CAR_Public/060628.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 127

                            Headlines

AFFINION MEMBERSHIP: Continues to Face Ala. Consumer Fraud Suit
AIRLINES: BA, Virgin Atlantic Face Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y.
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Retirement Plan Suit
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ark. High Court Upholds Ruling on Car Fees
AT&T INC: Court Has Yet to Rule on Bid to Junk Wiretapping Suit

BAUSCH & LOMB: Shook Leads Defense in Contact Lens Solution Suit
CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Hears Objections in Securities Lawsuit
CROWLEY MARITIME: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Investors' Suit
E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Calif. Court to Hold Conference for "Bruns"
EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Shareholders File Suit Amid Crisis Talks

FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE: Discovery Commences in Ill. FCRA Lawsuit
HOLLAND REALTY: Court Certifies Suit Over "Illegal" Commission
ILLINOIS: Sept. Trial Set for Racial Bias Suit Against U46 Dist.
INSURERS: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Premium Taxes in Kentucky
KAISER VENTURES: Reaches Settlement in "Slemmer" Litigation

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Md. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
MINNESOTA: Residents Near Airport Demand Protection from Noise
NTS-PROPERTIES: "Buchanan" Settlement Continues in Contra Costa
NTS REALTY: Ky. Court Sets Hearing on Dismissal Motion in "Bohm"
OHIO UNIVERSITY: Graduates Sue for Compensation Over Data Loss

OMEGA FLEX: Faces Ark. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Defective Tubing
PFIZER INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over Injectable Contraceptive
PHONE COMPANIES: S.C. Reviews N.Y. Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit
RIDLEY INC: Seeks to Appeal Ruling on Beef Import Ban Lawsuit
SEL-EQUITY CO: Court Certifies Suit Over "Illegal" Commission

STATION CASINOS: Requests Judge in Thunder Valley Bias Lawsuit
TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
TRILEGIANT CORP: Ala. Court Approves 500T CROA Suit Settlement
TRILEGIANT CORP: Continues to Face Suit Over Membership Programs
TRILEGIANT CORP: Wash. Appeals Court Mulls Arbitration Motion

TRL GROUP: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Minn. Judge Grills Prospective Lead Counsel
UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots Accuse Union Representative of Breach
WESTERN DIGITAL: Calif. Judge Approves Disk Storage Suit Deal
WORLDCOM INC: Bids Received in Sale of Former CEO's Properties


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROOKS AUTOMATION: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Mass.
ERIE FAMILY: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in Pa.
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in Mass.


                            *********


AFFINION MEMBERSHIP: Continues to Face Ala. Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary, LLC, formerly
Cendant Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary, LLC, remains a
defendant in a purported consumer fraud class action in the
Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County.

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for
Greene County.  

The suit alleges, among others, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive
practices act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s
May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.  

The federal suit is "Banks, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et
al., Case No. 7:02-cv-03052-RDP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge R. David
Proctor.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mike Comer of Patterson Comer Law Firm, 1323 Hargrove
         Road East, Tuscaloosa, AL 35405, Phone: 205-507-9091,
         Fax: 205-507-1022, E-mail: jmikecomer@yahoo.com; and

     (2) Clint Mountain of Mountain & Baird, P.O. Box 2885,
         Tuscaloosa, AL 35403, Phone: 1-205-349-1740, E-mail:
         CDMountain@gmail.com.

Representing the company is Wilson F. Green of Battle Fleenor
Green Winn Clemmer, LLP, 1150 Financial Center, 505 North 20th
Street, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-397-8160, Fax: 205-397-
8179, E-mail: wgreen@bfgwc.com.


AIRLINES: BA, Virgin Atlantic Face Antitrust Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll initiated a
purported price fixing class action against British Airways,
PLC, and Virgin Atlantic, Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

Filed on June 23, 2006 on behalf of John C. Gornik, the suit
alleges that British Airways colluded with Virgin Atlantic to
co-ordinate imposing fuel-price surcharges on key transatlantic
routes.

Specifically, it claimed that British Airways, Virgin and other
unnamed airlines operated a "global conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain and/or stabilize prices for long haul passenger flights
to and from the U.K."

The antitrust class action is seeking damages on behalf of all
individuals who have been victimized by price fixing on
passenger tickets, including fuel surcharges, on long haul
flights in and out of London.

The legal action comes on the heels of British Airways'
admission last week that antitrust regulators in the U.S. and
the United Kingdom are probing the carrier's pricing policies on
long-haul passenger routes, including the setting of fuel
surcharges.

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

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?c50

The suit is "Gornik v. British Airways PLC, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-03139-SLT-VVP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Sandra L. Townes with
referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

Representing the plaintiffs is Linda P. Nussbaum of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, 30th
Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, (202) 408-4600
and (888) 347-4600, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com.


ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Retirement Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Fiduciaries of the retirement account plan of Allegheny Health
Education and Research Foundation has reached a settlement with
employees who had fewer than five years of credited service with
the foundation, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The suit will provide about $1.1 million after legal fees to
workers who submit qualified claims.  The settlement received
preliminary approval on May 30.  Claims filing deadline is July
12, 2006.  A court hearing is set July 25, 2006 in Philadelphia.  
Deadline to opt out is July 12, 2006.  The suit was settled
without the admission of wrongdoing by the defendant.

AHERF employees with fewer than five years of service were told
they lost their retirement savings after the Pittsburgh-based
foundation that ran a vast statewide health-care network in the
1990s filed for bankruptcy in 1998.  The retirement plan was
partially terminated then.

The employees were then told that they were not entitled to
money because their benefits had not vested and, thus, weren't
funded.  In their suit, the employees claim they were led to
believe the AHERF retirement plan was fully funded with money
set aside for them in individual accounts, according to the
report.

About 5,000 employees are believed to be eligible for the
settlement.  They stand to recover about 4 cents for every
dollar that was in their individual accounts at the time of the
retirement plan's partial termination in November 1998 -- that
is, if all members submit valid claims.

The suit was filed before Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S.
District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania.


ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ark. High Court Upholds Ruling on Car Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a ruling granting class-action
status to a suit by car buyers who contended "documentary fees"
they paid are deceptive and fraudulent, the Arkansas Democrat
Gazette reports.

Asbury Automotive Group Inc. of New York City, which runs 11
Arkansas dealerships under the North Point Auto Group, is
accused of charging the fee in violation of the state's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The fees are charged to cover
the cost of preparing paperwork to sell a car, but dealers
allegedly do not disclose this in advertised prices.

The suit filed against it was granted class-action status in
November 2005.  In his ruling, Pulaski County Circuit Judge
James Moody found that the fee had been charged in the purchase
of more than 10,000 vehicles since November 2002.

