of Snell & Wilmer
         L.L.P., One Arizona Center, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-
         2202, (Maricopa Co.), Phone: 602-382-6000, Fax: 602-
         382-6070; and

     (2) Joseph R. Brown, Jr. of Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld &
         Dawson, LLP, P.O. Box 539, Edwardsville, Illinois
         62025, (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-2321; Fax: 618-
         656-2363.

Representing the plaintiffs are Gerald R. Walters and Jeffrey
A.J. Millar of The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O.
Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0027, (Madison Co.), Phone:
618-254-1127; Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Lerach's Lead Counsel Bid in Pa. Suit Opposed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll and Berger &
Montague are asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to reject the bid of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins to be lead counsel in a
shareholder class action against GMH Communities Trust, citing
the recent indictment of the securities lawyer's previous firm,
according to Bloomberg News.

Lerach Coughlin's founder, William Lerach, was a partner at the
predecessor of New York-based Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
until 2004.  Milberg Weiss and two of its partners were indicted
by a federal grand jury in May on allegations it made illegal
payments to clients.

Cohen Milstein and Berger & Montague, two firms representing
clients in the Philadelphia securities case, argued in a June 19
court filing that the indictment and "recent reported
developments" showed "Lerach may have been involved in the
alleged criminal enterprise."  

Thus, both firms are asking that their client Asaro Group be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the case, instead of Steamfitters
Local 449, a client of San Diego-based Lerach Coughlin.

They argued that Lerach's practices as class counsel are under
intense scrutiny and could possibly result in additional
indictments.  

Furthermore, the firms argued that to propose that such counsel
be put in a fiduciary capacity to protect the interests of the
putative class in this case demonstrates poor judgment if not
outright inadequacy.

However, in a press statement responding to the two firms'
filing, Lerach Coughlin called it a "transparent, pathetic and
ultimately meaningless effort by law firms with serious cases of
sour grapes that seem more interested in themselves than what is
in the best interest of the shareholders."  

The firm "has not been accused by anybody of doing anything
wrong," the statement further said.

The first identified complaint is "Iris Martin, et al. v. GMH
Communities Trust, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case(s) are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;
  
     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 2300 Promenade II, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
         (888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail:
         attorney@chitwoodlaw.com;

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

     (5) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;

     (6) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150,
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
         lewis.kahn@kglg.com;

     (7) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (8) 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;

     (9) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58
         South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

    (10) Motley Rice, LLC, One Georgia Center, 600 West
         Peachtree Street, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA, 30308, Phone:
         1-800-768-4026, E-mail: webmaster@motleyrice.com;

    (11) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

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

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


GOOGLE INC: N.Y. Legislator Drops Child Pornography Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Long Island politician, Jeffrey Toback, dropped a lawsuit
alleging the search engine company Google Inc. profits from
child pornography, the Newsday reports.  He said he couldn't
recall the basis for that claim and wouldn't comment on why the
lawsuit didn't back up the allegation.

According to Mr. Toback, Google has offered to sit down and
discuss the issues -- not while litigation was pending."  He
said he hopes to arrange a meeting with Google officials.

In May, Mr. Toback, a member of the Nassau County Legislature
from Oceanside, filed a suit claiming Google had "paid links" to
Web sites containing child pornography.  The suit sought class-
action status, but didn't specify monetary damages.

Later amended, the action sought to shut down Google.com until
it added and promoted technology to prevent access to child porn
and obscenity.

Google denied the allegations and said the company takes
numerous steps to prevent access to child pornography, including
removing it from its search engine, reporting it to law
enforcement officials and cooperating with authorities to go
after offenders.

Google spokesman Steve Langdon said the Mountain View,
California-based company was "pleased that the suit has been
dismissed and believe it was completely without merit."


GOOGLE INC: Radiator.com Rejects $90M "Click Fraud" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radiator.com, the auto-supply Web site owned by 1-800-Radiator,
based in Benicia California, will opt out of the $90 million
settlement Google Inc. has offered in a click-fraud class suit
brought in Arkansas, Direct reports.

In April, a judge in the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas, approved Google Inc.'s $90 million settlement of a
"click fraud" class action filed against it by advertisers.
Under the settlement, only $60 million of that amount will.

Initially, the suit was filed by Texarkana gift shop Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles.  On Feb. 4, 2005, John C. Goodson and
Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg filed a suit against Google, Yahoo!
Inc., Overture Services Inc., America Online Inc., Ask Jeeves  
Inc., Looksmart Ltd., Lycos Inc., Netscape Communication Corp.,  
Buena Vista Internet Group, Findwhat.Com Inc. and Time Warner  
Inc. (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The suit specifically alleged that the company overcharged
thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the
"click fraud" strategy.  The scheme involves sending fraudulent
clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts
(Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).  

According to the suit, the defendant companies worked with one
another in a conspiracy to create an online environment that
harms advertisers.  The search engine companies are being blamed
for growing Internet pay-per-click advertising market, while
failing to disclose they had routinely and systematically
overcharged/overcollected for PPC advertising revenue from their
customers (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2006).

                Settlement Terms and Hearing Date

Under the settlement, eligible advertisers in Google's network
during the past four years will be granted an account credit
that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google.

The Arkansas judge has set a hearing on Jul. 24 to 25, 2006 to
consider whether to give the proposed settlement final approval,
according to Shawn Khorrami, one of the lawyers challenging the
settlement.


HOLLYWOOD TANNING: N.J. Customer Files Suit Over Indoor Tanning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Tanning Systems Inc. faces a purported class action in
New Jersey Superior Court in Middlesex County over the company's
alleged failure to warn its clients of health risks linked to
indoor tanning, The Courier-Post Online reports.

Hadis Nafar, a Middlesex County resident and Hollywood customer,
brought the suit on June 21, 2006 against the leading franchiser
of tanning parlors.  She is represented in the case by the law
firm of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz.

