CAR_Public/060727.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 148

                            Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Seeks Answers to Undisclosed Death of Plaintiff
AT&T CORP: Judge Dismisses Wiretapping Suit Filed by Chicagoans
CANADA: Confirms $1B Payout to Uncompensated Hepatitis C Victims
CANADA: Claims Filing to Settle Suit Against AISH Continuing
FLORIDA: Medical Examiners Face Lawsuit Over Cremation Fees

FREDDIE MAC: Settles N.Y. Stock, Derivative Lawsuits for $410M
GOOGLE INC: Court Report Analyzes "Click Fraud" Defense Efforts
HOLD EVERYTHING: Recalls Furniture with Detachable Lock Covers
INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Royal Philips Deal
LAFAYETTE PHILIPPINES: Faces Suit Over Albay Mining Operations

MASSEY ENERGY: Public Hearing Held on Plans to Build Coal Silo
METRORAIL: South African High Court Allows Consolidated Trial
NEW YORK: World Trade Center "First Responder" Claims Increasing
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.J., N.Y.
PENNSYLVANIA: Inmates Sue City Over Alleged Overcrowding in Jail

PROTIVITI INC: Consultant Files Overtime, Benefits Lawsuit
SONY MUSIC: Dr. Elmo Joins N.Y. Lawsuit Over Music Royalties
STYLE TRONICS: Recalls Hair Dryers Lacking Electric Shock Guard
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Orange City of Texas Sues Online Travel Firms

UNITED STATES: Del. Supreme Court Inquires into Milberg Lawsuits
UNITED STATES: Ind. Judge Orders Milberg to Disclose Finances
UNITED STATES: Chaplains File Discrimination Suit in N.D. Fla.
WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached in Workers' Suit Over Union Dues


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IONATRON INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
JOS A BANK: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Filing of Suit
RAMBUS INC: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif.
VONAGE HOLDINGS Glancy Binkow Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit

ZALE CORP: Brower Piven Announces Filing of N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN FAMILY: Seeks Answers to Undisclosed Death of Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Family Insurance is asking Madison County Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack to overrule objections to questions it posed about
the knowledge of the plaintiff's attorney regarding the
previously undisclosed death of his client, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

The company discovered several months ago that Manuel Hernandez
of Granite City, whom the judge certified last year as a
representative in a class action filed against it, has already
been dead since January 2004.  The company's attorney attached a
copy of Mr. Hernandez's death certificate in a filing in March.

Attorney Jeffrey Millar of the Lakin Law firm confirmed the
death of Mr. Hernandez, but has not answered questions that
American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it.  
Mr. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Judge Stack
that American Family Insurance should submit them not to Mr.
Hernandez's attorney but to Mr. Hernandez himself, according to
the report.

Mr. Hernandez filed a suit against American Family Insurance in
2000, claiming the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a
medical claim resulting from an auto accident.  He was certified
in 2002 by Judge Stack as class representative of everyone who
received improper payouts in the 17 states where American Family
Insurance did business back to 1990.  After the company filed
motions to decertify him, he was certified as plaintiffs'
representative in 12 states only in July 2005.

Mr. Millar intends to keep the suit going with a plaintiff from
Ohio.  He moved on May 19 to amend the complaint for the fifth
time in order to substitute Helen Nemeth as class
representative.  Ms. Nemeth's claim arose from an auto accident
in 2004, according to Mr. Millar.

Judge Stack has not yet set hearings on Mr. Millar's motions for
a new plaintiff, a new complaint and a management conference, or
on defense motions to stay and dismiss.

Representing the defendant are Anthony Martin and Timothy
Sansone at Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, 23 South 1st Street,
Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-397-2721;
800-225-5529, Web site: http://www.spvg.com.

Representing the plaintiff is Mr. Millar, associate at The Lakin
Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River,
Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127,
Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


AT&T CORP: Judge Dismisses Wiretapping Suit Filed by Chicagoans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois granted a motion by the U.S.
Department of Justice to dismiss a suit brought by the American
Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of Chicago author
Studs Terkel and other prominent Chicagoans challenging the
actions of telephone giant AT&T Corp. in divulging the telephone
records of its customers to the federal government without
lawful authorization.  

The court agreed with the government's argument that the need to
protect "state secrets" necessitated dismissing the lawsuit.  
The district court said "requiring AT&T to confirm or deny
whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records
to the federal government could give adversaries of this country
valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities."

The judge also said the reports amounted to speculation and in
no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had
been turned over, according to Associated Press.  According to
him, Mr. Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit had not
shown that their records had been provided to the government.  
As a result, they lacked standing to sue.

Mr. Terkel and prominent leaders in the medical, legal,
political and faith communities filed a the suit in May claiming
that AT&T violated their privacy by secretly sharing the
telephone records of millions of Americans with the National
Security Agency.  The secret program was revealed in a May 11,
2006 article in USA Today.

The prominent Chicago area professionals who filed the lawsuit
noted their special concerns with the government's gathering of
the phone records of Americans.  

In addition to Mr. Terkel, the other plaintiffs in the case
filed in federal district court in Chicago on May 22 included:

     -- Barbara Flynn Currie, Majority Leader of the Illinois
        House of Representatives;

     -- Rabbi Gary Gerson of Oak Park Temple;

     -- Professor Diane Geraghty, Director of the Civitas
        ChildLaw Center at Loyola University School of Law,
        Chicago;

     -- James Montgomery, former Corporation Counsel for the
        City of Chicago; and

     -- Dr. Quinten Young, a physician and advocate for health
        care reform.

The group of plaintiffs contends that AT&T violated their
individual right to engage in telephone conversations without
government monitoring under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.  That law, according to the complaint, prohibits
any entity providing "an electronic communication service" from
divulging the records of customers to governmental agencies.

Without consent of customers or other lawful certification
authorized by a court order, according to published reports, the
National Security Agency sought the records of tens of millions
of telephone customers in the U.S.  

