---

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

              Thursday, May 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 98

                            Headlines

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Consumer Fraud Suit in Ill. Continues
AQUA-LEISURE: Recalls Inflatable Pool Ladders on Injury Reports
ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Ridges Homes
ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Fla. Suit
AT&T INC: Faces Privacy Rights Violation Lawsuit in D.C. Court

AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Recalls ReNu Contact Lens Cleaning Solution
BELLSOUTH CORP: Faces Suit in Tenn. for Disclosing Clients' Data
CALIFORNIA: Judge Sides with Plaintiffs in Exit Exam Lawsuit
CALLAWAY GOLF: Several Suits Over NPIP Dismissed With Prejudice

CANADIAN PACIFIC: Suits Over Minot Accident Sent to State Court
CHATTEM INC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint Over Bullfrog Suncare
CHATTEM INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Dexatrim Natural Products
EL POLLO: Calif. Managers' Suit Stayed Due to Fixed Arbitration
EL POLLO: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif.

EL POLLO: Settles American Disability Institute's Suit in Calif.
ESCALA GROUP: Spanish Prosecutor Clears Afinsa Transactions
GILEAD SCIENCES: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LEXAR MEDIA: Faces Calif. Stockholder Suits Over Micron Merger
LIFECELL CORP: Awaits Ruling on Consolidation of Body Parts Case

MAYTAG CORP: Iowa Court Mulls Possible Securities Suit Dismissal
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Idaho
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Accused of Antitrust Violations Over DRAM
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Lexar Media Merger
NATIONAL CITY: Circuit Judge Dismisses Fax Fee Lawsuit in Ill.

ORACLE CORP: Sept. 2006 Trial Slated for Calif. Securities Suit
OUTLOOK GROUP: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Disposal to Vista
PATHMARK STORES: Del. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PROTECTION ONE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
RCN CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in N.J.

SAKS INC: Adamson Apparel Files Breach of Contract Suit in Ala.
SHAW GROUP: La. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Securities Suit in Calif. Appealed
SNAP-ON INC: Enters $38M Deal to Settle Franchisees' Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Kans. Court

UNITED STATES: Lawyers to Fight Bans on Multi-Plaintiff Lawsuits
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Lawyers Add BellSouth, AT&T in Lawsuit
WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
ESCALA GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
ESCALA GROUP: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Suit

GMH COMMUNITIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in Pa.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set May 22
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in D.C.
XM SATELLITE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in D.C.


                            *********


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Consumer Fraud Suit in Ill. Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Affirmative
Insurance Holdings, Inc., said at its recent Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is
subject of a second amended complaint in Madison County,
Illinois, alleging that the company committed fraud and
misrepresentation by:

      -- falsely stating "it would pay only a stated fee for a
         rental car when, in fact, it would pay more than the
         stated fee;"

      -- falsely stating "that a car could be rented for this
         stated fee when, in fact, a car was not available for
         rental at this amount;"

      -- falsely stating "the facts of the obligation of it and
         its insureds when one of its insureds was involved in
         an accident with a third party such as plaintiff and
         the members of the Class in that it stated that its
         obligation with respect to a rental car was limited to
         the stated fee per day it said it would pay when, in
         fact, its insured might be liable for a greater
         amount"; and

      -- falsely stating "that it would not pay an amount for
         rental that would allow Illinois consumers to rent a
         car of the same or similar kind and quality as that
         which was damaged, when, in fact, it sometimes did pay
         such an amount."

The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as to the underlying
action, specific relief concerning the class action in the form
of various court orders: reasonable attorneys' fees,
compensatory damages in an amount less than $75,000 per class
member, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The suit's named plaintiff is Lanny Darr, who is represented by
Evan Schaeffer of Schaeffer & Lamere.  He maintains in the suit
that he is not seeking an amount greater than $75,000 for his
individual damages as well as stipulated no class member damages
will exceed $75,000, and the class as a whole is not seeking
damages in excess of $5 million.  Thus, according to his suit,
he is seeking orders:

      -- certifying the class of all Illinois residents involved
         in a traffic accident with Affirmative's customers in
         the past 10 years;

      -- declaring Affirmative's conduct unlawful;

      -- requiring Affirmative to cease and desist all
         deceptive, unjust and unreasonable practices;

      -- requiring Affirmative to notify and properly disclose
         to whose they have overcharged; and

      -- an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the
         suit, including fees of experts and an award of factual
         and compensatory damages in an amount less that $75,000
         per class member (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7,
         2006).

