---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 83

                            Headlines

ACS STATE: Calif. Judge Sides With Firm in Suit Over Contracts
ARKANSAS: Ex-Teacher Amends Suit V. Van Buren School District
AUDIBLE INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
BROOKDALE INT'L: Recalls Potentially Faulty Escape Smoke Hoods
CARLISLE TIRE: Mich. Court Denies Class Status to RV Tires Suit

COLORADO CUSTOM: Alerts of Defect of Mountain Climbing Anchor
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Calif. Court Nixes 3rd Amended Complaint
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Engineer Overtime Lawsuit for $14.9M
GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Lawsuit in Canada Over Faulty Engines

HILTON HOTEL: Settles Suit Over Molds in Kalia Tower for $1.8M
KOMATSU ZENOAH: Recalls RedMax Blowers for Possible Fire Hazard
KONGZHONG CORP: Court Okays $3.5M Settlement of Securities Suit
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING: Faces Overcharging Suit in Indiana Court
REMY INT'L: Continues to Face Prisoners' Wage Lawsuit in S.C.

SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Stock Suit
SENTOSA RECRUITMENT: Nurses File Employment Suit in Wash. D.C.
SHINDAIWA: Receives Report of Fire Related to Backpack Blowers
STARWOOD HOTELS: Settlement Trial in Resort Fee Suit Set June
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Grants Plaintiffs' Motion in "Manville"

TYSON FOODS: Ex-Workers Start Receiving Checks From $8.4M Deal
UNITED RENTALS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
UNITED STATES: CPSC Bans Sale of Easter Eggs on Choking Hazard
VALENTINO'S RESTAURANT: Settles EEOC Nev. Sexual Harassment Suit
VERIZON INFORMATION: N.Y. Workers Sue Over Compensation Policies

VON MAUR: EEOC Lodges Bias Suit in Iowa Over Hiring Practices
WAL-MART STORES: Tex. Woman Files Suit in Ark. Over Medical Care
WAL-MART STORES: Utah Couple Lodges Suit Over Early-Bird Sales


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Stull, Stull Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
ASTEA INTERNATIONAL: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in Pa.
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Paskowitz Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit

FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Fraud Suit
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in La.

PIXELPLUS CO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ACS STATE: Calif. Judge Sides With Firm in Suit Over Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda B. Quinn of the San Diego Superior Court ruled that
ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., which installs and operates
red-light cameras at intersections throughout California, did
not violate public policy through contingency-fee-based
contracts with cities, The San Diego Union Tribune reports.

Attorneys in the statewide class action contended the contracts
were illegal since the Company made money only if its cameras
captured motorists running red traffic lights and the drivers
paid the citations.

During three-week trial, the plaintiffs' attorneys argued
unsuccessfully that under the contracts, the Company, rather
than law enforcement, decided who was ticketed and who was not,
making the system less about public safety and accuracy than it
was about profit.

The lawyers requested that a portion of the Company's profits be
repaid to the plaintiffs, thousands of California motorists who
paid fines and penalties for camera citations issued under these
contracts.  In San Diego, that includes people who were ticketed
from 1998 through mid-2001.  The total amount could have been up
to $23 million, attorneys said.

The Company's legal team though argued that it generally didn't
exercise any discretion when issuing citations.  They explained
that the essentially the camera snapped a photo when a motorist
ran a red light and the courts decided whether the driver was
guilty.

Judge Quinn agreed, stating in a written ruling that the
contracts were valid.  She specifically wrote that under the
contracts, the Company agreed to provide witnesses to
municipalities to testify about how the camera system worked.
However, there was no evidence that the witnesses offered
opinions about a person's guilt, according to her.

In addition, Judge Quinn also noted that the cities controlled
the location of the cameras, the timing under which photos were
taken and other aspects of capturing evidence.  Therefore, the
cities and not the Company ultimately decided who would be
ticketed and who would not.

Lawyers for the Company also argued during the trial that the
cities wanted the contingency-fee contracts, because it made the
system "pay as you go."  They also argued that the Company
agreed to this system even though they would generate less
profit than flat-fee contracts, the only kind the Legislature
has allowed since 2004.

Timothy Blood, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, told The San
Diego Union Tribune that he and the other attorneys involved in
the case plan to appeal Judge Quinn's decision.

For more details, contact Timothy G. Blood of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite
1900, San Diego, California 92101-4297, (San Diego Co.), Phone:
619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com;and Eugene G. Iredale, 105 West "F"
Street, Fourth Floor, San Diego, California 92101, (San Diego
Co.), Phone: 619-233-1525, Fax: 619-233-3221, Web site:
http://www.iredalelaw.com.


ARKANSAS: Ex-Teacher Amends Suit V. Van Buren School District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jones, a former Van Buren, Arkansas teacher amended his
class action over uncompensated duties that is pending in
Crawford County Circuit Court against the Van Buren School
District, The Times Record reports.

C. Brian Meadors of Fort Smith and Mark Burnette of Little Rock,
both representing Mr. Jones, filed the amended complaint, which
made additional claims that Mr. Jones was unfairly dismissed
from his position for making critical statements about the
school district in violation of his civil rights.

Mr. Jones, who was terminated from his position as a teacher at
Coleman Junior High in January, originally filed the suit along
with another teacher, Allen Wolfe, on Aug. 22, 2003, asking for
payment to teachers who had worked uncompensated duty time.  Mr.
Wolfe recently settled his claim and was dismissed from the
lawsuit.

The two claims added to the complaint were an appeal of Mr.
Jones' termination under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act and an
allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.

Superintendent Merle Dickerson notified Mr. Jones on Jan. 6 that
he was recommending his termination, because he missed a faculty
meeting on Jan. 4, 2005, and left a faculty meeting without
permission on Jan. 2.  Mr. Dickerson said the actions were a
failure to perform his duties and "insubordination."  The school
board later upheld the recommendation.

The complaint states that the termination violates the Teacher
Fair Dismissal Act and "was arbitrary, capricious and
discriminatory in that other employees are not subjected to
similar discipline for the similar alleged infractions."

Mr. Jones denies being absent from contractual duty time on Jan.
2.  He is asking to be reinstated to his position as a teacher,
back pay and restitution for other employment benefits lost
because of the termination.

Additionally, Mr. Jones is alleging in the complaint that his
civil rights were violated, because he was terminated after
sending critical complaints about the school district to a state
representative.

According to the suit, Mr. Jones sent an e-mail to state Rep.
Rick Green on Jan. 5 asking that an investigation and audit be
conducted about several practices in the school district.  A
school resource officer sent the e-mail to Mr. Dickerson that
same day.

When Mr. Dickerson asked for advice on a response, the officer
said in part of the e-mail that: "these people thrive on chaos
and the only thing they understand and respect is overwhelming,
crushing force, which of course we have become too civilized to
use."  In an e-mailed response, Mr. Dickerson said, "I
anticipate crushing force."

The complaint alleges that Mr. Dickerson's "crushing force was
to terminate Mr. Jones' employment" and he did these actions
"intentionally and with malice and with full knowledge that he
was violating clearly established constitutional rights."

The amended complaint regarding the lawsuit was filed after the
Arkansas Supreme Court released an opinion on March 16 affirming
the Crawford County Circuit Court's decision to certify the case
as a class action.  The school district had appealed the class
certification.

The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school
district between August 1998 and present who has performed
"uncompensated non-instructional duties."

The recent filings ask for a preliminary injunction against the
school district to void "waivers of uncompensated time" that
were gathered from members of the class and to prohibit "any
contact by Van Buren School District to potential class members
on the issues raised in this lawsuit."

Mr. Jones is asking for compensation for the duty time, pre and
post judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
other relief to which he and the class are entitled.  He is also
asking for compensatory and punitive damages.

For more details, contact C. Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson &
Barry, PLLC, 315 North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith,
Arkansas 72902-0848, Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911, Fax:
479-785-0254, Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and Mark T.
Burnette of Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &
Sneddon, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas
72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.), Phone: 501-378-7870, Fax: 501-375-
1940, Web site: http://www.mbbwi.com.


AUDIBLE INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, styled "Carter v. Audible, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-01027-JAG-MCA."