The national ACLU is co-counsel in the lawsuit.

Chicago attorneys William Hooks of the Hooks Law Offices and
Marc Beem and Zachary Freeman of the law firm Miller, Shakman &
Beem are assisting the ACLU of Illinois in the case.

For more information contact Edwin C. Yohnka of American Civil
Liberties Union of Illinois, Phone: 312-201-9740, ext. 305;
Pager: 312-851-2832; Mobile: 847-687-1129; E-mail: eyohnka@aclu-
il.org.

The suit is "Schwarz et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-02680" filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Representing the
plaintiffs is Steven E. Schwarz, 2461 W. Foster Avenue, #1W
Chicago, IL 60629, Phone: (773) 837-6134.


CANADA: Confirms $1B Payout to Uncompensated Hepatitis C Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canada is granting approximately $1 billion in compensation to
about 5,500 "forgotten victims" of the country's contaminated
blood supply.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the details of the
payout to hepatitis C victims at a news conference in Cambridge,
Ontario on July 25, according to CanWest News Service.  

In April 1998, the Ontario Hemophilia Plaintiffs commenced
Action No. 98-CV-146405 in the Ontario Court (General Division),
at Toronto, against the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) and
Canada over the spread of hepatitis C through the government's
blood system.

In May 1998, the British Columbia Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced
Action No. A981187 in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia against the CRCS and Canada.

In the same month, the Quebec Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced
Action No. 500-06-000068-987 in the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec for the District of Montreal against the
CRCS, Canada and Quebec.

In 1998, the government granted $1.1 billion payout to hepatitis
C victims between 1986 and 1990.  It then limited the
compensation, saying there was no reliable test in place before
1986 to screen out potentially deadly virus.  

On March 9, 2000, the courts appointed Crawford Adjusters Canada
-- http://www.hepc8690.com/-- to act as Administrator of the  
1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement.

In recent years, evidence emerged that Canada could have
conducted testing earlier.  

On Nov. 22, 2004, the Federal Minister of Health announced
Canada's intention to "enter into discussions on options for
financial compensation to people who were infected with
hepatitis C through the blood system before Jan. 1, 1986 and
after July 1, 1990."

In April 2005, the government decided to extend financial help
to victims who became ill before 1986 and after 1990.


CANADA: Claims Filing to Settle Suit Against AISH Continuing
------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta has so far paid out $1.7 million to settle a class
action filed against the province over allegations its system of
arbitrarily docking social services clients who were claiming
overpayments was unfair.  

City attorney Philip Tinkler said that 415 of the 2,662 claims
filed have been paid out.

About $2.66 million has been recommended to be paid out to
claimants, according to Alberta Human Resources spokesman Gwen
Vanderdeen-Paschke.

On Sept. 21, 2004, Curtis Roth and Donald Fifield filed a
proposed class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against the government of Alberta on their own behalf and as
representatives on behalf of all members of the class.

The lawsuit alleges that the government wrongfully withheld
benefits that the Overpayment Recovery Class members were
entitled to receive under Alberta's Assured Income for the
Severely Handicapped Act, the Social Development Act and the
Widows' Pension Act, and in the manner that it recovered
overpayments from them.  The lawsuit further alleges that the
Government wrongfully withheld benefits from the Underpayment
Class members under a policy that limited the correction of
underpayments identified in the administration of their benefits
to six months.

In December an agreement was reached awarding $5,000 to each
plaintiff as compensation for initiating the lawsuit.

The classes are:

     -- the Overpayment Recovery Class: persons residents in
        Alberta and elsewhere in Canada whom the government of
        Alberta:

        * required between Dec. 1, 1979 and May 1, 1983 to repay
          income support overpayments exceeding a total of $500;
          or

        * between May 1, 1983 and April 29, 2004 to repay income
          support overpayments exceeding a total of $1,000, in a
          manner other than that provided in an Income Support
          Repayment Agreement of Income Support Recovery
          Agreement or a court order; and

     -- Underpayment Class: persons residents in Alberta and
        elsewhere in Canada who, between Dec. 1, 1979 an March
        1, 2005, were found to have been underpaid the income
        support to which they were entitled for longer than six
        months and those retroactive correction payment was
        limited to only six months' time.

The settlement entitles Overpayment Recovery Class members to
$2,323 for recipients under the Assured Income for the Severely
Handicapped Act, $1,105 for recipients under the Social
Development Act, and $698 for recipients under the Widows'
Pension Act.

Deadline for filing a claim is Jan. 11, 2007.  

The settlement was agreed without admission of fault or
liability by the government.

The Crawford Class Action Services has been designated as claims
administrator (http://www.incomesupportsettlement.ca/)

Representing the plaintiffs is Philip Tinkler of Fraser Milner
Casgrain LLP, 2900 Manulife Place, 10180 - 101 St. Edmonto AB
T5J3V5, Fax: (780) 427-1230.


FLORIDA: Medical Examiners Face Lawsuit Over Cremation Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Medical Examiners Commission and 15 of the state's
23 district medical examiners face a class action in Leon County
civil court over allegations that they illegally charge a fee to
approve a cremation or a burial at sea, The Tallahassee Democrat
reports.

Margaret Watts of Watts Funeral Services Inc. and Southern
Crematory, Inc., filed the suit on the basis of an attorney
general's opinion in 2003 that concluded the fees were
"unauthorized and improper."  That opinion also stated that
medical examiners do not have the statutory or constitutional
authority to charge a fee for approval for such a request.

The class action, filed by attorney Chad Roberts, alleges that
the medical examiners, who were 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
(Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).  

Under Florida state law, when a person dies, the family is
required to go to their county's medical examiner to get permit
for a cremation.  Mr. Roberts explains that the authorization is
part of the taxpayer's payments to the county government.  