The suit seeks class-action status, trebled compensatory
damages, including a refund of the fees paid for Hollywood Tans'
services, punitive damages attorneys' fees and the costs of the
suit.

For more details, contact the law firm of Meiselman, Denlea,
Packman, Carton & Eberz, 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains,
NY 10605, Phone: (914) 517-5000, Fax: (914) 517-5055, Web site:
http://www.mdpcelaw.com/intro.cfm.


HOOSIER LOTTERY: Settles Lawsuit Over $5 Winning Ticket in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hoosier Lottery has agreed to a proposed $600,000 settlement to
end a protracted class action involving a disputed winning
ticket, The Indianapolis Star reports.

The case, which would have cost the Hoosier Lottery $5 to
resolve in 1997 instead will cost the agency more than $1
million.

In 1996, Tom H. Smith of Indianapolis bought a $2 "instant win"
ticket, which yielded a $5 prize.  He didn't instantly redeem
it, though.  

When Mr. Smith tried to collect months later, he was told that
it was too late, since the game had ended more than 60 days
before.  Thus, he appealed to lottery headquarters, saying he
had no way of knowing the game had ended.  When that went
nowhere, Mr. Smith opted to sue the lottery.

The lottery already has spent more than $450,000 to pay lawyers
to fight the suit and now has agreed to set up a $600,000 fund
to resolve the matter.  

Esther Schneider, executive director of the Hoosier Lottery
since January 2005, said she looked at the lawsuit she inherited
and decided to settle it instead of prolonging it.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which still needs to
be formally approved by a judge, Mr. Smith will get $15,000 from
the $600,000 fund.

Claims can be filed for the rest of the money starting July 14.  
However, most of the money will end up going to legal fees
incurred by those challenging the state, according to a
settlement plan filed this month in Marion Superior Court.

Up to 800 people who already have been in touch with the lottery
or lawyers stand to collect on winning tickets purchased between
1989 and early 1997, the year the suit was filed.  Potentially,
other individuals can also make a claim though it is not known
exactly how many can.

For people making claims, they will be required to present a
ticket bought during that time and proving they were denied
winnings, since they originally missed a deadline.  They could
also make a convincing case to the claims administrator that
they did, if they no longer have the ticket.

Richard Waples, Mr. Smith's attorney, pointed out that the
lottery was inconsistent in how and whether it announced the end
of a game.  He also pointed out that the announcement was a key
part of the agreement when a player bought a ticket, and so its
non-posting is a breach of contract.

Jim Clark, the attorney representing the Hoosier Lottery though
still disagrees with both Messrs. Smith and Waples, pointing out
that he and the lottery believe that the plaintiff
mischaracterized the whole concept of an instant game.

For more details, contact Esther Schneider of The Hoosier
(Indiana) Lottery, Pan Am Plaza, 201 South Capitol Avenue, Suite
1100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46225, Phone: (317) 264-4800, Fax:
(317) 264-4908, Web site: http://www.hoosierlottery.com.


ILLINOIS: Wednesday Trial Set for Will County Strip Search Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Appellate Court will hear on June 28, 2006, Will
County's appeal on a suit over strip-searching that it lost in
federal court, according to The Herald News Online.
County Board Chairman Jim Moustis estimates the county could pay
up to $850,000 to settle the suit.

On December 16, 2005, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ruled
that Will County jail officials violated the constitutional
rights of thousands of defendants arrested for minor offenses by
strip-searching them upon incarceration and release (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

The class action was filed in May 2003, initially on behalf of
three former inmates, all arrested in cases of mistaken identity
on warrants for failure to appear in court on misdemeanor or
traffic charges.  Back then inmates arrested on misdemeanor and
traffic offenses were not strip searched upon incarceration, in
keeping with federal case precedent.  However, Will County
policy dictated that similar defendants picked up on failure-to-
appear warrants were strip-searched.

The case covers prisoners strip-searched from 2001 to 2005.

When the suit was filed, inmates facing misdemeanors and traffic
offenses also were strip-searched at the jail after court
hearings at which a judge ordered their release.  Those searches
took place before their return to their cells to retrieve their
belongings.

Judge Gettleman ruled that strip-searching inmates upon
incarceration on failure-to-appear warrants for minor offenses,
without cause to believe they were carrying contraband, violated
the constitution.  However, according to him, when jail
personnel have reasonable suspicion to believe an inmate is
carrying contraband, strip searches could be allowed.

The original suit is "Calvin, et al. v. Sheriff of Will Co, et
al. Case No. 1:03-cv-03086," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Robert W.
Gettleman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth N. Flaxman of Kenneth N.
Flaxman, P.C., 200 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1240, Chicago, IL
60604-6107, Phone: (312) 427-3200, E-mail: knf@kenlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Martin W. McManaman and Gerald
Haberkorn of Lowis & Gellen, 200 West Adams, Suite 1900,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 364-2500, E-mail: martym@lowis-
gellen.com and geraldh@lowis-gellen.com; and Marsha K. Ross of
Haskell & Perrin, 200 West Adams St., Suite 2005, Chicago, IL
60606-5284, Phone: (312) 781-9393.


MIKOHN GAMING: Seeks Dismissal of Nev. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mikohn Gaming Corp., d/b/a Progressive Gaming International
Corp., is seeking the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.

Commencing on November 28, 2005, four similar purported class
action complaints were filed, naming the company and two of its
officers as defendants, and seeking unspecified money damages
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaints all alleged that during a class period beginning
in early 2005 and ending on Oct. 19, 2005, the defendants misled
the company's investors concerning the company's financial
condition, specifically the prospective application of SFAS 153
to the company's financial statements for the third quarter of
2005.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action, and
a consolidated amended complaint was filed on or about April 13,
2006.