Previously, the company appealed Judge Moody's ruling, arguing
that:

     -- the class didn't meet the requirements set out in court
        rules;

     -- Otis Campbell, one of the plaintiffs in the case,
        was "solicited" by attorneys to take part in the suit;

     -- class members did not have common complaints because
        they may have paid different fees, and because a 2003
        law allowed documentary fees; and

     -- Judge Moody's definition of the class is overly broad.

The company wanted those individuals who paid the fee after the
passage of a 2001 law allowing the fees excluded from the suit.

In unanimous decision on June 22, Justice Robert L. Brown found
"minimum level of interest" for Mr. Campbell to serve as a
representative of the class, as well as "overarching issues"
affecting all those who paid the fee.  He also found Judge
Moody's definition of the class appropriate.

On behalf of the state's high court, Judge Brown upheld Judge
Moody's decision finding that he had properly concluded that the
case should be allowed to include car buyers who paid Asbury "a
documentary fee or administrative fee" since Dec. 31, 1997.  
Thus the case now returns to Judge Moody's court.

At the Supreme Court, the case is 06-215, Asbury Automotive
Group, Inc., Asbury Automotive Arkansas, L. L. C., North Point
Auto Group, North Point Ford, Inc., NP FLM, L. L. C., Prestige
Toy, L. L. C., Prestige Bay, L. L. C., Premier NSN, L. L. C., NP
VKW, L. L. C., Premier Pon, L. L. C., and NP MZD, L. L. C. v.
Charles and Carol Palasack and Otis Campbell.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Michael L. Roberts of Roberts Law Firm,
         P.A., 20 Rahling Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas 72223,
         (Pulaski Co.), Phone: 501-821-5575, Fax: 501-821-4474,
         Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/rr&r.

     (2) [Asbury Automotive] David M. Donovan of Watts, Donovan
         & Tilley, P.A., Arkansas Capital Commerce Center, 200
         S. Commerce, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,      
         (Pulaski Co.), Phone: 501-372-1406, Fax: 501-372-1209,
         Web site: http://www.wdt-law.com.


AT&T INC: Court Has Yet to Rule on Bid to Junk Wiretapping Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California heard on June 23, oral arguments
on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the Electronic
Frontier Foundation's class suit against AT&T Inc., according to
Associated Press.

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

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

On the June 23 hearing, EFF contended that the state-secret
issue could be "carved out" from the portion of the case that
dealt with whether AT&T was violating the privacy rights of its
customers, according to the report.

Judge Walker did not rule on the arguments or indicate when he
would, but he asked questions about what the limits on the
state-secrets exemption might be, the report said.

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

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

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

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

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


BAUSCH & LOMB: Shook Leads Defense in Contact Lens Solution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. has tapped Harvey Kaplan, chairman of Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP's pharmaceutical and medical device litigation
division, to lead its defense in more than 50 lawsuits filed in
the wake of a high-profile recall of its ReNu with MoistureLoc
contact lens solutions, the Kansas City Business Journal
reports.

On July 27, a panel of federal judges will consider assigning
the suits to a single federal judge to handle pretrial motions.

Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of May 18, the Centers for Disease Control had received
reports of 130 confirmed cases of Fusarium keratitis since June
1, 2005, including 26 cases in Florida (Class Action Reporter,
June 20, 2006).

More information on ReNu with MoistureLoc is available at:   
             http://www.renulawsuit.com,and    
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/renu_contact_solution.

Bausch & Lomb is represented by Harvey L. Kaplan of Shook Hardy
& Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Missouri U.S.A.,
64108, Phone: 816-559-2214 Direct or 816-474-6550 Main, Fax:
816-421-5547.


CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Hears Objections in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
heard Constar International Inc.'s objections to the Special
Master's Report and Order in the consolidated securities class
action filed against the company.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in a consolidated putative
securities class action, "In re Constar International Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020."

This action consolidates the lawsuits:

      -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc et
         al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

      -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
         Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003."

The consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted on June 7, 2005
and the company's answer was filed on Aug. 8, 2005.

The Special Master issued a Report and Order denying the
company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 22, 2006.  

The company filed objections to the Report and Order on March 6,
2006.  The court heard the objections on May 1, 2006 and took
them under advisement.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Edmund V. Ludwig.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414, E-mail: beige@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes &
         Lerach, LLP, 401 B. Street, STE. 1700, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail: andrewb@lcsr.com;
         and

     (3) Darren J. Check of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         E-mail: dcheck@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Steven B. Feirson, Michael L.
Kichline and Scott A. Thompson of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 1717
Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2793, Phone: 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2390, Fax: 215-994-2222,
E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com
and scott.thompson@dechert.com.


CROWLEY MARITIME: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware heard oral
arguments on two motions in a purported class action and
derivative complaint against Crowley Maritime Corp.

Filed on Nov. 30, 2004, the complaint was brought against the
company and its board of directors, alleging breaches of the
fiduciary duties owed by the director defendants to the company
and its stockholders.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
improperly spent corporate funds on certain split-dollar life
insurance policies to advance a corporate policy of entrenching
the company's controlling stockholder, Thomas B. Crowley, Jr.,
and certain members of his family.  Thus, plaintiffs seek
damages and other relief.

On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion was briefed and heard on Sept. 30, 2005.

Before ruling on the company's motion to dismiss, the court, on
Jan. 19, 2006, ordered that motion stayed pending resolution of
two motions filed on Dec. 27, 2005: one motion to amend filed by
the plaintiff, and a second motion to intervene filed by a
purported stockholder.

Defendants' opposition briefs to these pending motions have been
filed and oral argument on the motions was set June 9, 2006,
according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006.  


E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Calif. Court to Hold Conference for "Bruns"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court, State of California will
hold a status conference on July 2006 in relation to the
purported class action against E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., a
subsidiary of iPayment, Inc.

The suit is "Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange Inc., et al, Orange
County Superior Court, State of California, Case No. 00CC02450
(coordinated under the caption 'TCPA Cases,' Los Angeles County
Superior Court, State of California, Case No. JCCO 43500)."

In February 2000, plaintiff Dana Bruns filed the suit on behalf
of a class of persons in California who received fax
transmissions from defendants Fax.Com and its advertisers,
including the company, during the previous five years.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants sent "fax
blast" transmissions to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.  It seeks relief, thereunder, under California's
Unfair Competition Act, Business & Professions Code and for
negligence.

Plaintiff also seeks an order certifying the lawsuit as a class
action, for an injunction, an order requiring restitution,
disgorgement of profits from the alleged "unfair competition"
activities, recovery of the greater of the actual monetary loss
incurred by members of the class for each violation, or $500.00
for each violation.

Based on the fifth amended complaint filed in 2006, plaintiff is
now seeking actual damages of at least $49,146,000 against ECX
and seeks to collect treble damages in accordance with the
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as well as
unspecified damages and other relief as may be proper.

The company filed an answer and it expects to conduct additional
discovery.  The court has set a Status Conference to be held in
July, according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended March 31, 2006.  


EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Shareholders File Suit Amid Crisis Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------
France's Association of Active Shareholders initiated a class
action against European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS)
as talks to resolve the crisis at the troubled Franco-German
aerospace group continued, the AP WorldStream reports.

The shareholders allege that due to the company's announcement
earlier this month of new delays to the Airbus A380 superjumbo
aircraf, together with a profits warning, its market value was
down more than a quarter.  The delays plunged EADS' shares 26%.  
It is expected that production hitches would erase US$2.5
billion of its profits over four years.

The suit seeks up to US$12.5 billion in damages.

EADS' trouble was compounded with the revelation that its French
co-chief executive, Noel Forgeard, members of his family and
other EADS executives had sold off company stock options in
March.  The move raised suspicions they were privy to
information about the Airbus delays before they became public.

Mr. Foregeard denied these allegations, saying he did not learn
about the delays until April.  Thomas Enders, the German co-
executive of EADS, did not sell any shares.

French Finance Minister Thierry Breton is in negotiations with
top executives on the German side and plans to seek agreement
with the group's other main shareholders, privately owned French
media and technology group Lagardere and German-U.S. auto giant
DaimlerChrysler.

The French government owns 15 percent of EADS.


FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE: Discovery Commences in Ill. FCRA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action against Fieldstone Mortgage Co., which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, is in the initial stage of discovery, according to the
company's May 12, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

Filed on Jan. 9, 2006 and captioned, "Rhodes v. Fieldstone
Mortgage Co.," the class action alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the company violated the firm offer of
credit guidelines encapsulated in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.
during its mail marketing campaign in or around April 2005.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the company did not comply
with the statutory guidelines in providing a firm offer of
credit to the potential consumer.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1681 et seq., statutory damages can range from $100 to $1,000
per mailing in the event that the violation is deemed willful.

No motion for class certification has yet been filed in this
case.  The company filed a motion to dismiss/motion to strike
pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for the injunctive relief
portion of the compliant.  This action is in the initial stage
of discovery.

The suit is "Rhodes v. Fieldstone Mortgage Company, Case No.
1:06-cv-00108," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Mark Filip.

Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A. Edelman and Jeremy
Patrick Monteiro of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com and
jmonteiro@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robert Jerald Emanuel of Burke, Warren, MacKay &
         Serritella, P.C., 330 North Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor,
         Chicago, IL 60611-3607, Phone: (312) 840-7000, E-mail:
         remanuel@burkelaw.com; and

     (2) Sunny S. Huo of Severson & Werson, One Embarcadero
         Center, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, Phone: 415-677-
         5519.


HOLLAND 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 Holland
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.

To see a copy of the Class Certification order, free of charge:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?c32

The suit is "Blough et al. v. Holland Realty, Inc., Case No.
1:06-cv-00059-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Brad P Miller and Eugene A Ritti both of Hawley,
         Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, PO Box 1617, Boise, ID 83701,
         Phone: (208) 344-6000, Fax: 1-208-342-3829 or 1-208-
         344-6505, E-mail: bpm@hteh.com or ear@hteh.com; and

     (2) Geoffrey M Wardle, 77 Main Street, Suite 1000, Boise,
         ID 83702, Phone: 208-344-6000, Fax: 208-342-3829, E-
         mail: gmw@hteh.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.


ILLINOIS: Sept. Trial Set for Racial Bias Suit Against U46 Dist.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal District Court Judge Robert Gettleman expressed concerns
about the amended racial discrimination complaint against Elgin
School District U46, according to The Courier News Online.  

"It seems [to be] a totally different case than what I first
looked at," he told lawyer Carole Ashley, the attorney for the
plaintiffs.

In May, plaintiffs revised the suit to add two Hispanic families
and an African-American family.  According to the report, the
suit accuses the school district of:

     -- treating minority students with hostility,  
     
     -- disproportionately referring black and Latino students  
        to an alternative high school,  

     -- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities,  
        and  

     -- failing to provide proper services to Latino students  
        with limited English proficiency.

A black family and a Hispanic family in Elgin filed the suit in  
2005 to complain about the closure of Illinois Park Elementary
School in 2004.   

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black
students who claim they were discriminated against in
assignments, transportation, school closings and educational
programs.

In March, Judge Gettleman refused to certify the lawsuit, saying
the complaint must be narrowed, or the plaintiff list must be
expanded to accommodate all of the issues listed to get class
certification.  

In the second amended complaint, filed May, one of the children
in the original group, Ashley Ivy, is withdrawing from the suit
after having finished school.  An 18-year-old student Eduardo
Burciaga is "redesignating" himself as a plaintiff and is suing
the district on his own behalf rather than through his parents.

Meanwhile, the children of Griselda Burciaga, Beverly Ivy and
Irma Sifuentes, area asking to join the suit.  Earlier
plaintiffs include the children of Tracy McFadden and Marielena
Montoya.

In response to the latest amended complaint, district officials
called it "yet a another misguided attempt to use the isolated
grievances of a few families to try to support the plaintiffs'
attorneys' continuing wide-ranging, but ill-conceived, attack on
the district."

The suit, McFadden v. U46, is seeking class-action status.  The
class now includes all current African-American and Hispanic
students in the district.  

A Sept. 28, 2006 court hearing has been set.

The original suit is "Daniel et al. v. Board of Education for
Illinois School District U-46, Case No. 1:05-cv-00760," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  Representing the plaintiffs is  
Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, Chtd., 122 South  
Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-  
3600, E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com.  

Representing the defendants is Patricia J. Whitten of Franczek  
Sullivan, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL  
60606-6785, Phone: (312) 986-0300, E-mail: pjw@franczek.com.    


INSURERS: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Premium Taxes in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
At least 11 insurance companies are facing a purported class
action filed by Kentuckians alleging they were illegally charged
insurance premium taxes, The Kentucky Post reports.

The suit was filed in Kenton Circuit Court by Covington
attorneys Alex Edmondson and Chris Nordloh on behalf of 12
individuals living in Boone and Kenton counties.  It alleges
that insurers fail to verify the exact taxing jurisdiction in
which customers lived, so that clients sometimes are billed with
the neighboring city's higher taxes.  The suit seeks class-
action status.

Defendants include:

     -- Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford,
        Connecticut,

     -- Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. of Southington,
        Connecticut,

     -- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus,

     -- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. of
        Bloomington, Illinois,  

     -- State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. of Bloomington,
        Illinois

The lawsuit is asking repayment of the overtaxed amounts, as
well as interest.  It is also asking sanctions against the
allegedly inefficient system of local taxation in Kentucky,
particularly Northern Kentucky.

Plaintiffs include attorney Craig Kendrick, and Jeff Nicholas of
Kenton County.

Edmondson & Associates, 28 West 5th Street, Covington, Kentucky
41011, Phone: 859-491-5551, Fax: 859-491-0187, on the Net:
http://www.edmondsonlaw.org/.