But for the past few years, according to Mr. Roberts, medical
examiners have charged a fee for that permit directly from
funeral directors and crematoriums.

In his suit, Mr. Roberts contends that the authorizations were
already paid for and thus the medical examiner's office is
improperly charging for it again.

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.


FREDDIE MAC: Settles N.Y. Stock, Derivative Lawsuits for $410M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro said U.S. mortgages buyer
Freddie Mac will pay $410 million to settle a shareholder
lawsuit, affirming an agreement he made in April, Reuters
reports.

In a statement announcing the preliminary settlement, the
attorney general said that payments will be made to investors
who purchased Freddie Mac shares between July 15, 1999 and Nov.
20, 2003, and the two Ohio pension funds, the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System, both of which initiated the lawsuit.

The suit was filed in 2003 when an internal probe found
executives at the company had manipulated accounting rules and
caused a $5 billion restatement of earnings.

In April 2006, Freddie Mac and Atty. Gen. Petro announced an
agreement in principal to settle the case.  The cases, which
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, include a class action and two shareholder
derivative suits.  

The class action is "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, et
al. v. Freddie Mac, et al."  It was filed against the company
and certain former executive officers.

The shareholder derivative lawsuits were styled, "Maureen Henry,
et al. v. Brendsel, et al.," and "Esther Sadowsky Testamentary
Trust v. Brendsel, et al."  Both were filed on behalf of the
company against certain former executive officers and current
and former members of the company's board of directors.

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval by the two Ohio pension funds, negotiation and
execution of final documentation, and preliminary and final
court approval.  It does not resolve other legal proceedings
related to the restatement (Class Action Reporter, April 24,
2006).  

Final approval of the settlement is set Oct. 26, 2006, according
to Atty. Gen. Petro.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, State Office Tower, 30
         E. Broad Street, 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215-3428,
         Phone: (614) 466-4320;

     (2) Michael R. Barrett of Barrett & Weber, L.P.A., 105 E.
         Fourth Street, Suite 500, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
         (513) 721-2120;

     (3) Daniel Lawrence Berger of Berstein Litowitz Berger &
         Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1400; and

     (4) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy, The Federal Reserve
         Building, 150 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202,
         Phone: (513) 621-2120.


GOOGLE INC: Court Report Analyzes "Click Fraud" Defense Efforts
---------------------------------------------------------------
An independent report filed with Miller County Circuit Court in
Arkansas indicated that Google, Inc.'s efforts to fight click
fraud is performing reasonably well, The South China Morning
Post reports.

The 47-page analysis of Google's fraud-fighting defenses was
complied by Alexander Tuzhilin, an information systems professor
at New York University.  The report is part of a proposed $90
million class-action settlement that will be considered for
final approval in a two-day hearing schedule that began July 24,
2006.

The hearing will tackle 51 objections made against the deal
between Google and advertisers who claim they were victims of
"click fraud."

Judge Joe Griffin of the Miller County Circuit Court recently
granted preliminary approval to the settlement.  The case
specifically alleges that the company improperly charged
advertisers for fraudulent Web site clicks that drove up
advertising bills.  

Under the $90 million settlement, a third of which will be
awarded to lawyers, thousands of advertisers worldwide will have
a $60 million fund against which they can file a claim.  No one,
however, will receive cash and instead the advertisers will
receive advertising credits for future use with Google (Class
Action Reporter, July 25, 2006).

Google maintains that its computer programs and engineers are
highly effective at controlling "click fraud," a statement that
Mr. Tuzhilin's report generally supported.  He, however,
criticized some of the defenses that Google adopted since it
began to tackle the problem in 2003.

According to Mr. Tuzhilin, Google's efforts were not perfect
since it missed certain amounts of invalid clicks over these
years.  

Mr. Tuzhilin pointed out though that "click fraud" is a very
difficult problem to solve, Google allotted a significant amount
of effort to solve it, and thus he finds those efforts to be
reasonable.

He also pointed out that Google's fraud-fighting efforts
improved considerably since March 2005, when the company stopped
charging for two rapid clicks on the same ad link.

Though other studies by outsiders asserted "click fraud" was far
more costly for advertisers than Google was letting on, Mr.
Tuzhilin dismissed the findings in his report, since they "would
not stand hard scientific scrutiny."

However, Mr. Tuzhilin conceded that he did not gather enough
hard data in his study of Google's fraud-fighting techniques "to
arrive at any definitive conclusions beyond any reasonable
doubt."

Mr. Tuzhilin's report is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e68

                          Case Background

Initially, Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana filed the
case against Google.  Subsequently, in a suit filed on Feb. 4,
2005 by John C. Goodson and Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg, other
defendants were named, including:

     -- Yahoo! Inc.,
     -- Overture Services Inc.,
     -- America Online Inc.,
     -- Ask Jeeves Inc.,
     -- Looksmart Ltd.,
     -- Lycos Inc.,
     -- Netscape Communication Corp.,
     -- Buena Vista Internet Group,
     -- Findwhat.Com Inc., and
     -- Time Warner Inc.

The suit specifically alleged that defendants overcharged
thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the
"click fraud" strategy.  The scheme involves sending fraudulent
clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts.

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

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Settlement Facilitator] George L. McWilliams of
         Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, 2900 St.,
         Michael Drive, Fourth Floor Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone:
         903-334-7000, Fax: 903-334-7007, E-mail:
         gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com; and

     (2) [Settlement Facilitator] Daralyn J. Durie of Keker &
         Van Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-391-5400.


HOLD EVERYTHING: Recalls Furniture with Detachable Lock Covers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hold Everything of San Francisco, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 3,200 pieces of the Homeroom Bedroom Collection.

The company said the small cam lock covers of the furniture can
be easily removed, presenting a choking hazard to young
children.