Company attorney Peter Morse moved to dismiss the case back in
Jun. 10, 2005.  Mr. Darr retained Mr. Schaeffer as his attorney,
who later filed an amended complaint on Jul. 11, 2005 alleging
consumer fraud and seeking certification of a class action
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2006).

The company moved to dismiss the case on Aug. 17, 2005 with Mr.
Morse arguing that Mr. Darr was not a consumer and lacked
standing.  He also argued that the transaction did not involve
the sale of insurance (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2006).

The case lay in Circuit Judge George Moran's court, but he
recused himself on Sept. 8, 2005.  Chief Judge Edward Ferguson
then went on to assign Circuit Judge Daniel Stack to the case.  
Judge Stack granted leave on Oct. 26, 2005 for a second amended
complaint (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2006).

Mr. Schaeffer filed the second amended complaint the next day,
alleging consumer fraud and misrepresentation.  The company then
moved to dismiss on Nov. 17, 2005, with Mr. Morse arguing that
Mr. Darr apparently acknowledged his inability to state a cause
of action under Illinois consumer fraud law (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 7, 2006).

In addition, Mr. Morse argued that the company did not violate
state insurance code and added that even if it had, Mr. Darr
should take his claim to the state insurance department (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2006).

Mr. Schaeffer opposed the motion on Jan. 13, 2006, arguing that
facts about the check that the company sent to Mr. Darr were
"unverified and immaterial at the motion to dismiss stage."  He
also argued that the company sent a check only after Mr. Darr
sued, a release accompanied the check and Mr. Darr had not
cashed the check (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2006).

For more details, contact Evan Schaeffer of Schaeffer & Lamere,
P.C., 5512 Godfrey Road, Suite B, Godfrey, IL 62035, Phone: 888-
783-9679 and (618) 467-8200, Fax: (618) 467-1885, E-mail:
eschaeffer@riverbendlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.riverbendlaw.com.  


AQUA-LEISURE: Recalls Inflatable Pool Ladders on Injury Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua-Leisure Industries of Avon, Massachusetts, in cooperation  
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is
recalling about 320,000 Simple Set Pool Ladders.

The company said the plastic step support clips can be assembled
upside down, causing the ladder steps to break under a user's
weight.  Aqua-Leisure and CPSC are aware of nine incidents
involving the ladder.  There have been six reported injuries,
including a concussion, a broken arm, fractured ribs and a wrist
sprain.

The ladders were included with Aqua Leisure Simple-Set
inflatable pools that range from 12 to 18 feet in diameter.  The
white metal arched ladders have two, three or four plastic blue
steps on each side of the arch with two blue cross bars just
above the top step.  White plastic and metal clips are used to
connect the steps to the ladder.  Each step is molded with the
words "Aqua Leisure."

The Simple Set Pool Ladders were manufactured in China and are
being sold in discount department and toy stores nationwide from
January 2002 through August 2005 for between $90 and $200,
depending on the size of the pool.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the ladders and
contact Aqua-Leisure for a free repair kit, including new
assembly instructions and color-coded support clips.  Ladders
should be re-assembled using the new repair kits.

Picture of the recalled ladders:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06165.jpg

For more information, contact Aqua-Leisure toll-free at (866)
807-3998 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.aqualeisure.com.


ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Ridges Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. was named defendant in a purported
class action in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, entitled, "Osnovsky,
et al. v. Arvida Company, Arvida/JMB Partners, and Arvida Realty
Co., Inc., Case No. 05015925."

The suit, which was filed on Nov. 7, 2005, was served on the
Arvida defendants on Mar. 1, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed a three-
count class action complaint for alleged violations of state
building code, failure to disclose known defects in a
residential real estate transaction, and negligence, all in
connection with injuries allegedly sustained to their homes in
the Ridges subdivision, a homeowners association in Weston that
has about 1,500 units.  

Plaintiffs complain of alleged roofing defects in their homes,
among other things.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and the
opportunity to amend to add punitive damages.  


ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Fla. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et
al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12," launched a second amended
complaint in Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and
for Broward County, Florida against Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P.,
its General Partner Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., and certain
related and unrelated parties.

