CAR_Public/060719.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 142

                            Headlines

AAIPHARMA INC: August Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
BMG MUSIC: Sept. Hearing Set in $8M "Stelk" Lawsuit Settlement
BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Judge Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit
DISETRONIC MEDICAL: Launches Nationwide Recall of D-TRONplus
ECI TELECOM: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation

FRONT SIGHT: Enters Into Settlement Talks to Resolve RICO Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Conn. Court Dismisses Shareholders' Lawsuit
HO'S TRADING: Recalls Coconut Gel with Undeclared Sulfites
ILLINOIS: Fraud Claimed After County Board President's Stroke
JAPAN: Atsugi Residents Awarded $34.8M in Noise Pollution Suit

MIRVAC GROUP: Settles Lawsuit Over Tower Five Luxury Apartments
MISSOURI: Suit Challenges Identification Requirement in Election
NEW JERSEY: Parents Seek Options for Children in Failing Schools
PFIZER INC: No Ruling Yet on Venue of Ill. Celebrex, Bextra Suit
PFIZER INC: Appellate Court Decertifies Listerine Ad Lawsuit

PNC FINANCIAL: Pa. Court Okays $193M Accounting Suit Settlement
REEBOK INT'L: Oct. 30 Trial Set for Calif. Credit Card Lawsuit
REFCO INC: FXA Clients File Suits, Adversary Proceedings in N.Y.
RIDLEY INC: Denied Appeal on Beef Import Ban Lawsuit Ruling
RYOBI MOTOR: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of Radial Arm Saws

SPORTSSTUFF INC: Recalls Wego Kite Tubes After Injury Reports
SUNTERRA CORP: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Suits in Nev.
UAV CORP: Ex-Workers File WARN Suit in S.C. Over June Layoffs
VIRGINIA: Court Mulls Class Certification for DNA Testing Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IONATRON INC: Brower Piven Announces Filing of Ariz. Stock Suit
KLA-TENCOR: Stull, Stull Announces Filing of Securities Lawsuit
LEVEL 3: K&T Urges Investors to Consider Securities Arbitration
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector, Roseman Announces Filing of Suit
SUNTERRA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Aug. 1 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing


                            *********


AAIPHARMA INC: August Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 30, 2006 at 10
a.m. for the proposed $1,050,000 settlement in the matter,
"William R. Martin v. Aaipharma, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:04-cv-
00078" in relation to "In Re Aaipharma Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 7:04-CV-27-D."

The settlement affects all persons who were participants or
beneficiaries in the Aaipharma, Inc. retirement and savings plan
from April 24, 2002 to June 15, 2004.

Filed on Feb. 12, 2004, the suit alleges that defendants
violated their fiduciary duties to the company employees and
retirees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In an amended complaint, plaintiff asserted various causes of
action for the monetary losses suffered by the plan as the
result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
defendants.

Portions of the accounts of participants in the plan were
invested in Aaipharma stock, as the result of the company's
decision to match plan participants' contribution with employer
securities.

The suit alleges that the company and some of its individual
directors, officers, and employees had an obligation to sell the
plan's holdings of Aaipharma stock.  

It also alleges that defendants continued to make matching
contributions in Aaipharma stock and failed to divest the
company's shares already held by the plan when such investments
and their continued holdings allegedly became imprudent.  

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants did not comply with their
alleged duties to review, evaluate and monitor the suitability
of the plan's investment in Aaipharma stock and failed to
provide accurate material information to plan participants.  

The hearing will be held before Judge James C. Dever, III, in
Courtroom 1 of the Seventh Floor of the Terry Sanford Building
and Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27601.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by Aug. 15, 2006.

For more details, contact Nicole M. Zeiss of Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone:  (212)
907-0642, Fax: (212) 818-0477, E-mail: nzeiss@labaton.com, Web
site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?ddf.


BMG MUSIC: Sept. Hearing Set in $8M "Stelk" Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Bertelsmann Inc. company agreed to an $8 million settlement of
a class action over its shipping of music CD's and cassettes,
according to Tampa Bay Business Journal.

The lawsuit, "Stelk v. Bemusic Inc. Class Action Litigation,"
accuses BMG Music Club of using deceptive, misleading and unfair
marketing and sales techniques pertaining to shipping and
handling charges and advertised costs.

Under the settlement, the company will provide vouchers for free
CD's and cassettes up to 80 percent off the advertised cost and
free shipping for customers, present and past, who bought music
between June 14, 1998, and May 15, 2006.  The vouchers will be
good for one year and will depend on the length of membership
and the number of CDs or cassettes a claimant has previously
purchased.  BMG did not admit wrongdoing under the terms of the
agreement.

A fairness hearing on the settlement is set Sept. 26, 2006,
10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Thomas P. Quinn at the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Richard J. Daley Center,
Courtroom 2410, 50 W. Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Current club members will be notified of the settlement.  Former
members can obtain a claim form at
http://www.bmgmusic.com/stelk/settlement.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, County
Department, Chancery Division by Eric Stelk, Laura Murphy, Brent
T. Murphy, and Jerry Miller as Case No. 04 CH 13631.

The class counsels are:

     (1) Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., One North
         LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois, 60602;

     (2) William J. Harte of William J. Harte, Ltd., 111 West
         Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 60602;
         and

     (3) Richard J. Burke of The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans
         Avenue, Wood River, Illinois 62095.

The defendant's counsel is Steven M. Hayes, Esq. of Hanly Conroy
Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, 112 Madison Ave., New
York, NY 10016-7416.


BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Judge Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego County Superior Court Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett has
certified a class in a suit filed against restaurant operator
Brinker International Inc., according to the Los Angeles Times.

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the
company who are alleging violations of California law mandating
workers' meal and rest breaks.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker -- http://www.brinker.com--  
owns, operates, develops, and franchises restaurants in the U.S.  
It operates restaurants under the names of Chili's Grill & Bar,
Romano's Macaroni Grill, Maggiano's Little Italy, On The Border
Mexican Grill & Cantina, and Corner Bakery Cafe restaurant
concepts.


DISETRONIC MEDICAL: Launches Nationwide Recall of D-TRONplus
------------------------------------------------------------
Disetronic Medical Systems Inc. of Fishers, Indiana, in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is
launching a voluntary nationwide recall of the Disetronic D-
TRONplus Power Packs used in the D-TRONplus Insulin Pump.