Hold Everything has received one report of a toddler removing a
hardware cover from a dresser.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves plastic cam hardware covers used to cover
the hardware on the Homeroom bedroom collection.  Sold in a
natural stain maple veneer, the collection includes a bed,
dresser, nightstand, toy chest and shelving systems.

Picture of the recalled hardware cover:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06565.jpg

The Homeroom Bedroom Collection were manufactured in Denmark and
are being sold at HoldEverything.com and through the Hold
Everything catalog nationwide from July 2004 through March 2006
for between $75 and $995.

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the hardware covers
and dispose of them.

For additional information, please contact Hold Everything at
(800) 840-2849 between 7 a.m. and midnight ET Monday through
Friday.


INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Royal Philips Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Intermagnetics General Corp. filed two class
actions in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany
County, challenging the company's acquisition by Royal Philips
Electronics of Holland for $1.3 billion, according to The
Business Review of Albany.

The first suit is "Mohamed Farouk Gani v. Intermagnetics General
Corporation, et al., No. 3884-06," filed on June 16, 2006, just
a day after the deal was announced.  The second suit, "Thomas
Scionti v. Intermagnetics General Corporation, et al., No. 3946-
06," was filed on June 20, according to the company's PREM14A
filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
June 30, 2006.
  
On lawsuit names that company and its directors as defendants,
while the other adds Royal Philips as a defendant.  Mohamed
Farouk Gani and Thomas Scionti filed the suits, both of which
are seeking to prevent the acquisition.

Generally, the complaints allege that company directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to publicly announce an open
bidding process or otherwise seek additional officers to acquire
Intermagnetics, and by failing to provide full disclosure to
certain material financial information.

Under the deal, the company's Latham, New York, headquarters
would become the global headquarters for the MR division of
Royal Philips.

The company produces patient monitors through its Medical
Devices division and imaging systems components through its MRI
division.  


LAFAYETTE PHILIPPINES: Faces Suit Over Albay Mining Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lafayette Philippines, Inc. faces a purported class action
seeking a temporary restraining order against its 30-day test
runs of polymetallic mining operations on Rapu-Rapu, an island
in Albay province in the Bicol region, 350 kilometers southeast
of the capital Manila, according to the Environment News
Service.

People from the provinces of Sorsogon and Albay, 27 residents of
Rapu-Rapu, environmental activist groups, fisher folk
organizations, church people, militant organizations and
television personalities filed the suit on July 20, 2006 in
Makati Regional Trial Court after an incident of toxic spill.  

The class action not only names the company as defendant, but
also the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Secretary Angelo Reyes.  It seeks a permanent halt to the
company's operations, citing threats to people's health and
livelihood.

According to Bishop Aruturo Bastes, head of the defunct Rapu-
Rapu Fact-Finding Commission, "The mining issue in Rapu-Rapu is
a matter of public interest in view of the environmental hazards
and adverse health impacts that Lafayette mining operation
poses.  The people of Sorsogon are supporting the class suit,
and we hope we can get justice."

Howard M. Calleja, one of the attorneys who filed the case,
explains that the most compelling reason to restrain company's
mining operation is the occurrence of acid mine drainage, which
is something that even the DENR admits Lafayette could not
control.


MASSEY ENERGY: Public Hearing Held on Plans to Build Coal Silo
--------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
recently heard arguments over plans by a Massey Energy Co.
subsidiary over plans to build a second coal silo beside a
Raleigh County elementary school, Associated Press reports.

An earlier plan by the Goals Coal Co. to build a silo near Marsh
Fork Elementary School has spurred a class action against Massey
by parents and residents who are claiming that coal dust is
causing health problems for the students, the report said.

Regulatory filings by the company in May stated that Massey
Energy and 12 of its subsidiaries continue to face litigations
alleging that defendants illegally transported coal in
overloaded trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby
interfering with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties and their right to use the public roads.  Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006).

An advocacy group representing residents in the Counties of
Boone, Raleigh and Kanawha, West Virginia, and other plaintiffs,
filed 16 suits in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia in January 2003.  The Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia referred the consolidated lawsuits, and three similar
lawsuits against other coal and transportation companies not
involving the company's subsidiaries, to the Circuit Court of
Lincoln County, West Virginia, to be handled by a mass
litigation panel.

In March 2004, seven residents of Mingo County, West Virginia,
filed a similar lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mingo County,
West Virginia, against the company and three subsidiaries,
raising similar claims and seeking similar relief.  The Supreme
Court of Appeals referred this case to the mass litigation panel
also.  The plaintiffs in all five trucking cases have requested
that the cases be further consolidated, the scope of their
claims be expanded statewide, claims be added against land
companies, and class-action status be granted.


METRORAIL: South African High Court Allows Consolidated Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cape High Court Judge Wilfred Thring refused defendants' request
for separate trials, while granting plaintiffs' application for
consolidated trials in a class action that arose after the death
of Juan van Minnen in Western Cape, South Africa's news Web site
IOL reports.

Juan van Minnen, an engineering student, was stabbed while
traveling home by train one day in June 2001.  Plaintiffs in the
suit that was filed after his death are asking the court to
declare that Metrorail and SA Commuter Corp., owner of the
trains, did not sufficiently ensure the safety and security of
commuters on trains and stations.  

The suit was filed by Rail Commuters Action Group, the Congress
of South African Trade Unions and 49 Wester Cape victims against
Transnet, trading as Metrorail.  Also named as defendant is
Minister of Transport Jeff Radebe.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to require the companies to
improve safety and security measures, and to put in place, a
monitoring system to oversee efforts to correct the alleged
shortcoming.  They are demanding results within months.  Forty-
three of the victims are also asking personal injury claims.

In June this year, Thabani Masuku, counsel for the defendant,
asked the court to separate the 43 damages claims against
Metrorail to make the proceedings more manageable.

Attorney Francois Theron is representing 35 of the plaintiffs.