Originally filed on Jun. 20, 2003, plaintiffs in the case
purports to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  

On Sept. 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed a twelve count amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that:

     -- the homes were not built of high quality and adequate
        construction;

     -- the homes were not built in conformity with the South
        Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward
        County, Florida;

     -- the roofs were not properly attached or were
        inadequate;

     -- the truss systems and installation thereof were
        improper; and

     -- the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection
        systems.  

The amended complaint was dismissed pursuant to the
partnership's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs were given
the right to file a further amended complaint.  The partnership
will file an appropriate response to the further amended
complaint, when filed.  

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nearly-identical, nine-count
second amended complaint.  The Partnership filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, which was scheduled for a
hearing Dec. 16, 2005.  


AT&T INC: Faces Privacy Rights Violation Lawsuit in D.C. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mason Law Firm, P.C. on May 15 filed class actions on behalf
of millions of persons in the U.S. who are residential customers
of telephone or Internet services provided by Verizon Corp.,
AT&T Inc., and BellSouth Corp.  The suits were filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The complaints allege that the National Security Agency (NSA)
began a classified surveillance program shortly after Sept. 11,
2001, to intercept the telephone and Internet communications of
persons inside the U.S. without judicial authorization, a
program that continues to this day.  The U.S. President has
stated that he authorized the Program in 2001, that he has
reauthorized the program more than 30 times since its inception,
and that he intends to continue doing so.  

As part of this data-mining program, the NSA intercepts millions
of communications made or received by people inside the U.S.,
and uses powerful computers to scan their contents for
particular names, numbers, words or phrases.

According to the complaints, the attorney general has admitted
that, absent additional authority from congress, the electronic
surveillance conducted by the program requires a court order
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  The
President and other government officials have admitted that the
NSA does not seek judicial review of the program's interceptions
before or after the surveillance, whether by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court or any other court.

The plaintiffs claim that in violation of the Electronic Privacy
Act of 1986, Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth provided customer
records to the government.  The privacy Act bars the telephone
carriers from turning over information about calls except in
extremely limited circumstances.  The suit seeks the minimum
penalty of $1,000 for each person whose information was
compromised.

"The phone companies that participated in this surveillance
program could be on the hook for billions of dollars in
damages," said Gary E. Mason, the attorney for the plaintiffs.
"It appears that the telephone companies turned over millions of
records and the privacy act provides of a minimum penalty of
$1,000."

The AT&T complaint -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?94c-- is  
"Harold Ludman on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. AT&T Inc."

The BellSouth complaint -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?94d
-- is "David M. Discoll, Jr., Anne Brydon Taylor, and Cory
Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Verizon Communications, Inc."  

The Verizon complaint -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?94e--  
is "Lawrence Phillips on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. BellSouth Corp.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th
         St. NW, Suite 500, Washinton D.C. 20038, Phone: (202)
         429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294;

     (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: (212)-362-5770, Fax: (917)-591-5227

     (3) Peter N. Wasylyk of the Law Offices of Peter N.
         Wasylyk, 1307 Chalkstone Avenue, Providence, RI 02908,
         Phone: (401)-831-7730, Fax: (401)-861-6064;

     (4) Andrew Kierstead of the Law Offices of Andrew
         Kierstead, 101 S.W. 5th Ave., Suite 1100, Portland OR
         97204, Phone: (508) 224-6246, Fax: (508) 224-4356; and

     (5) John C. Whitfield of Whitfield & Cox, PSC, 29 East
         Center St., Madisonville, KY 42431, Phone: (270) 821-
         0656, Fax: (270) 825-1163 (for the AT&T suit only).


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of New York to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it and certain other defendants,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class
actions for alleged violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al."; and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated
complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption: "In re
Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV-
06803," naming the company, certain officers, its Retirement
Board and others.

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan (collectively
the Plan) and on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan "for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
an interest in Avon Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb.
20, 2004 to the present."

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joel P. Laitman of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
         P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, Phone:
         (212) 964-0046; and

     (2) Brian Philip Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Peter C. Hein Wachtell of Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West
         52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-403-1237,
         Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com; and

    (ii) Melissa C. Rodriguez of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
         (New York), 101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, NY
         10178, Phone: 212 309-6394, Fax: 212 309-6273, E-mail:
         mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Recalls ReNu Contact Lens Cleaning Solution
----------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb has decided to permanently remove the ReNu with
MoistureLoc product worldwide after a meeting with the U.S. Food
& Drug Administration.