The company said there is the real potential that the power pack
could shut down the D-TRONplus Insulin Pump without any warning.  
If a shut down occurs, insulin delivery is interrupted.  An
interruption in insulin delivery may lead to uncontrolled
diabetes mellitus, resulting in hyperglycemia, which may lead to
serious patient injury and/or death.

The symptoms of hyperglycemia may include nausea/vomiting,
blurred vision, excessive thirst or hunger, frequent urination,
fatigue/tiredness/sleepiness, headache, fruity acetone breath,
abdominal pain, and coma.  

This is an Urgent Device Correction notification to health care
professionals and their patients not requiring product removal
at this time.

Patients experiencing these symptoms are advised to check their
blood glucose level to ensure that they are within acceptable
ranges as defined by their healthcare team.

Patients are further advised to contact their health care
provider if they have questions.  Users of the D-TRONplus pumps
should monitor pumps closely to ensure adequate delivery of
insulin.  Clinicians should exercise maximum vigilance in
monitoring patients, in the event of any of the aforementioned
signs or symptoms.

The abrupt shutdown of the D-TRONplus insulin pump is due to a
change in the battery design by its manufacturer.  As a result,
the pump does not have enough time to recognize a decrease in
the power supply, which causes the pump to shut down before the
audible and vibrating low power alarms are triggered.

Until further notice all pump users must put a new power pack
into their insulin pump every two weeks to prevent their pump
from turning off without any warning.  It is important this two-
week period not be extended.

Disetronic D-TRONplus Power Packs are available by prescription
only for diabetes patients who use insulin pump therapy.  

Disetronic is notifying by direct mail affected customers,
healthcare providers and its distributors of this action.

Disetronic and their distributors will supply power packs free
of charge by UPS next day shipment to all D-TRONplus users until
corrective actions have been implemented.  Every user will
receive a power pack together with detailed instructions.

Disetronic and their distributors will also provide every user
with a new power pack every two weeks.  Distribution of these
power packs began July 13, 2006.

This is a temporary fix to the power pack problem until adequate
supplies of the corrected battery can be obtained.

Disetronic has tested the replacement design being shipped and
have data to verify a two-week use period in the pumps without
failure.

To report problem with any Disetronic D-TRONplus Power Packs,
call 1-800-688-4578.

Any adverse reactions or adverse events experienced with the use
of this product, and/or quality problems should also be reported
to the FDA's MedWatch Program -- http://www.fda.gov/medwatch--  
by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at
MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-
9787.


ECI TELECOM: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger W. Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland granted motions by ECI Telecom Ltd. and ECtel Ltd.
to dismiss the securities fraud class action against ECtel,
certain of its directors and officers who served in such
positions in the years 2001-2003, and ECI, as alleged
controlling shareholder during that period.

"We're pleased with this confirmation of our earlier statements
that we believe this case was filed without merit.  This
justifies our vigorous defense of this matter," commented Mr.
Eitan Naor, President and chief executive of ECtel.

In 2004, ECI was named defendant in a purported class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland against ECtel certain officers and directors of ECtel
who served in such positions in the years 2001-2003 and ECI,
which the complaint alleges was the parent and controlling
shareholder of ECtel during the class period.

The complaint alleged violation of U.S. Federal Securities laws
by ECtel and breach of fiduciary duties by the individual
defendants in connection with disclosure of ECtel's financial
results between April 2001 and April 2003.

Under the federal rules the plaintiffs have a period of 30 days
in which to appeal the court's decision.

The suit is "Leumi Gemel Ltd. v. ECTel Ltd. et al., Case No.
8:04-cv-03380-RWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Roger W. Titus.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Joseph Barton, Jason M Leviton, Daniel Stephen
         Sommers and Steven J Toll all of Cohen Milstein
         Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., NW West
         Tower Ste 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         12024084600, Fax: 12024084699, E-mail:jbarton@cmht.com
         or jleviton@cmht.com or dsommers@cmht.com or
         stoll@cmht.com;

     (2) Neal A. Dublinsky, Lionel Z. Glancy and Avi N. Wagner
         all of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of
         the Stars Ste., 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         13102019150, Fax: 13102019160, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com or awagner@glancylaw.com;

     (3) Jacob Sabo of The Law Offices of Jacob Sabo, The Tower,
         No 3 Daniel Frisch St., 15th Fl, Tel Aviv Israel 64731,
         Phone: 011 972 3 607 88 88, Fax: 011 972 3 607 88 89,
         E-mail: sabolaw@inter.net.il; and

     (4) Robin Bronzaft Howald of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         LLP, 1501 Broadway Ste., 1900 New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: 19175100009, Fax: 16463660895, E-mail:
         hobbit99@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Leah J. Domitrovic of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 525 W
         Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: 13129025342, Fax:
         13125774763, E-mail: leah.domitrovic@kattenlaw.com;

     (2) Todd Perry Forster and Mark Edward Futrovsky both of
         Futrovsky Nitkin and Scherr Chtd, 77 S Washington St.,
         First Fl, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13012518500, Fax:
         13012518860, E-mail: tpforster@fnslaw.com or
         mfutrovsky@fnslaw.com;

     (3) Jay B. Kasner and both of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
         and Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: 12127352628 or 12127357852, Fax: 19177772628 or
         19177777852, E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com or
         smusoff@skadden.com;

     (4) Jonathan G. Rose of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 1025
         Thomas Jefferson St., NW Ste., 700 Washington, DC
         20007, Phone: 12026253807, Fax: 12023398258, E-mail:
         jonathan.rose@kmzr.com; and

     (5) Bruce Gordon Vanyo of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 2029
         Century Park East Ste 2600, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012,
         Phone: 13107884400, Fax: 13107884471, E-mail:
         bruce.vanyo@kattenlaw.com.


FRONT SIGHT: Enters Into Settlement Talks to Resolve RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Front Sight Firearms
Training Institute recently entered into settlement discussions
in a bid to resolve the matter, according to EyeWitnessNews.

Michael Schriber, Stacy James and William Haag, who were members
of Front Sight, filed the suit, which alleges violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in relation
to membership benefits and promises made by Front Sight that
were allegedly not fulfilled.  

The three, who are demanding a jury trial under RICO, named as
defendants founder Dr. Ignatius Piazza and Front Sight
Management, Inc.

At the organization's inception in 1998, memberships were sold
to fund construction of shooting ranges.  Free classes for life
were offered with the memberships, which could be willed to
family members.  Additional benefits like home sites were
promised for higher priced memberships (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 23, 2005).

