CAR_Public/060704.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 4, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 131

                            Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: July Trial Set for Securities Suit Settlement
AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case
BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
BAUSCH & LOMB: July 27 Hearing Set for Product Liability Suits
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Pacemakers with Faulty Capacitor

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settlement Hearing Slated for July 24, 2006
CITGO PETROLEUM: Suit Filed Over Oil Spill in Louisiana Waters
DANA CORP: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Suit Despite Bankruptcy
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Consumer Files Suit Over Low Credit Scores
EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Suit Class Members Dismissed

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Consumer Sues Over Low Credit Scores
FEDEX CORP: Accused of Illegal Treatment of Drivers in N.J.
GOOGLE INC: Judge Mulls Amendment in KinderStart Antitrust Suit
HIGHMARK INC: $10M Deal With Pittsburgh Ambulance Cos. Approved
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Sept. Trial Set for Stock Suit Settlement

INDIANA: To Restore Medicaid to People Wrongly Dropped from List
IOWA: Sex Offenders to Get $320T in Safekeepers Suit Settlement
LOUISIANA: Judge Hears Arguments in Suit Over Video Games Law
MICROSOFT CORP: Mass. Court Nixes Go Computing Antitrust Suit
MOLEX INC: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Ill. Securities Suit

NCSOFT CORP: Denies Allegations of Negligence in Identity Thefts
NEW MEXICO: Former Insurance Regulator Faces New Bribery Claims
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Over Contraceptive Patch
PIERRE FOODS: Recalls Sandwiches with Undeclared Milk Content
SANDS REGENT: Faces Stockholder Suit in Nev. Over Herbst Merger

SINO TRADING: Toy Guitar Parts Pose Choking Hazard to Children
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Deloitte Offers $24M to Settle Stock Suit
TINA'S INC: Recalls Banana Muffins with Undeclared Walnuts
TRANS UNION: Consumer Files Suit in S.C. Over Low Credit Scores
UNITED STATES: Suit Disputes Medicaid's Citizenship Requirement

WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Appeals Court Sanctions Frivolous Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Facing Labor Lawsuit in Mass. Superior Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set this Month
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Pa.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.J.


                            *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: July Trial Set for Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern
Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $15.050
million settlement of Allegheny Energy Securities Litigation on
July 14, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities which
purchased the securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc. between April
23, 2001 and Oct. 8, 2002, inclusive.  The class includes all
persons or entities that purchased Allegheny Energy Common Stock
(CUSIP Number AYE017361106) and/or Allegheny Energy 7.75% notes
due Aug. 1, 2005 (Cusip Number 017361aa4), and all persons or
entities which purchased call options or sold put options on
Allegheny Energy Common stock, during the class period.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Andre M. Davis in
the U.S. District Court, Garmatz Federal Courthouse, Suite 4415,
101 West Lombard St., Baltimore, MD 21201.  

Deadline to submit proof of claim is Aug. 14, 2006.  Deadline to
file for exclusion is June 26, 2006.  Objections must be filed
by June 30, 2006.

                         Case Background

From October 2002 through December 2002, plaintiffs claiming to
represent purchasers of the company's securities filed 14
putative class action lawsuits against the company and several
of its former senior managers in U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland.  

The complaints alleged that the company and senior management
violated federal securities laws when the company purchased
Merrill Lynch's energy marketing and trading business with the
knowledge that the business was built on illegal wash or round-
trip trades with Enron Corp., which the complaints alleged
artificially inflated trading revenue, volume and growth.  

The complaints asserted that the company's fortunes fell when  
Enron's collapse exposed what plaintiffs claim were illegal
trades in the energy markets.  All of the securities cases were
transferred to the District of Maryland and consolidated.  

                        Settlement Terms

In 2005, Allegheny Energy reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action and the
shareholder derivative lawsuits filed against it in New York and  
Maryland courts.

Under the proposed settlement in the consolidated securities
class action, the action will be dismissed with prejudice in
exchange for a cash payment of $15.05 million, which will be
made by the Company's insurance carrier.  Pursuant to the
proposed settlement of the shareholder derivative actions, those
actions will be dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a cash
payment of $450,000, which will be made by the Company's
insurance carrier, and its agreement to adopt certain corporate
governance changes.   

The suit is "In re: v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., Securities  
Litigation, case no. 1:03-md-01518-AMD," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge
Andre M. Davis.  Representing the company is William J. Snipes,  
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-
2498, Phone: 12125584000, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:  
snipesw@sullcrom.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and  
         Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, Phone:  
         12125454600, Fax: 12125454653;

     (2) Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman  
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz 49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-
         0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E-mail:  
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Mark C. Gardy, Abbey Gardy LLP, 212 E 39th St., New  
         York, NY 10016, Phone: 12128893700;

     (4) Deborah R. Gross, Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC  
         John Wanamaker Bldg Ste 450, Juniper and Market Sts,  
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 12155613600, Fax:  
         12155613000, E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com; and
  
     (5) John Bucher Isbister, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP, 100 E  
         Pratt St 26th Fl, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:  
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:  
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com.  


For more information, contact:

     (1) Robert A. Wallner, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad      
         & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY   
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and           

     (2) Allegheny Energy Securities Litigation, c/o Archway
         Claims Administration, 28220 Industry Drive, Valencia,
         CA 91355, Phone: (800) 903-9994, E-mail:
         http://www.alleghenysettlement.com.


AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
AT&T Litigation, Case No. 02-6801."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased AT&T
Corp. common stock between Nov. 29, 1999 and Oct. 25, 2000,
inclusive, and/or AT&T Wireless Tracking and/or common stock
between May 2, 2000 and June 14, 2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before July 12, 2006.  Deadline for submission of a
proof of claim is on Sept. 12, 2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
site: http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/and  
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/publications/firmnewsUser2.cfm?pubid
=380.


BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
the company and certain of its former and current officers and
directors.

Between May and July 2004, 10 putative securities class actions,
now consolidated and designated, "In re Bally Total Fitness
Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.

On March 15, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and on
May 23, 2005 the court appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements in
November 2005.

On Dec. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased Bally stock between Aug. 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004.

The various defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Feb. 24, 2006, which motions are
currently pending, according to the company's June 27, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bally Total Fitness Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03530," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Fay Clayton of Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C., 300
         South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606,
         Phone: (312) 663-3100, E-mail:
         fclayton@robinsoncurley.com; and

     (2) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite
         1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403,
         Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Janet Malloy Link of Latham & Watkins, LLP, (IL), 233
         South Wacker Drive, 5800 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL
         60606, Phone: (312) 876-7700, E-mail:
         janet.link@lw.com;

    (ii) Gregory A. Markel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,
         LLP, One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281,
         Phone: (212) 504-6000;

   (iii) Howard Steven Suskin of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM
         Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E-
         mial: hsuskin@jenner.com; and

    (iv) Mary Ellen Hennessy of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525
         West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661,
         Phone: (312) 902-5200, E-mail:
         maryellen.hennessy@kattenlaw.com.


BAUSCH & LOMB: July 27 Hearing Set for Product Liability Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for the numerous product liability class suits filed
against Bausch & Lomb Inc. will begin on July 27, according to
the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

The trial in Chicago district court will determine whether the
class actions could be assigned to a single federal judge in a
move to consolidate the suits.

The suits were filed in the wake of a high-profile recall of the
company's ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens solutions.

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 CDC 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.

For more information on the case contact  Timothy R. Balducci of
The Langston Law Firm, P.O. Box 787, 100 South Main St.,
Booneville, Mississippi 38829, Phone: (662) 728-3138, Fax: (662)
728-1992.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Pacemakers with Faulty Capacitor
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. is providing safety information and
retrieving a specific subset of pacemakers, cardiac
resynchronization pacemakers and implantable cardioverter
defibrillators from its sales force and hospital inventories.