KAISER VENTURES: Reaches Settlement in "Slemmer" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Ventures, LLC reached settlement in a purported class
action, "Thomas M. Slemmer, et al. v. Fontana Union Water
Company, et al., Case No. SCVSS 086856," filed in San Bernardino
County Superior Court, California.

Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of 175 shares of the
stock of Fontana Union Water Co., a mutual water company, and
that the defendants conspired and committed acts that constitute
an unlawful restraint of trade, a breach of fiduciary duty by
the controlling shareholders of Fontana Union and fraudulent
business practices in violation of California law (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

Among others, plaintiffs have requested $25,000,000 in damages
and the trebling of such damages under California law (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

Recently, the company learned that the remaining defendants:

     -- Fontana Union Water Company,
     -- Cucamonga County Water District, now called Cucamonga
        Valley Water District,
     -- San Gabriel Valley Water Company,
     -- directors and/or officers of Fontana Union Water Company

reached a tentative settlement of the case.  Terms of the
settlement have not been publicly disclosed as of the date of
this report.  

In September 2005, the court ruled that there was no triable
issue of material fact in the lawsuit with regard to the company
and that it was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of
law.

In October 2005, the court entered judgment in the company's
favor and dismissed the action against it with prejudice.  In
December 2005, the trial court reaffirmed its decision to
dismiss the company from the case in response to plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, motion for
new trial.

The court's order and judgment dismisses all the claims made
against the company.  However, the judgment in the company's
favor could have been appealed.

To resolve the appeal, and to minimize future litigation costs
and resolve any possible uncertainty associated with the appeal,
the company and the class representative and other named
plaintiffs agreed to a settlement in which the class will waive
the appeal right and release claims.  

It is believed that the net payment the company will pay in
settlement will not be material.  Parties are preparing a
written settlement agreement, which has been delayed due to the
named plaintiffs negotiating a settlement with the defendants
that remained in the case.

The company's settlement is subject to the execution of the
written settlement agreement and the Superior Court's approval
of the settlement after notice to the class.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Md. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied
Martek Biosciences Corp.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers, the Baltimore Business Journal reports.

Since May 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the same
court.  

The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing
lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and
liaison counsel.  

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."  

The consolidated complaint claims to be filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the company's common stock during a purported
class period of Dec. 9, 2004 to April 28, 2005.  It alleges
generally that the company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements and failed to disclose
material facts regarding the company's business and prospects in
public statements the company made or failed to make during the
period and, in the case of the Securities Act of 1933 claims, in
the company's January 2005 prospectus.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion
was held on May 22, 2006.  

In a June 14 ruling, U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis said
that the investors adequately noted which company statements
they claim are false and why.  Judge Garbis though did not rule
on the claims themselves.

In letting the suit move forward, he said the plaintiffs "raise
a strong inference that defendants had actual knowledge that
their projections lacked a reasonable basis."

The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corporation et al.,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP,  
         280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:  
         16108220262, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail:  
         cnelson@sbclasslaw.com;   

     (2) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World  
         Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,  
         MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:
         piven@pivenlaw.com; and  

     (3) Lawrence Joseph Quinn of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP,  
         100 E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         14107529700, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:  
         lquinn@tydingslaw.com.   

Representing the defendants is Steven F. Barley of Hogan and  
Hartson, LLP, 111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600, Baltimore, MD  
21202, Phone: 14106592700, Fax: 14105396981, E-mail:  
sfbarley@hhlaw.com.


MINNESOTA: Residents Near Airport Demand Protection from Noise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis and Richfield homeowners asked Hennepin County
District Judge Stephen Aldrich to certify a class action against
the operator of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport,
according to TwinCities.com.

The residents accuse the Metropolitan Airports Commission of
reneging in its promise to install noise protection for more
homes under airplane flight paths.

The potential class in the suit includes at least 3,500 homes
around the airport.  

The judge is expected to rule on the class-action certification
in late July, attorneys said, according to the report.


NTS-PROPERTIES: "Buchanan" Settlement Continues in Contra Costa
---------------------------------------------------------------
The process to settle the class action "Buchanan et al. v. NTS-
Properties Associates, et al." continues, according to NTS-
Properties' May 12, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

Previously the appellate court upheld the approval of the
settlement of the class action against NTS-Properties Associates
and the general partners of four public partnerships affiliated
with it.

On May 6, 2004, the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Contra Costa granted its final approval of the
settlement agreement jointly filed by the general partners
Former General Partners of the Partnerships, along with certain
of their affiliates, with the class of plaintiffs in the action.

At the final hearing, class members were given the opportunity
to object to the final approval of the settlement agreement, the
entry of a final judgment dismissing with prejudice the
litigation, or an application of an award for attorneys' fees
and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

The Superior Court's order provided, among others, that:

      -- the settlement agreement, and all transactions
         contemplated thereby, including the merger of the
         Partnerships into the company, were fair, reasonable
         and adequate, and in the best interests of the class of
         plaintiffs;

      -- the plaintiffs' complaint and each and every cause of
         action and claim set forth therein is dismissed with
         prejudice; and

      -- each class member who did not request to be excluded
         from the settlement released all known and unknown
         claims against the defendants, including those claims
         being pursued in a competing class action in the
         Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky, captioned,
         "Bohm, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et al., Case No. 03-CI-
         01740."

On June 11, 2004, several class members who objected to the
settlement agreement but whose objections were overruled by the
Superior Court, filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal of the
State of California, First Appellate District.

On July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeal issued its decision
affirming the Superior Court's approval of the settlement, and
rejecting the objectors' arguments.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the Court of Appeal of the State of California,
First Appellate District entered a Remittitur Order stating that
the time for appeal had expired and that the judgment of the
Appellate Court was final.

This effectively concludes the litigation.  The matter was then
sent back to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Contra Costa in order to conduct proceedings to
effectuate the settlement.


NTS REALTY: Ky. Court Sets Hearing on Dismissal Motion in "Bohm"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky set a Sept. 29,
2006 hearing on the motion by NTS Realty Holdings Limited
Partnership and other named defendants to dismiss a purported
class and derivative action, "Bohm, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et
al., Case No. 03-CI-01740."

The suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2003 by two individuals against
certain of the Former General Partners of the Partnerships and
several individuals and entities affiliated with the company.  

The complaint was later amended to include the general partner
of NTS-Properties III and the general partner of NTS-Properties
Plus, Ltd.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages in an unspecified amount, an accounting, a
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

On March 2, 2004, the Former General Partners filed a motion to
dismiss the Kentucky Litigation.  The Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Kentucky, instructed the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a corrected second amended
complaint on Aug. 11, 2004.

On Feb. 9, 2005, the Circuit Court instructed the defendants to
file a responsive pleading only as to direct claims asserted by
the plaintiffs in the Corrected Second Amended complaint.

