CAR_Public/060720.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 143

                            Headlines

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: White & Case Represents Noteholders
AK STEEL: Retiree Sues in Ohio Over Increase of Insurance Cost
ALLIED IRISH: Judge Okays N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
AQUILA INC: Mo. Court Okays Class in Suit Over Retirement Losses
BERKELEY HALL: Faces Suit in S.C. Over Reselling of Memberships

BROADCOM CORP: Shareholders File Suit Over Stock-Option Grants
CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Lawyer Suspended for Misappropriation
CAREMARK RX: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arizona
FAMILY DOLLAR: Fined for Unreported Hazard of Electric Blankets
FLORIDA: Medical Examiners Face Litigation Over Cremation Fees

HUNTER FAN: Recalls Humidifiers to Replace Defective Part
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Court Junks Consumer Lawsuit Over Shingles
MISSOURI: Court Sides With ACLU, Inmates in "Roe" Abortion Case
NEW JERSEY: Enters New Settlement in Child-Welfare System Suit
NOVA SCOTIA: Trenton Residents File Suit Over Stack Emissions

OHIO: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Over Child Support Payments
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Favors Property Owners in Assessment Suit
PFIZER INC: Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in Prop. 64 Court Ruling
RUPPERSBERGER & SONS: Recalls Beef for Possible Contamination
TENET HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Patient's Rep Comments on Settlement

TERELL ENTERPRISES: Enters Initial Settlement in Ore. Wage Suit
UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Enters Not Guilty Plea to Charges
VIRGIN ISLANDS: AG Defends Motion on Care of Former Inmate


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Pa.
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Gardy & Notis Files Calif. Securities Suit
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Suit in N.J.
SUNTERRA CORP: Brower Piven Announces Filing of Nev. Stock Suit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: White & Case Represents Noteholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard Uzzi, Esq. of White & Case LLP informed the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that his
firm represents the Ad Hoc Committee of Arahova Noteholders,
including ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as nominal agent, with respect to
the Adelphia Communications Corp. (ACOM) Debtors' Chapter 11
cases.

According to Mr. Uzi, ABN AMRO's claims arise in connection
with, among other things:

      -- the Century Credit Agreement,
      -- the UCA Credit Agreement,
      -- the Bank Actions, and
      -- the Securities Class Action

The full amount and extent of ABN AMRO's claims are still
undetermined, Mr. Uzi says.

As of June 1, 2006, the aggregate face amount of notes issued by
the Debtor Arahova Communications, Inc., and held by members of
the Arahova Noteholders Committee is approximately $560,000,000,
Mr. Uzi relates.

The Arahova Noteholders Committee's current members are:

      -- Appaloosa Management L.P.,
      -- Cerberus Partners,
      -- Credit Suisse First Boston,
      -- DB Distressed Products,
      -- Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
      -- King Street Capital Management L.L.C.,
      -- JD Capital,
      -- Owl Creek Asset Management,
      -- Redwood Capital Management LLC,
      -- Silver Point Capital,
      -- Stonehill Capital Management LLC,
      -- U.S. Bank, N.A., Indenture Trustee, and
      -- York Capital.

ACOM and more than 200 affiliates filed for Chapter 11
protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 25, 2002.  Those cases are jointly
administered under case number 02-41729.  Willkie Farr &
Gallagher represents the ACOM Debtors (Adelphia Bankruptcy News,
Issue Number 141, July 14, 2006).

                   Securities Suit Background

Beginning on April 2, 2002, various groups of plaintiffs filed
more than 30 class action complaints in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of
certain of Adelphia's shareholders and bondholders or classes
thereof in federal court in Pennsylvania (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2005).  

The complaints, which named as defendants the company, certain
former officers and directors of the company and, in some cases,
the company's former auditors, lawyers, as well as financial
institutions who worked with the company, generally allege that,
among other improper statements and omissions, defendants misled
investors regarding the company's liabilities and earnings in
the company's public filings.  The majority of these actions
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5.

On July 23, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the actions to the District Court
for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

On Sept. 15, 2003, proposed lead plaintiffs and proposed co-lead
counsel in the consolidated class action were appointed in the
MDL Proceedings.

On Dec. 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  Motions to dismiss have been filed by various
defendants.

On May 27, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005, the court granted in part and
denied in part some of the pending motions and provided the
plaintiffs limited ability to re-plead the dismissed claims.

As a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 cases and the
protections of the automatic stay, the company is not named as a
defendant in the amended complaint, but is a non-party.

The consolidated class action, "In Re Adelphia Communications
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:04-mc-00222-LP," seeks monetary
damages of an unspecified amount, rescission and reasonable
costs and expenses and such other and future relief as the court
may deem just and proper.  

For more details, contact

     (1) [Arahova Noteholders] Gerard Uzzi of White & Case, LLP,
         Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 4900, 200 South
         Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131-2352, Phone: (305)
         995-5274, Fax: 1 305 358 5744/5766; or

     (2) [ACOM Debtors] Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP, 787
         Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10019-6099, U.S.A.,
         Phone: 212-728-8000, Fax: 212-728-8111.


AK STEEL: Retiree Sues in Ohio Over Increase of Insurance Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
seeking preliminary injunction to stop the company from
implementing a plan that would increase retirees' health
insurance costs.

Filed on July 18, 2006, the suit, which seeks class-action
status, named as plaintiffs nine retirees.  However, according
to attorney David Cook, about 4,285 retired hourly workers and
125 salaried workers are "putative class members" or situated
similarly to the named plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two
classes consisting of:

     -- hourly production, maintenance and service employees;
        and

     -- salaried non-exempt employees.

Included are spouses, surviving spouses and or dependents of
individuals, who worked under collective bargaining agreements
negotiated between the company and the Armco Employees
Independent Federation or a predecessor, who retired from such
employment between 1950 and the present, and whose retiree
benefits the company proposes to unilaterally change or
eliminate or seeks a declaration of its rights to do so.

The suit alleges violations of both the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by the company in seeking to change retiree
benefits.