The specific subset of devices includes Insignia and Nexus
pacemakers, Contak Renewal TR/TR2 cardiac resynchronization
pacemakers, and Ventak Prizm 2, Vitality, and Vitality 2
implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

These products were manufactured by the company's Cardiac Rhythm
Management (CRM) Group, formerly Guidant's CRM business.  Boston
Scientific acquired Guidant on April 21.

Boston Scientific CRM has recently identified a supplier's low-
voltage capacitor that is not performing to the company's
expectations. A capacitor is an electrical charge storage
component.  Some capacitors from specific lots may perform in a
manner that leads to device malfunction, including intermittent
or permanent loss of therapy or premature battery depletion.

To date, a total of five confirmed events have been reported out
of approximately 27,200 implanted devices from this subset.  One
event involved a device malfunction discovered at the time of
implant.  The other four events involved devices that were
implanted and subsequently required replacement.

The company said patients with affected pacemakers may
experience intermittent or permanent loss of output or
telemetry, or premature battery depletion.  Patients with
affected defibrillators may experience inappropriate sensing or
premature battery depletion.  There have been no reported
patient deaths associated with this issue.  There have been two
reports of pacemaker patients experiencing syncope associated
with loss of pacing output.

Engineering analysis is ongoing and the company will further
communicate on this issue when it has additional information.

Implanting and following physicians are being asked to schedule
an in-clinic follow-up visit as soon as possible for all
patients with implanted devices from this subset to assess
device function.  At this follow-up visit, physicians should
look for behaviors that may be indicative of capacitor
malfunction such as premature battery depletion, intermittent or
permanent loss of therapy or telemetry, fault codes, pacing or
sensing abnormalities, or loss of daily measurements.

"Boston Scientific believes in notifying physicians in a timely,
transparent and responsible manner," said Jim Tobin, Boston
Scientific President and Chief Executive Officer.

"This action reflects Boston Scientific's industry-leading
commitment to implementing recommendations made by both the
Heart Rhythm Society and the Independent Panel Commission
chaired by Dr Robert Myerberg.  Boston Scientific is the only
CRM company that has committed to implementing these
recommendations, which it believes are in the best interest of
patients and physicians."

For more information, contact Paul Donovan, Phone: 508-650-8541.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settlement Hearing Slated for July 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County will
hold a fairness hearing on July 24, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "In Re Cablevision Systems
Corp. Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 05-009752."

The suit was brought on behalf of all record and beneficial
owners of Cablevision Systems Corp. NY Group Class A common
stock from June 19, 2005 until April 24, 2006, including any and
all of their successors in interest, representatives, trustees,
executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees,
immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on
behalf, or claiming under any them, and each of them.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stephen Bucarla,
Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Part B, Room 3021
at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
Courthouse, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Minneola, New York 11501.

Deadline for submitting exclusions from the settlement is on
July 14, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In Re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholders
         Litigation, P.O. Box 9000 #6440, Merrick, NY 11500-900,
         Phone: 800-961-8348;

     (2) Karin E. Fisch of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701, E-mail:
         kfisch@abbeyspanier.com, Web site:
         http://www.a-g-s.com/;

     (3) U. Seth Ottensoser of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         1 (877) 779-1414 and (212) 779-1414, Fax: (800) 863-
         0598 and (212) 779-3218; and

     (4) Benjamin Y. Kaufman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
         York 10119, (New York Co.), Phone: 212-594-5300, Web
         site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.


CITGO PETROLEUM: Suit Filed Over Oil Spill in Louisiana Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit over the massive oil spill at Citgo Petroleum Corp.
refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana claims the company knew
about the incident earlier and misled the public about its
dangers and initial containment, according to Associated Press.

Some 47,000 barrels of oil forced out from Citco tanks during
heavy rainstorms on June 19.  The company said the spill was
noticed the next morning.  It resulted to the closure of a ship
channel to four refineries from June 20 until June 30.

Also named in the purported class action are Global Pollution
Services and the Marine Spill Response Corp.

An investigation is still ongoing regarding the cause of the
spill, MarketWatch reports, citing a Citgo spokesperson.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, CITGO Petroleum Corporation
-- http://www.citgo.com/-- is owned by PDV America, an  
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela
S.A., the state-owned oil company of Venezuela.


DANA CORP: Judge Allows Securities Fraud Suit Despite Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge James Carr has ruled that a class
action alleging Dana Corp. began in 2000 to misstate profits to
meet earnings expectations can continue despite its bankruptcy,
Toledoblade.com reports.

Shareholder Roberta Casden had filed the lawsuit against Dana
directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties.

In March, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio appointed the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions &  
Retirement as the lead plaintiff in consolidated securities
class action against Dana and certain of its current and former
officers (Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2006).  

Initially five purported class actions were filed in the fourth
quarter of 2005, which were later consolidated under the
caption, "Howard Frank v. Dana Corporation, et al."  

The plaintiffs in the consolidated case allege violations of the  
U.S. securities laws arising from the issuance of false and
misleading statements about Dana's financial performance and
failures to disclose material facts necessary to make these
statements not misleading, the issuance of financial statements
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules and the issuance
of earnings guidance that had no reasonable basis.  

The plaintiffs' claim that the price at which Dana's shares
traded at various times was artificially inflated as a result of
the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.   

The defendants believe the allegations in this case are without
merit.  The company previously advised the district court that
the claims in this case cannot proceed against it due to the
automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp. -- http://www.dana.com/--  
designs and manufactures products for every major vehicle
producer in the world, and supplies drivetrain, chassis,
structural, and engine technologies to those companies.  Dana
employs 46,000 people in 28 countries.

The company and its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection
on Mar. 3, 2006 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 06-10354) (Troubled
Company Repoter, Jul 03, 2006)

The suit is "Frank v. Dana Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:05-
cv-07393-JGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge James G. Carr.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Callow, Jr. of Keating, Muething & Klekamp,  
         One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH  
         45202, Phone: 513-579-6419, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-mail:
         jcallow@kmklaw.com;   

     (2) Keith W. Schneider of Maguire & Schneider, Ste. 200,  
         250 Civic Center Drive, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-
         224-1222, Fax: 614-224-1236, E-mail:  
         kwschneider@ms-lawfirm.com;   

     (3) Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ste.  
         200, 1360 West Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44113,         
         Phone: 216-522-9000, Fax: 216-522-9007, E-mail:
         jack@landskronerlaw.com;   

     (4) David W. Zoll of Zoll & Kranz, Ste. 200, 6620 West
         Central Avenue, Toledo, OH 43617, Phone: 419-841-9623,  
         Fax: 419-841-9719, E-mail: david@toledolaw.com; and

     (5) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman & Robbins, Ste. 1900, 655 West Broadway, San  
         Diego, CA 92101-3301, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-
         231-7423, E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Consumer Files Suit Over Low Credit Scores
---------------------------------------------------------------
A South Carolina consumer commenced a class action against
national credit bureau Equifax Information Services, LLC,
alleging that it allows a practice that lowers millions of
individuals' credit scores, according to the Columbus Dispatch.  
Similar suits have been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union, LLC.

Filed by William A. Harris Sr., the complaint claims that the
company allows credit card giant Capital One Financial Corp. to
withhold the credit limits on its customers' card accounts,
knowing that such omissions frequently lower credit scores.  The
higher the usage of credit relative to the limit, the lower the
score.

The suit, filed on June 15, 2006, contends that under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the national bureaus are
required to follow reasonable procedures to assume maximum
possible accuracy of information in consumer (credit) reports.