The plaintiffs, who filed the class action back in Nov. 7, 2005,
accused Dr. Piazza and the organization of committing fraud,
racketeering and misappropriation of funds.  Their goal in
filing the suit is to ensure the survival of the organization
while forcing it to make good on its promises.

After several months of litigation a federal judge recently
ruled that the Front Sight could no longer sell memberships
without court approval.  Thus, settlement discussions started
after that ruling.

The judge stayed his order on selling memberships for 90 days to
give both sides time to work out a deal.  The next hearing is
scheduled for October 2006.

The suit is "James et al. v. Ignatius A. Piazza et al., Case No.
5:05-cv-04532-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with
referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is Curtis Keith Greer of Greer &
Associates, 16787 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 14, San Diego, CA
92128, Phone: 858-613-6677, Fax: 858-613-6680, E-mail:
greerkeith@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Eric L. Webb of Bartsch & Webb,
317 Rosecrans Ave., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Phone: 310-546-
4004, Fax: 310-546-4033, E-mail: ewebb@elwlaw.com.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Conn. Court Dismisses Shareholders' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
dismissed a purported bid rigging and contingent commission
class action brought against The Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc. and its top officers, saying it was filed after a
statute of limitations ran out, the Business Insurance reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of a putative class of shareholders,
alleges that the company and the four named individual
defendants, as control persons of the company, failed to
disclose to the investing public that its business and growth
was predicated on the unlawful activity alleged in New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's civil complaint over insurance
fraud (NYAG Complaint) (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2006).

On Oct. 14, 2004, the NYAG Complaint was filed against Marsh
Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., alleging that certain
insurance companies, including the company, participated with
Marsh in arrangements to submit inflated bids for business
insurance and paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh
would direct business to them.  The company is not joined as a
defendant in the action (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2006).

Plaintiffs alleged that the company's participation in
contingent commission and bid rigging schemes misled investors
and the market about the company's actual business performance.

Furthermore, they claim that the company violated generally
accepted accounting principles by failing to accurately report
and disclose contingent commissions in financial statements
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
second, third and fourth quarters of 2003 and the first half of
2004.

The class period alleged is Aug. 6, 2003 through Oct. 13,
2004, the day before the NYAG Complaint was filed.  Named, as
lead plaintiffs in the suit were the Communications Workers of
America Plan for Employees' Pensions and Death Benefits and the
Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund.

The executives named as part of the suit were:

      -- Ramani Ayer, company chairman, president and chief
         executive officer;

      -- David M. Johnson, executive VP and chief financial
         officer;
    
      -- David K. Zwiener, executive VP and a director; and

      -- Thomas M. Marra, also an executive VP and a director of
         the company.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in June 2005, and the court
heard oral argument on Dec. 22, 2005.  In asking for its
dismissal the company argues that the its payments of contingent
fees to insurance agents was disclosed and publicized in a
variety of ways including state and federal filings, four
lawsuits and various media reports.  Thus, plaintiffs should
have been on notice of the practice no later than July 1, 2001.

Judge Christopher F. Droney agreed and granted the motion to
dismiss.  He pointed out that since the action was not commenced
until October 2004, the two-year statute of limitations for
making a claim had run out.  

In his written opinion, the judge also pointed out that there
was clearly enough information available to put the plaintiffs
on notice of the large majority of the fraud they allege.

The suit is "Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01740-CFD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F.
Droney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Erin Green Comite of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave.,
         P.O. Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-
         5537, Fax: 869-537-4432, E-mail:
         ecomite@scott-scott.com; and

     (2) Tor Gronborg of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins - SD, CA, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 631-231-
         7423, E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jack C. Auspitz of Morrison & Foerster, 1290 Avenue Of
         The Americas, New York, NY 10104-0050, Phone: 212-468-
         8000, Fax: 212-468-7900, E-mail: jauspitz@mofo.com; and

    (ii) Timothy Andrew Diemand of Wiggin & Dana - Htfd., One
         Cityplace, 185 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103, Phone:
         860-297-3738, Fax: 860-525-9380, E-mail:
         tdiemand@wiggin.com.


HO'S TRADING: Recalls Coconut Gel with Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York is recalling Advance
Brand Coconut Gel because it contains undeclared sulfites.  The
company said people who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled Advance Brand Coconut Gel is packed in a 16 oz.,
uncoded glass jar.  The product was sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Advance Brand
Coconut Gel which did not declare sulfites on the label.

The consumption of 10 mg. or more of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased Advance Brand Coconut Gel should
return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions
may contact Alvin Ho at 1 -718-622-2288.


ILLINOIS: Fraud Claimed After County Board President's Stroke
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three Cook County Democratic party leaders are facing a
purported class action filed by a South Side man alleging they
deliberately withheld information about the medical condition of
Cook County Board President John H. Stroger, the Sun Times News
Group Wire reports.

Tom Lyons, William Beavers and Michael Madiga are accused of
keeping the true health condition of Mr. Stroger for fear of
losing control of the county board.  Mr. Stroger suffered a
serious stroke one week before the March 21 primary election.  
The Cook County Board of Commissioners has formally accepted his
resignation recently.

Carl Hamilton, who filed the suit pro se, said the defendants
illegally and intentionally defrauded the public by conspiring
with medical personnel to hide the truth about Mr. Stroger's
health.  He is asking the court to declare that a vacancy exists
for the seat of Cook County Board President, grant the suit
class-action status and set a timeline "for a fair and open
election."


JAPAN: Atsugi Residents Awarded $34.8M in Noise Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tokyo High Court has ordered Japan to compensate more than
4,900 people living near Naval Air Facility Atsugi $34.8 million
for damages to their health caused by noise from U.S. military
aircraft, according to the Stars and Stripes.

Residents in Atsugi area filed a class action against the
Japanese government in September 1997.  In October 2002, the
Yokohama District Court ordered the government to pay plaintiffs
$23.516 million (JPY2.75 billion), but both parties appealed.  

The government claimed it had addressed the problem by
soundproofing homes in Atsugi's host communities; the plaintiffs
deemed the award insufficient.  In the recent decision, Chief
Judge Toshimi Ouchi dismissed the government's argument, and
upheld the lower court's ruling.  He increased the compensation
to $34.8 million to cover damages accumulated from January 2002
until July 2005.