The suit's nine plaintiffs are:

      -- Carl NMI Reichenbach,
      -- James E. Fetters,
      -- James McKinney,
      -- Jessee Schultz,
      -- Michael A. Bailey,
      -- Richard P Tibbs,
      -- Ronnie L Banks,
      -- Rudolph Pringle, and
      -- Scott Ratliff.

Mr. Cook said newly appointed Judge Michael R. Barrett was
assigned to the case.  Judge Barrett, who began his job on May
25, has issued no decisions yet.

The suit comes nearly five months into the company's lockout of
its largest union, Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc.  
Even though contract talks started last November, both sides
remain at an impasse.  The company maintains it must be
competitive while the AEIF counters that it must protect jobs
and living standards.

The lockout came about as the company announced last month that
effective Oct. 1, current AEIF retirees would be subject to
monthly premiums, to be adjusted each year.  Also, vision,
dental and Medicare subsidies will be eliminated, the company
said.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

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

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corporation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing the plaintiffs are David Marvin Cook and Stephen A.
Simon, 22 West Ninth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
721-6500 and 513-721-7500, E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com and
ssimon@dmcllc.com.


ALLIED IRISH: Judge Okays N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah A. Batts of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the $2.5 million
settlement in the matter "In re Allied Irish Banks, PLC (AIB)
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-1738 (DAB)", a report
from the Irish Times said.

In her ruling, the judge agreed to subtract lawyers' fees of
$754,179 and lawyers' expenses of $79,530 from the $2.5 million,
as well as just over $113,000 in printing and postage costs for
distributing circulars to potential claimants.

Under the settlement, some 1,200 U.S. investors who lost money
in the Allfirst scandal are to share about $1.5 million.

The settlement only applies to U.S. holders of American
Depository Shares, which are securities offered by non-U.S.
companies that are not listed on an American exchange.  Each AIB
ADS can be converted to the company's regular shares, according
to the report.

Investors wishing to claim on the fund must have held AIB ADSs
between Feb. 6, 1999 and Feb. 6, 2002, inclusive, and the claims
must be entered by Aug. 17.

The plaintiff firm, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, estimates
that the average recovery per AIB share is just $0.38, even
before deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Allied Irish
Bank filed a motion to consolidate the suits and appoint lead
plaintiffs in 2002 (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2002).  The
suits were commenced in March 2002 against the company and:        

     -- Allfirst Financial Corporation,        
  
     -- several current and former officers of Allfirst, and         

     -- Allfirst Bank.    

The suit is "In Re Allied Irish Banks, PLC Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-01738-DAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Deborah A. Batts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aaron Lee Brody, Jules Brody and Tzivia Brody all of
         Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th, Street, 5th Floor,
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, Fax: 212-
         4902022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com;

     (2) Donald J. Enright of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran,
         1050 30th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
         (202) 337-8000; and

     (3) Joseph Harry Weiss of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Ave, New
         York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Fax: 212 682
         3010, E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven M. Edwards, Matthew A. Michaels and David
         Franklin Wertheimer all of Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.(NYC),
         875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 918-
         3000 or (212) 918 3614 or (212) 918-3000, Fax: (212)
         918 3100 or (212) 918-3100; E-mail:
         mamichaels@hhlaw.com or dfwertheimer@hhlaw.com; and

    (ii) Israel E. Friedman and Robert B. Mazur both of
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street,
         New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 403-1000, Fax: (212)
         403-2000, E-mail: IFriedman@wlrk.com and
         rbmazur@wlrk.com.


AQUILA INC: Mo. Court Okays Class in Suit Over Retirement Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
granted class-action status to the suit, "Itteilag v. Aquila,
Inc. et al.," which is seeking recovery from the company more
than $150 million in alleged retirement losses, The Kansas City
Star reports.

In certifying the class, Judge Dean Whipple ruled that the case
met the criteria for a class action since members of the class
were too numerous to make joinder of all members practicable and
that class members shared common questions of law and fact.

The class is estimated to include 7,000 current and former
company employees who invested in its retirement investment
plan.

The suit, filed in Sept. 24, 2004, by Richard L. Itteilag,
alleges that the company's top executives and its board of
directors breached their fiduciary duty to provide complete and
accurate information that would have enabled employees to make
informed investment decisions for their 401(k) investment
accounts.

It maintains that employee retirement accounts once held company
stock worth $200 million.  However, that had shrunk to $17.4
million by the end of 2002, when the collapse of Enron Corp. led
the company to reverse its expansion into the energy trading and
wholesale power businesses.

Company policies kept employees from selling some of that stock
and employees held onto other stock because of allegedly
misleading statements by company executives about the its
future, according to the suit.

Furthermore, the suit states that as corporate credit rating
agencies and analysts raised their concerns over the company's
business operations and financial position, it downplayed any
exposure to risk, insisting that the changing market environment
created opportunities.

The suit is "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Jaffe of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, US, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600; and

     (2) Bruce Keplinger of Norris & Keplinger, LLC, 6800
         College Blvd., Suite 630, Overland Park, KS 66211,
         Phone: (913) 323-3185 and Fax: (913) 663-2006, E-mail:
         bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com.

Representing the company is Stanley Daryl Davis of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
Phone: (816) 474-6550, Fax: (816) 421-4066, E-mail:
sddavis@shb.com.


BERKELEY HALL: Faces Suit in S.C. Over Reselling of Memberships
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Berkeley Hall member Albert Thiess initiated a lawsuit in
Beaufort County, South Carolina against the club's board of
directors for allegedly ruining the market to resell
memberships, The Island Packet reports.

Mr. Thiess, who joined the club as a non-property-owner member
in December 2000, has been trying to sell his membership for a
year and a half.  However, he claims that the board's actions
prevented him from doing so.

The suit, which named as defendants each Berkeley Hall board
members, claims that the individuals created a class called
"designated users," which Mr. Thiess argues are not allowed in
the covenants and were introduced later.

Roberts Vaux, Mr. Thiess' attorney, pointed out that the
designated user could receive membership privileges from a club
member for a year at a time.  