Capital One is not named as defendant in the suits.  Under the
prevailing credit system, no law requires a lender to report any
client's data to any bureau.  

However, federal law does require the credit bureaus to strive
to be accurate, and Mr. Harris' suit argues that the defendants
are not in compliance.

The suit is "Harris v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case
No. 6:06-cv-01810-GRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina under Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr.

For more details, contact:
  
     (1) Theodore H. Huge of Motley Rice, PO Box 1792, Mt.
         Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone: 843-216-9000, Fax: 843-216-
         9440, E-mail: thuge@motleyrice.com;

     (2) William Linwood Mullen, Jr. of Mullen Law Firm, P.O.
         Box 6248, Spartanburg, SC 29304, Phone: 864-582-5800,
         Fax: 864-1307, E-mail: attymullen@bellsouth.net; and

     (3) William Douglas Smith of Johnson Smith Hibbard and
         Wildman, P.O. Drawer 5587, Spartanburg, SC 29304-5587,
         Phone: 864-582-8121, Fax: 864-580-2313, E-mail:
         dsmith@jshwlaw.com.


EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Suit Class Members Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed class members who did not have remaining claims in a
2001 securities fraud class action filed against Exodus
Communications, Inc.

Judge Maxine Chesney further ruled that the lead plaintiff could
not decline to answer discovery until another plaintiff
intervenes to seek appointment as class representative.

The judge dismissed all of the claims except for the Section 11
claims against the underwriter defendants.  The defendants moved
to dismiss certain class members who originally filed violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing false and misleading analyst reports on Exodus,
but did not have claims under Section 11.  Lead plaintiff must
answer discovery.

The district court dismissed the class members' who did not have
Section 11 claims.  It denied dismissal of the lead plaintiff,
granting the plaintiff an opportunity to decide whether he would
serve as class representative and to answer discovery.

The suit is "In re Exodus Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:01-cv-02661-MMC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Maxine M. Chesney, with referral to Judge Maria-Elena
James.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

    (1) Michael David Braun of The Braun law Group, P.C., 12400
        Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025,
        Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
        service@braunlawgroup.com;

    (2) Connie M. Cheung, John K. Grant, Reed R. Kathrein and Ex
        Kano S. Sams, II all 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: conniec@lerachlaw.com or  
        johnkg@lerachlaw.com or reedk@lerachlaw.com or  
        exkanos@lerachlaw.com;

    (3) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
        & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
        CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-
        mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;

    (4) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
        LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA
        90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
        mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

    (5) Leigh A. Parker of Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire Blvd.,
        Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: 310-208-2800,
        310-209-2348, E-mail: info@wllawca.com; and

    (6) Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue,
        Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025,
        Fax: (212) 682-3010.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Consumer Sues Over Low Credit Scores
----------------------------------------------------------
A South Carolina consumer commenced a class action against
national credit bureau Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
alleging that it allows a practice that lowers millions of
individuals' credit scores, according to the Columbus Dispatch.  
Similar suits have been filed against Trans Union, LLC, and
Equifax Information Services, LLC.

Filed by William A. Harris Sr., the complaint claims that the
company allows credit card giant Capital One Financial Corp. to
withhold the credit limits on its customers' card accounts,
knowing that such omissions frequently lower credit scores.  The
higher the usage of credit relative to the limit, the lower the
score.

The suit, filed on June 15, 2006, contends that under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the national bureaus are
required to follow reasonable procedures to assume maximum
possible accuracy of information in consumer (credit) reports.

Capital One is not named as defendant in the suits.  Under the
prevailing credit system, no law requires a lender to report any
client's data to any bureau.  

However, federal law does require the credit bureaus to strive
to be accurate, and Mr. Harris' suit argues that the defendants
are not in compliance.

The suit is "Harris v. Experian Information Solutions Inc, Case
No. 6:06-cv-01808-GRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina under Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr.

For more details, contact:
  
     (1) Theodore H. Huge of Motley Rice, PO Box 1792, Mt.
         Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone: 843-216-9000, Fax: 843-216-
         9440, E-mail: thuge@motleyrice.com;

     (2) William Linwood Mullen, Jr. of Mullen Law Firm, P.O.
         Box 6248, Spartanburg, SC 29304, Phone: 864-582-5800,
         Fax: 864-1307, E-mail: attymullen@bellsouth.net; and

     (3) William Douglas Smith of Johnson Smith Hibbard and
         Wildman, P.O. Drawer 5587, Spartanburg, SC 29304-5587,
         Phone: 864-582-8121, Fax: 864-580-2313, E-mail:
         dsmith@jshwlaw.com.


FEDEX CORP: Accused of Illegal Treatment of Drivers in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is charging FedEx
Ground/Home Delivery, a subsidiary of FedEx Corp., with numerous
illegal practices stemming from its treatment of drivers at the
company's Barrington and West Deptford, New Jersey terminals,
according to a complaint issued by the agency.

The company is accused of engaging in a pattern of illegal
practices against drivers at the two terminals, primarily as a
result of their involvement in organizing a labor association to
represent their interests.

At the Barrington terminal, the drivers became the first group
of FedEx drivers in the U.S. to vote for representation.  FedEx
is contesting that vote.

The NLRB complaint specifically accuses the company of:

     -- firing, and/or threatening drivers, involved in the
        organizing efforts;

     -- terminating driver insurance and route operating
        contracts;

     -- discriminating against drivers who testified before or
        filed charges against FedEx Ground/Home Delivery with
        the NLRB; and

     -- promising preferential treatment if drivers rejected the
        collective bargaining campaign.

The complaint requires FedEx to answer the charges by July 14,
2006, and set a date of July 31 for a hearing before an NLRB
Administrative Law Judge in Philadelphia.

FedEx Ground/Home Delivery has maintained in New Jersey and
nationally that the drivers are independent contractors and not
employees.  It has consistently been found to exercise complete
control over the drivers and to misclassify them as a way of
avoiding paying their benefits and other overhead expenses.

"We are once again encouraged that yet another government agency
has found that the drivers are employees that they have been the
innocent victims of blatant discrimination simply because they
were trying to protect their rights in the workplace," says
Jerald R. Cureton, Esq., the lawyer for the drivers.

Mr. Cureton further states, "The NLRB documents how FedEx tried
to divide and conquer the drivers in an effort to kill the
association, even bringing in managers from other terminals in
an attempt to physically segregate pro-association drivers from
the others.  Despite their tactics, and spending upwards of $1
million in legal fees, they still couldn't fend off the employee
association."

The NLRB position in the New Jersey cases is consistent with
those in other states -- from California to Massachusetts --
where the company's treatment of thousands of past and present
FedEx Ground/Home Delivery drivers is being challenged.

Within the past year, FedEx Ground/Home Delivery has been
assessed nearly $100 million by various boards and courts as a
result of its employment practices related to its drivers.

Mr. Cureton adds, "It is fitting that the ruling of the NLRB was
issued right before July 4th because this case and the others
across the U.S. -- including a national class-action suit -- are
demonstrating that FedEx has taken the independence out of
independent contracting."

Previously, the Hon. Robert L. Miller, Jr., chief judge, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend
Division, rejected a request by FedEx Corp. lawyers to dismiss a
claim to Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefits
including those covering pension benefits in the national class
action brought on behalf of Federal Express Ground/Home Delivery
drivers against the corporation (Class Action Reporter, June 15,
2006).

The judge issued his Opinion and Order in the multi-jurisdiction
litigation (MDL-1700) that presently includes hundreds of
plaintiffs -- current and former FedEx Ground/Home Delivery
drivers -- from nearly 30 states.  The ruling, entered on June
2, held that FedEx Ground/Home Delivery drivers have been
misclassified (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2006).

Further information on the class action is available at:  
            http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com.