Starting on or about February 22, 2005, several class actions
were filed against the Company and two of its executives.  The
plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent a class
consisting of all persons (other than its officers and directors
and their affiliates) who purchased the Company's securities
between November 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005 (the Class
Period).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by failing
to make complete and accurate disclosures concerning its future
plans and prospects.

The individual defendants are also alleged to be liable under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  All of the defendants are
alleged to have sold stock at inflated prices during the Class
Period.

In December 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey consolidated the class action, appointed a group of
lead plaintiffs and appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.

By prior agreement, the plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint was filed on February 14, 2006, and the defendant's
motion to dismiss will be due on or about April 15, 2006.

The suit is "Carter v. Audible, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
01027-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with
referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;

     (2) William J. Pinilis of Pinilis Halpern, LLP, 237 South
         Street, Morristown, NJ 07960, Phone: (973) 401-1111, E-
         mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, Suite 500 West, 1100 New York Avenue, NW,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert A. Assuncao of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US
         LLP, 379 Thornall Street, Eighth Floor, Edison, NJ
         08837-2226, Phone: 732-590-1850, E-mail:
         robert.assuncao@piperrudnick.com; and

    (ii) John E. Keefe, Jr. of Lynch Keefe Bartels, ESQS., 830
         Broad Street, Suite 1, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702-4216,
         Phone: (732) 224-9400, E-mail: jkeefe@lkblaw.com.


BROOKDALE INT'L: Recalls Potentially Faulty Escape Smoke Hoods
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brookdale International Systems Inc., of Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, voluntarily recalls 290,000 units of EVAC-
U8(TM) and EVAC+(TM) Emergency Escape Smoke Hoods.

The Company said the emergency escape smoke hoods could fail to
work properly, exposing the user to harmful carbon monoxide,
which could seriously compromise their ability to escape the
fire threat.  No injuries have been reported.

These smoke hoods are one-time use respiratory devices that
assist users with breathing while escaping a fire.  They include
a transparent plastic hood that covers the user's head, and a
canister that filters out toxic gases. "EVAC+(TM)" or "EVAC-
U8(TM)" is printed on the canister.

The smoke hoods were manufactured in Canada and sold at Web
sites, safety products retailers, catalogs, and travel stores
from September 2000 through March 2006 for about $75 for the
"EVAC-U8(TM)" and about $150 for the "EVAC+(TM)."

Consumers are advised to stop using the smoke hood devices
immediately and contact Brookdale for a prorated refund.

Pictures of the recalled smoke hoods:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06144a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06144b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06144c.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Phone: (866) 823-4416 between 8 a.m. and 9
p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, Web site:
http://www.evacsafety.com.


CARLISLE TIRE: Mich. Court Denies Class Status to RV Tires Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
denied national class action status to a lawsuit initiated by
two Michigan men against Aiken, South Carolina-based Carlisle
Tire & Wheel, a maker of RV tires, The Associated Press reports.

In dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen
pointed out that there is no proof of common legal issues that
would justify expanding the case.

Jeffrey Hunsaker, of Byron Center, and Dennis Drooger, of
Holland, filed the suit back in January 2005 in Kalamazoo,
Michigan.  They sued the Company for tires used in RVs that they
say are defective and pose a safety risk, (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

The two sought class action status to allow them to open the
case to Carlisle tire owners as far back as 1999.  Both are also
seeking a recall of the tires and monetary compensation (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

According to court records, Mr. Hunsaker was towing a year-old
camper to northern Michigan in 2004 when it began shaking and
rattling.  He pulled over and found the tire's tread had
separated.  The same thing happened on the way home with a
different tire, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

On the other hand, Mr. Drooger said he was pulling a trailer to
Ludington State Park in the fall of 2003, when he and his wife
heard a "thud."  He later discovered that a tire had lost its
tread and the belts inside had unraveled.  A friend with an RV
on the same trip had a similar failure, according to Mr.
Drooger, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

The Company vehemently contends that the claims are groundless
and pointed out that its historical failure rate since it went
into business in 1917 is less than 1 percent.  It also noted
that it pays claims within the warranty period, (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

However, Brian Masternak, the plaintiffs' attorney argued in a
court filing that the defective tires "impose economic losses on
consumers, cause other property damage to their vehicles, and
create a major inconvenience to recreational travelers," (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

He adds, "Worse yet, the Carlisle tires at issue also present a
significant safety risk."  The Company was given until January
31, 2006 to respond to the plaintiffs' request for class action
status (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2005).

The suit is styled, "Drooger et al v. Carlisle Companies, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00073-RAE," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan under Senior Judge Richard
Alan Enslen.  Representing the plaintiffs is, Brian J. Masternak
of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP (Grand Rapids), 900 Fifth Third
Ctr., 111 Lyon St., NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487, Phone: (616)
752-2205, E-mail: bmasternak@wnj.com.

Representing the defendants is Daniel N. Sharkey of Butzel Long
(Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Ste. 100, Detroit, MI 48226,
Phone: (313) 983-6909, E-mail: sharkey@butzel.com.


COLORADO CUSTOM: Alerts of Defect of Mountain Climbing Anchor
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Colorado Custom Hardware (CCH) Inc., of Laramie, Wyoming,
voluntarily recalled 4,100 units of camming anchor used in
climbing.

The Company said the cables that support climbers using these
devices can fail, causing climbers to fall.  CCH Inc. has
received one report of an anchor cable failing a climber during
use.

These camming anchors or "Alien Cams" are devices used as both a
precautionary measure to stop a climber in the event of falls,
or used to actually support the climber.  Climbers insert the
device into cracks or crevasses in rock and it grips the sides
of the crack.

The recalled units are marked with a small center punch dimple
at the base of the round ball where the axle goes through the
cable eye.  They have production dates, from November 2004
(written as 1104) through December 2005 (written as 1205), which
can be found on the bottom of the handle puller.

The camming anchors were manufactured in the U.S. and sold at
climbing stores nationwide and Web retailers from November 2004
through December 2005 for between $50 and $60.

Consumers are advised to stop using these devices immediately
and contact the firm for instructions on how to have the units
repaired.

Picture of the recalled camming anchor:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06141a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06141b.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Phone: (800) 776-9185 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. MT Monday through Friday, Web site:
http://www.aliencamsbycch.com.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Calif. Court Nixes 3rd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (Nasdaq: COCO) said the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granted its motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint in federal securities
class action filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal,
Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

Since July 8, 2004, various putative class actions were filed by
certain alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock on
behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's
common stock during a specified class period from August 27,
2003 through either June 23, 2004 or July 30, 2004, depending on
the complaint (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2006).

The complaints allege that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20,
2006).

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
20, 2006).

On November 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
are now consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated
amended complaint was filed in February 2005.

The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during
a specified class period from August 27, 2003 through July 30,
2004.  On September 6, 2005, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

On October 3, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a second
consolidated amended complaint.  On January 23, 2006, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiff's second consolidated amended complaint, without
prejudice, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2006).  A third
amended complaint was later filed.

The complaint though was dismissed with prejudice and will not
be heard again by the district court.  The plaintiff though can
opt to appeal the decision to an appellate court.

The suit is "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Manuel
L. Real.  The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
partially dismissed the consolidated class action against
DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Bloomberg News reports.  The suit
was brought by shareholders after lower-than-expected "Shrek 2"
home video sales depressed share values.

Essentially, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer granted the Company's
request to dismiss the consolidated class action.  Plaintiffs
can amend the suit with respect to some of the allegations, but
cannot re-file claims that the Company misled investors in the
prospectus for its 2004 initial public offering.

The suit is "Beverly Pfeffer, et al. v. DreamWorks Animation
SKG, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-3966," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail:
         info@abbeygardy.com;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E-
         mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com;

     (4) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

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

     (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (8) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;

     (9) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com; and

    (10) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Engineer Overtime Lawsuit for $14.9M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts and counsel representing a class of current and
former computer programmers in Electronic Arts' California
studios reached settlement on claims for overtime compensation.