The amended complaint names additional defendants who are one of
the company's vice presidents and four members of its board of
directors.

On May 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which is to be fully briefed by
all parties by August 2006.  No discovery has been conducted and
no trial date has been set.

The suit is "In re Mikohn Gaming Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M.
Pro with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Albright of Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright,
         801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4, Las Vegas, NV 89106,
         Phone: (702) 384-7111, Fax: (702) 384-0605, E-mail:
         gma@albrightstoddard.com;

     (2) Ike L. Epstein of Beckley Singleton, Chtd., 530 Las
         Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, E-mail:
         ecf@beckleylaw.com;

    (3) Joni S. Jacobs of McCracken, Stemerman, Bowen &
        Holsberry, 1630 S. Commerce St., Suite A-1, Las Vegas,
        NV 89102, E-mail: jjacobs@dcbwash.com; and

    (4) Maya Saxena of Saxena White, P.A., 5200 Town Center
        Circle, Tower One, Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486,
        US, Phone: (954) 701-3965, Fax: (888) 782-3081, E-mail:
        msaxena@saxenawhite.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Facing Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mehri & Skalet, PLLC and Sprenger & Lang, PLLC filed a
nationwide class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia against Morgan Stanley.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all female financial
advisors at Morgan Stanley who were employed at any time from
Aug. 5, 2003 to the present.

The lawsuit arose out of the Women on Wall Street Project,
announced in April of 2004 by the National Council of Woman's
Organizations in partnership with Mehri & Skalet.  The
investigation into claims of gender discrimination at Morgan
Stanley's retail division began in earnest later that year and a
confidential tolling agreement was entered into between the
parties effective Dec. 27, 2004.

The two law firms and Morgan Stanley jointly announced that the
parties have been engaged in a productive dialogue and plans for
rolling out programmatic relief are expected to be announced
later this year.

Noted Mediator Hunter Hughes of Atlanta-based Rogers & Hardin,
LLP, stated that the yet to be announced reforms are
"meaningful, novel and far-reaching."

Cyrus Mehri, who has been lead counsel in major settlements
involving Texaco and The Coca-Cola Company, as well as diversity
efforts in the National Football League, declared, "The
plaintiffs have courageously stepped forward to be a catalyst
for change at Morgan Stanley that will have a ripple effect
throughout the industry."

Morgan Stanley stated, "The Firm is committed to enhancing the
performance of its female financial advisors and will continue
to work with class counsel on changes to accomplish this
objective."

The filing of the lawsuit is designed to protect the rights of
the named plaintiffs, who reside in four states, and the
prospective class members nationwide.

Plaintiffs named in the suit are Cheryl Guistiniano, Debra Shaw,
Joanne August-Johnson, Laurie Blackburn and Nancy Reeves.

Mr. Hughes noted that he expected the parties to continue "their
fruitful discussions" and anticipates a comprehensive nationwide
settlement to be achieved in the relatively near future.

Also representing plaintiffs is Moody & Warner, PC, an
employment law firm that works primarily in the Rocky Mountain
region.

Potential class members are advised to contact Sandi Farrell of
Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Phone: (202) 822-5100 ext. 103, E-mail:
sfarrell@findjustice.com; or Michael Lieder of Sprenger & Lang,
PLLC, Phone: 202-265-8010, E-mail: mlieder@sprengerlang.com.

The suit is "August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01142-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia under Judge Richard W. Roberts.

Representing the plaintiffs are Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet,
PLLC, 1300 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202)
822-5100, E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com; and Steven M. Sprenger
of Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, 1400 I Street, NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 265-8010, Fax: (202) 332-
6652, E-mail: ssprenger@sprengerlang.com.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sued Over Alleged Fraud by Financial Advisors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice LLC filed a suit against the National Football
League and the NFL Players Association for its endorsement and
recommendation of the financial advisory services of Kirk Wright
and his firm, International Management Associates.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, is on behalf of several current and former NFL
football players, including NFL Pro-Bowl players Steve Atwater
and Blaine Bishop, who utilized the NFL's security department
services and the NFL Players Association's Registered Financial
Advisor Program.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs invested a total of
approximately $20 million in hedge funds managed and controlled
by Mr. Wright and IMA after relying on the NFL and the Players
Association to conduct due diligence background checks on Mr.
Wright and IMA.

Plaintiffs also relied on the fact that Mr. Wright and one of
his partners, Nelson Bond, were Registered Financial Advisors in
the Program, which was created by the Players Association
expressly to protect players from fraudsters.

Last month, Mr. Wright was apprehended by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, poolside at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Miami, and
arrested for criminal mail fraud.  Mr. Wright's investors
invested between $115 - $185 million in IMA's hedge funds since
its inception in 1996.  According to the Wall St. Journal,
authorities and creditors have located less than $200,000 of
these investments.

"We trusted the NFL and the Players Association to protect us
from these kinds of people.  This is exactly why the Program was
created in the first place," said Plaintiff Blaine Bishop, a
former NFL Pro-Bowl player.  "The fact that the NFL and the
Players Association cleared guys like Kirk Wright and Nelson
Bond is outrageous."

Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs at the time of their investments,
neither Mr. Wright nor Mr. Bond should have been approved for
registration in the Program, according to the Program's own
guidelines.  Prior to registration, Wright and Bond had state
and federal tax liens and judgments imposed on them -- red flags
that should have precluded them from admittance into the
Program.

Furthermore, it is alleged that Mr. Wright did not have the
appropriate professional liability insurance coverage required
by the Program.  Instead, the Players Association accepted Mr.
Wright's personal life insurance policy.  In clearing Mr.
Wright, Mr. Bond and IMA, and approving Mr. Wright's and Mr.
Bond's registration applications, it is alleged that Defendants'
breached their duties to plaintiffs and are therefore liable for
plaintiffs' losses.