For further information on the NLRB complaint, call Jerald R.
Cureton, Esq. of Cureton Caplan & Clark, 3000 Midlantic Drive,
Suite 200, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054, Phone: (856) 824-1001, E-mail:
jcureton@curetoncaplan.com.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Mulls Amendment in KinderStart Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California is considering the issuance of an order
that would allow KinderStart.com LLC to amend its antitrust suit
against Google Inc., CNET News.com reports.

On March 17, Norwalk, California-based KinderStart filed a civil
complaint, asking to represent owners of all Web sites
blacklisted by Google's search engine since January 2001 (Class
Action Reporter, March 22, 2006).

The suit claimed that Google violated antitrust and other laws
by handing KinderStart low rankings.

At a June 30 hearing, where Judge Fogel heard arguments about a
Google motion to dismiss the case, the judge appeared less
sympathetic to KinderStart's claims that its First Amendment
rights were violated when its visibility on Google's search
pages plummeted -- thereby allegedly impeding its ability to
have its virtual voice heard, according to a report from the
InfoWorld Daily.

At that same hearing, the judge heard requests for a preliminary
injunction to make Google restore Kindrstart.com's site to its
index and any motions on substantive matters such as Google's
request to throw out the lawsuit and issue penalties against the
parenting site.

Additionally, Judge Fogel set a Sept. 29 hearing on a separate
motion by Google, in which the company wants to strike some
claims from KinderStart's suit on the basis of a California law
against suits that stifle a defendant's free speech rights.

According to David Kramer, an attorney with Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, which is representing Google, the company's
search rankings are opinions and entitled to free-speech
protection.  Although rankings are based partly on a
mathematical algorithm, Google also studies the quality of sites
and makes subjective judgments.

Mr. Kramer added that any Google user knows the rankings are
opinions, and Google can make them using any criteria it wants -
- including giving poor rankings to competitors -- without
telling users.  

However, he did not concede that Google actually downgrades
competitors.

Mr. Kramer further argued that if KinderStart can sue Google
because the search engine didn't give its site enough promotion,
there's nothing to stop archrivals Microsoft Corp. or Yahoo Inc.
from doing the same thing.

                         Case Background

In its complaint, filed in March, KinderStart alleged that
Google wrongfully banned some Web sites.  It also said that
these Web sites could no longer be restored because Google does
not disclose its procedures from striking them out (Class Action
Reporter, June 26, 2006).

KinderStart also said it was dropped from Google's index a year
ago without being informed.  It alleged that the practice is
anti-competitive; that Google misled the public by positioning
its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet
content.

The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order
that would require Google to change its practices.

Google's system ranksWeb sites according to the content's
relevance to a request.  Because competition is high, some Web
sites engage in devious schemes to raise their status.  Google
ensures the veracity of its index by taking these fraudsters'
Web sites off.  In worst cases, it exiles these Web sites,
(Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2006).

The suit is "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No.
5:06-cv-02057-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory John Yu of the Global Law
Group, 2015 Pioneer Ct., Suite P-1, San Mateo, CA 94403, Phone:
650-570-4140, Fax: 650-570-4142, E-mail: glgroup@inreach.com.

Representing the defendants are Colleen Bal, David H. Kramer and
Bart Edward Volkmer, Esq. all of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-493-
9300 and (650) 565-3508, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-mail:
cbal@wsgr.com or dkramer@wsgr.com or bvolkmer@wsgr.com.


HIGHMARK INC: $10M Deal With Pittsburgh Ambulance Cos. Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster in Pittsburg gave final
approval to a $10 million settlement of a class action filed by
300 ambulance companies in 29 Western Pennsylvania counties
against Highmark Inc., the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

The settlement will bring $7 million to local ambulance
companies and could give them a better shot at future business
with the region's dominant health insurer, according to the
report.

Under the settlement, 30 percent of the award will go to
attorneys who represented the ambulance companies in the class.  
Those companies will split the remaining $7 million, with the
Oakland-based Center for Emergency Medicine, which operates the
STAT Medevac air ambulance service, and the City of Pittsburgh
EMS receiving more than $400,000 each.

As part of the settlement, the company agreed to offer contracts
for emergency and non-emergency ambulance services to any
company that meets standards for network credentials.

                         Case Background

The suit was originally filed in July 2003 by 20 ambulance
services in southwestern Pennsylvania and the city of
Pittsburgh.  Parties in the suit are in disagreement on the
amount of reimbursement that the company should pay non-contract
ambulance companies for transporting enrollees in Highmark's
SecurityBlue program (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2006).  

The company said it should be at the Medicare-approved rate,
which is generally half of actual charges.  The ambulance
companies said it should be at the full rate (Class Action
Reporter, June 29, 2006).

Plaintiffs are seeking additional payment for services provided
from mid-1999 through March 31, 2002.  

Highmark owns and operates the for-profit Keystone Health Plan
West Inc., which has a contract with the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services to offer SecurityBlue to seniors in the
Pittsburgh region.

Keystone Health is also named as defendant in the suit (Class
Action Reporter, June 29, 2006).

A July 18, 2003 issue of Pittsburgh Business Times, stated that
plaintiffs in the suit include:

     -- Brentwood Emergency Medical Services,  
     -- Butler Ambulance Service,  
     -- McCandless-Franklin Park Ambulance Authority,  
     -- Monessen Ambulance Services,  
     -- Robinson Emergency Medical Service Inc., and  
     -- Shaler Area Emergency Medical Services Inc., (Class
        Action Reporter, June 29, 2006).

Representing the ambulance companies is Charles Kelly of
Sinclair Kelly Jackson Reinhart & Hayden LLC.


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Sept. Trial Set for Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2006 at 9:15 a.m. for
the proposed $3.8 million settlement in the matter, "Imperial
Chemical Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03cv2457 (NRB)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC American Depository
Shares Listed on the New York Stock Exchange from Aug. 1, 2002
to and including March 24, 2003.

Lead plaintiffs allege that in the spring of 2002, Imperial
Chemical's subsidiary, Quest, attempted to implement a new
supply chain management software system (Q-Star).  This
implementation compounded existing supply chain and
manufacturing process problems at Quest.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2002, and periodically thereafter during
the class period, defendants issued statements which were
materially false and misleading with respect to the scope and
impact of the problems with Q-Star and also omitted material
facts regarding Q-Star which should have been disclosed.

Additionally, another ICI subsidiary, National Starch, failed to
disclose material facts regarding its supply of raw materials.

On March 24, 2003, ICI issued a profit warning stating that due
in part to a loss of business at Quest and increases in raw
material prices at National Starch, ICI's results for the first
quarter of 2003 would be lower than the same quarter for the
prior year.  

As a result of this announcement, the price of Imperial Chemical
American Depository Shares fell from $9.60 on March 24 to a
close of $6.05 on March 25, 2003.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Naomi Reice
Buchwald in the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY.

Deadline for submission of proof of claim is on or before Oct.
18, 2006.  Any objections and exclusions to and from the
settlement must be made on or before Aug. 28, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Imperial Chemical Securities Litigation, c/o Rust
         Consulting, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post Office Box
         24644, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: (888) 285-
         7847, E-mail: Imperial@CompleteClaimSolutions.com, Web
         site: http://imperialchemicalsettlement.com.

     (2) George A. Bauer III, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,
         Phone: 212.946.9310, Fax: 212.273.4386, E-mail:
         gbauer@milbergweiss.com; and

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100, Fax:
         (631) 367-1173.


INDIANA: To Restore Medicaid to People Wrongly Dropped from List
----------------------------------------------------------------
State officials will reinstate Medicaid benefits for about
10,000 blind, elderly and disabled people in order to settle a
class action filed by beneficiaries whose payments were cut off,
WNDU NewsCenter 19 reports.