The court rejected the residents' attempt to seek compensation
for expected future damages.


MIRVAC GROUP: Settles Lawsuit Over Tower Five Luxury Apartments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Buyers of the luxury apartment in Mirvac Group's Tower Five at
Yarra's Edge in Australia agree to a settlement of the class
suit over alleged misrepresentation that they filed against
Mirvac Group, the Australian Associated Press reports.

According to Lisa Nichols, a partner in Slater and Gordon, which
is representing the buyers, the settlement was reached between
10 buyers of 12 apartments and Mirvac at a federal court in
Melbourne.

The Asian investors, including high-profile restaurateur Jimmy
Sui, signed contracts in 2002 for flats in the 40-floor Tower 5
in Melbourne's Docklands area, paying between $500,000 and $1.5
million for off-the-plan apartments.

According to the 10 investors, Mirvac failed to deliver the
promised golden building fa?ade, which symbolizes wealth, power
and prosperity in Chinese feng shui, after the "golden" luxury
apartment tower turned out to be a "dull brown".

In 2004, the law firm Slater & Gordon launched a class action in
a federal court in Melbourne, representing buyers of the luxury
apartment in Mirvac's Tower Five at Yarra's Edge, alleging
breach of the Trade Practices Act (Class Action Reporter, March
27, 2006).  Investors demanded Mirvac rescind their contract and
refund their deposits.

Ms. Nichols said no details of the settlement would be released.

Representing the investors is Lisa Nichols of The Law Firm
Slater & Gordon, The Dominion Building, 533 Little Lonsdale
Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Phone: (03) 9602 6888, Website:  
http://www.slatergordon.com.au/.


MISSOURI: Suit Challenges Identification Requirement in Election
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis and Kansas City Democrats officials filed a suit
against the state to block a new Republican-backed law requiring
voters to show photo identification to vote in the coming
November election, according to the Associated Press.

The suit was filed in Cole County Circuit Court by local
governments and officials, including the city of St. Louis and
Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley,
Jackson County and its executive, Katheryn Shields.

The law, which was signed by Republican Gov. Matt Blunt a month
ago, requires voters to show a photo identification issued by
Missouri or the federal government to cast a regular ballot.  
Those lacking such identifications this fall can cast
provisional ballots, but the votes would only count if the
signatures matched those on file with election authorities and
they are in the right polling place, according to the report.  

In the future only the elderly, disabled and those with
religious objections to carrying photo identification could vote
without the required identification, and only by provisional
ballot, the report said.

The suit, which is seeking class-actions status, alleges the law
violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs
on local governments without providing state funding.  It seeks
a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Eastern Missouri (http://www.aclu-em.org/).


NEW JERSEY: Parents Seek Options for Children in Failing Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance for School Choice joined the New Jersey Black
Ministers Alliance, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey
and Excellent Education for Everyone in supporting parents
filing a class action seeking immediate relief for New Jersey's
alleged failure to provide essential basic education to
thousands of its children

A statement from the Alliance for School Choice said: "For 33
years, New Jersey courts have ordered massive funding increases
and new programs to redress educational inequities in
impoverished school districts.  Unfortunately, thousands of
children, both in and out of districts that received these
court-ordered remedies, remain mired in abysmally poor-
performing schools, in which fewer than half of the children
tested demonstrate minimal proficiency in basic educational
skills as determined by the state itself."

The suit, "Crawford v. Davy," was filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey in Newark, against State Commissioner of Education
Lucille Davy and 30 more defendants.  The case represents a
class of more than 60,000 students in 96 failing schools in 25
districts.  The lawsuit argues that the denial of basic
educational opportunities violates the children's right to a
thorough and efficient education under the state constitution,
and to equal protection of the laws under the state and federal
constitutions.

It seeks two interrelated remedies:

     -- an end to district-based residential school assignments,
        in which children are forbidden to cross attendance zone
        lines to attend a different state-supported public
        school; and

     -- a pro rata share of public funds allocated for the
        child's education, so that the family can secure a
        better education in another public or private school.

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

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

The suit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, General Equity, Essex County.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patricia Bombelyn at Perez & Bombelyn, P.C. 402
         Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901,
         Phone: (732) 213-1166, Fax: (732) 846-6667; and

     (2) Julio C. Gomez, Attorney at Law LLC, 152 Paterson Road,
         Fairwood, New Jersey 07023-1065, Phone: (908) 490-0360,  
         Fax: (908) 490-0362.


PFIZER INC: No Ruling Yet on Venue of Ill. Celebrex, Bextra Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Illinois Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn has
yet to rule on a motion by Pfizer, Inc. to move a purported
class action filed against it over its Celebrex and Bextra drugs
for improper venue, according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

The suit was filed by Ricky Lott, Gerald Sumner, Sandy Becker
and Mike Baldwin, alleging that Pfizer hid from consumers the
risks in prescription drugs Celebrex and Bextra.  The plaintiffs
claim no damage to their health, but seek the difference between
what they paid and what they would have paid if they had known
the risks.

The suit was moved to Cook County in November by Madison County  
Circuit Judge George Moran under an Illinois Supreme Court
decision in Gridley vs. State Farm, saying Madison County is not
the proper venue for it.  Afterwards, plaintiff attorney Stephen
Tillery moved Judge Moran to reconsider the order.  The judge
set a hearing in December, however, five days before it, he
qualified himself.  Chief Judge Edward Ferguson then assigned
Judge Mendelsohn to the case.  Judge Mendelsohn vacated an
earlier order, and the suit was sent back to Edwardsville (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).

Lately, Mr. Tillery endeavored to prove that Pfizer did business
in Madison County.  But according to the report, his search for
proof in phone books has turned up nothing but a wrong number.  
The number he found in a Planet Pages directory for Madison and
St. Clair counties belonged to an employee at home, not to any
Pfizer office, according to Pfizer.  On June 2, Judge Mendelsohn
rejected a bid from Mr. Tillery to strike Pfizer's motion.

For more information, contact Mr. Tillery of Korein Tillery LLC
-- http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair  
Co.).


PFIZER INC: Appellate Court Decertifies Listerine Ad Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Appellate District in California granted Pfizer,
Inc.'s petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate a class
certification order in a lawsuit over alleged deceptive
marketing of Listerine mouthwash.

The ruling overturned a decision by Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Carl W. West to certify as a class action a complaint by
consumer Steve Galfano about Pfizer's marketing of Listerine.  