NEW YORK: World Trade Center "First Responder" Claims Increasing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal actions filed against the City of New York in connection
with the events of Sept. 11, 2001 have tripled in the past year,
The New York Post reports.

More than 1,100 notices of claim, which potential plaintiffs are
required to file before suing the city, were filed against the
city during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the
report.

There is also an increase in the number of lawsuits that were
filed.  Most of the more than 300 suits are related to toxic
substances exposure at the World Trade Center site.  

Many are joining a class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the
city failed to protect responders from hazardous conditions at
the site.

An attorney in the class action, "Benzman et al. v. Whitman et
al.," confirmed to the New York Post that additional claims were
filed on behalf of sick police, firefighters and other
responders who spent time at the WTC site in the aftermath of
9/11 terrorist attacks.

The suit is "Benzman et al v. Whitman et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-
01888-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) Bert A. Blitz of Shandell, Blitz, Blitz & Bookson,
         L.L.P, 150 Broadway, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10038-
         4498, Phone: (212) 513-1300; and

     (2) Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. of Berger Montague, P.C., 1622
         Locus St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (205) 875-
         3000.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Glenn Stewart Greene, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Torts
         Branch, Civil Div., P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin
         Station, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 8002 South
         Tower, Washington, DC 20044, Phone: 202-616-4143, Fax:
         202-616-4314, E-mail: glenn.greene@usdoj.gov; and

    (ii) Scott Jeffrey Jordan, U.S. Department of Justice (DC),
         1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Rm. 1150 North Washington,
         DC 20004, Phone: 202-514-9365, Fax: 202-514-8865, E-
         mail: scott.jordan@usdoj.gov.


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.J., N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceuticals Co. is the target of several class actions
in connection with a July announcement that it will restate
financial reports dating to 2004, NorthJersey.com reports.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purchased stock between April 29,
2004 and July 5, 2006 when Par announced it would restate its
sales and income for 2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006.

Generally, the complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaints allege 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.

Although most of the complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, a similar, purported class
action complaint has also been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to an entry in
the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1.866.389.0274,
         E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com;

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

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655
         West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
         619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423;

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

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

     (6) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215-496-0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: Inmates Sue City Over Alleged Overcrowding in Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Philadelphia faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
over jail conditions, The Associated Press reports.

Filed on July 24, 2006, the suit comes five years after state
and federal courts ended 30 years of supervision prompted by
earlier lawsuits over prison conditions.

Plaintiffs in the suit are Lee Bowers, Brandon Bucci and Darius
McDowell and James Walker.  In their suit, filed by civil rights
attorney and University of Pennsylvania law professor David
Rudovsky, plaintiffs named as defendants:

     -- the City of Philadelphia;
     -- Leon A. King, II, Commissioner of Prisons; and
     -- Sylvester Johnson, City Police Commissioner.

According to the suit, Mr. Bowers, one of the plaintiffs, was
picked up for missing a family court hearing on June 23 and held
for three days.

The suit stated that Mr. Bowers was in a holding cell with as
many as 30 other inmates that had only a single toilet.  It also
stated that the cell had no beds, no showers, no toothbrush or
other personal hygiene materials, no access to medical care or
medical screening, and no access to counsel or to phone calls.

During his 72 hours without sleep, according to the suit, Mr.
Bowers, curled up under a steel bench, causing him to suffer a
blood clot in his leg that sent him to the hospital for three
days.

The suit called such conditions "dangerous, severely
overcrowded, degrading, and cruel."  It charges that to house
the steady stream of new arrivals, the prison system resorted to
three-man cells and lodged inmates in common areas.  

The suit is, "Bowers v. City Of Philadelphia, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-03229-LDD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

   (1) David Rudovsky OF Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, The
       Cast Iron Building, Suite 501, South 718 Arch Street,
       Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: 215-925-4400, Fax: 215-
       925-5365, E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com; and

   (2) Angus R. Love of Institutional Law Project, 718 Arch St.,
       Ste. 304S, Philadelphia, PA 19106, E-mail:
       alove@pailp.org.

Representing the defendants is Lynne A. Sitarski, City Of
Philadephia Law Department, Acting Chief Deputy City Solicitor,
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone:
215-683-5442, E-mail: lynne.sitarski@phila.gov.


PROTIVITI INC: Consultant Files Overtime, Benefits Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Protiviti, Inc., a subsidiary of Robert Half International,
Inc., was named as defendant in a class action filed in
California Superior Court, Reuters reports.

The suit was brought by Don Tran, a former salaried consultant,
on behalf terminated salaried consultants.  The suit alleges
that the consultants were misclassified as exempt employees and
denied overtime and other benefits.

Protiviti provides independent internal auditing and risk
consulting services to a variety of corporate clients.  The
company helps customers identify and manage operational and
technology-related risks.  Its risk consultants specialize in a
number of areas, including manufacturing and energy and
utilities.  Most of the company's professionals are veterans of
major accounting firms.

Protiviti operates mainly in the US; it also does business
elsewhere in the Americas, in the Asia/Pacific region, and in
Europe.  Overall, the company maintains about 50 offices.  


SONY MUSIC: Dr. Elmo Joins N.Y. Lawsuit Over Music Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco veterinarian Elmo "Dr. Elmo" Shropshire was added
as a plaintiff to a purported class action filed against Sony
Music on behalf of rock bands, The Allman Brothers Band and
Cheap Trick, over royalties for downloaded music, the AP
WorldStream reports.

In April, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Probstein & Weiner
filed the suit, alleging Sony Music is not paying its recording
artists 50% of the net licensing revenue received by Sony Music
in connection with the master recordings licensed to Apple and
other third-party providers of digital downloads, as Sony Music
is contractually obligated to do (Class Action Reporter, April
30, 2006).