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration had
stopped giving aid to some Medicaid recipients upon finding that
their income was too high.  As a result, some recipients lost
the aid in January.  In certain cases, the concerned individuals
didn't even knew about it.

Under the settlement, the FSSA will stop removing people from
the program without a hearing.  It said it will take about 30
days to reinstate people in the list.


IOWA: Sex Offenders to Get $320T in Safekeepers Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state entered a $320,000 settlement with 130 convicted sex
offenders who claimed in a class action they were mistreated and
denied basic privileges, according to The Des Moines Register.

The suit, filed five years ago, claimed inmates were held for
months, and in some cases years, in solitary confinement with no
treatment at the so-called "Safekeepers Unit" at Oakdale state
prison.  The Safekeepers Unit was moved to Newton after the
lawsuit was filed.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of Des Moines issued a partial
summary judgment in favor of the detainees in 2004.

Under the recent settlement, the ex-offenders will be moved to a
remodeled farmhouse that will be surrounded by a fence at the
Newton state prison, where they could a roam and have access to
more privileges, said Randall Wilson one of the plaintiff's
attorneys.

According to the report, the agreement also calls for state
officials to pay $400,000 into a fund created for the entire
class of 130 detainees who were allegedly subjected to the
punitive conditions of confinement.

Some $80,000 of it will be deducted for unpaid obligations owed
to the state by the individuals, and $160,000 will be paid to
the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The suit was originally in Johnson County District Court but was
later re-filed with different plaintiffs in federal court.  The
settlement must still be approved by Judge Pratt.

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Iowa Department of Corrections,
     -- Iowa State,
     -- Multidisciplinary Team,
     -- Prosecutors' Review Committee,
     -- Jessie K. Rasmussen,
     -- Rusty Rogerson,
     -- Thomas J. Vilsack,
     -- W. L. Kautzky,
     -- John Mathes,
     -- Ken Baker,
     -- Ken Burger,
     -- Jessie K. Rasmussen,
     -- Rusty Rogerson,
     -- Thomas J. Vilsack,
     -- W. L. Kautzky,
     -- Prosecutors' Review Committee

The suit is "Atwood, et al., et al. v. Vilsack, et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-90359-RP-RAW," filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt with
referral to Judge Ross A. Walters.

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick E. Ingram of Mears Law
Office, 209 East Washington, Suite 203, Iowa City, IA 52240,
Phone: 319 351 4363, Fax: 351 7911, E-mail:
patingram@mearslawoffice.com.

Representing the defendants is Gordon E. Allen, Department of
Justice, Hoover State Office Building, Second Floor, Des Moines,
IA 50319, Phone: 515 281 4419, Fax: 281 4209:
jambroz@ag.state.ia.us.


LOUISIANA: Judge Hears Arguments in Suit Over Video Games Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana heard oral arguments in a class action
against the state of Louisiana over a new law banning the sale
or rental of violent video games to minors, according to the
2theAdvocate.

Attorneys representing both the Entertainment Software
Association and the Entertainment Merchants Association -- the
groups behind the class action -- argued that the law expressly
regulates free speech, so the burden of proof falls to state
lawyers.

However, state attorneys countered and continue to maintain that
while the law might be unenforceable, it's not unconstitutional.

The law in question, HB 1381, stipulates that vendors would be
subjected to fines of between $100 and $2,000 and up to a year
in prison if caught selling video games containing "violent"
content to minors (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2006).

After hearing both parties' arguments Judge Brady took the issue
under advisement.  He also extended the temporary restraining
order he issued back in June barring authorities from enforcing
the measure.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2006 against Attorney General
Charles Foti as the state's chief legal officer and East Baton
Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau.  

It seeks to have the law, which the Legislature passed on June 6
and which was later signed by Gov. Kathleen Blanco, declared
unconstitutional.  

The law specifically bans the sale, lease or renting of violent
video games to individuals under 18 years of age.  It defines
prohibited materials as those that an average person would
conclude appeal to a young person's morbid interest in violence,
depict violence patently offensive to adult standards and lacks
serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.  

During the hearing, one lawyer for the trade associations argued
the law is a direct attack on the First Amendment.  He was
quoted as saying that even though the law is unenforceable, the
threat of prosecution inhibits speech.

In the lawsuit, Louisiana plaintiff attorney James Brown
compares video games to movies, books, art and other forms of
non-obscene expression protected by the First Amendment.

However, Burton Guidry, assistant attorney general, told the
court that he does not believe the law violates free speech,
pointing out that plaintiffs have self-imposed restrictions in
the form of labeling games for content.

The suit is "Entertainment Software Association et al. v. Foti
et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00431-JJB-CN," filed under Judge James
J. Brady with referral to Judge Christine Noland.

Representing the plaintiffs is James A. Brown of Liskow & Lewis-
LAF, P.O. Box 52008, Lafayette, LA 70505, Phone: 337-232-7424,
Fax: 504-556-4108, E-mail: jabrown@liskow.com.

Representing the defendants is David Glen Sanders, Louisiana
Department of Justice - B.R., P.O. Box 94005, Baton Rouge, LA
70804-9005, Phone: 225-326-6300, Fax: 225-326-6495, E-mail:
sandersd@ag.state.la.us.


MICROSOFT CORP: Mass. Court Nixes Go Computing Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed a competitor antitrust class action filed against
Microsoft Corp. by the founder of the now-defunct pen-computing
company Go Computer, Inc., CNET News.com reports.

In an opinion released on June 29, Judge J. Frederick Motz
granted the company's motion to dismiss S. Jerrold Kaplan's
antitrust suit, which was filed in June 2005.  

The judge, though, did allow Mr. Kaplan the option of filing a
new suit based on any damages that may have occurred within four
years prior to the filing of such a suit.

Mr. Kaplan's suit claimed that the company violated antitrust
laws by trying to thwart Go's attempt to enter the P.C.
operating system market.  

The suit also claimed that the company stole Go technology, that
it threatened Intel, which had invested in Go, and that it used
"incentives and threats" to coerce Compaq Computer, Fujitsu,
Toshiba and other computer makers not to use Go's operating
system.

The company said that the Go matter is one of only two
competitor class actions still pending.  The other is Novell
Software's, which is related to the WordPerfect software.

The suit is "Go Computer, Inc. et al., v. Microsoft Corporation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-02413-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court of
Massachusetts under Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven F Benz of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans and
         Figel, PLLC, 1615 M. St., NW Ste. 400, Washington, DC
         20036, Phone: 12023267900, E-mail: sbenz@khhte.com; and

     (2) Eugene Chatham Crew of Townsend and Townsend and Crew,
         LLP, Two Embarcadero Cntr Eighth Fl., San Francisco, CA
         94111-3834, Phone: 14155760200, Fax: 14155760300, E-
         mail: ecrew@townsend.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert A. Rosenfeld of Heller Ehrman White McAuliffe,
         LLP, 333 Bush St., San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone:
         14157726000, Fax: 14157726268, E-mail:
         rrosenfeld@hewm.com; and

    (ii) Randolph Stuart Sergent of Venable, LLP, 2 Hopkins
         Plz., Ste. 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:
         14102447400, Fax: 14102447742, E-mail:
         rsergent@venable.com.


MOLEX INC: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Ill. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied Molex Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action
filed against it after finding that the complaint it faces was
adequate and met the requirements of particularity and scienter.

The court ruled that the shareholders adequately alleged
material misrepresentations.  Scienter is established by
pleading particular facts that would give rise to a strong
inference of scienter.  

General allegations of violations of U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles or of insider trading alone are
insufficient to establish scienter.  However, such factors taken
together are sufficient to establish scienter.