Under the terms of the settlement, the claims of the alleged
class will be dismissed, and Electronic Arts will make a total
payment of $14.9 million to cover all claims by the class
members, plaintiffs' attorney fees, any incentive payments to
the named plaintiffs and all administrative costs of the
settlement.  Eligible class members will receive notice and a
claim form from the settlement administrator.

Any portion of the settlement fund that is unclaimed by class
members will be go to the Ronald McDonald House Charities and to
establish scholarships at five selected universities for female
and under-represented minority students interested in studying
interactive entertainment.  The five universities are Carnegie
Mellon University, Cornell University, Georgia Tech, Stanford
University, and Morehouse/Spelman College.

Settlement of the case, which is pending in the Superior Court
of San Mateo County, California, must be approved by the Court
before it becomes effective.  Electronic Arts does not expect
the settlement to have a significant impact on its fiscal fourth
quarter 2006 financial results.

Plaintiffs and the class were represented in the litigation by
Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. and Todd S. Heyman of the Boston law firm
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (http://www.shulaw.com)and Robert C.
Schubert and Miranda Kolbe of the San Francisco law firm
Schubert & Reed LLP (http://www.schubert-reed.com).

Electronic Arts was represented by Lynne C. Hermle and Jessica
R. Perry of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
(http://www.orrick.com).

Electronic Arts -- http://www.ea.com-- headquartered in Redwood
City, California, is an interactive entertainment software
Company.  Founded in 1982, the Company develops, publishes, and
distributes interactive software worldwide for videogame
systems, personal computers and the Internet.  Electronic Arts
markets its products under four brand names: EA SPORTS(TM),
EA(TM), EA SPORTS BIG(TM) and POGO(TM).  In fiscal 2005, EA
posted revenues of $3.1 billion and had 31 titles that sold more
than one million copies.


GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Lawsuit in Canada Over Faulty Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court against
General Motors Canada Limited.

The lawsuit alleges that that between 1995 and 2003, General
Motors sold approximately one million vehicles in Canada with
faulty intake manifold gaskets.  The engine parts have failed
prematurely in tens of thousands of vehicles, causing engine
damage.

"Despite knowing that the engines were defective, GM took no
steps to notify owners and recall the vehicles," said Louis
Sokolov, the lead lawyer acting for the plaintiff class.  "By
failing to recall the faulty part, tens of thousands of GM
customers have suffered expensive repairs to their vehicles, for
which GM now refuses to take responsibility.  The owners of
these vehicles unfortunately have no recourse but to seek
compensation in the courts".

A detailed statement of claim will be filed within the next 30
days.  The action will proceed in the Superior Court of Justice
of the Province of Ontario.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- the world's
largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for
75 years.  Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 327,000
people around the world.  With global headquarters in Detroit,
GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries.

For further information contact: Louis Sokolov, Phone: (416)
979-6439, E-mail: louissokolov@sgmlaw.com.


HILTON HOTEL: Settles Suit Over Molds in Kalia Tower for $1.8M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Eden Hifo approved a $1.8 million settlement of a
class action over mold infestation at the Hilton Hawaiian
Village, reports say.

Hilton Hotels Corp. reached the agreement with 3,058 people who
were hotel guests between June 14 and July 23, 2002.  Under the
settlement, Hilton will pay the guests either 150 dollars in
travel coupons or 50 dollars in cash for each night they spent
at the hotel.  Attorneys involved in the case estimate eligible
claimants at 29,000 worldwide.  The settlement does not include
attorney's fees.  A hearing to decide on the matter is set July.

Honolulu attorney Thomas Grande filed the suit in Circuit Court
in 2003 on behalf of Florida resident Jeffrey Moffett, who is
seeking a refund on the rent he paid for a room in the Kalia
Tower, before the Tower was closed because of mold, Associated
Press Newswires reports (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2003).
His lawsuit contended that Hilton knew of the excessive and
extensive mold growth in the Kalia rooms shortly after the Tower
opened in May 2001. The lawsuit charged the Hilton with
deception and nondisclosure.  The lawsuit did not make any
health-related claims, but sought room rent refunds.

Hilton has sued the 18 contractors that built the Tower,
alleging they are responsible for the defects that caused the
mold.  Hilton is spending $55 million to repair the Kali Tower,
which cost $95 million to build.

Representing the plaintiffs are Honolulu law firms, Davis Levin
Livingston Grande (http://www.davislevin.com/)and Price Okamoto
Himeno & Lum (Phone: 808-538-1113, Fax: 808-533-0549).


KOMATSU ZENOAH: Recalls RedMax Blowers for Possible Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Komatsu Zenoah America, doing business as RedMax, of Norcross,
Georgia, voluntarily recalls 170,000 units of RedMax gas-powered
backpack blowers.

The Company said the muffler support bracket can break, creating
an opening in the muffler body.  Hot exhaust gases can then
escape from the muffler and could melt the fuel tank or ignite
grease, oil or debris around the fuel tank, posing a fire
hazard.

RedMax received five reports of units that have caught fire when
hot exhaust gases from damaged mufflers ignited grease, oil or
debris around the area of the fuel tank.  No injuries have been
reported.

The RedMax gasoline-powered backpack blowers are red and black
with a white fuel tank.  Model numbers EB6200, EB7000, EB7001,
and EB7001RH can be found on the body of the blowers along with
"RedMax," "Zenoah," and "Komatsu."

The blowers were manufactured in Japan and Georgia and sold by
RedMax dealers nationwide from December 1996 through December
2005 for about $530.

Consumers are advised to stop using the backpack blowers
immediately and contact RedMax for a dealer location nearest
them to schedule a free inspection and a free repair if
necessary.  Consumers who have registered their equipment will
receive direct notification about this recall from RedMax.

Picture of the recalled backpack blower:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06147.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06147.jpg.

Consumer Contact: RedMax, Phone (866) 217-4152, Web site:
http://www.redmax.com.


KONGZHONG CORP: Court Okays $3.5M Settlement of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the settlement agreement
reached by KongZhong Corporation (Nasdaq: KONG), a leading
provider of wireless value-added services and one of leading
wireless Internet portals in China, to resolve a securities
class action arising out of the Company's 2004 initial public
offering.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay $3.5 million to
resolve all claims asserted against it and the other defendants
in this action.

Persons who purchased or sold the Company's ADSs between July 9,
2004 and August 17, 2004 may be eligible to recover pursuant to
the settlement.

The Company set aside the settlement amount of $3.5 million in
an escrow account and made a provision during the third quarter
of 2005.

KongZhong Corporation believes that it has been in compliance
with securities laws and made appropriate and necessary
disclosures in its prospectus dated July 9, 2004 at the time of
the initial public offering.

The Company nevertheless agreed to this settlement to avoid the
expense, distraction and uncertainty associated with continued
litigation without admitting any fault, liability or wrongdoing.

KongZhong Corporation is a leading provider of wireless value
added services and one of China's leading wireless Internet
portals.

The Company delivers wireless value added services to consumers
in China through multiple technology platforms including
wireless access protocol (WAP), multimedia messaging service
(MMS), JAVA, short messaging service (SMS), interactive voice
response (IVR), and color rig back tone (CRBT).

The Company also operates a wireless Internet portal which
enables users to access media and entertainment content directly
from their mobile phones.

For more details, contact Investor Contacts, JP Gan, Chief
Financial Officer, Phone: +86-10-8857-6000, Email:
ir@kongzhong.com or Tip Fleming, ChristensenIR, Phone: +1-917-
412-3333, Email: tfleming@ChristensenIR.com.

Media Contact: Xiaohu Wang, Manager, Phone: +86-10-8857-6000, E-
mail: xiaohu@kongzhong.com.


NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING: Faces Overcharging Suit in Indiana Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neighborhood Housing Partnership in Fort Wayne, Indiana is
facing a suit over allegations it inflated prices for homes it
sold to eight people, The Journal Gazette reports.

The suit was filed April 21 in Allen Superior Court by:

     -- Nicole Gaunt
     -- James Hagadorn,
     -- Ulandra Edwards,
     -- James Krewson,
     -- Valenia Walker,
     -- Tennise Woods,
     -- Tracy Alderman, and
     -- Brandy Carter

The suit alleges fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy, breach of
contract and breach of warranties on the housing partnership's
part.  It is asking for class action status.  Plaintiffs are:
Defendants are:

     -- NHP Realty Inc.,
     -- Jerry L. Thomas Appraisal Services,
     -- Jerry Thomas
     -- Jeanie Wiggs, a Thomas employee

Ms. Wiggs had been asked to permanently surrender her appraiser
license to the Indiana Real Estate Appraiser Licensure and
Certification Board.  She is under investigation for four
questionable appraisals.