On March 9, 2005, the Former General Partners, along with the
other defendants, filed motions to dismiss the "corrected"
second amended complaint.

On July 7, 2005, two of the plaintiffs in the case voluntarily
dismissed their claims against the defendants.  The Former
General Partners believe that these dismissals affect the value
and scope of plaintiffs' claims.

Accordingly, defendants remanded the hearing on the motion to
dismiss originally scheduled for July 15, 2005, in order to
properly advise the court of the effect of the voluntary
dismissals.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss was rescheduled
for Sept. 29, 2006.


OHIO UNIVERSITY: Graduates Sue for Compensation Over Data Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Ohio University graduates commenced a purported class action
against their alma mater, claiming their right to privacy was
violated when hackers stole their Social Security numbers from
an university computer, The Columbus Dispatch reports.

Donald Jay Kulpa, 31, of Cincinnati, and Kenneth Neben, 34, of
North Bergen, N.J., filed the suit in the Ohio Court of Claims
on June 23, 2006.  They sought to have the school pay millions
of dollars in credit-monitoring services for about 173,000
people whose personal data was stolen.

Essentially the filing asks Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. to order
Ohio University to secure its digital data and pay for fraud
losses from any identity thefts linked to piracy against the
university's computers.

The suit also seeks class-action status to represent all
affected students, alumni, employees and others.

Attorney Marc Mezibov, the men's legal representative, accuses
the university of negligence in failing to adequately protect
personal information stolen in five hacking incidents disclosed
since mid-April.

A recent consultants' report on the thefts concluded that
university officials had a lax, low-priority attitude toward
computer security and disregarded calls to ensure the privacy of
personal information.

Ohio University officials said they have ended hacker access to
computers and plan to spend as much as $4 million during the
coming year to upgrade security.

For more details, contact Marc D. Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins,
LLP, 401 East Court Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
(Hamilton Co.), Phone: (513) 723-1699, Fax: 513-723-1620, Web
site: http://www.mezibovjenkins.com.


OMEGA FLEX: Faces Ark. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Defective Tubing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported national class action
against the top four manufacturers of corrugated stainless steel
tubing, including Omega Flex, Inc.

Four individual residents of Arkansas and an individual Texas
resident filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Clark County,
Arkansas on Nov. 15, 2004.  The company was sued as the
manufacturer of TracPipe brand corrugated stainless steel
tubing.

The complaint proposes a national class action on behalf of all
owners of installed corrugated stainless steel tubing.  The
tubing is alleged to be defective because it is more susceptible
to failure from near-lightning strikes than traditional black
iron pipe and because the manufacturers allegedly failed to warn
customers regarding this.

The case, "Larry Berry, et al. v. Titeflex Corp., et al., Case
No. CV-2004-211," is currently in discovery.  Disposition of the
class certification issue is expected in the second half of
2006.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] W.H. "Dub" Arnold of Arnold, Batson, Turner
         & Turner, P.A., P.O. Box 480, Arkadelphia, AR 71923-
         0480, Phone: (870) 246-9844, Fax: 870-246-9845, E-mail:
         Melanie@arnoldbatsonturner.com;

     (2) [Plaintiff] Joel M. Fineberg of Joel M. Fineberg, P.C.,
         3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 1900, Dallas, TX
         75219, Phone: (214) 219-8828;

     (3) [Plaintiff] John C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box
         618, Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax:
         (870) 773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com;

     (4) [Plaintiff] Charles Cary Patterson of Nix, Patterson &
         Roach, LLP, 2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 500,
         Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: 903-223-3999, Fax: 903-223-
         8520, E-mail: ccp@nixlawfirm.com;

     (3) [Omega Flex - Defendant] Kevin A. Crass of Friday,
         Eldredge & Clark, 2000 Regions Center, 400 West Capitol
         Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, Phone: (501) 376-
         2011, Fax: (501) 376-2147, E-mail: crass@fec.net; and

     (4) [Omega Flex - Defendant] Robert B. Ellis of Kirkland &
         Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, 60th Floor, Chicago, IL
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000.


PFIZER INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over Injectable Contraceptive
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Canada Inc. are facing a class action
filed by an Edmonton woman who claimed she suffered a side
effect of a commonly prescribed contraceptive, the Edmonton Sun
reports.

Holly Hutton is claiming that the companies' injectable birth
control Depo-Provera caused her to lose massive bone density.  
The 28-year-old had been taking the drug for three years as
treatment for endometriosis until early 2005.  Upon a checkup by
her chiropractor, it was discovered that she was osteopenic, in
the early stages of osteoperosis.

Depo-Provera has been available in the Canadian market since  
1997 but first carried a warning of possible bone density loss
in the U.S. markets in November 2004.  Last June, warnings on
boxes appeared in Canada.  Almost 625,000 prescriptions were
written in Canada for Depo-Provera last year.  The drug is
administered by injection every three months. It contains
progesterone to stop the production of eggs.

A third suit over the drug was filed against Pfizer, Inc. and
Pfizer Canada, Inc. last year.  Four representative plaintiffs
named include three women from Ontario, B.C. and Newfoundland
who are between the ages 28 and 32.  They are seeking $700
million from the company (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).


PHONE COMPANIES: S.C. Reviews N.Y. Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider an appeal by large
U.S. telephone carriers aiming to dismiss an antitrust class
action filed against them, the Denver Business Journal reports.  
The companies are Qwest Communications International, Verizon
Communications Inc., BellSouth Corp., and AT&T Inc.  

The suit, filed in 2002, alleges antitrust violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  It specifically alleged that
defendants conspired to restrain competition by agreeing not to
compete with one another and to impede competition with others.  
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble
damages and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
expenses.

In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  In October 2005, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings
(Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2006).

The appellate court ruled that a federal judge in New York
wrongly dismissed the case by applying the wrong standard in
reviewing whether there was sufficient evidence to justify an
anti-competitive conspiracy case.

In recent developments, the Supreme Court agreed to hear
arguments in the case and then issue a decision during its
upcoming term, which begins in October.

The suit is "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
10220-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  Representing
the plaintiffs are, J. Douglas Richards of Milberg Weiss Bershad
& Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
10119, Phone: (212) 946-9390, Fax: (212) 244-5423, E- mail:
drichards@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Hector Gonzalez and Lily Fu Swenson of Mayer, Brown,
         Rowe & Maw, LLP (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, E-
         mail: hgonzalez@mayerbrownrowe.com;

     (2) Colin Ryle Kass of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Washington),
         655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: (202) 879-5172, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-
         mail: ckass@kirkland.com; and

     (3) Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), 1615 M.
         Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-326-7902, Fax: 202-326-7999, E-mail:
         mkellogg@khhte.com.


RIDLEY INC: Seeks to Appeal Ruling on Beef Import Ban Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc. applied to the Quebec Court of Appeal for leave to
appeal the June 2, 2006 refusal of the Quebec Superior Court to
stay the proposed class action against Ridley and the government
of Canada in the province of Quebec.