On May 11, 2006 a team from Bausch & Lomb met with FDA officials
to share information resulting from the company's internal
investigation into cases of Fusarium keratitis associated with
ReNu with MoistureLoc.

Bausch & Lomb has proposed that unique characteristics of the
formulation of the ReNu with MoistureLoc product in certain
unusual circumstances can increase the risk of Fusarium
infection.

Based on this scientific and epidemiological data suggesting
that ReNu with MoistureLoc may increase susceptibility to
Fusarium, Bausch & Lomb has decided to permanently remove the
ReNu with MoistureLoc product worldwide.  FDA supports this
decision.  To date, data available do not indicate a problem
with ReNu MultiPlus or ReNu Multi-Purpose or generic brands of
this contact lens cleaning solution.

While FDA is still concluding its scientific evaluations and
expects additional information to be submitted by the sponsor,
at this time the company said it recognize that Bausch & Lomb
has proposed the formulation as the potential root cause of the
increased relative risk of Fusarium keratitis associated with
use of the ReNu with MoistureLoc product.  FDA will continue to
review cultures and epidemiological data and if there is new
information that adds to or changes the company's current
understanding, the company will act on it in a timely and
appropriate manner.

As part of the joint Center for Disease Control & Prevention
(CDC) and FDA investigation, field officers have been inspecting
the Bausch & Lomb plant and facilities in Greenville, South
Carolina since Mar. 22, 2006.  While the plant inspection is
being finalized, there is still some additional testing to be
completed.  The agency plans to issue observations from the
inspections imminently.

ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens solution, manufactured in the
Greenville, plant, was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in
the U.S. on Apr. 13, 2006.  To date, a majority of the confirmed
Fusarium cases have been associated with the ReNu with
MoistureLoc.  

The company's interest in the MoistureLoc product has been based
on the disproportionate number of cases of Fusarium keratitis
associated with ReNu with Moisture Loc compared to the overall
product market share.  Based on CDC reports, the number of cases
involving various contact lens solutions other than MoistureLoc
has remained consistent throughout the company's investigation,
and not disproportionate from the routine incidence of this
infection in the population.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Faces Suit in Tenn. for Disclosing Clients' Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nashville, Tennessee resident filed a lawsuit against
BellSouth Corp. in Nashville federal court on May 15, according
to the Tennessean.com.

Kathryn Potter alleged the company violated the federal Stored
Communications Act by handing over customer data to the National
Security Agency without the client's consent.  She is seeking
monetary damages and any profits that BellSouth may have made
from its dealings with the NSA.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, BellSouth Corp. --
http://www.bellsouthcorp.com-- provides telecommunications and  
broadband services in the U.S.  It offers various wireline
communications services, including long distance services
comprising convenience features, such as caller ID, call
forwarding, voice mail, and dial-up access to the Internet, as
well as Internet services and voice and data solutions to
residential and small business customers.

Ms. Potter's lawyer is C. David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC
-- http://www.brileylaw.com-- 511 Union Street, Suite 1610,  
Nashville, TN 37219-1733, Phone: (615) 986-2684, Fax: (615) 986-
7869.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Sides with Plaintiffs in Exit Exam Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman has granted
preliminary injunction allowing about 47,000 high school seniors
who haven't passed the California High School Exit Exam but
fulfilled all other graduation requirements to get their diploma
this year, The Oakland Tribune reports.

Judge Freeman granted class status to the case filed by lead
plaintiff Liliana Valenzuela, a Richmond High School senior.  He
denied a state request to stay his ruling.  He said the state
failed to provide thousands of high school seniors the education
needed to pass the exit exam, in violation of their
constitutional rights.

"The record is replete with evidence regarding the historical
problems that the public school system throughout the state has
had with regard to scarcity of resources, and the disparate
effect of this scarcity of resources on schools serving
economically challenged neighborhoods and communities," the
judge wrote in his ruling.

Five Richmond High School students and five others from around  
California filed the suit in San Francisco Superior Court
against state Superintendent Jack O'Connell, the State of  
California, the state Department of Education and the state  
Board of Education as defendants.  Students named in the
complaint come from Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Fair Oaks and
Rialto (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).  