Instead of paying its recording artists the approximate 30 cents
of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads, after
deducting payments to music publishers, the suit alleges that
Sony Music:

     -- wrongfully treats each download as a sale of a physical
        phonorecord (i.e. a CD or cassette tape);

     -- only paying on 85% of such "sales" (due to a fiction
        that there is breakage of product);

     -- deducting a 20% fee for container/packaging charges
        associated with the digital downloads (although there
        are none); and

     -- reducing its payments by a further 50% "audiofile"
        deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music
        recording artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per
        digital download.

According to the complaint, The Allman Brothers Band and Cheap
Trick and other members of the class action were damaged in the
amount of millions of dollars through the loss of royalty
payments, which Sony Music retained for its own benefit in
breach of the applicable contractual record royalty provisions.

An amended complaint filed earlier expands the types of
downloaded tunes where the musicians say they are being
shortchanged to include services like iTunes and Napster and
mobile phone ringtones, which the suit claims will be a $20
billion industry by the end of 2006.

Plaintiffs are asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to certify the case as a class action
covering all Sony artists who signed deals between 1962 and
2002.

The suit is "Allman et al v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03252-GBD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge George B.
Daniels.

Representing the defendant is Jonathan M. Sperling of Covington
& Burling LLP, 1330 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: 212.841.1153, E-mail: jsperling@cov.com.

Representing the defendants are Brian D. Caplan and Conor R.
Crowley both of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 907-0700 or (212) 907-0883,
Fax: (212) 818-0477 or (212) 883-7083, E-mail:
bcaplan@labaton.com or ccrowley@labaton.com.


STYLE TRONICS: Recalls Hair Dryers Lacking Electric Shock Guard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Style Tronics Inc. of Los Angeles, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 19,300 units of "Monica" and "Turbo 1200" hand-held hair
dryers.

The company said these electric hair dryers are not equipped
with an immersion protection plug to prevent electrocution if
the hair dryer falls into water.  Such electric shock protection
devices are required by industry standards for all electric
hand-held hair dryers.  No injuries were reported.

The recall involves two models of pistol-type hair dryers:

     -- the Monica hair dryer has its model name and number, SW-
        117, written on the handle.  It is made of black plastic
        and chrome, and the handle folds up; and

     -- the Turbo 1200 model has model number DS-507 written on
        the back of the handle.  The model name is written on
        the blower nozzle.  They are green and white and green.

These hair dryers were manufactured in China and are being sold
at independent discount stores nationwide from April 2004
through June 2005 for between $3 and $5.

Consumers are advised to stop using these hair dryers, and
contact Style Tronics Inc. for a full refund.

For more information, call Style Tronics Inc. toll-free at (888)
266-9272 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.


SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
certified as a class action the case, "In re SupportSoft, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222."

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SupportSoft,
Inc. from Jan. 20, 2004 to Oct. 1, 2004.

                        Case Background

Between Dec. 9, 2004 and Jan. 21, 2005, several purported
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company, the
company's chief executive officer, Radha R. Basu, and former
chief financial officer, Brian M. Beattie.  These actions were
consolidated on March 22, 2005 as "In re SupportSoft, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI" (Class Action
Reporter, March 23, 2006).

The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of
certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Jan. 20, 2004 and Oct. 1, 2004.  

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On July 15, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend it.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a Corrected Amended Complaint on August 19,
2005.  

On Nov. 21, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the Corrected Amended Complaint.  Defendants filed their
Answer to the Complaint on Dec. 14, 2005 and the case is
currently in discovery.  

Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Feb. 1, 2006 and a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion was scheduled for April 21, 2006.  

The suit is "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-5222 SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter A. Binkow of Glancy &
Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
pbinkow@glancylaw.com.  

Representing the company are Sherry Hartel Haus, David L.
Lansky, and Peri Nielsen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 493-9300,
E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com, dlansky@wsgr.com and
pnielsen@wsgr.com.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Orange City of Texas Sues Online Travel Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Orange, Texas filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against online
travel Web sites, alleging that the firms are underpaying taxes
to the city for brokering hotel rooms, The Beaumont Enterprise
reports.

Orange City is asking for actual damages, penalties and
injunctive relief as well as legal and court costs, but did not
specify an estimate of what these costs might be.

Named defendants in the suit are:  

      -- Hotels.com, L.P.,   
      -- Hotels.com GP, LLC,   
      -- Hotwire, Inc.,   
      -- Cheap Tickets, Inc.,   
      -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.,  
      -- Expedia, Inc.,  
      -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com),  
      -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.,   
      -- Maupintour Holding, LLC,   
      -- Orbitz, Inc.,  
      -- Orbitz, LLC,   
      -- priceline.com, Inc.,  
      -- Site59.com, LLC,   
      -- Travelocity.com, Inc.,   
      -- Travelocity.com, L.P.,   
      -- Travelweb, LLC,  
      -- Travelnow.com, Inc.,  
      -- Onetravel, Inc. (d/b/a onetravel.com), and   
      -- Does 1 through 1000

According to the complaint, these companies are shirking their
obligation to pay taxes on the portion of the room rate they
collect.  The travel companies allegedly access a full amount of
hotel and sales taxes and collect them, improperly remitting
that money to the local government.

The lawsuit cites an Orange municipal law mandating that each
entity "owning, operating, managing or controlling any hotel or
motel within the City of Orange, Texas, shall collect the tax
imposed."

But representatives of the online companies counter that their
fees for booking rooms are not subject to taxation.

Art Sackler, Executive Director for Interactive Travel Services  
Association, which represents a handful of the defendants, said
the trouble is the verbs used in the law cited don't apply,
explaining that these Web sites depend on the hotels to include
fees into the price they quote online.

He said the service is of particular benefit to smaller hotels
that don't have the resources to advertise nationwide.

Similar suits are filed in 19 counties or cities in the metro
area, including Cobb County, Dekalb County, Fulton County,
Augusta, Rome, and Alpharetta (Class Action Reporter, July 5,
2006).