Ridley is seeking a stay of the proposed Quebec action pending
determinations of law by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a
parallel lawsuit commenced in Ontario.

Nonetheless, the Quebec Superior Court ruled earlier this month
that the Quebec proceedings should continue independently to the
class authorization stage, notwithstanding the progress of the
Ontario action.

Ridley believes the June 2 ruling was in error and raises
important public interest issues and novel points of law
regarding the judicial management of multi-jurisdictional,
quasi-identical class actions.  Motions by Ridley and the
Government of Canada seeking leave to appeal that ruling were
heard in the Court of Appeal for the District of Montreal on
June 22.  The Court has reserved its decision on both
applications for leave to appeal.

As previously disclosed, four lawsuits were commenced in April
2005 against Ridley Inc. and the Government of Canada in
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.

The lawsuits each seek damages, including punitive damages, for
losses allegedly incurred by Canadian cattle farmers as a result
of international bans on the importation of Canadian beef and
cattle following the May 2003 announcement of a bovine
spongiform encephalopathy diagnosis in an Alberta cow.

The actions in Ontario and Quebec are still at an early stage,
and the actions in Saskatchewan and Alberta are in abeyance.
There has been no decision made on the merits of the actions in
any province, and the actions have not yet been certified or
authorized to proceed to trial in any province.

Early dismissal of the lawsuits remains Ridley's primary goal
and the company will continue to fully defend against the claims
as long as the case continues.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg,
Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies.  Ridley manufactures and/or distributes a
full range of animal nutrition products under a number of highly
regarded trade names.

For more information, contact Steve VanRoekel, president and
chief executive officer of Ridley Inc., Phone: (507) 388-9618,
Web site: http://www.ridleyinc.com.


SEL-EQUITY CO: 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 Sel-
Equity Co., 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.

See a copy of the Class Certification order, free of charge at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?c32

The suit is "Yasuda et al v. Sel-Equity Company, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00060-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas J Angstman of Angstman Law, 500 W Bannock,
         Boise, ID 83702, Phone: (208) 384-8588, Fax: 1-208-342-
         6553, E-mail: mindy@angstman.com;

     (2) Phillip J Collaer of Anderson, Julian & Hull, PO Box
         7426, Boise, ID 83707-7426, Phone: (208) 344-5800, Fax:
         1-208-344-5510, E-mail: pcollaer@ajhlaw.com;

     (3) Wyatt Benton Johnson, 3649 Lakeharbor Lane, Boise, ID
         83703, Phone: (208) 384-8588, E-mail:
         mindy@angstman.com; and

     (4) Kenneth D Nyman of Anderson, Julian & Hull, PO Box
         7426, Boise, ID 83707-7426, Phone: (208) 344-5800, Fax:
         (208) 344-5800, E-mail: knyman@ajhlaw.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.


STATION CASINOS: Requests Judge in Thunder Valley Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., manager of the Thunder Valley Casino in
Placer County, California, wants a judge to replace Commissioner
Margaret Wells in the harassment and discrimination case by
seven former female Thunder Valley employees, The Auburn Journal
reports.

Previously, Commissioner Wells issued a tentative ruling which
states that though Thunder Valley's owner, the United Auburn
Indian Community, was exempted from proceedings due to the
tribe's sovereign status, Station Casinos was not.

The company made the request at a June 21 hearing that was
supposed to discuss Commissioner Wells' tentative ruling
regarding the Nevada-based Station Casinos' status as a possible
employer of the women.  Plaintiffs contend that fewer than five
Indians are employed at Thunder Valley, and that the casino pays
24 percent of its net income to Station as management fee (Class
Action Reporter June 9, 2006).

With the company's request both parties were given six weeks to
submit briefs on the commissioner's status, with the next court
appearance slated for Aug. 5.

Case Background

The suit was filed by seven women in early 2005, claiming sexual
harassment, wrongful termination and sex and age discrimination
while they were employed at the casino.  Also named in the suit,
which was filed in Placer Superior Court, is Curtis Broome,
former director of information technology for Thunder Valley.

In the lawsuit, two plaintiffs allege that Mr. Broome,
physically harassed them, including instances of fondling,
touching and sexual advances.  In one woman's case the advances
led to what the court documents describe as non-consensual sex.

Plaintiffs in the suit include

      -- Corinn Medina,
      -- Cheryl Dalton,
      -- Sundi Lyons,
      -- Cynthia Walden,
      -- Kathy Robillard,
      -- Amarissa Dillhyon and
      -- Elizabeth Ward.  

All are residents of Placer and Sacramento counties and have
worked at the casino between 2003 and 2004, (Class Action
Reporter June 9, 2006).  They are represented by Debra Smith of
the non-profit Equal Rights Advocates of San Francisco.

Aside from sexual harassment, the women are also alleging a
variety of claims, including, age discrimination and wrongful
dismissal.  They are thus asking unspecified monetary damages,
including punitive and exemplary damages (Class Action Reporter
June 9, 2006).

For more details, contact Debra A. Smith of Equal Rights
Advocates, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA
94103, Phone: (415) 621-0672, Fax: (415) 621-6744, E-mail:
info@equalrights.org, Web site: http://www.equalrights.org/.


TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, remains a defendant in a purported class action
alleging violations of various overtime provisions of the New
York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers.  

Captioned, "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International,
Inc.," the suit was filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County.  The plaintiffs are
Sarah Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell of
Forest Hills, New York.

Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime
because the company deliberately misclassified them as managers
(Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2005).  

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class-
action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve
hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at
65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York
City and on Long Island (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2005).

The suit covers the past six years.  It states that Ms. Cruz,
30, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked
13-hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr.
Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since 2002,
has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week (Class Action
Reporter, March 31, 2005).

The lawsuit is stayed upon agreement of the parties pending
mediation, according to the company's 10-Q filing with the U.s.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March
31, 2006.  Plaintiffs recently submitted to the company a
proposed second amended complaint, which seeks to add to the
class, all New York hourly employees.  Town Sports agreed to
mediate with respect to such employees.


TRILEGIANT CORP: Ala. Court Approves 500T CROA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
gave final approval to the settlement of class action against
Trilegiant Corp., an entity of Affinion Group, Inc., in relation
to its Creditline product.

The suit was filed on Jan. 24, 2002, alleging violations of the
Credit Repair Organizations Act in connection with its
Creditline product.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the terms of
a class-wide settlement of this case.  Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the company provided notice to the class members
via first class mail advising them of the terms of the
settlement.  

All class members will release their claims against Trilegiant
under the settlement.  Those wanting to receive benefits under
the settlement were required to return a claim form post-marked
by Feb. 16, 2006 and had the option of choosing a no-cost annual
membership in one of three membership programs offered by the
company.