According to the report, the suit alleges the housing
partnership and NHP Realty discouraged clients from getting
their own real estate agents, keeping clients from getting a
fair and independent assessment of what the homes were worth.

The Neighborhood Housing is under full investigation by the
office of Attorney General Steve Carter, who filed an
application for a receiver to the agency.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs is Matthew J. Elliott of Beckman
Lawson, LLP, 800 Standard Federal Plaza, Fort Wayne, Indiana
46802 (Allen Co.), Phone: 260-422-0800, Fax: 260-420-1013.

Lawyer for the Neighborhood Housing is William Swift of Swift &
Finlayson, 116 E. Berry Street, Suite 590 Fort Wayne, Indiana
46802-2405 (Allen Co.), Phone: 260-423-4422, Fax: 260-423-4427.


REMY INT'L: Continues to Face Prisoners' Wage Lawsuit in S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Remy International, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class
action in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County, South
Carolina over alleged wage violations by the Company's former
subsidiary, Williams Technologies, Inc. (Williams).

In January 2004, a class action on behalf of all prisoners who
worked in a South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC)
Services Training Program at Lieber Correctional Institute was
brought against the SCDC and Williams, which was sold to
Caterpillar, Inc., in September 2004.

The plaintiffs claim that:

     (1) they should have been paid industry prevailing wages
         under a South Carolina prison industries authorization
         statute;

     (2) the SCDC and Williams violated the Payment of Wages
         Act; and

     (3) the SCDC and Williams committed a tort under the South
         Carolina Tort Claims Act.

Under the terms of the sale, the Company retained liability and
responsibility for this claim.  The Circuit Court for Dorchester
County granted summary judgment to the Company on April 21,
2005, and decertified the Plaintiff class.

On January 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed an appellate brief and
Williams responded to this brief in March 2006.  The Company
continues to deny the material allegations of the complaint and
any wrongdoing.


SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura
slated a June 19, 2006 final approval hearing date for the
settlement of a securities class action filed against Salem
Communications Corp.

On March 9, 2005, Pipefitters, Locals 522 and 633 Pension Trust
Fund filed a Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws against the Company, its directors, certain of
its officers and certain underwriters of the Company's April
2004 public offering of Class A common stock.

The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased the Company's equity securities pursuant
to or traceable to that offering.

The complaint alleges that offering documents contained
misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's fixed assets
and internal controls.  It asserts claims under Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and seeks rescission or
damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
February 7, 2006, which provides for a full settlement of these
claims in exchange for payment of $1.85 million to be paid by
the Company and its insurance carrier.

The settlement is subject to certain conditions set forth in the
stipulation, including final court approval following notice to
the class members.

The Court granted plaintiff's unopposed motion and application
for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 27, 2006 and
set a schedule for providing notice to the class members.

The hearing for final approval of the settlement is set for June
19, 2006.  The Company recognized expenses of $0.7 million
related to this settlement.

The suit is "Pipefitters Locals 52 & 633 Pension v. Salem
Communications Corporation, Case No. CIV-232456," filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Ventura.
Representing the plaintiffs is Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 9601 Wilshire Blvd,
Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90210, Phone: (310) 859-3100, Fax:
(310) 278-2148, Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


SENTOSA RECRUITMENT: Nurses File Employment Suit in Wash. D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed by 27 Filipino nurses and one physical therapist
against Sentosa Recruitment Agency is filed in the Department of
Justice's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practices in Washington D.C., according to
Philippine News.com.  Earlier, Sentosa denied knowledge of a
reported class action filed against it and several nursing home
employers.

The suit charges the Company, which runs a network of nursing
homes based in New York, with breach of contract.  The
plaintiffs claim they were assigned to a different employer and
not to the one stated in their contracts.

"When they arrived, they were surprised they were not introduced
to the Company (they were supposed to work for)," said lawyer
Felix Vinluan before a meeting between his clients and Consulate
officials in the Philippine Consulate office.

Mr. Vinluan and the nurses who spoke at the forum also
complained of non-payment of overtime, non-payment of shift
differential, shorter hours, abusive supervisors, being made to
over work.

The Sentosa Care Group has filed a $50 million countersuit
against the nurses and physical therapists including their
lawyer for breach of contract and tortuous interference.

Based in Manila, Sentosa Recruitment Agency --
http://www.sentosarecruitment.com/-- was formed by nurses, for
nurses who seek permanent employment in the U.S.  Its group of
professional nurses, immigration specialists and attorneys
assist applicants in the immigration and employment process.  It
also has representatives in different provinces around the
Philippines to assist locally.  Sentosa's immigration lawyers
perform all filing, processing, and follow-ups with Immigration
and Naturalization Service.


SHINDAIWA: Receives Report of Fire Related to Backpack Blowers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Shindaiwa, of Tualatin, Oregon, voluntarily recalls 87,000 units
of Shindaiwa backpack blowers.

The Company said the backpack blower's muffler support bracket
can break, creating an opening in the muffler body.  Hot exhaust
gases could then escape from the muffler and melt the fuel tank
or ignite grease or debris around the fuel tank, posing a fire
hazard.  Shindaiwa received one report of fire.  No injuries
were reported.

The Shindaiwa gasoline-powered backpack blowers are red and
black with a white fuel tank.  Model numbers EB630 or EB630RT
are printed on the body of the blowers along with Shindaiwa.

The blowers were manufactured in Japan and sold by Shindaiwa
dealers nationwide from July 1999 through February 2006 for
about $545.

Consumers are advised to stop using the backpack blowers
immediately and contact Shindaiwa for the closest dealer
location to schedule a free inspection and a free repair if
necessary.  Consumers who have registered their equipment will
receive direct correspondence from Shindaiwa about this recall.

Pictures of the recalled blower:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06146a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06146b.jpg

Consumer Contact: Shindaiwa, Phone: (800) 521-7733 between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, Web site:
http://www.shindaiwa.com.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Settlement Trial in Resort Fee Suit Set June
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Jonathan H. Cannon of the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange will hold a final approval
hearing of the settlement of the class action "David Gray and
Wafeek A. Shalabi v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
(03 CC 09044)".  The suit was brought on behalf of guests in the
hotel, who, in addition to the nightly room rate and any
governmentally imposed fees or taxes, paid:

     -- a separate Resort Fee,
     -- Resort Services Fee,
     -- Facility Fee,
     -- Hotel Services Fee, or
     -- Convenience Fee (collectively "Resort Fee"), and/or
     -- any other automatic hotel charge, including but not
        limited to,

        * an Airport Charge,
        * Telephone Access Fee or Local Phone Call Charge,
        * Safe Charge, Safe Warranty Charge, and/or
        * Transportation Fee (collectively "Other Hotel
          Charges")

The hearing will be on June 8, 2006.  Deadline to file for
exclusion in the proposed settlement is May 2, 2006.  Deadline
for filing and service of papers in support of final settlement
approval and applications for attorneys' fees and costs is May
22, 2006.

Counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff David Gray and the Resort
Settlement Subclass is Peter D. Morgenstern, Esq. of Morgenstern
Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022,
Phone: (212) 750-6776, Fax: (212) 208-6870.

Counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff Wafeek A. Shalabi and the
Other Hotel Charges Settlement Subclass is Malik R. Diab, Esq.
of Diab & Bock, LLC 20N. Wacher Drive#1741 Chicago, Illinois
60606, Phone: (312) 334-1970, Fax: (312) 334-1967.

Consel for and on behalf of defendant Stardwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc. is Ronie M. Schmelz and Melissa Grant of Sidley
Austin LLP 555 West Fifth St., Suite 4000 Los Angeles,
California 90013-1010, Phone: (213) 896-6000, Fax: (213) 896-
6600.