The plaintiff's arguments are:  

     (1) by denying a diploma to students who would otherwise  
         graduate the state would be depriving them of their  
         fundamental right to public education;  

     (2) the state violated the equal protection clause of the  
         California Constitution by providing inadequate  
         instruction in the first place and unfairly  
         distributing money dedicated to helping students pass  
         the test; and  

     (3) the state violated California's due process law when by  
         failing to thoroughly research alternatives as mandated  
         by the Legislature when it approved the exit exam in  
         1999.  

The plaintiffs' lawyer is Arturo J. Gonzalez, Partner in  
Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco,  
California 94105-2482: Phone: 415-268-7000; Fax: 415-268-7522.  


CALLAWAY GOLF: Several Suits Over NPIP Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' attorneys dismissed with prejudice lawsuits pending
in state and federal courts against Callaway Golf Co. in
relation to its unilateral sales policy known as the New Product
Introduction Policy (NPIP).

In the fall of 1999, the company adopted NPIP, which sets forth
the basis on which the company chooses to do business with its
customers with respect to the introduction of new products.

The NPIP has been the subject of several legal challenges,
including:

      -- "Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 2001-24-IV"
         (Tennessee state court) (Lundsford I);

      -- "Foulston v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 02C3607" (Kansas
         state court); and

      -- "Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-
         442" (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         Tennessee) (Lundsford II).

The cases asserted, among other things, that the NPIP
constitutes an illegal vertical price fixing arrangement under
state and/or federal antitrust law.

On Jul. 20, 2005, the federal district court in Lundsford II
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, stating that the
NPIP could have procompetitive effects.  

The court also denied plaintiff's motion to certify a nationwide
class of consumer purchasers, holding that treatment of the
case, as a class action was not appropriate.

After five years of court proceedings, depositions of numerous
retailers, and entry of the above referenced court orders
denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's
motion for class certification, the attorney representing the
plaintiffs in Lundsford I, Lundsford II, and Foulston recently
dismissed those cases with prejudice in exchange for
reimbursement of certain of plaintiffs' expenses, excluding
attorneys' fees.  The dismissal explicitly recognizes that
Callaway Golf may continue the NPIP.

The federal case is "Lundsford v. Callaway Golf Co et al., case
no. 3:04-cv-00442," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge James H. Jarvis.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550
Main Avenue 750 NationsBank Center, Knoxville, TN 37902-2567,
Phone: 865-525-7028, fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail:
filings@ballandscott.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) David Ettinger of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohen,
         2290 First National Building, 660 Woodward Avenue,
         Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-465-7368, Fax: 313-465-
         7369, E-mail: dettinger@honigman.com; and

     (2) Thomas W. Rhodes and Edward Wasmuth, Jr. of Smith,
         Gambrell and Russell, 1230 Peachtree Street NE, Suite
         3100 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309-3592, Phone: 404-
         815-3551, Fax: 404-815-6851, E-mail: trhodes@sgrlaw.com
         or ewasmuth@sgrlaw.com.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Suits Over Minot Accident Sent to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled on May 16 that a group of lawsuits filed against Canadian
Pacific Railway over the Minot, South Dakota derailment in 2002
should be in federal court not state court, Associated Press
reports.

The ruling says the federal court system still has jurisdiction
over the case.  It affects 31 lawsuits originally filed in
Minnesota state court alleging the company was negligent in
inspecting a stretch of track where the derailment happened.  
The appeals court's ruling said the Federal Railroad
Administration regulates track inspections and the federal
courts have jurisdiction over those claims.

The Canadian Railway class actions stemmed from the January 2002
derailment and massive release of anhydrous ammonia from five
ruptured tank cars in Minot, South Dakota.  Thirty-one cars on
the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west
edge of Minot and five broke open early on the morning of  
Jan. 18, 2002.  The National Transportation Safety Board said
the wreck was caused by inadequate track maintenance and
inspections, a conclusion disputed by Canadian Pacific.

The ruling on May 16 reverses a 2005 decision by U.S. District
Judge Richard Kyle that sent the cases back to state court in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.  According to the report, a
Minnesota state court trial in a separate derailment lawsuit was
halted a day after lawyers gave opening arguments.

Based in Alberta, Canadian Pacific Railway -- http://www.cpr.ca
-- hauls freight such as grain, coal, and industrial products
over a 14,000-mile network in Canada and the U.S.  It is one of
five companies spun off in 2001 from former parent Canadian  
Pacific Ltd.  Its U.S. headquarter is in Minneapolis.