In lieu of a membership program, class members could elect to
receive a cash payment.  The total cash payments that the
company offered to make to the class is capped at $0.5 million.

On March 13, 2006 the Alabama Court signed the final order
approving the terms of the settlement.  The judgment became
final on April 12, 2006, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s May
15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Brown v. Creditline, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:02-
cv-00187-RDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge R. David Proctor.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Milton Brown, Jr. of 2608 8th Street, Tuscaloosa, AL
         35401, Phone: 1-205-391-0620, Fax: 1-205-349-5450, E-
         mail: brownattorney1@yahoo.com;

     (2) David R. Donaldson of Donaldson & Guin, LLC, The
         Financial Center, 505 20th Street North, Suite 1000,
         Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-226-2282, Fax: 205-
         226-2357, E-mail: DavidD@dglawfirm.com; and

     (3) Steven P. Gregory of Gregory Law Firm, PC, 46A Mt.
         Laurel Avenue, Birmingham, AL 35242, Phone: 205-799-
         0380, Fax: 205-278-8572, E-mail:
         steve@gregorylawfirm.us.

Representing the defendants are, J. Erik Connolly and Todd L.
McLawhorn of Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, 321 North Clark
Street, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 1-312-595-1239,
Fax: 1-312-595-2250.


TRILEGIANT CORP: Continues to Face Suit Over Membership Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trilegiant Corp., an entity of Affinion Group, Inc., remains a
defendant in a purported consumer fraud class action in Madison
County, Illinois.

On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison
County Circuit Court against the company alleging violations of
state consumer protection statutes in connection with the sale
of certain membership programs.

Motions to dismiss the suit were denied and certification of a
class of consumers has been granted.  The exact size of the
certified class is not currently known, according to Affinion
Group's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.


TRILEGIANT CORP: Wash. Appeals Court Mulls Arbitration Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington appellate court has yet to rule on Trilegiant
Corp.'s motion to compel arbitration in a purported consumer
class action filed against the company.

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant, an entity of
Affinion Group, Inc., in the Superior Court of Washington,
Spokane County.  The suit asserts violations of various consumer
protection statutes.  

Affinion filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied
by the court.  It later appealed the court's decision, and the
case has been stayed until the appellate court has ruled on the
motion to compel arbitration, according to Affinion's May 15,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.  


TRL GROUP: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
TRL Group, Inc., d.b.a. Trilegiant Corp., remains a defendant in
a purported consumer fraud class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, according to the company's May 15, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.  

Filed on Aug. 9, 2005, the suit asserts violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and various California consumer
protection statutes.  

On Oct. 10, 2005, the complaint was amended to add additional
claims, an additional named plaintiff and Cendant Corp. as a co-
defendant.

The suit seeks unspecified actual damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

The suit is "Nordberg et al. v. Trilegiant Corporation, Case No.
3:05-cv-03246-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are Sheri L. Kelly and Elizabeth C
Pritzker of Girard Gibbs, LLP, 601 California Street, Suite
1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, US, Phone: 415-981-4800, Fax:
415-981-4846, E-mail: slk@girardgibbs.com and
ecp@girardgibbs.com.  

Representing the defendants is Harriet S. Posner of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400,
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000, E-mail:
hposner@skadden.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Minn. Judge Grills Prospective Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel ordered law firms vying to lead
the lawsuits against UnitedHealth Group Inc. to document, among
others, ethical issues and minority business practices
concerning them, the Associated Press reports.  

He also ordered the attorneys to provide a 10-year history of
"legal-ethical issues" for each attorney.

Judge Noel wrote that the information won't decide who is lead
counsel, "but it may be considered in making a decision
regarding leadership in this case."

Whichever firm is named lead counsel will take on the financial
risk in pursuing the case, and get much of the financial reward
if they win.

According to Allan Erbsen, who teaches federal civil procedure
at the University of Minnesota Law School, federal judicial
rules instruct judges to pick the lawyer best able to represent
class action shareholders.  Although a judge could argue that
the racial and gender makeup of a law firm should be part of
that equation.

"The judge is running the risk that an appellate court might
find that the judge considered criteria that the rule does not
allow him to consider," Mr. Erbsen said.

On May 5, 2006, a purported securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and certain of its officers. The
complaint alleges:  

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

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

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

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


UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots Accuse Union Representative of Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action brought before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, 14 pilots or flight engineers who
are currently or were recently employed by United Airlines,
Inc., allege that Air Line Pilots Association violated its duty
of fair representation owed to non-union employees.

Mark J. Beutler, Esq., in Springfield, Virginia, relates that
the 14 pilots or flight engineers who are not members of ALPA,
filed the action on behalf of themselves and 200 non-union
pilots and engineers employed by United who:

    -- received or were entitled to receive new United Stock
       under the terms of an agreement between United and ALPA;

    -- were not notified of their rights to sell their shares in
       an auction; and

    -- failed to exercise their option before Dec. 30, 2005.

The 14 pilots or engineers are:

     (1) Eugene Ciarmatori,
     (2) Dan Adams,
     (3) Ned R. Bramuchi,
     (4) Rod Carlson,
     (5) Joseph E. Dye,
     (6) Bob Evert,
     (7) Peter C. Gropp, III,
     (8) John P. Hlavacek,
     (9) John R. Hogan,
    (10) Norman Kitchens,
    (11) Richard Lussow,
    (12) Richard Pletan,
    (13) Earl J. Pounds, and
    (14) Ron Whitfields

                              ALPA

Mr. Beutler points out that ALPA is a "labor organization" or
union within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act.  ALPA is the
exclusive collective bargaining agent representing United pilots
and flight engineers relating to wages, hours, and working
conditions within the meaning of Section 2 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C.
Section 152.

Mr. Beutler notes that at all material times, ALPA has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of pilots and flight
engineers employed by United.

As employees of a common carrier engaged in the transportation
of passengers and freight by air in interstate and foreign
commerce, the 14 Pilots' employment rights and obligations are
governed by the RLA.

                           The Auction

Mr. Beutler recounts that in the labor contract negotiations
that led to the 2003 and 2005 labor contracts between ALPA and
United, United agreed to provide ALPA -- in exchange for benefit
and wage concessions -- the right to receive the same
distribution as an unsecured creditor with a $3,000,000,000
claim.  The claim would be satisfied through the issuance of new
United stock, which would be distributed in two separate
allotments to each pilot in accordance with a predetermined
allocation formula.

In a separate agreement, the parties agreed that the stock
distributed under the previous agreement would be paid directly
to the Pilot Directed Account Plans to the extent permitted
under federal tax law.  This arrangement provided certain tax
advantages to Pilots.

Furthermore, the parties agreed that, before the issuance of the
new United stock upon United's emergence from bankruptcy, each
pilot would have the option to sell their future right to
receive new United stock -- the price of which would be
determined at an auction subject to a reserve, or floor price.  
Each bargaining unit member would have the option to participate
in the auction.