Visit http://www.guestchargessettlement.com/docs.htmand
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?84bfor more information.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Grants Plaintiffs' Motion in "Manville"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
ruled against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in a class action
that accuses the federal utility of overcharging about 400
industrial customers, The Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Basically, U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  She also stated a
pretrial conference would be set to prepare the case for trial
on the issue of damages.

The lawsuit, captioned, "Johns Manville, Inc. v. Tennessee
Valley Authority, Case No. 2:99-cv-02294-VEH-HGD," contended
that customers of TVA's "Economy Surplus Power" program were
over billed as much as $100 million in the summer of 1998.

TVA's inspector general though claimed that there was a billing
error that amounted to only about $1.6 million.

Included in the suit industrial customers in TVA's seven-state
region that had contracts with it for cheap, non-guaranteed
power.

The suit was originally filed in 1999 by Birmingham Steel Corp.,
which was replaced by Johns Manville in 2004 after the former
filed for bankruptcy protection.

The suit is "Johns Manville, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Case No. 2:99-cv-02294-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia
Emerson Hopkins with referral to Judge Harwell G. Davis, III.
Representing the plaintiffs is Julie Wilson Pittman of Burr &
Forman, LLP, 3100 SouthTrust Tower, 420 North 20th Street,
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-458-5239, Fax: 205-458-5100, E-
mail: jpittman@burr.com.

Representing the defendant is A. Jackson Woodall of Tennessee
Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN
37902-1401, Phone: 1-865-632-4301, E-mail: ajwoodall@tva.gov.


TYSON FOODS: Ex-Workers Start Receiving Checks From $8.4M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of former workers at a beef processing plant in Eastern
Washington started receiving checks from an $8.4 million
settlement with Tyson Foods, Inc., The Associated Press reports.

The deal stems from a federal class action, entitled, "Alvarez,
et al. v. IBP," which alleges that Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.
(IBP) in Pasco, which the Company bought in 2001, illegally
denied about 800 workers wages for time they spent donning
necessary protective gear.

David Mark, an attorney for the workers, told The Associated
Press that about half of them would receive more than $10,000
each.  Most are Latino immigrants who worked at the plant in the
late 1990s.

With the recently reached settlement, plaintiffs' attorneys are
now contacting employees who worked at the plant between July
1995 and May 2000.  Most live in Washington, about 10 percent
are in Oregon and 10 percent are scattered elsewhere.

Filed in 1998, the protracted legal action contended that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by refusing
to pay workers for time they spent putting on safety gear, which
included goggles, frocks, chain-linked metal aprons, leggings
and arm guards.

Workers claimed that it took about 10 minutes to put the
clothing on and another 10 to take it off.  IBP said several
provisions in federal labor law relieved it of the
responsibility to pay for that time, however, in 2001, U.S.
District Judge Robert Whaley rejected that argument.

In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed,
saying workers also should be paid for a full 30-minute lunch
break, since much of it was spent getting in and out of their
gear.

The Company appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in
November upheld the lower court decisions, saying workers should
be paid for time spent walking between the changing room and
production floor.

The suit is "Alvarez, et al. v. IBP, Inc., Case No. 2:98-cv-
05005-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington under Judge Robert H. Whaley.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kathryn Goater of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810
         Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104-1614, Phone:
         206-622-8000, E-mail: goater@sgb-law.com;

     (2) David N. Mark of The Law Office of David N. Mark, 810
         Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-
         340-1840, Fax: 12063401846, E-mail:
         david@marklawoffice.com;

     (3) Richard G. Piccioni of Richard Piccioni Attorney at
         Law, 1916 Pike Place, Suite 12-203, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-443-1344; and

     (4) William Rutzick of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810
         Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104-1614, Phone:
         206-622-8000, Fax: 12066822305, E-mail:
         rutzick@sgb-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joel M. Cohn, Michael J. Mueller and Nicole M. Mueller
         of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP - DC, 1333 New
         Hampshire Ave., NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-887-4000, 202-887-4136, Fax: 12029557644,
         12029557787 and 202-887-4288, E-mail:
         jcohn@akingump.com, mmueller@akingump.com and
         nmueller@akingump.com; and

    (ii) Robert C. Tenney of Meyer Fluegge & Tenney, 230 S.
         Second Street, P.O. Box 22680, Yakima, WA 98907, Phone:
         509-575-8500, Fax: 15095754676, E-mail:
         tenney@mftlaw.com.


UNITED RENTALS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut and captioned, "In re United Rentals, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the
Company, its chairman, vice chairman and chief executive
officer, its former president and chief financial officer, and
its former corporate controller.

The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits seeks to sue on behalf of
a purported class comprised of purchasers of the Company's
securities from October 23, 2003 to August 30, 2004.

The complaints allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements, which resulted in damages to
the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased its securities.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action
assert claims (a) against all defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and (b)
against one or more of the individual defendants under Section
20(a) of such Act. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.

On February 1, 2005, the Court entered an order consolidating
the three actions.  On November 8, 2005, the Court appointed
City of Pontiac Policeman's and Fireman's Retirement System as
lead plaintiff for the purported class.

The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals,
Inc. Securities Litigation."  The court directed the parties to
submit, by April 17, 2006, a proposed schedule for the filing of
a consolidated amended complaint and responses to any amended
pleading.

The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case NO. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar cases:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

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

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (5) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; and

     (6) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, Fax:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com.


UNITED STATES: CPSC Bans Sale of Easter Eggs on Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is aware of
reports that some retailers in the U.S. have been selling
Kinder-brand chocolate eggs for the past Easter holiday.

CPSC staff is alerting retailers that the product as sold is
banned in the U.S. and they should be removed from store
shelves.  In August 1997, CPSC conducted a recall of these eggs.

This product is banned for sale in the U.S. because the toy
surprise hidden inside can pose choking and aspiration hazards
to children younger than 3 years of age.

The Kinder eggs are hollow milk chocolate eggs about the size of
a large hen's egg in an orange, white and blue foil wrapper.

The toy within the egg is contained in an oval-shaped plastic
capsule.  The toy requires assembly and each egg contains a
different toy.  The labeling is in various languages.

Picture of the recalled toy egg:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06140.jpg.

Consumers who have purchased this product are advised to
immediately take them away from young children.


VALENTINO'S RESTAURANT: Settles EEOC Nev. Sexual Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentino's Restaurant, located in the Venetian Hotel & Casino
in Las Vegas, Nevada, recently settled a sexual harassment class
action filed by the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), The Business Courier
reports.

The suit, captioned, "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Valentino Las Vegas, LLC, Case No. 2:04-cv-01357-
JCM-LRL," alleges that supervisors at the restaurant subjected
female hostesses and food servers to sexual harassment so severe
that two of the women were forced to quit their jobs in order to
escape it.

According to the lawsuit, the supervisors' conduct included
unwanted sexual touching, sexual propositioning and derogatory
sexual statements about women to customers.  Specifically, the
women alleged that the restaurant's supervisors repeatedly
groped and propositioned them and made sexual remarks to them
from 2001 to March 2003.

In October 2005, after going through a great deal of costly
litigation, Valentino's settled the lawsuit with the EEOC by
entering into a three-year consent decree.  As part of the
settlement, the restaurant agreed to pay $600,000 in damages to
the class members.

The settlement also requires Valentino's to designate or retain
an EEOC consultant to implement and monitor its compliance with
the federal laws prohibiting sexual harassment and gender
discrimination and the consent decree.

In addition, the settlement includes a number of anti-
discrimination training obligations, record-keeping requirements
and reporting obligations to be monitored by the EEOC for the
next three years.

The suit is "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Valentino Las Vegas, LLC, Case No. 2:04-cv-01357-JCM-LRL," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under
Judge James C. Mahan with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Dana C. Johnson and Anna Park
of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legal Unit, 255
East Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Phone:
(213) 894-1000 and 213-894-1083, Fax: 213-894-1118, E-mail:
dana.johnson@eeoc.gov and anna.park@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendants is Carol Davis Zucker of Kamer
Zucker & Abbott, 3000 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 3, Las Vegas,
NV 89102, E-mail: ecf@kzalaw.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?84e
(Stipulation Order).