The appeals judges who issued the May 16 decision are Kermit
Bye, of Fargo, North Dakota, Lavenski Smith, of Little Rock,
Arkansas and Arlen Beam, of Lincoln, Nebraska.  The company's
lawyer is Tim Thornton, Phone: 612-977-8400, Fax: 612-977-8650.


CHATTEM INC: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint Over Bullfrog Suncare
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. is defendant in a coordinated class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles in relation to the labeling, advertising, promotion and
sale of its Bullfrog suncare products.

Initially, a putative class action was filed against the company
on Feb. 11, 2004.  To which it filed an answer on Jun. 28, 2004.

An amended complaint was filed Mar. 29, 2006, pursuant to a
court order formally consolidating the lawsuit with eight
existing lawsuits involving other manufacturers of sunscreen
products into a coordinated proceeding in California state
court.

The amended lawsuit seeks class certification of all persons who
purchased the company's Bullfrog sun care products in California
during a four-year period prior to Feb. 11, 2004.  

It seeks restitution and/or disgorgement of profits, actual
damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys fees
and costs arising out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading
advertising and breach of warranty, fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentations, in connection with the manufacturing,
labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of Bullfrog products
in California.  An answer to this amended complaint was due mid
April 2006.

Aside from the company the other defendants in the coordinated
suit are (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 3, 2006):

      -- Schering-Plough (Coppertone);

      -- Sun Pharmaceuticals and Playtex Products (Banana Boat);

      -- Tanning Research Laboratories (Hawaiian Tropic); and

      -- Neutrogena Corp and Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena).
         
The coordinated lawsuit alleges false claims about the
effectiveness of their products in blocking sunrays and
preventing skin diseases (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 3, 2006).

Sun Protection Factor designations, the suits says, apply only
to protection from Ultraviolet light, type B (UVB) rays, but
manufacturers use it to imply a similar level of ultraviolet
radiation (UVA) protection, which it does not in fact provide.  
The FDA accepts SPF standards for UVB but there is no standard
to measure UVA protection, law firms bringing the complaint
said.  Both UVA and UVB pose health threats, (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 3, 2006).  

The suits also note that the "waterproof" designation is
deceptive because all sunscreen products lose efficacy when
immersed in water and there is no standard for measuring their
efficacy against UVA rays (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 3, 2006).

The law firms that filed the complaints are: Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (http://www.lerachlaw.com)and  
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP (http://www.aftlaw.com).


CHATTEM INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Dexatrim Natural Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. is defendant in a putative class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles in relation to the manufacturing, labeling, advertising,
promotion and sale of certain Dexatrim Natural products.

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 13, 2005, seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory damages and attorneys fees against the company
under the California Business and Professions Code, arising out
of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and
breach of express warranty with regards to Dexatrim Natural
products.  

It seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased Dexatrim Natural in California during the four-year
period prior to the filing of the lawsuit up to the date of any
judgment obtained.

The plaintiff stipulated that the amount in controversy with
respect to each individual claim and each member of the proposed
class in the action does not exceed $75.  

The company filed an answer on Mar. 1, 2005, and is vigorously
defending the lawsuit.


EL POLLO: Calif. Managers' Suit Stayed Due to Fixed Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles stayed proceedings in a purported class action against
El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of EPL
Intermediate, Inc.

The suit alleges certain violations of California labor laws,
including alleged improper classification of general managers
and restaurant managers as exempt employees, pending the outcome
of the mandatory arbitration between the company and one of the
plaintiffs.

On or about Apr. 16, 2004, two former employees and one current
employee filed the class action against the company on behalf of
all putative class members (former and current general managers
and restaurant managers from April 2000 to present).

Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory damages for
unpaid wages, interest, certain statutory penalties,
disgorgement of alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs as well as certain injunctive relief.  

The complaint was served on the company on Apr. 19, 2004.  The
court ordered the class action stayed pending the arbitration of
one of the named putative class plaintiffs as a result of his
execution of a mandatory arbitration agreement with the company.


EL POLLO: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of EPL
Intermediate, Inc., is defendant in a purported class action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, alleging certain violations of California labor
laws and the California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff Salvador Amezcua filed the suit on Oct. 18, 2005, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation,
unlawful deductions from earnings and unfair competition.  

The suit requested remedies that include compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company was served with this complaint on Dec. 16, 2005.  
The court has ordered that the case be deemed complex and
assigned it to the complex litigation panel.