Mr. Thiess claims he can't sell his membership, which cost him
$75,000, since anyone can just rent a membership at a price that
is often lower than the $12,500 annual dues.

Though Mr. Thiess states that the board passed rules prohibiting
members from advertising memberships for sale outside of the
specific marketing efforts of the club, the contention that
those rules violate the covenants is not mentioned in the
lawsuit.

The suit alleges the board took actions in violation of the
South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, but it does not
specify what those actions were.

Mr. Thiess cancelled his membership and stopped paying dues in
August 2005.  He filed his lawsuit in late May 2006.

According to Mr. Thiess, there are dozens of other disgruntled
non-property-owner members.  Thus, he wants to turn his lawsuit
into a class action.

The lawsuit seeks $75,000 and possible future damages from board
members Scott Murphy, Joe Goodwin, Larry Brown, Duke Delcher,
Beth Mayo, Bob Tyler, Michael Law and Millicent Dooley.

For more details, contact Roberts Vaux of Vaux & Marscher, 1251
May River Road, P.O. Box 769, Bluffton, South Carolina 29910,
(Beaufort Co.), Phone: 843-787-2888, E-mail: roberts.vaux@vaux-
marscher.com, Web site: http://www.vaux-marscher.com/.


BROADCOM CORP: Shareholders File Suit Over Stock-Option Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductor company Broadcom Corp. is facing three shareholder
class actions since June over its stock-option costs, according
to The Orange County Register.

Recently, the company said it will record more than $750 million
in additional expenses dating back six years because it under-
reported the cost of employee stock-option grants.  The stock
awards took place from 2000 to 2003.

Analysts and Broadcom officials described the restatement as
mostly an accounting issue, because few employees exercised
their stock options, the report said.

In June, the company said that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission is conducting an "informal inquiry based upon media
reports," regarding its stock option granting practices.  Its
executives were accused in two suits of misconduct in connection
with option granting processes.  In recent developments,
Broadcom's preliminary review determined that none of the
company's top executives played a role in setting the timing or
value of the options, according to Orange County Register.

Dozens of companies are under investigation for stock-option
practices that benefited top executives.

Based in Irvine California, Broadcom --http://www.broadcom.com-
- provides semiconductors for wired and wireless communications.  


CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Lawyer Suspended for Misappropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyer leading a class action over a land row in Caledonia
has been suspended for two years for misappropriating about
$85,000 of clients' money, according to the Toronto Star.

John Findlay was suspended by the Law Society of Upper Canada on
June 30, 2001 after pleading guilty to professional misconduct
in the late 1990s.  He reportedly failed to deposit about
$85,000 of his clients' money into their accounts.  The money
has been repaid, according to the report.

In June, Mr. Findlay represented two unnamed businesses in
Caledonia that filed a class action complaining of financial
losses arising from a road closure after native protesters
barricaded roads to the Douglas Creek Estates property this
year.

The suit was filed on June 12 against the Corporation of
Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner
Gwen Boniface and the Cayuga Detachment Commander of the OPP.  
The Government of Ontario was put on notice as additional
defendant.

The suit is based on the failure of the parties to keep roads
open and follow court injunctions issued in March to remove the
protesters from Douglas Creek Estates.  The suit has yet to be
certified by Superior Court.

Mr. Findlay's address is 66 James St. N. Hamilton, Ontario
(Regional Munic. of Hamilton).


CAREMARK RX: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class action in the
U.S. District Court of Arizona alleging that CareMark Rx, Inc.
intentionally concealed revenue in order to avoid paying certain
commissions owed to consultants who marketed and sold its
services.

CareMark and its predecessor companies -- Advance Paradigm Inc.,
HMNHealth Services Inc., and AdvancePCS -- provide
pharmaceutical and formulary services to health plan sponsors
and plan participants throughout the United States.  Clients
include: corporate health plans, discount card programs, managed
care organizations, insurance companies, labor unions,
governmental agencies, etc.

The company's revenues primarily come through rebates, fees, and
other revenue streams provided by drug manufacturers in exchange
for selling and marketing the manufacturers' drugs to its
clients.

According to the complaint, the company engages consultants to
market and sell its services to health plan sponsors and plan
participants.  If an entity contracts with the company to use
its pharmaceutical services, the consultant is entitled to
either a percentage of the total revenue -- including
administrative fees -- or a set rate for each drug purchased.

The complaint states that the company failed to honor the plain
language of the consulting contracts by not paying commission
based on total revenues and instead paying commission based on
only partial revenues.

According to named plaintiff Jan Peck, the company intentionally
failed to report total revenues earned from four companies she
brought to two of its predecessors.

Mrs. Peck said, "I brought a great deal of business to companies
Caremark purchased, and Caremark did its best to under-report
that revenue, knowing it would affect my commissions," She adds,
"CareMark negotiated new contracts with the customers and then
hid the revenue as separate administrative fees."  Mrs. Peck
estimates that she is owed between $25 and $50 million in under-
reported revenue commission.

Rob Carey, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "We believe that
CareMark's dealings with [Mrs.] Peck was much more than an
accounting oversight, and something that could extend to other
Caremark consultants."  He adds, "We will thoroughly review all
of CareMark's accounting records to ensure Mrs. Peck, and others
who may have been harmed by CareMark's actions, receive the full
compensation they are entitled to."

Filed on July 19, 2006, the suit accuses the company of breach
of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealings, and
misrepresentation.  It thus seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, interest on all owed money to members of the class, and
a release of all revenue information earned under the consulting
agreement.

The proposed class action includes all persons who contracted
with the company or any entity acquired by it to sell or market
formulary services whose compensation was based on a percentage
of revenue generated by clients they brought to the company or
its predecessors, received a set rate for each qualifying drug
purchased by these companies, or a combination of both methods.

For additional information regarding this suit, contact Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro at 206-623-7292 or visit
http://www.hbsslaw.com.