"The Program, the NFL and the Players Association failed us and
we've lost millions.  We want to fix the Program and make sure
this never happens again," said Steve Atwater.

Plaintiffs plan to hold a formal press conference during the
week of June 26, 2006.

Motley Rice LLC is working on this case together with New York
co-counsel M. Quentin Williams, Esq., a sports and entertainment
attorney.

For more information, contact Sally Comollo of Motley Rice LLC,
Phone: 843-216-9121, Mobile: 843-834-1612, E-mail:
scomollo@motleyrice.com, Website: http://www.motleyrice.com.


NEW YORK: Court Hears Arguments in Lawsuit Over WTC Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
heard on June 23 arguments by parties in the World Trade Center
first responders lawsuit, the Xinhua News reports.

New York City is trying to dismiss a class suit filed by some
8,000 workers and the families of the dead who claim the city,
in its haste to clear the site, exposed them to dangerous levels
of asbestos, lead and other toxins.

The suit alleges that the plaintiffs worked in the rubble from
the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001 without proper gear,
ultimately leading to various health ailments.

It further claims that 57 Ground Zero workers have died and
thousands of others have been sickened by exposure to a noxious
mix of chemicals released when the World Trade Center was
reduced to smoldering rubble.

The city denied responsibility, saying its contractors were
acting in the nation's defense as they worked to restore Ground
Zero in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001.

According to City attorney James Tyrrell the city should be
shielded from negligence claims because it was in the midst of a
national emergency that demanded a "robust" response.

But plaintiffs' attorney David Worby, argued Ground Zero that
ceased being an emergency site in the days after the attacks
when the Bush administration declared air quality at Ground Zero
safe.

"At a certain point, the emergency ends and the regular rules
have to apply," Attorney Worby said. "The tragedy is this is
only the beginning the people who are sick and dying."

The suit is "Aalbue et al. v. 1 World Trade Center LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-04702-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein.  Representing the defendants is James E. Tyrrell of
Patton Boggs LLP, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone:
(973) 868-5600, Fax: (973) 639-7298.

Representing the plaintiffs is David E. Worby of Worby Groner
Edelman LLP, 11 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York
10606,Phone: 914-686-3700 or 212-732-3410, Fax: 914-686-8080.


OKLAHOMA: Video Game Industry Sues to Overturn Video Game Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Entertainment Software Association said the computer and
video game industry filed a suit in Oklahoma, asking that the
state's new video game law be overturned.

Similar laws have been ruled as unconstitutional by six federal
courts in five years, all rejecting claims made by states that
violent video games cause aggression.

"Legislators have sold parents a bill of goods for political
expediency," said Doug Lowenstein, president of the ESA, the
trade group representing U.S. computer and video game
publishers.  "They know the bill will be struck down, they know
it's based on bad science, and they know it won't help parents
do their jobs.  What they won't tell voters: we just picked your
pocket to the tune of a half million dollars, the amount the
state will have to reimburse the ESA after the inevitable
decision is made to strike down the law."

The law criminalizes the sale or distribution of violent video
games to minors, even by their own parents.  By subjecting a
parent to criminal liability for providing a video game to their
child, the state of Oklahoma is the first in the country to pass
a law that takes the unprecedented step of telling parents that
the government knows better than they what games their children
should play.

"Parents, not local police offices, should decide what games are
suitable for their children," said Mr. Lowenstein.  "We stand
ready to work with parents to provide them with information
about the Entertainment Software Ratings system, which has been
called the most comprehensive rating system for any
entertainment medium in the country, in order to help parents
make informed choices about the games their children play."

"The law's definitions are so vague and imprecise that no video
game retailer could ever know whether a particular video game is
covered by the restrictions," said Bo Andersen, president of the
Entertainment Merchants Association, the not-for-profit
international trade association for the retailers and
distributors of console and computer video games and DVDs.  "No
retail clerk should suffer the ignominy of a criminal record
where no reasonable person could determine whether a particular
video game may legally be sold or rented to a minor."

Mr. Lowenstein said the ESA is disappointed that the legislature
opted to enact the bill rather than pursue constitutional and
effective ways to work cooperatively with industry, retailers,
government, parent groups, and health groups to educate parents
about the ESRB ratings and content descriptors and the parental
controls available in all next generation consoles.

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

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


PARK POINTE: Ida. Court Certifies Suit Over "Illegal" Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho has certified a class action against Park
Pointe Realty Inc. over allegations the real estate agency is
illegally charging home buyers commissions on undeveloped
property using a technique called 'tying.'  

The class action now represents thousands of home purchasers in
the Boise area.

According to the suit filed in May 2005, home purchasers are
duped into paying commissions not only on an undeveloped lot
they purchase, but on the cost of a house subsequently built on
the property.

The suit accuses the agencies of violating federal and state
antitrust and unfair competition laws, among other charges.

"These brokers control a very large percentage of the real
estate market in the red-hot Boise market," said Steve Berman,
the attorney leading the legal challenge on behalf of consumers.
"We intend to show that the defendants use their market leverage
to force homebuyers to pay these additional commissions but
provide no market value."

The complaint also claims that the defendants conspire to
maintain exclusive listings for undeveloped subdivision lots,
limit the number of builders who can build on the lots, and
refuse to sell lots without payment of commission tied to the
construction of the house.

"For example, under a standard six-percent commission schedule,
if a homebuyer pays $50,000 for a lot from a broker and then
constructs a $150,000 house on the site, that purchaser should
pay $3,000 in commissions for the land purchase," Attorney
Berman said. "What we are alleging in our complaint is the
brokers are illegally charging $12,000 -- six percent of cost of
the land and the house construction."

Attorney Berman noted that using this example, this scheme could
lead to $1.8 million in ill-gotten commissions in a 200-lot
subdivision.