EL POLLO: Settles American Disability Institute's Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of EPL
Intermediate, Inc., entered into a confidential settlement for a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California over allegations that the company
denied disabled individuals full and equal access to its
facilities.  

On Jun. 14, 2005, the American Disability Institute, a non-
profit Pennsylvania corporation, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Orlando Hardy, Jr. and Joann Montes,
filed the purported class action complaint against the company.

The action alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, the Unruh Civil Rights Act in California and the
California Disabled Persons Act, based on, among other things,
denying plaintiffs full and equal access and accommodations to
the company's facilities.

Plaintiffs' requested remedies included certification of the
class, injunctive relief, statutory damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties entered into a
confidential settlement agreement dated Feb. 1, 2006, which
agreement provided, among other things, for a lump sum payment
to the plaintiffs.

The suit is "American Disability Institute, et al. v. El Pollo
Loco, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04305-MMM-SS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Suzanne H.
Segal.  Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas D. Mauriello of
Thomas D. Mauriello Law Offices, 100 Pine St., Ste. 3200, San
Francisco, CA 94911, Phone: 415-677-1238, Fax: 415-677-1233, Web
site: http://www.lawyers.com/mauriellolaw.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott J. Ferrell of Call Jensen & Ferrell, 610 Newport
         Center Drive, Suite 700, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
         Phone: 949-717-3000, E-mail: sferrell@calljensen.com;
         and

     (2) Gregory Stephen Taylor of Hansen and Taylor, 8105
         Irvine Center Drive, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92618,
         Phone: 949-936-2500, E-mail: gtaylor@hansentaylor.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Spanish Prosecutor Clears Afinsa Transactions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Escala Group said it has obtained and reviewed the written
statement of allegations that was submitted to a Spanish court
by the Spanish prosecutorial office in connection with the
investigation of Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. in Spain.  Escala
has confirmed that this document does not allege any impropriety
on the part of Escala or any of its subsidiaries.  No charges
have been filed against Escala or any of its subsidiaries.

Jose Miguel Herrero, Chief Executive Officer of Escala,
commented: "We intend to move the company forward and to
continue to pursue the company's strategies in philately,
numismatics, and art & antiques.  Although the company faces
challenges as a result of the events of last week, there
continues to be strong demand in the collectibles markets in
which we operate, and we believe that Escala's core operations
in auctions, trading and sales of inventory in our collectibles
segments are well-positioned to benefit from that demand."

The company also announces other steps that it is taking to
respond to the investigation of Afinsa.  The company reports
that its board of directors has directed its audit committee,
comprised of three independent directors, to conduct an
investigation into whether the company acted in any way
improperly in its business transactions with Afinsa.

Mr. Herrero continued, "Our Board resolved to instruct the Audit
Committee to investigate this matter.  While our focus needs to
be on our future, we must also ensure that we take all
appropriate steps to respond to the developments in Spain.  This
decision of the Board is an important part of that effort."

Escala also notes that Antonio Martins da Cruz, an Afinsa
representative on Escala's Board of Directors, has tendered his
resignation from the board.  In addition, Escala is seeking the
resignation from the board of Carlos de Figueiredo, the other
Afinsa representative, who has been detained by Spanish
authorities in connection with the events involving Afinsa.

The company further reports that it has become aware of at least
ten putative class actions that were filed in the past week
against the company and certain of its officers and directors
relating to the company's transactions with Afinsa.  These
complaints allege, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws.  The company has not yet been served with the
complaints in these lawsuits, but based on reports concerning
the claims in the lawsuits, the company believes that the claims
lack merit and the company intends to defend against them
vigorously.

Escala Group, Inc. -- http://www.escalagroup.com-- operates as  
a global collectibles merchant and auction house network with
operations in North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as on the
Internet.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin J. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has dismissed with prejudice the
securities class action filed in 2003 against Gilead Sciences,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers.

The complaint had alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements in 2003.  The plaintiffs have not indicated whether
they will appeal the dismissal.

Gilead Sciences is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative therapeutics in areas of
unmet medical need.  Headquartered in Foster City, California,
Gilead has operations in North America, Europe and Australia.