The suit is "Orange City of Texas v. Hotels.com, LP et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-00413-RHC-KFG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Ron Clark, with
referral to Judge Keith F. Giblin.

Representing the plaintiff is Richard Lyle Coffman of The
Coffman Law Firm, 1240 Orleans, Suite 200, Beaumont, TX 77701,
Phone: 409/832-4767, Fax: 866/835-8250, E-mail: rc@cofflaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Del. Supreme Court Inquires into Milberg Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court
is investigating possible misconduct by attorneys involved in
litigation brought in the state by the class action law firm of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, according to The News Journal.

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman and partners David J. Bershad
and Steven G. Schulman were indicted in May by a federal grand
jury for allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than
150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200
million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20
years.  The first superseding indictments against them were for
alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money
laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false
tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and
causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture.  A copy of
the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc.

Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is
alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T.
Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary
lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit
of Mr. Lazar.  The indictment also names as co-conspirators,
paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J.
Vogel of Aventura, Florida.

In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not
guilty to the charges filed against them.  Mr. Lazar and Paul T.
Selzer also pleaded not guilty.

Milberg Weiss represented plaintiff investors in a 2004 case
against The Walt Disney Co. that went to trial in Georgetown.  
It also brought a suit in Delaware against Travelers Property
Casualty and Infinity Broadcasting.  In the Travelers Property
suit, Mr. Vogel allegedly received a $140,000 kickback in May
2001 for serving as the plaintiff in the Chancery Court case.  
In the Infinity Broadcasting suit, his wife is accused of
receiving a kickback of $86,923.

A trial date has not been set for the federal case, according to
the report.

The investigation in Delaware, which was undertaken at request
of Chancellor William B. Chandler III, the chief judge of the
Delaware Court of Chancery, is consistent with the Supreme
Court's goal of preserving confidence in the legal profession
and deterring lawyers from ethical misconduct, according to
Andrea L. Rocanelli, chief counsel of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel.

Lawrence A. Hamermesh, a Widener University School of Law
professor, said that the court, which is the nation's premier
forum for corporate disputes, has an institutional interest in
protecting itself from abuse.


UNITED STATES: Ind. Judge Orders Milberg to Disclose Finances
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kim Van Valer Shilts of the Johnson Superior Court No. 3
in Indiana issued orders against Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP that may require the firm to turn over all its
financial records since 1998, The New York Times reports.

The insurer, American United Life Insurance sought the financial
disclosure to know if Milberg Weiss paid, or promised to pay,
four plaintiffs who sued the insurer.  American United is
accused of improperly selling tax-deferred annuities wrapped in
retirement accounts that were themselves tax-deferred.

Milberg Weiss and partners David J. Bershad and Steven G.
Schulman were indicted in May by a federal grand jury for
allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 class
actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200
million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20
years.  The first superseding indictments against them were for
alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money
laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false
tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and
causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture.  A copy of
the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc.

Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is
alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T.
Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary
lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit
of Mr. Lazar.  The indictment also names as co-conspirators,
paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J.
Vogel of Aventura, Florida.

In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not
guilty to the charges filed against them.  Mr. Lazar and Paul T.
Selzer also pleaded not guilty.

The judge's order, made public on July 20, 2006, would require
the four allegedly paid plaintiffs to disclose their financial
records since 1998 and then, in a second phase, require that
Milberg Weiss disclose its financial records since 1998 unless
the judge concluded that there was no reason to pursue the
matter, according to the report.

Under Indiana court rules, Judge Shilts' order, which makes no
mention of confidentiality, cannot be appealed, but she may
narrow the discovery order at a future hearing.

Attorneys for Milberg Weiss opposed the disclosure of all
financial records as overly broad and intrusive.  Court papers
revealed that Milberg Weiss also asked that any records be
sealed.  


UNITED STATES: Chaplains File Discrimination Suit in N.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Navy faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida that alleges
discrimination against some chaplains in the service, The
Baptist Press reports.

Filed on April 28, 2006 and also naming the Secretary of the
Navy as a defendant, the suit claims that the Navy violated the
Constitution in its promotion and retention of chaplains.  Its
claims include:

      -- unconstitutional composition of chaplain selection
         boards,

      -- establishing denominational preferences,

      -- illegal quotas for promotions and career opportunities,
         and

      -- creating a religious patronage system within the
         Chaplain Corps.

The lawsuit, filed by 41 current or former chaplains, also
contends that the Navy created a pervasive climate of bias,
animosity and deceit and violated non-liturgical chaplains' free
speech and religious rights.

Currently, according to The Baptist Press, plaintiffs are
awaiting a ruling on a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice
to move the case to district court in Washington, D.C.  However,
plaintiffs' attorney Arthur Schulcz is opposing that motion.

The suit is "Gibson, et al. v  The United States Navy, et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00187-MCR-MD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida under Judge M. Casey
Rodgers with referral to Miles Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is Arthur Andrew Schulcz, Sr.,
Arthur Schulcz, Sr., PA, 2521 Drexel St., Vienna, VA 22180, US,
Phone: 703-645-4010, Fax: 703-645-4011, E-mail:
arthur.schulcz@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants is Daniel Bensing, Department Of
Justice, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, Phone: 202-
305-0693, Fax: 202-616-8460, E-mail: Daniel.Bensing@USDOJ.gov.


WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached in Workers' Suit Over Union Dues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Federation of State Employees settled a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington by 10 state employees who were fired from their jobs
for refusing to pay union dues, The Heartland Institute reports.

Under the settlement, which was reached in June, the WFSE agreed
to remedy its violations, rehire the fired employees, provide
them back pay, and cover nominal damages and attorneys' fees.

Commenting on the deal, Stefan Gleason, vice president of the
National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), which provided legal
assistance to the fired workers, said that the workers should
never have had to file a lawsuit in order for WFSE officials not
to trample their basic constitutional rights.