VERIZON INFORMATION: N.Y. Workers Sue Over Compensation Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salespeople of Verizon Information Services (VIS), which
publishes the Yellow Pages in New York, filed a class action in
state Supreme Court in Albany County over the Company's
compensation policies, The Timesunion.com reports.

The suit was filed on March 23, 2006 by the law firm, O'Connell
and Aronowitz.  It alleges that compensation programs current
and former salespeople worked under from 2001 until February
violated state labor laws.

In addition, the suit claims that VIS has been making "illegal
deductions and charges" against workers' commissions for not
reaching sales targets.

For more details, contact Stephen Coffey of O'Connell and
Aronowitz, 54 State Street, Albany, New York 12207-2501, Phone:
(518) 462-5601, Fax: (518) 462-2670, E-mail: info@oalaw.com, Web
site: http://www.oalaw.com/.


VON MAUR: EEOC Lodges Bias Suit in Iowa Over Hiring Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa against Von Maur, Inc. claiming it
discriminated against black job applicants, The
DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

The suit was filed after four workers, Raquel Maiden, Robert
Williams, Robert Donelson and Roscoe Haymon filed complaints
with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, which later turned the
cases over to the federal agency.

According to the EEOC's suit, the four had applied for jobs in
the Company's warehouse and distribution center and at its
department store in North Park Mall in Davenport, but were not
hired because they are black.

Filed on April 19, 2006, the suit alleges that the Company
violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination based on race, national origin, color, sex and
religion.  It is asking for back pay and damages for the
applicants.

In addition, the EEOC's suit also wants the Company to hire
qualified black applicants who previously applied for jobs and
were rejected.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Von
Maur, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00182-RP-RAW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge
Robert W. Pratt with referral to Judge Ross A. Walters.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Marcie Beth Cornfield and
Dennis R. McBride of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Milwaukee District Office, 310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 800,
Milwaukee, WI 53203-2292, Phone: 414-297-1114 and 414-297-4188,
Fax: 414-297-3146 and 414-297-3146, E-mail:
marcie.cornfield@eeoc.gov and dennis.mcbride@eeoc.gov.


WAL-MART STORES: Tex. Woman Files Suit in Ark. Over Medical Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Robinson of Mesquite, Texas, an employee of Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. initiated a class action against the Arkansas-based
retailer, because it is seeking reimbursement for medical care
she received after being injured in an automobile accident, The
Morning News reports.

Ms. Robinson was injured last year and received a $25,000
settlement from the other driver's insurance Company.  The
Company placed a lien on the settlement in an effort to recover
the $17,000 in medical care Ms. Robinson received under its
insurance plan.

Attorney Neil Chamberlin of Little Rock, who is representing Mr.
Robinson, said the Company shouldn't recover the money, since a
judge ruled in a similar case last year that it has no right to
recovery.

"The judge ruled that (Wal-Mart's medical) plan has no right of
subrogation under the plan's own terms, which means Wal-Mart has
been forcing its employees to pay money back to the plan when,
in fact, it never had any right to the money," according to Mr.
Chamberlin.

However, Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires told The Morning News
that, under the Company's medical plan, it is legally required
to recover medical costs from employees who receive settlements.

The Company is in litigation with three other employees, Karla
Cossey and Nancy Gamboa of Arkansas and Deborah J. Shanks in
Missouri, over similar issues.  The women were injured in
separate vehicle accidents and received settlements from outside
insurance companies only to have the Company seek reimbursement
for the medical care they received.

Mr. Chamberlin, who also represented Ms. Cossey, pointed out
that Judge Warren Urbom of the U.S. Eastern District of Arkansas
ruled last year that the language in the employee booklet given
to Company employees, claiming a "right" of subrogation, did not
exist in the formal medical plan.

Judge Urbom issued an order denying the Company's attempt to
press its claim against Ms. Cossey, calling it "arbitrary and
capricious."

In a statement e-mailed to The Morning News, the Company's legal
department stated, "We strongly disagree (with Judge Urbom's
ruling) and are in the process of filing an appeal that we think
will be successful.  For the same reason, we think the Tamara
Robinson lawsuit is without merit."

The suit is "Tamara Robinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:06-cv-00488-WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge William R.
Wilson, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Neil R. Chamberlin of McMath Woods, P.A., 711 West
         Third Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: 501-396-
         5411, Fax: 501-374-5118, E-mail: neil@mcmathlaw.com;

     (2) Leon Marks, Attorney at Law, Stephens Building, 111
         Center Street, Suite 1200, Little Rock, AR 72201-4414,
         Phone: (501) 978-3131, E-mail: lmarks5080@aol.com; and

     (3) Sheldon Weinhaus and Mark Potashnick of Weinhaus &
         Potashnick, 11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133, Creve
         Coeur, MO 63141, US, Phone: 314-997-9150, E-mail:
         attorneymp@hotmail.com and weidob@igc.org.

For more details, visit http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?84d
(Robinson Complaint).


WAL-MART STORES: Utah Couple Lodges Suit Over Early-Bird Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon and Tonya Barker of Provo, Utah initiated class action
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for allegedly failing to clearly
and adequately state that supplies were limited with certain
sold-out sale items during big shopping days such as the day
after Thanksgiving, The Daily Herald reports.

The couple, represented by Matthew Howell, an attorney with the
Provo law firm of Fillmore Spencer, claims in their suit that
they were "victims of Wal-Mart's 'bait and switch' modus
operandi," since they weren't able to buy certain advertised
items during the early-bird sale on Nov. 25.  Instead, they had
to buy other items that weren't at early-bird prices.

According to the suit, filed in 4th District Court in Provo, on
Black Friday, the Barkers had arrived at the Orem Wal-Mart store
at 7:30 a.m. only to find the day-after-Thanksgiving early-bird
specials they wanted already were sold out.

The suit says that they then drove to the Springville and Payson
Wal-Mart stores, but weren't able to get the sale items there.
Nor were they given rain checks for the sold-out items.

Plaintiffs are alleging violations of the Utah Truth in
Advertising Act and the Utah Consumer Practices Act.  Mr. Howell
is seeking class action status for the case as well as statutory
damages of $2,000 per plaintiff.

Mr. Howell explains, "The Truth in Advertising Act says that
when you advertise a sale, you need to have enough in stock to
meet reasonably expected public demand.  But there are
exceptions to the law. One, if you give out rain checks, or if
the ad clearly and conspicuously states that supplies on hand
are limited."

He told The Daily Herald, "In Wal-Mart's case, the ad did say
'while supplies last.' But it was in very small print.  The law
requires the disclaimer be published in at least a 10-point type
face, as opposed to the 7-point type in Wal-Mart's ad."

"It was a 'bait and switch,'" according to him.  "The Barkers
didn't get what had lured them in, but they spent money on items
that weren't on sale."

For more details, contact Matthew Howell of Fillmore Spencer,
LLC, Jamestown Square, 3301 North University Avenue, Provo, Utah
84604, Phone: 1-888-621-2953 and 801-426-8200, Fax: 801-426-
8208, E-mail: attorneys@fillmorespencerlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.fillmorespencerlaw.com/.








                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Stull, Stull Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, on
behalf of those who purchased Fidelity mutual funds from the AIG
Advisor Group between June 30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive.

During the class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of
these broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

Interested parties may, no later than June 6, 2006, file a
motion with the court requesting to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.