Specifically, the court ruled that the allegations of
misstatements made during press conferences, the insider trading
and the accounting violations were sufficient to plead scienter.

                         Case Background

In February, the company and certain of its officers and
employees faced a consolidated amended class action that was
filed on behalf of a class of company stockholders from July 27,
2004 to Feb. 14, 2005, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  Seven suits were initially filed between March 2, 2005
and April 22, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

The consolidated complaint alleges, amongs, that during the
period the named defendants made or caused to be made a series
of materially false or misleading statements about the company's
business, prospects, operations, and financial statements which
constituted violations of the federal securities laws and rules
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

The stockholders actions were consolidated before Judge Ruben
Castillo in a pending case entitled, "The Takara Trust v. Molex
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 05C 1245."  It also alleges that
certain of the named defendants engaged in insider trading in
violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

The individual defendants named in the consolidated amended
complaint are: J. Joseph King, Diane S. Bullock, John H.
Krehbiel Jr., Frederick A. Krehbiel, Ronald L. Schubel and
Martin A. Slark.   

The suit is "The Takara Trust, Case No. 1:05-cv-01245," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Ruben Castillo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James A. Caputo and Udoka Nwanna both of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 58 South
         Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         (631)367-7100, Fax: (631)367-1173, E-mail:
         jimc@lerachlaw.com and udokan@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Conor R Crowley and Carol V Gilden both of Much,
         Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.,
         191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-
         1615, Phone: (312)521-2000 or (312) 521-2403, Fax:
         (312) 521-2100, E-mail: ccrowley@muchshelist.com and
         cgilden@muchshelist.com;

     (3) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller both of Miller
         Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30, North LaSalle Street,
         Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880,
         E-mail: afata@millerfaucher.com and
         mmiller@millerfaucher.com; and

      (4) Tamara Skvirsky and Marc A Topaz both of Schiffrin &
          Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA,
          Phone: (610) 667-7706.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Gerald E. Fradin of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
         LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312)876-8000, E-mail:
         gfradin@sonnenschein.com;

     (2) Anthony S. Gabrielson, Jennifer Marie Lawson, James A.
         McKenna and Howard Steven Suskin all of Jenner & Block,
         LLC, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312)222-9350 and  
         (312) 840-8658, E-mail: agabrielson@jenner.com and
         jmckenna@jenner.com and hsuskin@jenner.com; and

     (3) Thomas C. Newkirk of Jenner & Block, 601 Thirteenth
         Street, NW, Suite 1200 South, Washington, DC 20005,
         Phone: (202) 639-6099.


NCSOFT CORP: Denies Allegations of Negligence in Identity Thefts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Korean virtual games developer, NCSoft Corp., denied allegations
that it has been negligent in dealing with the massive identity
thefts that swept its online game site since February, the Asia
Pulse Businesswire reports.

The denial comes as police arrested one of the company's top-
ranking executives earlier, who was identified only by his last
name, Kim, on suspicion of being involved in the identify theft
scandal.

Lawmarket Asia says 8,574 people are seeking $1,026 each in
damages in a suit filed with a Seoul court against the Internet
games developer for alleged virtual identity theft.  The suit
arose after it was discovered that some players of online game
Lineage were using identities of others that they obtained from
the Internet or through other illegal channels.  The scheme has
been under police investigation since the middle of March last
year (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2006).

Lineage is a multi-player online role-playing game in which
gamers can explore a mythical fantasy world and befriend new
people while also engaging in combat (Class Action Reporter,
March 17, 2006).

Lawmarket and the K.R. law firm led a class action against
Korean online game maker N.C. Soft and its blockbuster game, and
demanded compensation for massive identification thefts.  The
suit accused the company of failing to verify the
identifications of members when they registered.  Lawmarket
demanded that NC Soft compensate each I.D. theft victim with
about $1,034.3 for violating personal information protection
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).


NEW MEXICO: Former Insurance Regulator Faces New Bribery Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former State Superintendent of Insurance Eric Serna is facing a
new suit over allegations he took bribes from the title-
insurance industry, according to Free New Mexican.

Albuquerque lawyer Victor Marshall has filed two other suits on
behalf of consumers who accused Mr. Serna of setting high title-
insurance rates at the urging of title-insurance companies that
made donations to Con Alma Health Foundation Inc., the non-
profit organization Mr. Serna previously headed.  Mr. Serna
resigned as board president of Con Alma following allegations of
a conflict of interest between his dual roles as regulator and
president.

The plaintiffs include:

     -- former state Representative Max Coll, D-Santa Fe, and
        his wife, Catherine Joyce-Coll;

     -- Charles and Barbara Murphy of Cedar Crest;

     -- Haydock Miller Jr. of Santa Fe; and now

     -- Richard and Patricia Arens of Santa Fe.

Mr. Marshall said his suit differs from the others because it
includes information uncovered earlier this month that Mr. Serna
used for his personal benefit one the credit cards of Con Alma.  
He paid nearly $15,000 back to the non-profit organization,
according to the report.

Mr. Serna is facing one purported class action filed on April
27, 2006 in Santa Fe's 1st Judicial District Court, The New
Mexican reports (Class Action Reporter, May 31, 2006).  

Tax documents filed by Con Alma do not list a specific person or
business as a donor.  However, the lawsuit says the 2003
donation lists an address occupied by LandAmerica Albuquerque
Title Co., which is a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group
Inc., the parent company of three companies named as defendants.

The suit alleges "[the] primary purpose of these contributions
was to influence defendant, Mr. Serna, in his capacity as
superintendent of insurance, to set unreasonably high rates for
title insurance, and to restrain competition as to the price and
terms of title insurance in New Mexico."

In 2001, Mr. Serna helped found Con Alma with money generated
from the sale of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico.  The
non-profit foundation has given millions of dollars to New
Mexico health-care providers.

Charles and Barbara Murphy of Cedar Crest and Haydock Miller,
Jr. of Santa Fe, filed the suit on behalf of themselves and
thousands of other New Mexicans who bought title insurance.

Defendants in the lawsuit include the 10 largest title-insurance
companies operating in New Mexico, Mr. Serna, the state Public
Regulation Commission, and the PRC's Insurance Division.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Over Contraceptive Patch
------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson & Associates filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, on behalf
of a 46-year-old woman who suffered a stroke while using the
Ortho Evra(r) Birth Control Patch for only three months.  The
suit was filed in The Superior Court of New Jersey.  It was also
brought on behalf of the woman's husband.

According to Peterson & Associates, in October 2004, the injured
woman began experiencing severe headaches and was taken to a
nearby emergency room.  Soon after, she was diagnosed as having
suffered from a stroke on the left side of her brain.  Because
of the stroke, she suffers from permanent memory loss.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.  In
the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time that
women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen.

FDA's warning:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01262.html.

For more information on Ortho Evra, visit:
http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.comor  
http://ww.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Ortho_Evra_Patch

For more information on the suit, contact David M. Peterson and
Peter E. Goss of Peterson & Associates, P.C., Phone: 816-531-
4440 or 1-800-305-7552, Website: http://www.petersonlawfirm.com.


PIERRE FOODS: Recalls Sandwiches with Undeclared Milk Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Foods, Inc. of Cincinnati, Ohio recalled all production
codes of their "Fast Bites Spicy Breaded Chicken" and the "Fast
Bites BBQ Chicken" sandwiches because the bread used in the
sandwiches may contain undeclared milk ingredients.

The company said individuals with allergies or sensitivity to
milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.  No illnesses have been
reported to date.

These products are distributed nationwide and can be purchased
from vending machines and at convenience stores.  The individual
product labeling identifies the products as distributed by
Pierre Foods, Cincinnati, Ohio.  No other products of Pierre
Foods are affected by this recall.