                       Case Background

Filed on March 15, 2006 by current and former state workers, the
suit alleges that workers' due process rights were violated,
since union officials did not say how their dues were being
spent (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 20, 2006).  

Some workers also claimed in the suit that they have been fired,
because they refused to pay union dues or the legally required
alternative fees.  Plaintiffs named in the suit are:

      -- Andre Opsal,
      -- Darrel Mollenhour,
      -- Debbie Koepp,
      -- James Szpek,
      -- Joanne Rice,
      -- Kimberly Johnson,
      -- Liz Flugel,
      -- Maxine Dunkelman,
      -- Patricia Woodward, and
      -- Stephen Sergi.

Backed by the NRTW, the statewide class action sought to stop
the Washington Federation of State Employees from forcing 40,000
workers to pay union dues (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 16,
2006).  

The suit is "Opsal, et al. v. Washington Federation of State
Employees, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00079-EFS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under
Judge Edward F. Shea.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Ross Matthews of
Phillabaum Ledlin Matthews & Sheldon, 421 West Riverside, Suite
900, Spokane, WA 99201-0413, Phone: 509-838-6055, Fax:
15096251909, E-mail: sm@spokelaw.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IONATRON INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Ionatron, Inc. from June
27, 2005 to May 10, 2006.

The complaint charges Ionatron and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that the company's JIN counter-IED units were not
         field-ready;

      -- specifically, that the company's JIN counter-IED units
         would require a more rugged platform to meet the U.S.
         Government's specifications for being field-ready;

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company would
         experience delays in developing a field-ready JIN
         counter-IED unit; and

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's
         statements concerning the JIN counter-IED technology
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 10, 2006, after the market closed, Ionatron announced
that the U.S. Government had determined that the company's JIN
counter-IED technology, which the company previously touted as
being field ready, required a more rugged platform.

Ionatron reported that it would work with the U.S. Government to
"identify more suitable platforms" for the JIN counter-IED
units. On this news, shares of Ionatron plummeted more than 39.5
percent over the next four trading days, losing a total of
$5.07, to close, on May 16, 2006, at $7.76 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact of Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-
667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.  


JOS A BANK: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc. between Jan. 5, 2006 and June 7, 2006.

The action is pending against defendants Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc. and Robert N. Wildrick, President and Chief Executive
Officer.

The complaint charges Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. and Robert N.
Wildrick with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the Class Period concerning the company's
inventories and their impact on the company's business and
finances.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company
failed to disclose the following:

      -- the company had overinvested in inventories of fall
         clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock
         inventories of seasonal merchandise, in light of
         demand, that carried over into the first quarter of
         2006;

      -- these inventories were at such excessive levels that
         the company resorted to very aggressive promotional
         pricing in February and March 2006 which deeply
         discounted the prices of the merchandise, discounts
         significantly greater than the company's historical
         practice, in order to move the merchandise and make
         room for new season merchandise within the financial
         constraints in which the company operated and financed
         its inventories and new store openings;

      -- the company's gross profit margins were substantially
         reduced in February and March 2006 by reason of the
         inventory and pricing actions taken by defendants which
         caused the company's profit margins and profits in
         February and March 2006 to shrink dramatically even as
         sales revenues increased, which represented an extreme
         departure from Jos. A. Bank's historical pattern; and

      -- Defendant Wildrick, while he was touting the current
         and future operational and financial strengths of Jos.
         A. Bank and the 52% appreciation in the company's stock
         price in 2005 on the NASDAQ was selling large blocks of
         his personal stock.

Then, on June 8, 2006, defendants dropped a bombshell announcing
that the company's net income for the first quarter of 2006 had
fallen 13% even as sales revenues increased 18%.  The market was
stunned by defendants' belated disclosures.  The company's
common stock fell 29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per
share on June 8, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 25, 2006, move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. and Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The Wanamaker
Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Filing of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP said that a class
action has been filed by in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, against Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc. and certain of its officers.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company during the period 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 Rule10b-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.

Interested parties have until Sept. 15, 2006, to move the Court
for appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.

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


RAMBUS INC: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Rambus Inc. from Jan. 14,
2004 through July 18, 2006.  Defendants include Rambus and
certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning Rambus'
improper and undisclosed practice of backdating options given to
Rambus executives.

Such a scheme improperly provides the executive with an unearned
benefit -- instead of the option being priced at the market
price of the shares, it is priced at a lower price.  

The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Rambus' earning between 2003
and 2005.

Under accounting rules, back-dating the option is deemed the
payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as
an expense, but Rambus did not properly account for the options
granted.  

As a result, Rambus has been forced to restate its previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal years 2003-2005.  In
addition, the company has stated that the Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q filed with respect to each of these fiscal years, and
the financial statements included in the company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006,
should no longer be relied upon, and will be restated.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Sept. 18, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


VONAGE HOLDINGS Glancy Binkow Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp.
pursuant or traceable to the company's May 23, 2006 initial
public offering and also on behalf of Vonage customers who
purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock through the
Vonage Directed Share Program.

The complaint charges Vonage, the IPO underwriters and certain
of the Company's officers and directors with violations of
federal securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts concerning
Vonage's business and operations, among other things.

Vonage, through its subsidiaries, provides broadband telephone
services primarily in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Complaint alleges that in connection with the company's IPO,
defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

      -- the company did not adequately inform investors about
         Vonage's management team; and

      -- the company did not adequately inform Vonage customers
         who participated in the company's Directed Share
         Program concerning the customers' obligations to
         purchase allocated shares.

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

As a result of investors' concerns, and the news that serious
technical and logistical issues plagued the company's Directed
Share Program, Vonage shares declined more than 30 percent
during the seven days following the IPO.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than August 1,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (888)
773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


ZALE CORP: Brower Piven Announces Filing of N.Y. Securities 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
Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  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. 18,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


                            *********


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  * * *