The Fidelity mutual funds and their symbols are:

Fidelity Advisor Intl Sm Cap Opp (NASDAQ: FOPBX) (NASDAQ: FOPCX)
(NASDAQ: FOPIX) (NASDAQ: FOPTX)
Fidelity Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ: FDEGX)
Fidelity Aggressive Intl (NASDAQ: FIVFX)
Fidelity Arizona Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FSAZX)
Fidelity Asset Manager (NASDAQ: FASMX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Aggressive (NASDAQ: FAMRX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Growth (NASDAQ: FASGX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Income (NASDAQ: FASIX)
Fidelity Balanced (NASDAQ: FBALX)
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth (NASDAQ: FBGRX)
Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund (NASDAQ: FBCVX)
Fidelity California Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FCTFX)
Fidelity Canada (NASDAQ: FICDX)
Fidelity Capital & Income (NASDAQ: FAGIX)
Fidelity Capital Appreciation (NASDAQ: FDCAX)
Fidelity China Region (NASDAQ: FHKCX)
Fidelity Congress Street (NASDAQ: CNGRX)
Fidelity Connecticut Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FICNX)
Fidelity Contrafund (NASDAQ: FCNTX)
Fidelity Convertible Securities (NASDAQ: FCVSX)
Fidelity Disciplined Equity (NASDAQ: FDEQX)
Fidelity Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: FDSVX)
Fidelity Diversified International (NASDAQ: FDIVX)
Fidelity Dividend Growth (NASDAQ: FDGFX)
Fidelity Emerging Markets (NASDAQ: FEMKX)
Fidelity Equity-Income (NASDAQ: FEQIX)
Fidelity Equity-Income II (NASDAQ: FEQTX)
Fidelity Europe (NASDAQ: FIEUX)
Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation (NASDAQ: FECAX)
Fidelity Exchange (NASDAQ: FDLEX)
Fidelity Export & Multinational (NASDAQ: FEXPX)
Fidelity Fifty (NASDAQ: FFTYX)
Fidelity Floating Rate High Income (NASDAQ: FFRHX)
Fidelity Florida Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FFLIX)
Fidelity Focused Stock (NASDAQ: FTQGX)
Fidelity Four-in-One Index (NASDAQ: FFNOX)
Fidelity Freedom 2000 (NASDAQ: FFFBX)
Fidelity Freedom 2005 (NASDAQ: FFFVX)
Fidelity Freedom 2010 (NASDAQ: FFFCX)
Fidelity Freedom 2015 (NASDAQ: FFVFX)
Fidelity Freedom 2020 (NASDAQ: FFFDX)
Fidelity Freedom 2025 (NASDAQ: FFTWX)
Fidelity Freedom 2030 (NASDAQ: FFFEX)
Fidelity Freedom 2035 (NASDAQ: FFTHX)
Fidelity Freedom 2040 (NASDAQ: FFFFX)
Fidelity Freedom Income (NASDAQ: FFFAX)
Fidelity Ginnie Mae (NASDAQ: FGMNX)
Fidelity Global Balanced (NASDAQ: FGBLX)
Fidelity Government Income (NASDAQ: FGOVX)
Fidelity Growth & Income (NASDAQ: FGRIX)
Fidelity Growth & Income II (NASDAQ: FGRTX)
Fidelity Growth Company (NASDAQ: FDGRX)
Fidelity High Income (NASDAQ: SPHIX)
Fidelity Independence (NASDAQ: FDFFX)
Fidelity Inflation-Protected Bond (NASDAQ: FINPX)
Fidelity Instl Short-Interm Govt (NASDAQ: FFXSX)
Fidelity Intermediate Bond (NASDAQ: FTHRX)
Fidelity Intermediate Government (NASDAQ: FSTGX)
Fidelity Intermediate Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FLTMX)
Fidelity International Discovery (NASDAQ: FIGRX)
Fidelity International Small Cap (NASDAQ: FISMX)
Fidelity International Small Cap Opp (NASDAQ: FSCOX)
Fidelity Investment Grade Bond (NASDAQ: FBNDX)
Fidelity Japan (NASDAQ: FJPNX)
Fidelity Japan Smaller Companies (NASDAQ: FJSCX)
Fidelity Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FSLGX)
Fidelity Large Cap Stock (NASDAQ: FLCSX)
Fidelity Large Cap Value (NASDAQ: FSLVX)
Fidelity Latin America (NASDAQ: FLATX)
Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock (NASDAQ: FLVCX)
Fidelity Low-Priced Stock (NASDAQ: FLPSX)
Fidelity Magellan (NASDAQ: FMAGX)
Fidelity Maryland Municipal Income (NASDAQ: SMDMX)
Fidelity Massachusetts Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FDMMX)
Fidelity Michigan Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FMHTX)
Fidelity Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FSMGX)
Fidelity Mid Cap Value (NASDAQ: FSMVX)
Fidelity Mid-Cap Stock (NASDAQ: FMCSX)
Fidelity Minnesota Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FIMIX)
Fidelity Mortgage Secs (NASDAQ: FMSFX)
Fidelity Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FHIGX)
Fidelity NASdaq Composite Index (NASDAQ: FNCMX)
Fidelity New Jersey Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FNJHX)
Fidelity New Markets Income (NASDAQ: FNMIX)
Fidelity New Millennium (NASDAQ: FMILX)
Fidelity New York Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FTFMX)
Fidelity Nordic (NASDAQ: FNORX)
Fidelity Ohio Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FOHFX)
Fidelity OTC (NASDAQ: FOCPX)
Fidelity Overseas (NASDAQ: FOSFX)
Fidelity Pacific Basin (NASDAQ: FPBFX)
Fidelity Pennsylvania Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FPXTX)
Fidelity Puritan (NASDAQ: FPURX)
Fidelity Real Estate Income (NASDAQ: FRIFX)
Fidelity Real Estate Investment (NASDAQ: FRESX)
Fidelity Select Air Transportation (NASDAQ: FSAIX)
Fidelity Select Automotive (NASDAQ: FSAVX)
Fidelity Select Banking (NASDAQ: FSRBX)
Fidelity Select Biotechnology (NASDAQ: FBIOX)
Fidelity Select Brokerage & Investmnt (NASDAQ: FSLBX)
Fidelity Select Business Serv&Outsrcg (NASDAQ: FBSOX)
Fidelity Select Chemicals (NASDAQ: FSCHX)
Fidelity Select Computers (NASDAQ: FDCPX)
Fidelity Select Construction&Housing (NASDAQ: FSHOX)
Fidelity Select Consumer Industries (NASDAQ: FSCPX)
Fidelity Select Cyclical Industries (NASDAQ: FCYIX)
Fidelity Select Defense & Aerospace (NASDAQ: FSDAX)
Fidelity Select Developing Comm (NASDAQ: FSDCX)
Fidelity Select Electronics (NASDAQ: FSELX)
Fidelity Select Energy (NASDAQ: FSENX)
Fidelity Select Energy Service (NASDAQ: FSESX)
Fidelity Select Environmental (NASDAQ: FSLEX)
Fidelity Select Financial Services (NASDAQ: FIDSX)
Fidelity Select Food & Agriculture (NASDAQ: FDFAX)
Fidelity Select Gold (NASDAQ: FSAGX)
Fidelity Select Health Care (NASDAQ: FSPHX)
Fidelity Select Home Finance (NASDAQ: FSVLX)
Fidelity Select Industrial Equipment (NASDAQ: FSCGX)
Fidelity Select Industrial Materials (NASDAQ: FSDPX)
Fidelity Select Insurance (NASDAQ: FSPCX)
Fidelity Select Leisure (NASDAQ: FDLSX)
Fidelity Select Medical Delivery (NASDAQ: FSHCX)
Fidelity Select Medical Equip/Systems (NASDAQ: FSMEX)
Fidelity Select Multimedia (NASDAQ: FBMPX)
Fidelity Select Natural Gas (NASDAQ: FSNGX)
Fidelity Select Natural Resources (NASDAQ: FNARX)
Fidelity Select Network & Infrastruct (NASDAQ: FNINX)
Fidelity Select Paper & Forest Prod (NASDAQ: FSPFX)
Fidelity Select Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: FPHAX)
Fidelity Select Retailing (NASDAQ: FSRPX)
Fidelity Select Software & Comp (NASDAQ: FSCSX)
Fidelity Select Technology (NASDAQ: FSPTX)
Fidelity Select Telecommunications (NASDAQ: FSTCX)
Fidelity Select Transportation (NASDAQ: FSRFX)
Fidelity Select Utilities Growth (NASDAQ: FSUTX)
Fidelity Select Wireless (NASDAQ: FWRLX)
Fidelity Short-Intermediate Muni Income (NASDAQ: FSTFX)
Fidelity Short-Term Bond (NASDAQ: FSHBX)
Fidelity Small Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FCPGX)
Fidelity Small Cap Independence (NASDAQ: FDSCX)
Fidelity Small Cap Retirement (NASDAQ: FSCRX)
Fidelity Small Cap Stock (NASDAQ: FSLCX)
Fidelity Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: FCPVX)
Fidelity Southeast Asia (NASDAQ: FSEAX)
Fidelity Spartan 500 Index (NASDAQ: FSMKX)
Fidelity Spartan Extended Mkt Index (NASDAQ: FSEMX)
Fidelity Spartan Government Income (NASDAQ: SPGVX)
Fidelity Spartan International Index (NASDAQ: FSIIX)
Fidelity Spartan Investment Gr Bond (NASDAQ: FSIBX)
Fidelity Spartan Total Market Index (NASDAQ: FSTMX)
Fidelity Spartan U.S. Equity Index (NASDAQ: FUSEX)
Fidelity Stock Selector (NASDAQ: FDSSX)
Fidelity Strategic Dividend & Income (NASDAQ: FSDIX)
Fidelity Strategic Income (NASDAQ: FSICX)
Fidelity Tax-Free Bond (NASDAQ: FTABX)
Fidelity Tax-Managed Stock (NASDAQ: FTXMX)
Fidelity Total Bond (NASDAQ: FTBFX)
Fidelity Trend (NASDAQ: FTRNX)
Fidelity U.S. Bond Index (NASDAQ: FBIDX)
Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond (NASDAQ: FUSFX)
Fidelity Utilities (NASDAQ: FIUIX)
Fidelity Value (NASDAQ: FDVLX)
Fidelity Value Discovery (NASDAQ: FVDFX)
Fidelity Value Strategies (NASDAQ: FSLSX)
Fidelity Worldwide (NASDAQ: FWWFX)