Mr. Galfano filed the statewide class action under the state's
Unfair Competition Law alleging that Pfizer, Inc. had made false
statements about Listerine mouthwash in commercials and product
labels (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2006).

It allegedly deceived consumers by indicating that the product
could replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and
gingivitis.  Plaintiffs in the suit sought to represent all
persons who bought Listerine over a six-month period.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Los Angeles Superior Court certified the
class action to cover "all persons who purchased Listerine in
California from June 2004 through Jan. 7, 2005."

On appeal, presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, writing on
behalf of the appellate panel, cited a 2004 state law that
barred suits for false advertising unless plaintiffs suffered
actual damages.  Specifically, the panel ruled that while Mr.
Galfano might have been hurt, there wasn't proof to demonstrate
that others lost money or property or bought products based on
the ads.

It also pointed out, "Unless an action is brought by the
attorney general ... the mere likelihood of harm to members of
the public is no longer sufficient for standing to sue."

Business and advertising groups nationwide are hopeful that the
decision will rein in a rash of California class actions filed
against marketers.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Dan Jaffe of The Association of National Advertisers,
         Phone: (202) 296-1883, Web site:
         http://www.ana.net/news/2006/04_19_06.cfm;and  

     (2) John Kamp, Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare
         Communication, 405 Lexington Ave., NY, NY 10174-1801,
         Phone: (NYC) 212-850-0708 and (DC) 202-719-7216, E-
         mail: info@cohealthcom.org, Web site:
         http://www.cohealthcom.org/.

     (3) [Galfano's Attorney] Allan A. Sigel of Law Offices of
         Allan A. Sigel, P.C., Gayley Center - Westwood, 1125
         Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90024, Phone:
         310-824-4070, Telecopier: 310-208-7271, Email:
         info@sigellaw.com; and

     (4) [Galfano's Attorney] R. Duane Westrup and Christine C.
         Choi, of Westrup Klick, LLP, 444 West Ocean Boulevard,
         Suite 1614, Long Beach, CA 91614, Phone: (562) 432-
         2551.


PNC FINANCIAL: Pa. Court Okays $193M Accounting Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved the $36.6 million portion of a $193 million settlement
of a shareholder class action, alleging that PNC Financial
Services Group Inc. was involved in a corporate loan accounting
scandal in 2001.

The suit stems from a company scheme to dispose of $762 million
in bad corporate loans five years ago.  Basically, the company
sold those loans, or assets, to three partnerships it created
with American International Group, Inc., thus removing them from
its balance sheet

By doing so, the company did not have to count the depreciation
of those bad assets in its second, third and fourth quarter
earnings, thus effectively inflating its earnings that year.

The Federal Reserve, however, vetoed the company's accounting
maneuver and made it book the expense.  That in turn lowered the
company's earnings by $155 million, and forced it to restate
2001 earnings in January 2002.

Under the settlement, about 73,000 shareholders stand to recover
a total of $36.6 million, or approximately $2,600 each, based on
the $193 million settlement and interest.  Investors who
purchased PNC shares between July 19, 2001, and July 18, 2002
would get about 68 cents for each share owned.

The suit is "Johnson, et al v. PNC Financial Services, et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge David S.
Cercone.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alfred G. Yates, Jr. of Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates,
         Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny Building,
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 391-5164, E-mail:
         Yateslaw@aol.com; and

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

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Alan J. Davis and Raymond A. Quaglia of Ballard, Spahr,
         Andrews & Ingersoll, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599, Phone: (215) 864-8230 and
         (215) 864-8530, E-mail: davisa@ballardspahr.com and
         quaglia@ballardspahr.com; and

    (ii) W. Thomas McGough, Jr. of Reed Smith, LLP, 435 Sixth
         Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886, Phone: 288-3088, E-
         mail: tmcgough@reedsmith.com.


REEBOK INT'L: Oct. 30 Trial Set for Calif. Credit Card Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 30, 2006 trial was scheduled for the class action,
"Michael Stewart, et al., v. Reebok International Ltd., Case No.
BC 317955," which alleges violations of California law
prohibiting retailers from requesting personal information from
credit card customers.  

Filed in July 1, 2004 in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit
was brought on behalf of persons who engaged in a transaction at
a Reebok, Rockport, Ralph Lauren Footwear, Greg Norman Outlet,
or Concept store in California using a credit card during the
period from July 1, 2003 through the date of judgment in the
case.

The suit alleges that the company violated California Civil Code
Section 1747.08 and California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq. by requesting or requiring that credit
card customers provide personal information, such as their home
phone number, in situations where doing so was prohibited by
statute.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the court certified the lawsuit to proceed as a
class action pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure.

The suit seeks an award of civil penalties of up to $1000.00 for
each class member against the company as a result of this
alleged conduct.  It is set to go to trial in Oct. 30, 2006.

For more details, contact

     (1) R. Duane Westrup of Westrup, Klick & Associates, 444 W.
         Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614, Long Beach, California
         90802, (Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 562-432-2551, Fax:
         562-435-4856; and

     (2) Law Offices of Allan A. Sigel, P.C., Gayley Center -
         Westwood, 1125 Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles, California
         90024, Phone: 310-824-4070, Telecopier: 310-208-7271,
         E-mail: info@sigellaw.com.

REFCO INC: FXA Clients File Suits, Adversary Proceedings in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------  
Refco F/X Associates, LLC (FXA) customers, filed class actions
in both the U.S. District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities that maintained currency-trading accounts through FXA.

The customers who filed the suit are:

       -- American Financial International Group - Asia, LLC;
       -- Norma LaVigne;
       -- Vaughn LaVigne; and
       -- Michael Shmigelsky

Each customer filed the class action on behalf of themselves and
others who traded currencies through FXA from August 11, 2005,
up to the present, and that were damaged by fraud at Refco, Inc.

Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq., at Squitieri & Fearon, LLP,
relates that since the October 17, 2005 Voluntary Petition Date,
members of the FXA Customer Class have been prevented from
depositing funds to their accounts and have been unable to
withdraw funds from their accounts.  

Many of them have also been damaged, since FXA closed out their
leveraged positions when there was insufficient equity in their
accounts to meet margin requirements.

According to Mr. Fearon, no Refco-related debtor has any
equitable interest in the accounts or funds held by the Customer  
Class Plaintiffs.