The suit is "Peck v. Peck, Case No. 2:06-at-10753," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert B. Carey of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro PLLC, 2425 E Camelback Rd., Ste 650, Phoenix, AZ
85016, Phone: 602-840-3012, Fax: 602-840-5900, E-mail:
rcarey@hbsslaw.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Fined for Unreported Hazard of Electric Blankets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has fined Family
Dollar Inc., of Matthews, North Carolina, a $100,000 civil
penalty to settle allegations that the company failed to report
electric blankets with defects.

"This penalty should send a message to retailers that they are
just as responsible as manufacturers for reporting defects or
hazards with consumer products," said CPSC Chairman Hal
Stratton.

CPSC said that Family Dollar failed to report to the government
in a timely manner that electric blankets the firm sold could
overheat and catch on fire.

Family Dollar sold about 9,000 of the electric blankets between
November 2003 and February 2004.  During that time, the firm
received at least 40 reports of malfunctions with the electric
blankets, including fire, scorching, or smokes damage.  Nine
injuries were reported, consisting mainly of minor skin burns.

The commission does recognize that Family Dollar acted to
protect the public by stopping sale of the electric blankets in
February 2004 by instituting its own recall in March 2004.

However, according to the commission, Family Dollar did not
report the problem to CPSC until after the Commission requested
the firm to do so.  Therefore, CPSC believes that Family Dollar
Inc. failed to meet its reporting obligations.

The commission ultimately announced the recall of the electric
blankets in November 2004.  They were manufactured by Bilt-Safe
Technologies Inc., of Erwin, Tennessee, also known as
International Home Fashions Inc.

For more information about the recall, contact Bilt-Safe
Technologies at (800) 905-0799.

In agreeing to settle the allegations, Family Dollar denies it
violated the Consumer Product Safety Act by failing to report
defects with its electric blankets in a timely manner.

Picture of the recalled electric blanket:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06211.jpg


FLORIDA: Medical Examiners Face Litigation Over Cremation Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen of the 23 medical examiner district offices in the state
of Florida, as well as the medical examiners commission, are
facing a class action alleging that they billed taxpayers for
services that were already paid for, according to First Coast
News.

The class action, filed by several local attorneys, alleges the
medical examiners, which are appointed by the governor, charge a
fee from $10 to $50 around the state for cremation
authorizations.  It does not allege any mishandling of the
funds.  Under Florida state law, when a person dies the family
is required to go to their county's medical examiner to get
permission for a cremation.

Chad Roberts, the attorney filing the class action, explains
that the authorization is part of the taxpayer's payments to the
county government.  He pointed out that the authorizations were
already been paid for and thus the medical examiner's office is
improperly charging for it again.

In Duval County, the cost is $25 per cremation request.  A city
ordinance on the books that the city council signed allows such
a fee.

However, Mr. Roberts argues that the city or county can't decide
on its own and that it must be state that has to make the rule.
He further argues that the payments add up to millions of
charges that are a tax being imposed -- a service fee that's not
authorized.

In 2003, the state's attorney general released his opinion that
there is no state statute allowing the fee, and thus, the
service should be provided without charge.

Eight of the 23 medical examiner district offices are not in the
lawsuit, since they do not charge those contested fees.  

For more details, contact Chad S. Roberts of Spohrer, Wilner,
Maxwell & Matthews, P.A., 701 West Adams Street, Suite 2,
Jacksonville, Florida 32204, (Duval Co.), Phone: 904-354-8310,
Fax: 904-358-6889, Web site: http://www.swmmlaw.com.  


HUNTER FAN: Recalls Humidifiers to Replace Defective Part
---------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Fan Co., of Memphis, Tennessee, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
29,000 units of warm mist CareFree Humidifiers.

The company said water from the humidifier can leak into the
unit's electrical compartment posing a fire hazard.

Hunter has received four reports of incidents involving the
humidifier, including one report of minor property damage.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled humidifiers are white or black plastic with blue or
green tinted water tanks.  "Hunter" and "NiteGlo" are printed on
the humidifier.  The model numbers and tank size included in
this recall are listed below.  The model number is located on a
white label on the bottom of the humidifier.

Model                               Size       Description

35201 CareFree Humidifier Warm Mist 2.0 Gallon White plastic    
                                               with a blue
                                               tinted water tank

35202 CareFree Humidifier Warm Mist 2.0 Gallon White plastic
                                               with a blue
                                               tinted water tank

35203 CareFree Humidifier Warm Mist 2.0 Gallon White plastic
                                               with a green
                                               tinted water tank

35207 CareFree Humidifier Warm Mist 2.0 Gallon White plastic
                                               with a blue
                                               tinted water tank

35253 CareFree Humidifier Warm Mist 2.0 Gallon Black plastic
                                               with a blue
                                               tinted water tank

These humidifiers were manufactured in China and are being sold
at Lowe's, Linens N Things, discount stores, and hardware stores
nationwide, as well as catalogs and on various Web sites, from
September 2005 through February 2006 for between $50 and $65.

Picture of the recalled humidifiers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06215.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled humidifiers
and unplug them immediately and to contact Hunter Fan Co. to
receive a free replacement part.

For more information, contact Hunter Fan Co. toll-free at (866)
818-7609 anytime, or log onto the firm's Web site:
http://www.hunterfan.com.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Court Junks Consumer Lawsuit Over Shingles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Stanislaus County Superior Court entered a final judgment
and closed the consumer class action against Louisiana-Pacific
Corp. of Nashville over its Nature Guard Shingles, according to
the Modesto Bee.

With the decision, about 5,300 consumers, who joined the case,
which was led Clint Walker of Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios,
Pacher and plaintiff Virginia Davis, won't get any money form
it.  Plaintiffs had claimed that the company's shingles crack
and warp and slide out of place.

After a three-month trial, a jury concluded that roofing
shingles were not defective, but a judge still had to hear a
separate claim about unfair competition, which was denied.

Citing that the jury found in favor of the company, Mr. Walker
submitted the last of the required paperwork on July 14, paving
the way for the court to enter a final judgment and close the
case.

Mr. Walker filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Davis in January
2001, arguing that a company that knew its shingles would fail
before a 25-year warranty ended had cheated plaintiffs.