The "Fast Bites BBQ Chicken" and "Fast Bites Spicy Breaded
Chicken" sandwiches are packaged in clear film and contain two
sandwiches per package.

The products are labeled as:

     * Item 0953 -- "Fast Bites BBQ Chicken", Net Weight 3.75
       oz. (106 g.) bearing a barcode stating 7142110953,

     * Item 0954 -- "Fast Bites Spicy Breaded Chicken", Net
       Weight 3.55 oz. (100 g.), bearing a barcode stating
       7142110954 (All production lot codes)

This recall was voluntarily initiated by Pierre Foods after it
was discovered that the bun portion of the sandwiches contains
micro gold, a milk protein.

The sandwiches were distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of this milk ingredient.

Consumers who have purchased these products are advised to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  
Consumers with questions may contact Pierre Foods at: 1-800-982-
7091.

For more information, contact Bill Kolb, Phone: (513) 874-8741.


SANDS REGENT: Faces Stockholder Suit in Nev. Over Herbst Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sands Regent is defendant in a purported stockholder class
action pending in the Second Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe over the
company's May 16, 2006 merger agreement with Herbst Gaming, Inc.
and HGI-Casinos, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Herbst.

The suit was filed May 31, 2006 on behalf of the holders of the
company's common stock.  It names the company and its board of
directors as defendants, and alleges that the board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement
and approving the merger.

The complaint seeks an injunction preventing the completion of
the merger, invalidating the merger agreement, and directing the
board of directors to obtain a higher per share price for the
company's common stock.

It further seeks the immediate disclosure of the company's
quarterly results for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
imposition of a constructive trust, and other unspecified costs
and damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other
expert fees.


SINO TRADING: Toy Guitar Parts Pose Choking Hazard to Children
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sino Trading Group, LLC of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 500
electronic toy guitars.

The company said the toy guitar can break into small parts,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  No injuries were
reported.

The recalled plastic toy guitar has a white face and red back
with a green shoulder strap.  There are multi-colored animal-
face buttons on the front of the guitar including a chicken, a
duck, a dog, a pig and a lamb.  A label on the front of the
guitar reads, "Guitar Series JC856."  "Made in China" is
embossed on the front of the battery cover on the back of the
guitar.  Packaging on the box reads in part, "Jie Cheng" and
"Not Suitable for Children Under 3 Years."

The toy guitars were manufactured in China and are being sold at
flea markets nationwide throughout January 2006 for about $1.50.

Picture of recalled toy guitar:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06199.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the toy and
return it to the vendor where purchased for a full refund.

For more information, call Sino Trading collect at (713) 789-
9996 between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday or e-
mail: alisaxia8@yahoo.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Deloitte Offers $24M to Settle Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deloitte & Touche, LLP offered a $24 million settlement, plus
interest, to resolve a class action filed in relation to
securities fraud involving Symbol Technologies, Inc. in 2004,
according to the law firms of Bernstein Berger & Grossman LLP
and Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacoo Burt & Pucillo.

The payout will be available to individuals and companies that
bought common stocks in Symbol Technologies, Inc. between March
2, 2000 and Oct. 17, 2002.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler in
the Long Island Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip,
New York, 11722, at 11:00 a.m., on Sept. 12, 2006, to determine
whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate and to consider the
application of lead counsel for attorney fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses.

Parties with objection to the proposed settlement or application
for attorney fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses must
be filed with the court and delivered to counsel for parties no
later than Aug. 28, 2006.

For more information, contact The Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217,
Phone: 1 (866)893-1052, Website: http://www.blbglaw.comor  
http://www.bermanesq.com.

The suit is "The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 2:04-
cv-00621-LDW-AKT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court of New York under Judge Leonard D.
Wexler, with referral to Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel Lawrence Berger and Victoria Odette Wilheim both
         of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP, 1285
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-
         554-1406 and 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-mail:
         dan@blbglaw.com and victoria@blbglaw.com;

     (2) Jeffrey C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
         Burt,et al., One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: (617) 542-8300, E-
         mail: jblock@bermanesq.com; and

     (3) Robert Gans, Niki L Mendoza and Russell F.A. Riviere
         all of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP,
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92130,
         Phone: 858-720-3184 and 858-793-0070, Fax: 858-793-
         0323 and 858-793-0323, E-mail: robert@blbglaw.com,
         nikim@blbglaw.com and russellr@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are James William Brown, Samuel
Kadet, Gregory Alan Litt and Joseph N. Sacca all of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY
10036-6522, Phone: 212-735-2352 or (212) 735-2570 or 212-735-
2159 or 212-735-3000, Fax: 212-777-2352 or (917) 777-2570 or
917-777-2159 or 212-735-2000, E-mail:
jbrown@skadden.com or skadet@skadden.com or glitt@skadden.com or
jsacca@skadden.com.


TINA'S INC: Recalls Banana Muffins with Undeclared Walnuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Tina's Inc. of Anaheim, California is recalling "Tina's Monster
Banana Muffins" 6 oz. and "Tina's Mini Banana Muffin 3pk"
because they contain undeclared walnuts.

The company said that people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.  
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

"Tina's Monster Banana Muffins" 6 oz. and "Tina's Mini Banana
Muffin 3 pack were distributed in Western U.S.

The recall was initiated after a consumer complaint was reported
to the firm and on subsequent examination it was discovered that
a product containing walnuts was distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of walnuts.

Consumers who have purchased "Tina's Monster Banana Muffins" 6
oz. and "Tina's Mini Banana Muffin 3pk"are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for full refund.  Consumers with
question may contact the company at 1-714-630-0650.

For more information, contact Tina's Inc., Phone: (714) 630-
4123.


TRANS UNION: Consumer Files Suit in S.C. Over Low Credit Scores
--------------------------------------------------------------
A South Carolina consumer commenced a class action against
national credit bureau Trans Union, LLC, alleging that it allows
a practice that lowers millions of individuals' credit scores,
according to the Columbus Dispatch.  Similar suits have been
filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax
Information Services, LLC.

Filed by William A. Harris Sr., the complaint claims that the
company allows credit card giant Capital One Financial Corp. to
withhold the credit limits on its customers' card accounts,
knowing that such omissions frequently lower credit scores.  The
higher the usage of credit relative to the limit, the lower the
score.

The suit, filed on June 15, 2006, contends that under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the national bureaus are
required to follow reasonable procedures to assume maximum
possible accuracy of information in consumer (credit) reports.

Capital One is not named as defendant in the suits.  Under the
prevailing credit system, no law requires a lender to report any
client's data to any bureau.  

However, federal law does require the credit bureaus to strive
to be accurate, and Mr. Harris' suit argues that the defendants
are not in compliance.

The suit is "Harris v. Trans Union LLC, Case No. 6:06-cv-01811-
GRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina under Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr.

For more details, contact:
  
     (1) Theodore H. Huge of Motley Rice, PO Box 1792, Mt.
         Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone: 843-216-9000, Fax: 843-216-
         9440, E-mail: thuge@motleyrice.com;

     (2) William Linwood Mullen, Jr. of Mullen Law Firm, P.O.
         Box 6248, Spartanburg, SC 29304, Phone: 864-582-5800,
         Fax: 864-1307, E-mail: attymullen@bellsouth.net; and

     (3) William Douglas Smith of Johnson Smith Hibbard and
         Wildman, P.O. Drawer 5587, Spartanburg, SC 29304-5587,
         Phone: 864-582-8121, Fax: 864-580-2313, E-mail:
         dsmith@jshwlaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Suit Disputes Medicaid's Citizenship Requirement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael O. Leavitt, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, was named as defendant in a purported class
action, claiming that a law requiring Medicaid beneficiaries and
applicants to provide proof of citizenship to receive benefits
beginning July 1 is unconstitutional and should not be allowed
to take effect.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of nine plaintiffs who say they
cannot document their citizenship and might lose their Medicaid
benefits if the law is implemented.  