Mr. Fearon states that the Customer Class members have commenced  
or will commence adversary proceedings asking the Bankruptcy  
Court to:

   -- require Refco to return and transfer the financial assets
      contained in the accounts or otherwise held by the company
      to the Customer Class members; and

   -- enjoin Refco, pending that return, from using,
      transferring, converting, dissipating, hypothecating,
      liquidating, or disposing of the financial assets in the
      accounts, or any other customer property in any company's
      custody or control.

In this regard, the Customer Class Plaintiffs oppose any attempt  
or subsequent plan of reorganization or liquidation to infringe
on or limit the Customer Class Plaintiffs' rights with respect
to their independent claims against the Debtors and the non-
debtor defendants in the class actions.

The Customer Class Plaintiffs object to the sale of FXA's
customer database to GAIN Capital Group to the extent that it
would seek to release their claims in the pending class actions
without full consideration, and to the extent that it would
prevent the plaintiffs and the class from pursuing any  
portion of their claims.

In addition, the Customer Class Plaintiffs object to the sale,  
transfer or other disposition of the FXA "cash balances," or of:

      -- any other "securities" as defined in Section 101(49) of
         the Bankruptcy Code;

      -- any customer property as defined in Section 741(4) and
         761(10); or

      -- similar instruments or options, until the Bankruptcy
         Court determines in a final order the legal right,
         title and interests of customers.

Mr. Fearon argues that the proposed cannot include any assets in
which the Customer Class members have a superior or competing
right, title or interest.

The Customer Class Plaintiffs insist that nothing in the Sale  
should impair, vary or affect any of their rights, title and  
interest with respect to any "cash balances," securities,  
customer property, or instruments held or maintained by FXA.

Furthermore, the Customer Class Plaintiffs want the Refco to  
clarify that the proposed transaction would not alter the rights  
of any FXA customers.

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP, Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: 212-421-6553, E-mail:
stephen@sfclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sfclasslaw.com/.  


RIDLEY INC: Denied Appeal on Beef Import Ban Lawsuit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Court of Appeal denied Ridley Inc.'s leave to appeal
the June 2, 2006 Quebec Superior Court's refusal to stay the
proposed class action against Ridley and the Government of
Canada in the province of Quebec.  In the same decision, the
appellate court also denied Canada's leave to appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling allows the case to proceed
to the class authorization stage while appeals by all of the
parties are pending in the parallel Ontario case.

The company had sought to appeal the Quebec Superior Court's
refusal to stay the Quebec proceedings, since it believed that
the ruling was in error and raised important public interest
issues and novel points of law regarding the judicial management
of multi-jurisdictional, quasi-identical class actions.

While denying the company's motion for leave to appeal at this
time, the Quebec Court of Appeal did indicate that the company
could argue the serious and novel questions at issue again at
later stages in the litigation.

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

As previously disclosed, four lawsuits were commenced in April  
2005 against the company 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.  

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.


RYOBI MOTOR: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of Radial Arm Saws
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ryobi Motor Products Corp., Ryobi Electric Tool Manufacturing,
Inc. and Ryobi Limited, of Hiroshima, Japan, are recalling about
145,000 units of Ryobi radial arm saws.

The company said cracking of the plastic motor housing can cause
the blade assembly to fall during operation, posing a risk of
laceration to the operator or bystanders.  The detachment may
occur unexpectedly and without warning.

RMP has received five reports of detached blade assemblies,
including four reports of lacerated fingers to the saw
operators.

The recall involves all RA200 and RA202 radial arm saws.  These
are bench top models with 8 1/4-inch blades.  Each unit has a
data plate immediately behind the operator grip for the saw,
which says "RYOBI 8 1/4" Radial Arm Saw" and either "RA200" or
"RA202."

The radial arm saws were manufactured in the U.S. and Japan and
are being sold at home and hardware stores nationwide from 1986
through 1997 for between $200 and $300, and higher in some
instances.

Picture of the recalled radial arm saw:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06212.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these radial arm
saws and contact Ryobi customer service to arrange to return
part of the saw for a payment of $75. No repair is available.

For additional information, contact Ryobi Customer Service at
(800) 525-2579 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET any day of the week,
or visit the following Web site: http://www.ryobi.com.


SPORTSSTUFF INC: Recalls Wego Kite Tubes After Injury Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sportsstuff, Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
19,000 Wego Kite Tubes.

CPSC staff is aware of 39 injury incidents with 29 of those
resulting in medical treatment.  Those injuries include a broken
neck, punctured lung, chest and back injuries and facial
injuries.  

Sportsstuff has received reports of two deaths in the U.S. and a
variety of serious injuries.  Sportsstuff has been unable to
determine the cause of the incidents.

Nevertheless, the company has withdrawn the kite tube from the
market and is undertaking this voluntary recall out of an
abundance of caution.

The Sportsstuff Wego Kite Tube is a 10-foot-wide, circular,
yellow inflatable watercraft designed to be towed behind a power
boat.  A rider in the tube becomes airborne by pulling on
handles attached to the floor of the tube.  Model 53-5000 is
printed on the tube near the product valve.  The floor of the
tube has black caution warning stripes.  The cover for the
product bears a skull and crossbones and the statement "Never
Kite higher than you are willing to fall."

The tubes were imported and sold through marine distributors,
mail order catalogs, and various retailers from approximately
Oct. 1, 2005 to July 11, 2006 for about $500 to $600.

Picture of the recalled Wego Kite Tube:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06210.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the kite tubes
and contact Sportsstuff at (866) 831-5524 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. CST Monday through Friday to learn how to obtain free
replacement products or visit http://www.sportsstuff.com.


SUNTERRA CORP: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Suits in Nev.
------------------------------------------------------------
Three law firms launched shareholders class actions against
Sunterra Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

The complaints, whose class period is from April 15, 2003
through June 22, 2006, were filed:

     -- on July 12 by Federman & Sherwood;

     -- on July 13 by Brower Piven; and

     -- on July 14 by the Rosen Law Firm.

                         Case Background

Generally, the complaints charge that company and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by issuing materially false and
misleading financial results for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31,
2002 to Sept. 30, 2005 and the first quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005
(Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

On March 27, 2006 the company announced that it had terminated
Grant Thornton as its independent auditor.  On April 10, 2006,
Grant Thornton notified the SEC by letter that it disagreed with
Sunterra's statements concerning Grant Thornton's termination.