The lawsuit seeks to recover excessive commissions charged by
the defendant real estate agencies, and an injunction to stop
this practice.

A copy of the Class Certification Order is available free of
charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?c32

The suit is "Merrithew et al v. Park Pointe Realty, Inc., Case
No. 1:06-cv-00061-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Amanda J Beane of Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Ave.,
         #4800, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 359-8000, E-
         mail: abeane@perkinscoie.com;

     (2) Richard C Boardman of Perkins Coie LLP, 251 E Front
         St., #400 Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208) 343-3434, Fax:
         1-208-343-3232, E-mail: rboardman@perkinscoie.com; and

     (3) Thomas L Boeder of Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Ave.,
         #4800 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 359-8416, Fax:
         206-359-9416, E-mail: tboeder@perkinscoie.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W Berman of The Law Firm Hagens Berman, 1301 5th
         Ave #2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292,
         Fax: 1-206-623-0594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Rex Blackburn of Blackburn & Jones, PO Box 7808, Boise,
         ID 83707, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208) 489-8988,
         E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com;

     (3) Daniel Loras Glynn of Blackburn & Jones LLP, 1673 W.
         Shoreline Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83702, Phone:
         (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208) 489-8988, E-mail:
         daniel@blackburnjoneslaw.com;

     (4) Philip H Gordon of The Gordon Law Offices, 623 W Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345-7100, Fax: 1-
         208-345-0050, E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com;

     (5) Bruce C Jones of Blackburn & Jones LLP, PO Box 7808,
         Boise, ID 83707-7808, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208)
         489-8988, E-mail: bruce@blackburnjoneslaw.com;

     (6) Bruce M Smith of Moore, Smith, Buxton & Turcke, 950 W
         Bannock Ste 520, Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208) 331-
         1800, Fax: 1-208-331-1202, E-mail: bms@msbtlaw.com; and

     (7) Craig R Spiegel of Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 268-9328, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         craig@hbsslaw.com.


PARMALAT SPA: S.D.N.Y Judge Okays U.S. Lawyers' Italian Inquest
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan has given permission to 95 U.S. lawyers acting
for those who have brought a class action against Parmalat
S.p.a. to proceed with an investigation in Italy, the Il Sole 24
ore reports.

The U.S. lawyers are expected to question witnesses cited in the
Parmalat in connection with the Italian dairy group's collapse.
They include the bankers Cesare Geronzi, Matteo Arpe and Rainer
Masera, as well as Stefano Tanzi, son of Parmalat's founder and
chairman, Calisto Tanzi.

Mr. Tanzi Jr. is one of 19 people currently on trial in Milan
for market rigging in connection with Parmalat.

Case Background

U.S. holders of Parmalat bonds filed a securities fraud
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against a number of Parmalat banks and auditors
claiming that during the class period -- Jan. 5, 1999 through
Dec. 18, 2003, prior to the Extraordinary Administration, --
those individuals, along with Old Parmalat's banks and
accounting firms, structured and participated in a panoply of
fraudulent schemes designed to hide Old Parmalat's growing debts
to third parties and artificially inflate its assets, revenues
and ultimately, the market prices of its securities.  

The scheme culminated in Old Parmalat's financial collapse when
it was revealed that the company's total consolidated debt had
been understated by nearly $10 billion and its total net assets,
or shareholder equity, had been overstated by $16.4 billion.
Parmalat, an international food and dairy company, filed for
bankruptcy in Italy in December 2003.  

In October 2005, the court in Parma, Italy issued a decree
approving a "composition" or agreement with Old Parmalat's
creditors causing Parmalat S.p.A. to formally succeed Old
Parmalat and triggering the transfer of Old Parmalat's assets
and liabilities to New Parmalat.  

Thus, unlike U.S. bankruptcy, Parmalat S.p.A., or "New Parmalat"
did not get a "fresh start" with its pre-petition debts being
discharged.  Rather, it emerged with the assets and liabilities
of its predecessor companies that were not discharged in the
Extraordinary Administration.   

In its first official prospectus, New Parmalat recognized that
plaintiffs in the U.S. securities class action could assert
claims against it in the U.S.  For these reasons, lead
plaintiffs moved for leave to assert federal securities fraud
claims against New Parmalat based on the actions of Old Parmalat
and its officers, directors, statutory auditors and others prior
to Extraordinary Administration.  

In June, Grant & Eisenhofer and Cohen Milstein, law firms
leading a securities class action against Parmalat S.p.a., filed
a fresh motion seeking permission to amend their complaint to
assert claims against Parmalat S.p.A., the entity that recently
emerged from Extraordinary Administration Proceedings, akin to
U.S. bankruptcy, in Italy.  

Until recently, the class plaintiffs were prevented from filing
claims against Parmalat Finanziaria and its subsidiaries and
affiliates due to a stay issued in the Italian bankruptcy
proceedings against all creditors, including class plaintiffs,
and also a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. bankruptcy
court against all creditors and class plaintiffs.  The newly
filed complaint allows Parmalat investors who lost billions of
dollars in the dairy giant's fraud-soaked collapse to seek
claims against the company itself.  

The amended complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Grant & Eisenhofer represents  
Parmalat shareholders, including U.K.-based Hermes Focused Asset
Management Europe Ltd.  Law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C. represents Parmalat's former bondholders.  

The amended complaint also contains new allegations against
accounting Grant Thornton LLP, which had previously been
dismissed from the case, showing that it controlled its U.S.
affiliate, defendant Grant Thornton International, which had
participated in the fraud.

Plaintiffs also amended their claims against Credit Suisse First
Boston, now known as Credit Suisse.  They added new claims
against related entities:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston International, now known as  
        Credit Suisse International,  

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Limited, now known  
        as Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, and  

     -- Credit Suisse Group,  

for their direct participation in, or control of entities that  
participated in, the fraud.