It seeks to enjoin the Bush administration from implementing the
law, which allegedly violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution regarding due process of law.

Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation designed to
ensure that only citizens or qualified legal immigrants gain
access to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program
for the poor.

Under the law, individuals seeking benefits under Medicaid are
required to show proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a birth
certificate, passport or other form of identification.  Its main
objective is to prevent undocumented immigrants from claiming to
be citizens in order to receive benefits provided only to legal
residents.

Consumer groups behind the legal action, however, argue that the
law could cause millions of low-income citizens to become
uninsured.  

Filed on June 28, 2006, the suit named as plaintiffs:

      -- Ruby Bell,
      -- A.L.,
      -- Alocia Brown,
      -- Della Otis,
      -- George Crawford,
      -- Kevin Harris,
      -- Ruby Bell,
      -- Ruby Trammell, and
      -- Robert Patterson

The suit is "Bell et al. v. Leavitt, Case No. 1:06-cv-03520,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Anderson and David E. Morrison of Goldberg Kohn,
         55 East Monroe, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60603, US,
         Phone: (312) 201-4000, E-mail:
         mary.anderson@goldbergkohn.com and
         david.morrison@goldbergkohn.com.

     (2) John Mark Bouman of Poverty Law Project, 111 North
         Wabash, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 263-
         3830, E-mail: johnbouman@povertylaw.org; and

     (3) Thomas D. Yates of Health & Disability Advocates, 205
         West Monroe Street, 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606-5013,
         Phone: (312) 223-9600, E-mail: tyates@hdadvocates.org.

Representing the defendant is Jonathan C. Haile, U.S. Attorney's
Office, NDIL, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL
60604, Phone: (312) 353-5300, E-mail: jonathan.haile@usdoj.gov.


WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Appeals Court Sanctions Frivolous Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district
court's ruling that an attorney for a Wachovia Securities Inc.
investor violated the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
by failing to base claims against an investment brokerage firm
on reasonably based facts in violation of Rule 11(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the district
court's decision to deny a sanctions award.

Patrick Morris invested $1.4 million into the Masters Program,
an investment service offered by Wachovia Securities for
investors to invest more than $100,000 and have their portfolios
handled by money managers.

Mr. Morris' account balance decreased by $300,000 from $1.4
million in a few months.  Mr. Morris sued Wachovia Securities
for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section
10(b) and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-10.

The district court dismissed Mr. Morris' claims for failure to
state the claims.  Wachovia Securities moved the district court
to impose Rule 11(b) sanctions upon Mr. Morris' attorneys for
making baseless allegations.

Specifically, Wachovia Securities alleged that Mr. Morris'
attorneys wrongfully accused Wachovia of engaging in wrongful
"soft dollar arrangements," citing the deposition of one of Mr.
Morris' Wachovia money managers, Charles Baldiswieler.

However, Mr. Baldiswieler testified that, "I believe Wachovia is
not a soft dollar broker I don't believe they even have the
apparatus to do soft dollars."

Wachovia Securities also contended that Mr. Morris misstated the
testimony of a Wachovia executive, Burt White.

The district court ruled that Mr. Morris' attorneys violated
Rule 11(b), but did not impose sanctions.  Both parties
appealed.

The Fourth Circuit found that, because Mr. Morris' attorneys
violated Rule 11(b) with regard to Mr. White and Mr.
Baldiswieler, the district court should have ordered sanctions.

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision to not
impose sanctions and remanded to the district court to enter an
order naming and admonishing Mr. Morris' attorneys.

The suit is "Morris v. Wachovia Securities Inc., Case No. 05-
1217".


WAL-MART STORES: Facing Labor Lawsuit in Mass. Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boston attorney Robert Bonsignore commenced a purported class
action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging that the retailer
violated state law by shortchanging workers, The Boston Herald
reports.

The suit was filed in Middlesex Superior Court and is considered
to be one of state's largest class actions.  In it, Mr.
Bonsignore accuses the retailer of cutting short employee breaks
and depriving staffers of full pay.

Officials with state Attorney General Tom Reilly's office say
they are closely monitoring the massive class suit filed against
Wal-Mart Stores for breaking the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Boston Herald reports.

Bay State employees alleged in court documents the company
deprived employees of wages and pay for working through breaks
on more than 1 million occasions.

According to Rick Grundy, who heads the Attorney General's labor
protections bureau, investigators will request to review
protected evidences gathered in the suit that purportedly shows
Wal-Mart repeatedly denied wages. This would allow the state to
pursue its own legal case.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing numerous cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs have brought claims
under FLSA, corresponding state statutes, or other laws.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly
Associates who allege, among other things, that the company
forced them to work "off the clock," or failed to provide work
breaks, or otherwise claim they were not paid for work performed
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).

Class certification has been denied or overturned in cases
pending in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Some or all of the
requested classes have been certified in cases pending in
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).

The cases relate to a 2001 state law stipulating that employees
who work at least six hours must have a 30-minute, unpaid lunch
break.  If they do not get that, the law requires they be must
paid for an additional hour of pay (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
21, 2005).

Bay State employees are represented by Robert J. Bonsignore of
Bonsignore & Brewer, 23 Forest Street, Medford, MA 02155, Phone:
781-391-9400, Fax: 781-391-9496, E-mail: rbonsignore@aol.com,
Website: http://www.bandblaw.net/contact.shtml.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

  
ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set this Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP announces a July 10, 2006, deadline to
move to be lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed
on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Escala
Group, Inc. between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006, inclusive.

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

The complaint charges Escala, its majority shareholder and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges that during the
class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and the activities
of its majority shareholder.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Escala.pdf.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll commenced a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Herley
Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: HRLY) between Oct. 1, 2001 and June
14, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against defendants the company and Lee
N. Blatt, its co-founder and then chairman of its Board of
Directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, request for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this class action.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 1-888-240-0775, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp. who
purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock pursuant to
or traceable to the company's May 24, 2006 Initial Public
Offering.

The complaint alleges the company and certain named officers and
underwriters violated the federal securities laws by publishing
a materially false and misleading joint Registration Statement
and Proxy-Prospectus.

Prior to the company's Initial Public Offering, the company had
spent hundreds of millions of dollars to market its services to
potential customers.

However, the complaint alleges, both the company and company
insiders were losing money, and these insiders, desperate to
execute an exit strategy for themselves, embarked on an illegal
course of conduct to sell shares of the company in a public
market.

The complaint further alleges that Defendants pre-sold at least
13.5% of the company's IPO shares to company customers in
violation of NASD Rule 2310, which requires that a company
recommending the purchase or sale of its securities to a
customer must have a reasonable basis for believing that the
recommendation is suitable for the customer.

The complaint alleges Defendants had no such reasonable basis
and improperly crammed investors into the Vonage IPO regardless
of their suitability.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, Vonage had agreed to
indemnify the Underwriter Defendants against certain liabilities
relating to the customer pre-sale program; among those
liabilities was the foreseeable possibility that customers who
purchased in the IPO would refuse or fail to pay for the common
stock allocated to them in the pre-sale.

As a result of this alleged illegal conduct, shares of Vonage
sold in the IPO declined more than 30% in the first seven
trading days.

The decline in value of these shares has been exacerbated by
many Vonage customers who participated in the pre-sale but are
now refusing to pay for their shares.

Interested parties may move no later than Aug. 1, 2006 for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite
2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail:
khriebel@locklaw.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  * * *