Specifically, Grant Thornton asserted that an e-mail it had
received from a former employee alleging accounting
improprieties in Sunterra's European operations was a reportable
event, contrary to the representation that Sunterra had made to
the SEC on March 27.  On May 2, 2006, the company terminated the
managing director of Sunterra Europe.

On May 3, 2006 the company announced that its financial results
for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31, 2002 to Sept. 30, 2005 and
the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005 contained material
inaccuracies and should no longer be relied upon.

On June 22, 2006, the company announced that it had placed its
Chief Executive Officer Nicholas J. Benson on administrative
leave pending the completion of the company's investigation into
the company's accounting practices and the allegations by the
former employee.

That same day, the company announced that its chief financial
officer Steven E. West had resigned.  Subsequently, on July 6,
2006 the company's stock was de-listed from the Nasdaq.  As a
result of these adverse events, the company's stock has declined
nearly 50%.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen
         Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060, (917) 797-4425
         and 1-866-767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
         lrosen@rosenlegal.com and pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web
         site: http://www.rosenlegal.com;

     (2) Brower Piven of The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland
         21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
         hoffman@browerpiven.com; and  

     (3) Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim, Esq., both of The
         Rosen Law Firm P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New
         York, New York 10118, Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (917)
         797-4425 or Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-
         3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
         pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
         http://www.rosenlegal.com.


UAV CORP: Ex-Workers File WARN Suit in S.C. Over June Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
UAV Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina over its mid-June lay-
off, allegedly, without warning or compensation to numerous
workers, The Rock Hill Herald reports.

Kristy Gilroy, a former supervisor, along with Ann Tate Albini
and Tom Manderfeld, filed the suit against the company and its
owners, Morgenthaler Partners, a private-equity firm, on June
26, 2006.

The former employees sought damages amounting to 60 days' pay
and benefits, since the company did not give advance notice of
the layoffs, which is required under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.  They are also seeking for a jury
trial.

Under the federal law, a company is required to file a 60-day
notice of mass layoffs.  But, the company, according to a
report, only filed paperwork with the state Department of
Commerce on June 23, more than a week after about 300 local
employees were laid off.

The company, which is facing closure, defended the layoffs and
pointed out that they fall into the category of "unforeseeable
business circumstances," which do not require advanced notice.

Currently, the company only has about 40 employees left at its
Fort Mill plant that used to manufacture and distribute movies
and music.

The suit is "Albini, et al. v. UAV Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:06-cv-01888-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina under Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.

Representing the plaintiffs is William Ashley Jordan of Cox &
Jordan, P.A., P.O. Box 1687, Greenville, SC 29602, Phone: 864-
235-0147, Fax: 864-467-9349, E-mail: wajlaw@aol.com.


VIRGINIA: Court Mulls Class Certification for DNA Testing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia is
considering granting class-action status to a lawsuit filed on
behalf of Larry Monroe, who claims that Charlottesville police
violated his rights in their search for a serial rapist,
according to the Daily Progress.

Neal L. Walters and Deborah C. Wyatt, Mr. Monroe's attorneys are
asking a federal judge to open the case to other men, who are or
were in similar situation as their client.  

Court documents revealed that Mr. Monroe, a city resident was
asked to submit a DNA sample as part of a police hunt for a
serial rapist.

Filed on Dec. 16, 2005, the suit alleges two violations of
constitutional rights:

     (1) the policy of asking Mr. Monroe and other black men to
         provide their DNA for tests violates their
         constitutional right to equal protection because the
         same policy wasn't applied to all white men after
         unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and

     (2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures.

The suit contends that all government classifications based on
race are subject to strict judicial scrutiny, including
decisions regarding whom to speak with when police are
investigating a crime.  Furthermore, the suit noted that while
race may be a factor in such decisions, it might not be the only
factor.

Mr. Monroe filed the suit seeking $15,000 in damages from the
city, Police Chief Timothy J. Longo and Detective James Mooney,
arguing that the DNA dragnet amounted to an unreasonable
seizure.

The suit is "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Norman K. Moon
with referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler.

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Neal L. Walters of Scott & Kroner, PC, P.O. BOX 2737,
         Charlottesville, VA 22902-2737, Phone: 434-296-2161,
         Fax: 434-293-2073, E-mail: nwalters@scottkroner.com;
         and

     (2) Deborah Chasen Wyatt of Wyatt & Armstrong, 300 Court
         Square, Charlottesville, VA 22902-5160, Phone: 434-296-
         4130, Fax: 297-3083, E-mail: DWESQ@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Richard Hustis Milnor of Taylor
Zunka Milnor & Carter, Ltd., 414 Park Street, Charlottesville,
VA 22902, Phone: 434-977-0191, Fax: 434-977-0198, E-mail:
rmilnor@cstone.net.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

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
------------------------

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

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

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

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

July 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  

July 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  

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


IONATRON INC: Brower Piven Announces Filing of Ariz. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces the filing of a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Ionatron, Inc. between June 27, 2005 and May 10, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona against defendant Ionatron, Inc. and one or more of
its officers and/or 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 pPeriod, 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 Sept. 11,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


KLA-TENCOR: Stull, Stull Announces Filing of Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces the filing of a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired
publicly traded securities of KLA-Tencor Corporation between
Feb. 13, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing
employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's
stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought KLA-Tencor
Corporation stock through your KLA-Tencor Corporation retirement
account and have information or would like to learn more about
these claims, please contact us.

The complaint charges KLA-Tencor and its top executive officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by failing to
account properly for stock options made to KLA-Tencor employees.
The complaint charges that KLA-Tencor improperly expensed stock
options, thereby falsely inflating the company's reported
financial performance.

Interested parties may request that the court for appointment as
lead plaintiff no later than Aug. 28, 2006.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 212/490-2022 and 1-800-337-4983, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.  


LEVEL 3: K&T Urges Investors to Consider Securities Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities arbitration law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
encourages all customers who acquired stocks of Level 3
Communications, Inc., to consider securities arbitration as an
alternative means to recovering their financial losses.

K&T advises all Salomon Smith Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc. customers who are eligible to participate in the
settlement of the Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No.
02-6919.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities,
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4,
1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any
method, including but not limited to in the second market, in
exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a
registration statement or through the exercise of options
including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans,
(Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,  
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc., formerly Salomon Smith  
        Barney Inc., and  
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman

As part of the settlement of the class action, Smith Barney has
agreed to pay the class $10.25 million.  However, this amount
represents only a fraction of Level 3's market capital losses,
which were in excess of $30 billion during the class period of
Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.  Empirical evidence shows
that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of recovery by
filing an individual securities arbitration claim.