It specifically alleges that company leaders knowingly failed to
disclose that Nature Guard shingles were potentially defective
before introducing them to the market in 1995 (Class Action
Reporter, July 13, 2005).

The cement/wood fiber composite shingles were introduced to
mimic the look of cedar shakes, while also being non-flammable
and lightweight.  The company was one of several companies to
develop such products after fires in the late 1980's wiped out
more than 1,000 Oakland, California houses.

Six other law firms eventually joined the case, representing
homeowners who bought Nature Guard shingles in California,
Hawaii, Oregon and Washington from 1995 to 1998.  They were
seeking $100 million from the manufacturer, but with the court's
decision they are now contemplating an appeal.

For more details, contact Clinton P. Walker of Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva, 1601 I Street, Fifth Floor,
Modesto, CA 95354, Phone: (209) 526-3500, Web site:
http://www.natureguardsuit.com/.


MISSOURI: Court Sides With ACLU, Inmates in "Roe" Abortion Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean Whipple of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri granted all women inmates in Missouri
access to timely, safe, and legal abortion care, The Jurist
reports.

The decision was applauded by the American Civil Liberties
Union.  Diana Kasdan, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive
Freedom Project, said, "Prison officials can no longer ignore
the medical needs of women prisoners seeking abortions.  We
applaud the court for recognizing that women do not give up
their right to abortion care when they enter prison."

In 2005, prison officials vigorously denied a woman prisoner
access to abortion care.  In early October the ACLU stepped in,
asking a court to require prison officials to transport the
prisoner for an abortion.  After losing in lower courts, the
state appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  At the
ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court refused to block the lower
court's decision requiring the state to transport the woman to a
nearby health care facility for an abortion.

Following that decision, Judge Whipple certified the woman's
case against the Department of Corrections as a class action,
saying she -- referred to in court documents only as Jane Roe --
will represent all current and future Missouri inmates wanting
abortions in seeking to overturn a state policy against helping
prisoners get the procedure (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12,
2005).

In his order, filed in Kansas City, Judge Whipple said that
three more inmates have requested abortions since his initial
ruling in October.  Gov. Matt Blunt, a Republican, appealed
Judge Whipple's ruling to the Supreme Court, which declined to
intervene.

At issue in the case was the state's abandonment in 2005 of a
long-standing policy of providing transportation and guards for
inmates wanting abortions leaving an exception only if a woman's
life or health is in danger.  The state cited costs and security
concerns.  Ms. Roe argued that the policy is a violation of her
right to an abortion.

According to Judge Whipple's recent decision, women prisoners do
not lose their constitutional right to abortion care.  And as
with all other serious medical needs, including abortion, prison
officials must transport a prisoner offsite for treatment if
necessary.

The suit is "Roe v. Crawford et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-04333-DW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District Of
Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Thomas Michael Blumenthal of Paule Camazine &  
         Blumenthal, PC, 165 N. Meramec Ave., 6th Floor, St.
         Louis, MO 63105-3789, Phone: 314-727-2266, Fax: 314-
         727-2101, E-mail: tblumenthal@pcblawfirm.com;
  
     (2) Talcott Camp, Diana Kasdan, Jennifer Nevins and Chakshu  
         Patel of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 125  
         Broad St., 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004-2427, Phone:  
         (212) 549-2632, Fax: (212) 549-2652, E-mail:  
         tcamp@aclu.org, dkasdan@aclu.org, jnevins@aclu.org and
         cpatel@aclu.org; and

     (3) James G. Felakos of American Civil Liberties Union of  
         Eastern Missouri, 4557 Laclede Ave., St. Louis, MO  
         63108, Phone: (314) 361-3635, Fax: (314) 361-3135, E-
         mail: jim@aclu-em.org.
  
Representing the defendant is Michael Pritchett, Missouri  
Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Phone:  
573-751-8864, Fax: (573) 751-9456, E-mail:  
mike.pritchett@ago.mo.gov.


NEW JERSEY: Enters New Settlement in Child-Welfare System Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state agreed to further reform its child-welfare system to
settle a class action filed against it by the national child
advocacy group Children's Rights Inc., according to
pressofAtlanticCity.com.

The suit was filed in 1999.  Children's Rights then claimed the
department violated the civil rights of children in foster care
with a care system that failed to plan for their future, thereby
leaving them at risk for abuse and neglect (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 8, 2003).

In 2003, New Jersey U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler signed a
settlement between the parties that bound New Jersey to
implement a reform plan that later cost it some $345 million.  
However, plaintiffs still considered the revamp insufficient.  
In 2005, Children's Rights filed a contempt motion against the
state, asking a federal court to take control of the system and
to appoint Gov. Jon S. Corzine, then governor-elect, as
receiver.

The advocacy group placed its contempt motion on hold in
January, when Gov. Corzine took office.  Mr. Corzine's
negotiations led to the recent settlement that requires the
state to train child-welfare employees and reduce their
caseloads, tackle the backlog of children waiting for permanent
placement, recruit foster families and expand health care for
children under state care.  New Jersey will spend $125 million
this year to implement the changes, Department of Human Services
Commissioner Kevin M. Ryan said.

The changes will benefit the 11,000 children under the state's
care who live in out-of-home placement and the 50,000 children
in the system who live at home, according to him.

The state has two years to implement the plan.  Under the
current settlement, Judith Meltzer, one of the five-member panel
to oversee the state's progress under the 2003 settlement deal,
will act as independent monitor.


NOVA SCOTIA: Trenton Residents File Suit Over Stack Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Trenton, New Jersey residents filed a class action
over pollution from the local Nova Scotia Power, Inc., according
to The ChronicleHerald.ca.

The group is seeking to stop corrosive fly ash emissions from
the coal-burning generator that they claim damage home
exteriors, clothing and vehicles.  The deadline to join the
lawsuit is the end of July, the report said.

During the recent Trenton Fun Fest, the group launched a picket
at the power plant to protest against pollution coming from the
plant.