The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:04-cv-00030-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Coughlin of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &  
         Lerach, L.L.P., 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA  
         94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545;

     (2) Joshua Seth Devore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,  
         PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500,  
         Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202)408-4600, Fax:  
         (202)-408-4699, E-mail: jdevore@cmht.com;

     (3) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA (DE), Chase  
         Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington,  
         DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100,  
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com; and
  
     (4) Mario Alba, Jr. 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: malba@lerachlaw.com.
  
Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Christopher Moore Brubaker of Kittredge Donley Elson  
         Fullem & Emb (PA), 400 Market Street, Suite 200,  
         Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215)-829-9900, Fax:  
         (215)-829-9888, E-mail: cbrubaker@kdefe.com;
  
     (2) Donald C. Moss of Moss & Moss, L.L.P., 170 East 61st  
         Street, New York, NY 10021, Phone: (212) 644-1000;  

     (3) Norina I. Edelman of Sidley Austin LLP(Washington),  
         1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202-
         736-8739, Fax: (202)-736-8711, E-mail:  
         nedelman@sidley.com;

     (4) Dana Leigh Post of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel,  
         LLP, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,  
         Phone: (212) 839-5667, Fax: (212) 839-5599, E-mail:  
         dpost@sidley.com;

     (5) Howard A. Ellins of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-450-
         4248, Fax: (212)-450-5548, E-mail: ellins@dpw.com;

     (6) Dennis Eugene. Glazer of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-450-
         4900 Fax: (212)-450-3900, E-mail:  
         dennis.glazer@dpw.com;

     (7) Loren Kieve of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &  
         Hedges, 50 California Street, 22nd Flr., San Francisco,  
         CA 94104-2543, Phone: (415) 875-6320, Fax: (415) 875-
         6700, E-mail: lorenkieve@quinnemanuel.com; and

     (8) Mark Adam Kirsch of Clifford Chance US, LLP(NYC!), 31  
         West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6131, Phone: (212)  
         878-8192, Fax: (212) 878-8375, E-mail:  
         mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Reaches Final Deal in Uninsured Patients Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement in a class action against non-profit hospital
chain Providence Health System was filed in Multnomah County
Circuit Court in Oregon on June 23, according to The Oregonian.

The suit, filed two years ago, centers on allegations that
Providence charged uninsured patients a higher rate for services
than it did insured patients.  It got preliminary approval in
November.

Under the final settlement, certain uninsured patients of
Providence Health will get refunds totaling $192,385 for
overcharges, according to Providence spokesman Gary Walker.  
Others will get discounts totaling $969,425 on Providence bills
issued since December 2001.  A total of 992 patients will
receive refunds or discounts, the spokesman said.

Representing the plaintiffs is Brian Campf of Williams Love
O'Leary Craine & Powers, P.C., 9755 S.W. Barnes Road, Suite 450
Portland, Oregon 97225, (Clackamas, Multnomah & Washington
Cos.), Phone: 503-295-2924, Fax: 503-295-3720.


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles with Defective Faceplate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill, California,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 2,700 units of bicycles with SW Carbon stem
with magnesium faceplate.

The company said the bicycle's stem has a magnesium faceplate
that holds the handlebar in place.  The faceplates on the
recalled stems can crack allowing the handlebar to break off the
bicycle, posing a serious fall hazard.  Five reports of the
magnesium faceplate exhibiting cracks have been reported.  No
injuries have been reported.

The SW Carbon Stem with Magnesium Faceplate is black with the
words "S-Works" and "Magnesium Faceplate" printed on it.  The
stems were included as original equipment on the following 2006
bicycles models: S-Works Tarmac, Tarmac Pro, S-Works Roubaix,
Roubaix Pro, Allez Pro and S-Works Transition.  It was also sold
as an after market item under the name S-Works Advanced
Composite Mag Road Stem.

The recalled stems were manufactured in Taiwan and are being
sold at authorized specialized retailers from June 2005 through
April 2006 as original equipment of the bicycle models
referenced above or as an after market item for about $160.

Picture of the recalled stem with magnesium faceplate:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06195.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop riding the bicycles that have the
recalled stems immediately and take them to an authorized
specialized retailer for a free replacement faceplate.

For additional information, call Specialized at (877) 808-8154
between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. MT, Monday through Friday, or visit
the company's Website at http://www.Specialized.com.


STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Employee Tips Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowet denied an
attempt by Starbucks Corp. to dismiss a lawsuit over its
disbursement of employee tips, the San Diego Union-Tribune
reports.  

The ruling paves the way for a trial on whether as many as
100,000 Starbucks baristas or counter workers were shortchanged
on tips, because they were forced to share them with shift
supervisors at each of its 1,400 stores in California.

Terry Chapko, a Coronado attorney who brought the suit against
the coffee chain, told the San Diego Union-Tribune that they're
really gratified that the lowest-paid employees get a chance for
justice over the coffee company's distribution of pooled
customer tips.

Previously, Judge Cowett said she intended to dismiss the class
action at the request of the company.  However, after listening
to oral arguments, she said she would reconsider her tentative
ruling.

Even though the case was allowed to proceed, Scott Brink, a Los
Angeles employment-law specialist pointed out that the company
could only claim partial victory in Judge Cowett's ruling.

He specifically pointed out that the judge refused to allow the
class action to seek penalties of up to 30 days' pay for each of
the workers who might ultimately be owed tip money.  

That refusal, Mr. Brink says is a victory for the company, since
it eliminated a very large portion of the case.

Case Background

The class action, filed in October 2004, and certified on March
30, alleges that the company allowed shift supervisors to share
in the weekly distribution of customer tips at each store,
violating California state law that prohibits employers from
taking tips from their employees (Class Action Reporter, June
19, 2006).  