According to the allegations in the Class Action, Smith Barney
issued material misstatements and omissions regarding Level 3
research reports, and failed to disclose conflicts of interest
which artificially inflated the price of Level 3.

In connection with these same allegations, Smith Barney
consented to the entry of a Consent Order issued by The Office
of the New York State Attorney General, on or about Oct. 23,
2003, wherein its was determined that "[Smith Barney] Issued
Misleading Research Reports on Level 3..." specifically in
regards to the Level 3 research report issued on April 18, 2001.

Moreover, the Consent Order found that the Smith Barney research
reports regarding Level 3 "did not disclose the pressure exerted
by investment banking on [Jack] Grubman not to downgrade [Level
3]," and "did not provide a sound basis for evaluating facts
regarding [Level 3's] business prospects."

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who acquired
Level 3 while they maintained accounts with Smith Barney to
recover their financial losses in securities arbitration claims
before the National Association of Securities Dealers and the
New York Stock Exchange.

                       Case Background

Beginning in August 2002, at least seven putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the defendants, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common
stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.  

By Order dated Jan. 24, 2003, the cconsolidated these actions
under the caption, "In re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation,
Case No. 02 Civ. 6919 (GEL)."

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs'
selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as Lead
Counsel.   

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint alleging that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by publishing false and
misleading analyst reports concerning Level 3.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., at the U.S. Courthouse, 500
Pearl St., Room 2103, New York, NY 10007.

Deadline for submission of a proof of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.
Class members have until Aug. 31, 2006 to opt-out of the class.

For more information on class members' legal options, contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, or Jahan K. Manasseh, Esquire,
both of Klayman & Toskes, Phone: 888-997-9956, Web site:
http://www.nasd-law.com.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector, Roseman Announces Filing of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces the
filing of a securities class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) publicly traded
securities between Aug. 10, 2005 and May 2, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges NPS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  NPS engages in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of small molecules and recombinant proteins.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and prospects, including the
potential for success of PREOS, its full-length human
parathyroid hormone (PTH) drug candidate being developed for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

As a result of these false statements, NPS stock traded at
inflated levels during the class period, whereby the company was
able to sell 7 million shares of NPS stock for proceeds of more
than $79 million.

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

     -- contrary to defendants' positive claims concerning the
        PaTH study on Aug. 10, 2005, the results in fact
        evidenced that PREOS was no different from Fosamax in
        bone density and fracture results;

     -- there was a very narrow market for PTH drugs (like PREOS
        and its competitor Forteo): namely, patients with severe
        spinal osteoporosis who had also suffered a fracture;

     -- on or before Aug. 2, 2005, defendants were notified
        that a major study performed by a lead researcher in the
        field who had reviewed all PREOS study results had
        concluded that further studies were necessary to
        determine the efficiency of PREOS, if any, in humans;

     -- unlike other bone density drugs/products which can be
        used for hip fracture risk reduction, PREOS, assuming it
        received FDA approval, could not be prescribed for this
        use - a key market for bone density drugs;

     -- the Center of Medicare Services of Health and Human
        Services had ruled that injectable drugs for
        osteoporosis, like PREOS's competitor Forteo, would be
        reimbursable only for patients who had suffered a
        fracture, which indicated that the market for a drug
        like PREOS was limited to a small subgroup of
        osteoporosis patients who had suffered a fracture while
        on an existing oral drug;

      -- defendants were also aware that physicians would never    
         recommend PREOS except in all but the rarest cases,
         since the Physician Desk Reference on drugs recommended
         Forteo (and hence, injectable parathormone drugs like
         PREOS also) for second line use in osteoporosis after
         failure of oral drugs like Fosamax and for a maximum of
         24 months, which limitations on physician use narrow
         the medical indication for parathormone drugs like
         PREOS; and

      -- the combination of these facts added up to a huge
         hurdle to market success for PREOS because the very  
         drug that was the baseline precursor drug for
         osteoporosis, Fosamax, had already been shown to be as
         effective as PREOS in the PaTH studies.

These facts about PREOS, including the limited reimbursement for
the family of parathormone drugs, were critical to understanding
the very difficult prospects for U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval and market success for the drug.

Interested parties may move no later than Sept. 11, 2006 for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-
law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.  


SUNTERRA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------  
Federman & Sherwood announces the filing of a securities class
action on July 12, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada against Sunterra Corp.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from April 15, 2003 through June 22, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later Sept. 11, 2006
for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class.

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


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Aug. 1 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
of Vonage Holdings Corp. that Aug. 1, 2006 is the deadline to
request the court for appointment as lead plaintiff for the
class.

The law firm filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey, against Vonage Holdings Corporation and
other related defendants.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company pursuant to its Directed Share Program,
which was offered in the company's May 23, 2006 initial public
offering.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 5, 11,
12(a) (2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act.

Vonage touts itself as a leading provider of broadband telephone
services.  The company's technology reportedly enables anyone to
make and receive phone calls with a touch tone telephone almost
anywhere a broadband Internet connection is available.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the company's
Directed Share Program, defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- Vonage's technology platform experienced problems
         carrying telephone data over the networks of certain
         Internet service providers, including AOL;

      -- Vonage's voice-over-Internet protocol technology did
         not properly allow facsimile transmissions and;

      -- the company did not adequately inform Vonage customers
         that opened brokerage accounts and participated in
         Vonage's Directed Share Program concerning the
         customers' obligations to purchase allocated shares.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the IPO offering
violated Section 5 of the Securities Act because the company's
e-mails to prospective participants in the program did not
include an active hyperlink to the prospectus contained in
Vonage's most recently filed registration statement.

Immediately following the IPO, shares of Vonage declined from
the offering price of $17.00 per share to close on May 24, 2006,
at $14.85 per share, a loss of $2.15, or 12.6 percent, amid
concerns about the company's ability to compete in the market
place.

Thereafter, shares of Vonage continued to slide on news that the
Company's Directed Share Program was a debacle in light of
several technical and legal failures.  In the seven days after
the IPO, shares of Vonage plummeted by nearly one third of its
initial offering price of $17.00.

Interested parties contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S.
Moskowitz of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888.476.6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


                            *********


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  * * *