Based in Halifax, Nova Scotia Power -- http://www.nspower.ca/--  
provides 97% of the electrical generation, transmission,
distribution in Nova Scotia.  It serves 460,000 residential,
commercial and industrial customers; employs 1,800 dedicated,
safety-focused professionals; and manages $2.4 billion worth of
generation, transmission and distribution assets.  The company
is an operating subsidiary of Emera Inc.


OHIO: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Over Child Support Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed a
class action filed by parents who claimed that the state of Ohio
failed to make child support payments in a timely fashion,
according to the Associated Press.

In dismissing the case, the court cited that there are
administrative procedures in place to handle such disputes and
the parents did not show that such procedures failed to address
their concerns.

The suit, filed on May 23, 2001 by the Equal Justice Foundation,
named two former state human services directors and two
contractors as defendants.

It alleged that defendants failed to address problems with the
state's system for collecting and distributing child support
payments.  

In addition, the suit also claims that the state failed to
disburse child support payments in a timely fashion and
improperly kept an administrative fee.

Following the filing of the lawsuit, the state paid nearly $15
million in improperly withheld child-support payments in 2002
and 2003.

While the lawsuit accused the state of withholding millions of
dollars in child support and state income tax refunds to
thousands of welfare recipients, none of the plaintiffs fell
into that class, according to the federal appeals court.

Furthermore, the court ruled that former human services
directors Arnold Tompkins and Jacqueline Romer-Sensky were
entitled to immunity, since the constitutional and statutory
rights of the plaintiffs were not violated.

Covansys Corp., based in Michigan, has since replaced the
primary contractor for the child support system, American
Management Systems of Fairfax, Virginia.

The suit is "Hughlett, et al v. Romer-Sensky, et al., Case No.
2:01-cv-00476-JLG-TPK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge James L. Graham with
referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp on appeal to U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Judith B. Goldstein of Equal Justice Foundation, 88 E.
         Broad Street, Suite 1590, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone:
         614-221-9800, E-mail:
         jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com;

     (2) Gary Michael Smith of Graham & Graham Co., L.P.A.,
         Graham Law Building, 17 N. 4th Street, P.O. Box 340,
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340, Phone: 740-454-8585, Fax:
         740-454-0111, E-mail: gmsmith@grahamlpa.com; and

     (3) Connie F. Zemmelman, 416 Erie Street, Suite 100,
         Toledo, OH 43624, E-mail: czemmel@sbcglobal.net.

Representing the defendants is Alan Paul Schwepe of Ohio
Attorney General, Health & Human Services Section, 30 E. Broad
Street, 26th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215-3428, Phone: 614-466-
8600, E-mail: aschwepe@ag.state.oh.us.


PENNSYLVANIA: Court Favors Property Owners in Assessment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state Supreme Court sided with Allegheny County property
owners in a suit over appeals of property assessments, according
to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

On July 18, the high court overturned two lower court rulings
that rejected a class action filed by the property owners
alleging that appeals of property assessments were being handled
illegally.  Justices told Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick
Jr. to determine whether the Board of Property Assessment
Appeals and Review adheres to its own rules when rejecting some
appeals.

Property owners who feel they were wronged may file a separate
appeal in court, but attorney John Silvestri, representing three
homeowners, said it is expensive to file court appeals.  It
should not be necessary when the assessment issue is handled
fairly by the board instead, he said.  Mr. Silvestri's clients
claim that previously, the board used information not presented
during open hearings to decide on assessment appeals.  The
practice is reportedly no longer occurring.

The ruling does not impact several other lawsuits and appeals
filed in connection with how the county assesses properties,
according to the report.

Mr. Silvestri is at 1000 N. Negley Ave., Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (Allegheny Co.).


PFIZER INC: Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in Prop. 64 Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Chamber of Commerce and other groups filed amicus
curiae brief in the appeal of a lower court ruling that the
business and legal associations believed ignored or misapplied
Proposition 64 ruling in a suit against Pfizer Inc.

The Chamber, The Civil Justice Association of California,
California Manufacturers and Technology Association and
California Bankers Association, said in the amicus curiae brief,
that overly broad class actions brought under California's
Unfair Competition Law were unfairly targeting businesses.

Recently, 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 (Class Action Reporter, July
19, 2006.

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.

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.


RUPPERSBERGER & SONS: Recalls Beef for Possible Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
George G. Ruppersberger & Sons, Inc. of Baltimore is voluntarily
recalling approximately 315 lbs. of ground beef that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The products subject to recall are 10 lb. packages of "Ground
Beef, Net Weight 10 lbs., Keep Refrigerated."  Each package
bears the establishment number "Est. 5931" inside the USDA mark
of inspection and the package code, "627963."

The problem was discovered through routine U.S. Food Safety and
Inspection Service microbiological testing.  FSIS has received
no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this
product.

The ground beef was produced on July 13 and was distributed to
restaurants and institutions in Baltimore.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Manager Eb Nuttle at (410) 669-2600.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Patient's Rep Comments on Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' attorney A. Camden Lewis claims the proposed
settlement entered into by Tenet Healthcare Corp., agreeing to
refund money to uninsured patients who were treated at one of
its hospitals in South Carolina, is a key step toward "leveling
the playing field for all patients," The Island Packet reports.

According to Mr. Camden, if hospital charges are based on the
cost of doing business, then no one should see a 40 percent cost
differential for the same care, the difference some patients who
paid out of pocket for medical treatment faced compared with
what insurance companies had to pay for the same services.

Earlier, the company, which owns Hilton Head Regional Medical
Center, agreed to refund money to uninsured patients who were
treated at the South Carolina hospital between Oct. 7, 2001, and
May 22, 2006, (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006).
  
Under a proposed settlement to a class action, the company will
grant refunds to some who used two other Tenet-owned hospitals
in the state, East Cooper Regional Medical Center in Mount
Pleasant and Piedmont Medical Center in Rock Hill.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d74

                         Case Background

In 2005, a lawsuit was brought against East Cooper Regional
Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center and Piedmont
Healthcare System in the Charleston County, South Carolina Court
of Common Pleas.  It alleged that patients at the hospitals were
not provided with a statutory discount to which they were
allegedly entitled.