The Shelf-Space Funds include these mutual fund families: AIG
SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American, American Skandia,
Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford, John Hancock,
MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life, Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer,
Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against defendant American International
Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated entities.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients.

Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.

The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately disclose the
incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

For more details, contact James Lahm, Esq., Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.


ASTEA INTERNATIONAL: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Astea
International Inc. (NASDAQ: ATEA) securities between May 11,
2005 and March 31, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, against the Company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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 this action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire, Law
Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, 261 Old York Road, Suite 423,
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net, Phone: (215) 886-1900.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Paskowitz Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Comverse Technology, Inc. from
April 30, 2001 through April 16, 2006.

Defendants include Comverse and certain of its top officers and
directors.  The case has been assigned to the Hon. Nicholas G.
Garaufis.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and incomplete financial
information.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
misstatements and omitted information regarding the true timing
of stock option grants made to key executives.  This
manipulation of the grant dates permitted the individual
defendants to enrich themselves, while artificially inflating
net income, operating income and retained earnings.

Had the timing not been manipulated, and properly accounted for,
these financial measures would have been materially lower.

The fraud began to be revealed on March 14, 2006 when Comverse
shocked the market by announcing "the creation of a special
committee of its Board of Directors composed of outside
directors to review matters relating to the Company's stock
option grants, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of
the stated dates of option grants and whether all proper
corporate procedures were followed."

The Company also announced that financial restatements might be
required.

Then, on April 17, 2006 Comverse revealed that it would restate
its financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal
2006, for the 2001-05 fiscal years, and possibly previous
periods as well. The adjustments are expected to be material.

As a result of these announcements, Comverse stock dropped from
$29.15 on March 13, 2006 to $23.31 on April 17, 2006, a decline
of over 20 per cent.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff may be filed with
the court by June 19, 2006.

For more details, contact: Paskowitz & Associates, Laurence
Paskowitz, Esquire, Phone: (800) 705-9529, toll-free, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action in the U.S
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Comverse Technology, Inc. from
April 30, 2001 through April 16, 2006.

Defendants include Comverse and certain of its top officers and
directors.  The complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false and incomplete
financial information.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
misstatements and omitted information regarding the true timing
of stock option grants made to key executives.

This manipulation of the grant dates permitted the individual
defendants to enrich themselves, while artificially inflating
net income, operating income and retained earnings.  Had the
timing not been manipulated, and properly accounted for, these
financial measures would have been materially lower.

The fraud began to be revealed on March 14, 2006 when Comverse
shocked the market by announcing "the creation of a special
committee of its Board of Directors composed of outside
directors to review matters relating to the Company's stock
option grants, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of
the stated dates of option grants and whether all proper
corporate procedures were followed."

The Company also announced that financial restatements might be
required.

Then, on April 17, 2006 Comverse revealed that it would restate
its financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal
2006, for the 2001-05 fiscal years, and possibly previous
periods as well.  The adjustments are expected to be material.

As a result of these announcements, Comverse stock dropped from
$29.15 on March 13, 2006 to $23.31 on April 17, 2006, a decline
of over 20 per cent.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff may be filed with
the court by June 19, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against Comverse
Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: CMVT).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from April 30, 2001 through April 16, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Monday, June
19, 2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

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


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited (NYSE: FFH) securities between March
24, 2004 and March 22, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire at 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net, Phone: (215) 886-1900.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all securities (including bonds) purchasers of
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: FFH) between March 24,
2004 and March 21, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., V. Prem
Watsa, Trevor Ambridge, M. Jane Williamson, Anthony F.
Griffiths, Robert Hartog, Bradley P. Martin, and Banc of America
Securities, LLC with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

Fairfax, through its subsidiaries, engages in property and
casualty insurance and reinsurance conducted on a direct basis
principally in Canada, the U.S., and the United Kingdom. It also
provides claims adjusting, appraisal, and loss management
services.

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

     (1) that the Company's current reserve accounts were
         understated;

     (2) that the Company over-utilized aggressive off-balance
         sheet funding mechanisms;

     (3) that the Company improperly accounted finite
         reinsurance contracts;

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         reported earnings were materially inflated throughout
         the class period; and

     (5) that defendants consistently downplayed the seriousness
         of regulatory inquiries and subpoenas issued against
         the Company.

On March 22, 2006, Fairfax announced that the SEC issued
subpoenas to the Company's independent auditor and a
shareholder, in addition to subpoenas issued to the Company and
its Chief Executive Officer, in an ongoing probe into certain
financial transactions, including nontraditional insurance or
reinsurance product transactions.  On this news, shares of
Fairfax fell $16.97 per share, or 12.96 percent, to close at
$113.93 per share.

Interested parties may, not later than June 12, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Darren J.
Check, Esquire or Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087, Phone: 1-800-299-7706 (toll-
free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired GMH
Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT) securities between May 5, 2005 and
March 10, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, against the Company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire at 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, E-mail:
FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net, Phone: (215) 886-1900.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman and Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Newpark
Resources, Inc. (NYSE: NR).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from February 28, 2005 through April 16, 2006.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Tuesday,
June 20, 2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

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


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Newpark
Resources, Inc. (NYSE: NR) between February 28, 2005 and April
16, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against defendant Newpark and one or more
of its executive officers.

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.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A. at The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com, Phone:
(410) 986-0036.


PIXELPLUS CO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Pixelplus Co., Ltd.
(Nasdaq: PXPL) from December 21, 2005 through April 11, 2006,
inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the Company incorrectly accounted for sales to its
         consolidated subsidiary, Pixelplus Technology Inc.;

     (2) that as a result of this improper accounting, the
         Company's revenues were materially overstated
         throughout the class period;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

Three and one-half months after going public, after the market
closed on April 11, 2006, Pixelplus shocked the market when it
announced that, in connection with the work completed to date on
its fiscal year-end 2005 audit, it had decided, pursuant to
discussions with its independent auditors, that PTI, a Taiwan
affiliate, should be recognized as a consolidated subsidiary
commencing fiscal year 2005.

Accordingly, Pixelplus' audited financial statements for the
fiscal year 2005 would consolidate PTI's results of operation.

As a result of the aforementioned accounting change, Pixelplus
announced that the Company's previously announced unaudited
financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 and
for the fiscal year 2005 would need to be corrected.

After absorbing this news, the market reacted swiftly and
negatively.  Shares of the Company's stock sank $2.72 per ADR,
or 37.3 percent, to close, on April 12, 2006, at $4.58 per ADR.

Interested parties may, not later than June 16, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Darren J.
Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq., 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or 1-
610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.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, Francisco
Eltanal, Jr. and Lyndsey Resnick, 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  * * *