Filed on behalf of Jou Chou, a former worker at company outlets
in La Jolla and Hemet, the suit claims that supervisors are part
of management and not entitled to the tips intended for counter
workers, or baristas (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2006).

Although the class action paints supervisors as part of the
Starbucks' management team, the company contends that they are
not part of management and perform essentially the same jobs as
baristas.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Terry J. Chapko of Chapko & English LLP,
         1111 Orange Avenue, Suite A Coronado, CA 92118, Phone:
         619 522 2100, Fax: 619 522 2104; and

     (2) [Starbucks] Rex S. Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
         Feld LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los
         Angeles, California 90067-3012, Phone: 310-229-1000,
         Fax: 310-229-1001, E-mail: rheinke@akingump.com, Web
         site: http://www.akingump.com/.


STELLENT INC: Securities Fraud Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota gave final
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Stellent, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements relating to the company and its future financial
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages against the
defendants.

In fiscal year 2005, a settlement was reached in the suit,
subject to final documentation and preliminary and final court
approval.  The company received the final court approval in the
third quarter of fiscal year 2006, according to the company's
June 21, 2006 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Stellent, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:03-cv-04384-RHK-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota under Judge Richard H. Kyle with
referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carolyn Glass Anderson of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 651
         Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123,
         Phone: (612) 341-0400, Fax: (612) 341-0844, E-mail:
         cga@zimmreed.com; and

     (2) David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-454-7724, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Heather J. Klaas of Ameriprise Financial, Inc., T33/52
         IDS Tower, Mpls, MN 55440, Phone: 612-671-4873, Fax:
         612-671-3432, E-mail: heather.j.klaas@ampf.com;

    (ii) Peter W. Carter of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th
         St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-
         340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-mail:
         carter.peter@dorsey.com.


UNITED STATES: Judge Shelves Credit Monitoring Offer to Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has barred the government from going ahead with
its free credit monitoring offer to veterans whose personal data
was stolen.  He also set a Friday hearing to determine whether
the offer should be revived, according to Associated Press.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is facing class actions
on behalf of individuals whose personal information were stolen
in May.  It is accused of "unreasonably" delaying to report the
theft of the personal information to law enforcers.  

Recently, the Veterans Affairs Department announced its plan to
offer free monitoring for a year to the victims.  It said it
would send out letters to affected veterans and military
personnel in early August.  It also posted information on the
government's Web site.  The Senate already approved $160 million
to pay for the credit monitoring.

But lawyers for the veterans argued that the government's offer
could jeopardize their chance of receiving greater compensation
under a class action.  They said in court papers it should be
made clear whether veterans who take the government deal will
have to give up their rights in court.  The opposition prompted
U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman in Kentucky to hold the
program.

One class action against the company was filed by Mason Law
Firm, the law offices of Peter N. Wasylyk in Prividence, and the
law office of Andrew S. Kierstead in Portland.

The firms did not specify the amount they are asking from the
government for the loss of the files that contain personal data,
including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
disability ratings, and certain medical information.

The data were stolen during a burglary of the home of a Veterans
Affairs employee, who early in May copied the files from the
department's facilities onto his computer and/or external disks
and brought them home for an "unspecified purpose."  The files
have not yet been recovered.  It contains personal information
of 26.5 million veterans discharged since 1975 and as many as
1.1 million active-duty military personnel, 430,000 National
Guard members and 645,000 reserve members

The suit is "Daniel Kennedy, et al. v. U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan.  Defendants are the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs; R. James Nicholson, Secretary; Gordon G. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary; and John Doe, employee of the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.

A full-text copy of the complaint is available for free at:   

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?b53

A similar suit, "Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al. v.
Nicholson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
James Robertson.  Plaintiffs in the case are:

     -- Citizen Soldier, Inc.,
     -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.,
     -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc.,
     -- Veterans For Peace, Inc.,
     -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc.
     -- Charles L. Clark,
     -- David Cline,
     -- James E. Malone,
     -- John Rowan

Representing the plaintiffs in the Kennedy suit is Douglas J.
Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., 1320
Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: (803) 252-
1300, E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.co.


WESTERN STOCKMEN'S: Recalls Horse Feed Containing Rumensin
----------------------------------------------------------
Western Stockmen's of Caldwell, Idaho is recalling all Pride
Mature Horse feed, Lot number 7701-050306, because it may
contain monensin sodium Rumensin, a drug compound approved for
use in some livestock species, but which can be fatal if fed to
horses.  Western Stockmen's is a business unit of J.R. Simplot
Company.

Pride Mature Horse feed was distributed by the Western
Stockmen's store to customers in Caldwell, Idaho, and to Cowpoke
Ranch Supply in Corvallis, Montana, and 3 Rivers in Lostine,
Oregon.

Consumers can identify the product by the WSI Pride Feed bag
label on 50-pound bags, which will have a feed tag on the top
left of the bag labeled Pride Mature Horse, with the lot number
7701-050306 at the bottom.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Western Stockmen's are
conducting an investigation to determine how Rumensin appeared
in some of the feed.

At least two horse deaths related to the consumption of this
feed are being investigated.  Additional illnesses are also
being investigated.

Consumers are advised to cease use immediately and contact Leeon
Martineau, General Manager or Julie Johnston, Quality Assurance
Supervisor at Western Stockmen's, Phone: 1-800-632-3005 or 1-
208-459-0777.

For more information, contact David Cuoio, Phone: 208-890-9075
or 208-389-7243 or 208-362-8607.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ANTIGENICS INC: Faces New Securities Fraud Suit in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antigenics Inc. faces a purported class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico by Steven J.
Tuckfelt on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.  
The suit was filed against the company and its chief executive
officer, Garo H. Armen, PhD.