Plaintiffs Robert A. Singletary, Sr. and R. Allen Singletary,
Jr. have brought these actions on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated persons who were patients of East Cooper
Regional Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center,
and Piedmont Healthcare System.

The plaintiffs claim that the hospitals did not provide
plaintiffs and other patients with a statutory discount to which
they were allegedly entitled under South Carolina Code Section
38-71-120.  

The two actions, which were later consolidated for the purposes
of administering this settlement under the caption, "South
Carolina Tenet Class Action," are:

     -- "R. Allen Singletary, Jr. et al. v. East Cooper  
        Community Hospital et al., Civil Action No. 04-CP-10-
        4211," and  

     -- "Robert A. Singletary, Sr. et al. v. East Cooper  
        Community Hospital, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-CP-
        10-4212."  

Class certification as to each of the consolidated actions was
granted by Orders of the Court dated June 20, 2005, and filed on
June 28, 2005.

The hospitals deny that they acted improperly or wrongfully in
any way and deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability, or damage of any kind to plaintiffs or other
patients.

On May 25, 2006, a settlement agreement in the South Carolina
Tenet Class Action received preliminary approval.


TERELL ENTERPRISES: Enters Initial Settlement in Ore. Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terell Enterprises Inc. recently signed a preliminary agreement
in Multnomah County Circuit Court to settle a class action over
violations of state overtime and minimum wage laws, The
Oregonian reports.

Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay $84,125, which
would benefit about 365 past and current ServiceMaster Building
and Maintenance, a janitorial contractor subsidiary of Terrell.

ServiceMaster workers responsible to work at Portland's Rose
Garden Arena between Sept. 8, 1999 and Aug. 1, 2005 will receive
as much as $1,275 each, others as little as $200, depending on
their hiring date.

In 2005, Mirian Coreas filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself
and 10 other former and current ServiceMaster workers, who came
out of an organizing campaign by Service Employees International
Union Local 49.

The plaintiffs claimed ServiceMaster regularly asked employees
to show up for work before Rose Garden events end, but don't pay
for the time they waited to begin working.

Rick VanCleave, company's attorney said ServiceMaster denies any
wrongdoing.  ServiceMaster has not agreed to bargain with the
union over a contract at the Rose Garden or three other downtown
buildings it maintains, SEIU officials said.

Nine of the 11 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit have since moved
on to other work, Ms. Long said.  

For more details, contact [Defendant's Attorney] Rick VanCleave
of Barran Liebman, LLP, ODS Tower, 601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite
2300, Portland, OR 97204-3159, Phone: (503) 228-0500, Fax: (503)
274-1212.


UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Enters Not Guilty Plea to Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and two of its partners
pleaded not guilty to charges that it paid several individuals
in secret kickbacks to serve as plaintiffs in numerous
shareholder lawsuits, reports say.

In May, Milberg Weiss and David J. Bershad and Steven G.
Schulman were indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly
participating in a scheme in which several individuals were paid
millions of dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving
as named plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and
shareholder derivative lawsuits.  The firm allegedly received
well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits
over the past 20 years.  

Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman both pled not guilty to wrongdoing.  
Seymour M. Lazar, who is accused of acting as a paid plaintiff
in some of the firm's cases, and Paul T. Selzer, who is charged
with laundering money on Lazar's behalf, also pleaded not guilty
to charges filed against them.

In a statement released after the July 18, 2006, arraignment,
the firm, which claims to have helped recover over $45 billion
for swindled investors, called the indictment "unprecedented and
unfair" and vowed to "vigorously defend itself."

On the afternoon of that arraignment, in a status conference
before Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Assistant U.S. Atty. Douglas
Axel said there was "a significant possibility" of more
indictments.  

The indictment charges the firm and the partners of conspiracy
with several objects, including obstructing justice, perjury,
bribery and fraud.  The conspiracy count outlines a scheme in
which individuals received secret kickback payments to serve, or
cause friends and relatives to serve, as named plaintiffs in
lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss.

The federal probe into allegations against Milberg Weiss, which
once dominated class action law in the U.S., accounting for 85%
of all such suits filed in California and 60% elsewhere in 2001,
came to light in January 2002, when a flurry of subpoenas went
out to scores of lawyers and stockbrokers from major firms and
plaintiffs who had participated in Milberg Weiss lawsuits.

In June 2005, Seymour Lazar, a Palm Springs investor and former
entertainment lawyer was indicted, accused of collecting $2.4
million in "secret and illegal kickback payments" for his role
in dozens of lawsuits.

In August 2005, Federal prosecutors stepped up their criminal
investigation of Milberg Weiss.  The investigation looked at
whether the firm illegally made payments to plaintiffs to lead a
series of shareholder suits. Plaintiffs in such suits are not
permitted to receive payments beyond those awarded by courts, to
avoid conflict between their interests and those of the rest of
the class.

The 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was
drafted with Milberg Weiss in mind, limits plaintiffs to no more
than five class actions in three years.  

The Milberg Weiss indictment is available free of charge at:

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


VIRGIN ISLANDS: AG Defends Motion on Care of Former Inmate
----------------------------------------------------------
The attorney general's office defended its request to be
relieved of responsibility for a violent and mentally ill former
inmate of the Justice Department in its latest written argument
filed with the district court.

The request for the transfer of Jonathan Ramos to a civil
guardian under the supervision of the state Superior Court stems
from a settlement of a class action filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union.  ACLU had claimed that Cluster 3 inmates are
receiving almost no psychiatric attention, are taking
medications on expired prescriptions and are not adequately
protected from violent attempts by themselves or other inmates.  

The parties reached a settlement in 1994, which is currently
being monitored by Senior District Judge Stanley Brotman.  Judge
Brotman ordered the Justice Department on March 22 to find a
long-term psychiatric facility in which to place Mr. Ramos by
May 22.

That was not done.  On June 15, ACLU filed two motions with a
district court asking for a fourth contempt ruling against the
state and another asking for the jail system to be placed under
federal receivership.  Judge Brotman already found the
government in contempt of court in 1997, 2001 and 2003.