Any pilot or flight engineer could exercise his option by
affirmatively authorizing ALPA, on or before Dec. 30, 2005, to
sell his entire interest in ALPA's claim for the highest price
achievable in the market so long as that price exceeded the
floor price.  Proceeds from the auction would be deposited in
the pilot's PDAP account to the extent permitted under federal
tax law, with any excess paid directly to the pilots.

                        ALPA Violated Duty

The 14 Pilots allege that ALPA failed to inform non-union
members of how to take advantage of agreement between United and
ALPA.

Specifically, union members were notified of their rights to
receive new United stock shares to be issued pursuant to
United's reorganization plan in a pre-issuance auction while
non-union members were not.

ALPA's duty was breached when it denied non-union employees
access to information necessary to exercise their rights to
receive economic benefits that were negotiated with United, Mr.
Beutler asserts.

Mr. Beutler argues that the information regarding the auction
were contained on a portion in ALPA's Web site to which only
members were permitted to access.  Thus, nonmembers were
effectively denied the ability to participate in the auction.

The union "deliberately and unlawfully misled nonmembers in an
attempt to retaliate against them for refusing formal union
membership," Stefen Gleason, vice president of the National
Right to Work Foundation, who helped file the suit, told
Bloomberg News.

                Declaratory Judgment is Warranted

Mr. Beutler maintains that ALPA owes all employees, including
union nonmembers, a duty of fair representation under the RLA.
This duty requires that ALPA do not discriminate between members
and nonmembers in representing them in collective bargaining
over employment benefits and other terms and conditions of
employment.

Accordingly, the 14 Pilots ask the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to:

    * certify the case as a class action on behalf of all
      nonmember pilots and flight engineers employed by United
      who were illegally denied and did not receive timely
      information regarding their right to sell their claim to
      receive new United stock before its issuance;

    * declare that ALPA has breached the duty of fair
      representation under the RLA by discriminating against
union nonmembers by not providing them with information
regarding their right to sell their claims;

    * award each of the 14 Pilots and class members damages
      measured as the product of the number of shares issued and
      the per share difference between the auction sales price
      for the claims for the subsequently issued stock and the
      actual trade price of the stock at the time it was issued,
      with interest; and

    * allow the 14 Pilots their costs.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Calif. Judge Approves Disk Storage Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Judge Bernard Zimmerman approved on June 15 a settlement with
Western Digital Corp. over claims the company's representations
of hard drive storage capacities were misleading.  The company
continues to wrongdoing or liability.

Under the agreement, class members who registered for the
settlement at http://www.wdc.com/settlementno later than July  
15, 2006 will receive free backup and recovery software with an
estimated retail value of $30.  An estimated one million
purchasers are eligible for the software.

The suit claimed that Western Digital overstated its hard disk
drives' storage capacities by approximately 7%.  For example, it
alleged that Western Digital 80GB hard disk drives had an actual
capacity of only 74.4GB.

Western Digital and other hard drive makers use the decimal
definition of GB or gigabyte, where 1 GB equals 1 billion bytes.  
Computer operating systems like Windows and Apple define GB
using a binary definition, where 1 GB equals 1,073,741,824
bytes.  The suit claimed that because of the disparity,
consumers could not store as much data as expected.  The
settlement requires Western Digital to disclose its definition
of GB on future packaging.

The law firm Gutride Safier LLP, which represented the
purchasers, was pleased with the result.  "This settlement ends
a misleading practice and compensates anyone who was harmed,"
said attorney Adam Gutride.  "Each purchaser is entitled to
software with an estimated retail value of $30."

The suit is "Safier v. Western Digital Corporation, Case No.
3:05-cv-03353-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Bernard Zimmerman.

Representing the defendants are Scott D. Baskin and Lisa M.
Sharrock both of Irell & Manella LLP, 840 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 400, Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324, Phone: 949-760-0991,
Fax: 949-760-5200, E-mail: sbaskin@irell.com and
lsharrock@irell.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are Adam Gutride and Seth A. Safier
both of Gutride Safier LLP, 835 Douglass Street, San Francisco,
CA 94114, Phone: 415/271-6469, Fax: 928/438-1285, E-mail:
gutridelaw@earthlink.net and seth@safier.org.


WORLDCOM INC: Bids Received in Sale of Former CEO's Properties
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago firm hired to handle the sale of the assets of
former WorldCom Inc. chief executive has received bids for
majority of the properties being disposed of, according to the
Daily Leader.

A suit filed against Bernie Ebbers by investors who lost money
when WorldCom collapsed in 2002, calls for him to pay $5 million
up front and to place the remainder of his assets in a trust
that is expected to be sold for an estimated $25 million to $40
million.  All monies from the sale of Mr. Ebber's property are
to be deposited in a fiduciary fund for disbursement to
plaintiffs in the class action.

"We've gotten some of the bigger pieces down," said John
Wheeler, a senior consultant with Development Specialists Inc.  
The bids were for Mr. Ebbers' personal property in Lincoln
County, Mississippi and for Columbus Lumber Co., said officials.  
A qualifying bid of $17.75 million was received for the sawmill.  
Mr. Ebbers' main residence and two other homes are being asked
for $7.5 million.

The offers were presented before the June 15 deadline for the
properties.  

"We expect to close the sale at the end of the month," Mr.
Wheeler said.

Joseph J. Luzinski, an associate with Development Specialists in
Miami, said they would solicit other offers for the sawmill this
week.  The final bids must be submitted by July 17 at the
offices of Burr & Forman LLP in Jackson, he said.  Competitive
bids will begin at approximately $18.5 million.

Development Specialists on the Net: http://www.dsi.biz;Burr &  
Forman on the Net: http://www.burr.com/.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action
was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Brooks Automation, Inc. between July 25, 2001 and May 22, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.  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 Aug. 21,
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.


ERIE FAMILY: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit 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 Erie Family Life
Insurance Company between March 21, 2004 and March 24, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against defendants EFL and its
directors, along with Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange.

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 Aug. 21,
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: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague filed a class action on behalf of investors in
Herley Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit seeks recovery on behalf of investors who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Herley during the period Oct. 1,
2001 to June 14, 2006.

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

On June 6, 2006, Herley revealed that the company and its
Chairman, Lee N. Blatt, had been indicted on multiple charges,
in connection with excessive profits improperly "earned" by
Herley on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that its operations in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago,
Illinois, and a subsidiary in Farmingdale, New York had been
suspended from receiving new contract awards from the United
States Government.  Government contracts had historically
accounted for approximately 25% of Herley's business.

In response to these disclosures, Herley stock plunged on very
high volume, from $19.38 on June 2, 2006 to $9.21 on June 14,
2006.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, Esq. and Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Xerium Technologies Inc. between
May 16, 2005 and Nov. 15, 2005, inclusive.  The class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Xerium.  No class
has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.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  * * *