The complaint alleges that certain disclosures by the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 as well as includes purported claims for breach of
fiduciary duty.

The company believes that the complaint is without merit and
plans to vigorously defend against the litigation.  The
company's policy is to not discuss pending litigation.

Antigenics -- http://www.antigenics.com-- is a biotechnology  
company working to develop treatments for cancers, infectious
diseases and autoimmune disorders.

Securities Fraud Cases

In 2000, a consolidated securities class action was filed
against Antigenics, Inc., its chairman and CEO, Garo Armen, and
two investment banking firms that served as underwriters in its
initial public offering.  The suit was filed behalf of a class
of purchasers of its stock between Feb. 3, 2000 and Dec. 6,
2000.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended class action complaint, which contains new allegations.
In addition to the claims in the earlier complaint, the amended
complaint alleged that the company and Dr. Armen violated
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by making false
and misleading statements and/or omissions in order to inflate
stock price and conceal the investment banking firms' alleged
secret arrangements.  The claims against Dr. Armen, in his
individual capacity, have been dismissed without prejudice.

On July 15, 2002, the company and Dr. Armen joined the issuer
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaints.  By order of the court, this motion set forth all
"common issues," i.e., "all grounds for dismissal common to all
or a significant number of issuer defendants."  

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its opinion and order on
the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5 and Section 20 claims
with leave to amend and denied its motion to dismiss the Section
11 and Section 15 claims.  

In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this litigation was
structured between 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 that may have
against our underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is expected to be borne by its insurance
carriers.

In June 2004, an agreement of 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.

The plaintiffs and issuer defendants separately filed replies to
the underwriter defendants' objections to the settlement on Aug.
4, 2004.  The court granted the preliminary approval motion on
Feb. 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications.  The parties
are directed to report back to the court regarding the
modifications.  

On September 1, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be provided to class members, and scheduled
a fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed
settlement will be heard.  

The suit is "In Re Antigenics Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," 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.  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, 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.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Brower Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Herley Industries, Inc.
between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against defendants Herley and Lee N.
Blatt, its co-founder and then chairman of its Board of
Directors.  The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the class period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.  


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Suit in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP, initiated a securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of purchasers of Herley Industries, Inc. stock during
a class period of Oct. 1, 2001 to June 14, 2006, including all
purchasers of Herley stock in the company's April 25, 2002
secondary offering.

The complaint charges Herley and its co-founder Lee N. Blatt and
other current and former top executive officers with violating
the federal securities laws by issuing false financial
statements.

Herley and Mr. Blatt have been indicted on multiple charges in
connection with fabricating bids in order to achieve false and
excessive profits from contracts with the U.S. Department of
Defense, and Herley has since disclosed that certain of
manufacturing facilities have been suspended from receiving
contract awards or subcontracts from the Federal Government.  

The price of Herley stock has dropped more than 50% as a result.

Interested parties have no later than August 14, 2006 to request
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.  

For more details, contact Mark C. Gardy of Gardy & Notis, LLP,
440 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, Phone:
201-567-7377, Fax: 201-567-7337, E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com,
Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com.  


HOME SOLUTIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of
Home Solutions of America, Inc. between April 11, 2006 and June
6, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

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

Interested parties have until Aug. 21, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status.

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


INFOSONICS CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
InfoSonics Corp.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from May 9, 2006 to June 9, 2006.

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

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of Vitesse Semiconductor
Corp. that July 3, 2006 is the deadline to move the court for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.'s stock
between Jan. 28, 2003 and April 26, 2006.

Vitesse, headquartered in Camarillo, California, engages in the
design, development, manufacturing, and marketing of integrated
circuits for systems manufacturers in the communications and
storage industries.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading financial statements during the reporting periods for
the three months ended December 31, 2005 and the three years
ended September 30, 2005.

On April 18, 2006 the company shocked the market when it
announced that it had appointed a Special Committee of
independent directors to conduct an internal investigation
relating to past stock option grants, the timing of such grants
and related accounting and documentation.

The company also announced that it had put on "administrative
leave" the company's founder and current chief executive
officer, Louis R. Tomasetta, the company's chief financial
officer, Yatin Mody, and the company's executive vice president,
Eugene Hovanec.

The following day, Vitesse stock fell 20%.

A little over a week later, after the market closed on April 26,
2006, the company announced that as a result of the ongoing
internal investigation, the company's "reported financial
statements for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005 and three
years ended Sept. 30, 2005 and possibly earlier periods should
not be relied upon."

The company also announced for the first time, that "additional
issues have arisen concerning the company's practices in
connection with credits issued to or requested by customers (for
returned products or otherwise) and the related accounting
treatment, as well as the application of payments received to
the proper accounts receivable."  The following day, the
company's stock fell an additional 27%.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. both of the Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or
(917) 797-4425 (Weekends) or 1-866--767-3653 (Toll Free), Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com, Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C.
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp. pursuant to the company's
initial public offering from May 24, 2006 to June 1, 2006.

The class also includes Vonage customers who purchased or
otherwise acquired Vonage stock in the IPO through the company's
Customer Directed Share Program.

Vonage sells products and services, which are designed to enable
its customers to make and receive telephone calls over the
Internet.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers,
directors and underwriters violated the federal securities laws
by selling Vonage stock through a materially false and
misleading joint Registration Statement and Proxy-Prospectus.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus misled investors
regarding the viability and effectiveness of Vonage's
technology, products, and services.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectus misstated
material facts with respect to the mechanics, timing, and
procedures applicable to the Customer Directed Share Program.

Interested parties have no later than August 1, 2006 to move to
be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action.

For more details, contact David Harrison or Thomas Skelton of
Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., The Gateway, 11th
Floor One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, NY 10601-1714,
Phone: 877-777-3581, E-mail: ldbs@westnet.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  * * *