Days later, Mr. Ramos, who was placed at the Farrelly Criminal
Justice Complex Jail after his arrest four years ago on
suspicion of stealing a bicycle, was freed of grand larceny
charges.  He was absolved because he had spent prison time more
than what prosecutors would recommend for his theft.  

Attorney General Kerry Drue then asked the court to vacate the
March order, and requested that the former inmate be entrusted
to a civil guardian under the supervision of the state Superior
Court since he is no longer facing criminal charges.

Eric Balaban, an attorney with ACLU's National Prison Project,
described that request as "nothing but an effort to subvert the
authority of the court."

The attorney general argued that ACLU "mischaracterizes" the
request.  Justice officials said among Judge Brotman's order,
they are only seeking modification of the one involving Mr.
Ramos.

The motion to vacate also touched on Mr. Ramos' 50 percent
interest in his father's estate, which has been valued at more
than $500,000.  It said that the Superior Court has the power to
distribute the asset and order involuntary psychiatric
commitment that would ensure Mr. Ramos' continued care.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of its client and on behalf
of other similarly situated purchasers of Herley Industries,
Inc. common stock between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Herley and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The complaint alleges that defendants omitted or misrepresented
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition,
business prospects, and revenue expectations during the class
period.

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

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

      -- the company's financial results were achieved through
         illegal conduct, specifically the misrepresentation of
         manufacturing costs on contracts with the U.S.
         government and the falsification of a bid in order to
         win the award of a contract;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- as a result of the foregoing, the company would likely
         be subject to enhanced governmental scrutiny,
         governmental fines for improper conduct, and the
         company's ability to receive new contract awards from
         the U.S. Government and its ability to reap future
         revenues would be in serious doubt.

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

The complaint alleges that in response to the company's
announcements, the price of Herley stock dropped from $19.38 on
June 2, 2006 to $9.21 on June 14, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006 request the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Scott Evans
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or sevans2@cmht.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Gardy & Notis Files Calif. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP, commenced a securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. (JNPR) stock
during a class period of Sept. 1, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

The complaint charges Juniper Networks and its top executive
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
failing to account properly for stock options made to Juniper
Networks employees.

The complaint charges that Juniper Networks improperly expensed
stock options, thereby falsely inflating the company's reported
financial performance.

Interested parties may, no later than Sept. 15, 2006, request
that the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and certain of its officers,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the company from
April 29, 2004 to July 5, 2006, inclusive.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Par, headquartered in New Jersey, develops, manufactures and
markets more than 110 generic drugs and innovative branded
pharmaceuticals for specialty markets.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants reported earnings that were materially inflated as a
result of accounting errors including an understatement of
accounts receivable reserves.

The company has now admitted that the overstatement of its
revenues has resulted in Par overpaying its business partners in
various profit sharing arrangements.

As a result of the company's internal review of its trade
accounts receivable balances, the company has decided to restate
its previously reported financial statements for fiscal year
2004 and 2005 and the first quarter of 2006.

In addition, Par announced it will write-off inventory in an
amount up to $15 million due to flawed physical inventory
procedures.  In response to these revelations, on July 6, 2006,
Par stock fell $4.78 per share, losing nearly 26% of its value
in one day on extremely high volume of over 9 million shares
traded, to close at $13.47 per share.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb and Carolyn S.
Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


SUNTERRA CORP: Brower Piven Announces Filing of Nev. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Sunterra Corp. between April 15, 2003 and June 22, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada against defendant Sunterra 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 period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 11,
2006 to serve as 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.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Vonage Holdings Corp. common
stock between May 24, 2006 and June 19, 2006 including those who
purchased their shares pursuant to the company's 2006 initial
public offering.  The class period covers a longer class period
of time than the complaints that were previously filed by other
investors.

The complaint charges Vonage and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Vonage, through its
subsidiaries, provides broadband telephone services primarily in
the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom.

According to the complaint, on May 24, 2006, Vonage sold 31.3
million of its shares and raised approximately $531.3 million in
its IPO.  

In the IPO, defendants arranged to sell to 9,000 of their
unsophisticated phone service customers whatever shares remained
unsold to investors, including pension plans, institutions and
high-net-worth sophisticated individuals.

In all, Vonage induced its customers to purchase as much as 13%
of the IPO shares through a "directed share program."
Approximately 10,000 of the Company's customers participated in
the directed share program.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of the defective manner
in which the IPO was carried out and the defective Prospectus,
immediately after the start of trading on May 24, 2006, the
company's shares plunged.

In fact, by the end of May 24, 2006, the first trading day,
shares of Vonage stock closed at $14.85 per share, a decline of
$2.15 per share or 12.7%.

On May 25, 2006, the shares continued to plummet, closing at $13
per share.  As a result of the immediate decline in the price of
the stock after the offering, a large number of participants in
the directed share program refused to pay for the shares,
setting the stage for a massive sell-off of the shares following
the IPO.

The complaint further alleges that, during the class period,
Vonage illegally capitalized on Verizon's investment in voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) research and development by using
Verizon's patented technology in its VoIP service offerings,
including Verizon's inventions relating to:

      -- gateway interfaces between a packet-switched and
         circuit-switched network, which is critical to
         implementing commercially viable VoIP telephony;

      -- billing and fraud detection in commercial VoIP
         telephony;

      -- call services in commercial VoIP telephony, such as
         call forwarding, follow me, and voicemail; and

      -- the use of Wi-Fi handsets in a VoIP network.

Through its product and service offerings (albeit omitted from
the Prospectus), Vonage has appropriated the results of years of
research conducted by Verizon and its predecessors.  Vonage does
not currently own any issued U.S. patents.  Instead, Vonage
relies on the intellectual property developed by Verizon in
delivering its infringing products and services.

On June 19, 2006, Vonage announced that a lawsuit had been filed
against them by Verizon, and on this news of the patent
violations, the Company's shares had plummeted to $8.50 per
share.  The stock has since dropped to below $8 per share.

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

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 and 619/231-1058, E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/vonage/.


                            *********


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  * * *