The suit is "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-4999."  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;

     (2) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), 100
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;  

     (3) Lori G. Feldman and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 206-839-0730 and 212-
         594-5300, Fax: 206-839-0728 and 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         lfeldman@milberg.com and sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;

     (5) Jack G. Fruchter of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
         212-279-5050, Fax: 212-279-3655,

     (6) David Jude George and Robert Jeffrey Robbins of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins, LLP, 197 South
         Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432,
         Phone: (561) 750-3000, Fax: (561) 750-3364, E-mail:
         dgeorge@lerachlaw.com and rrobbins@lerachlaw.com;

     (7) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market
         Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
         415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
         rsg@classcounsel.com;

     (8) James M. Orman of Law Offices of James M. Orman, 1845
         Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-523-7800,

Representing the defendants are John C. Dwyer and Grant P.
Fondo of Cooley Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650-843-5000, Fax:
650-857-0663, E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com and gfondo@cooley.com.


LEXAR MEDIA: Faces Calif. Stockholder Suits Over Micron Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lexar Media, Inc. along with its directors were named defendants
in several purported stockholder class actions in the Superior
Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda
following the announcement of its agreement to be acquired by
Micron Technology, Inc. in a stock-for-stock merger.

The suits, filed on Mar. 9, 2006, Mar. 10, 2006, Mar. 20, 2006
and Mar. 27, 2006, are brought allegedly on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs who are holders of the company's stock and assert
claims that the defendants engaged in self-dealing and breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger.

Two of the suits also name Micron as a defendant.  The claims
are based on allegations that, among other things, the
consideration to be paid to stockholders in the proposed merger
is unfair and inadequate.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, a declaration that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties, injunctive
relief -- including enjoining the consummation of the
transaction or rescinding the transaction if consummated --
unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, fees and
costs, and other relief.


LIFECELL CORP: Awaits Ruling on Consolidation of Body Parts Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecell Corp. is awaiting a federal court ruling on a series of
motions to consolidate in one venue as a Multi District
Litigation all class actions over its alleged involvement in the
illegal distribution of body parts by a New Jersey-based
company.

In September 2005, the company recalled products containing
human tissue because the facility, which recovered the tissue,
Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. (BTS) of New Jersey, did not
follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for
donor screening to determine if risk factors for communicable
diseases existed.  The company promptly notified FDA and all
relevant hospitals and medical professionals.

FDA subsequently determined that patients who received tissue
implants prepared from BTS donors might be at a heightened risk
of communicable disease transmission, and recommended those
patients receive appropriate testing.  The company has worked
closely with FDA to execute a product recall and set up a
LifeCell-sponsored testing program.  The company has not
received any donor tissue from BTS after September 2005.

The company along with BTS and many other defendants was named
as a defendant in several lawsuits that relate to this matter
which were filed during the fourth quarter of 2005 and the first
quarter of 2006.

The suits purport to serve as class actions for persons
receiving transplants that are not physically injured, but
instead seek medical monitoring and/or damages for emotional
distress.

The company was successful in obtaining a voluntarily dismissal
in one case which specifically identified another company's
product being at issue.  

Thereafter, another defendant filed a series of motions to
consolidate all class action cases in one venue as a Multi
District Litigation (MDL).  The MDL motion should be decided
shortly.


MAYTAG CORP: Iowa Court Mulls Possible Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pratt is considering a request
to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Barry Yellen, a New York
investment adviser, against Maytag Corp. and its former chief
executive and chief financial officers, the Houston Chronicle
reports.

Attorneys for both sides said there was no motive, for former
Chairman and CEO Ralph Hake and former Chief Financial Officer
George Moore to commit the fraud alleged by Mr. Yellen.  No
strong circumstantial evidence that the earnings forecasts were
knowingly false.

In July 2005, Mr. Yellen filed a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, against
the executives for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The complaint, brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between Mar. 7, 2005,
and Apr. 21, 2005, alleges, among other things, that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially false
statements in a press release and at an investor conference on
Mar. 7, 2005, regarding the company's expected earnings range in
2005, and that defendants made such statements seeking to
inflate the price of the company's shares in conjunction with
ongoing negotiations to sell the company to Triton Acquisition
Holding company (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2006).

The suit is "Barry Yellen, et al. v. Maytag Corp., et al., Case
No. 05-CV-00388," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt with
referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212)
         239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         lawyer@lawssb.com; and

     (2) George A. LaMarca and Justin E. LaVan of LaMarca &
         Landry, 1820 NW 118th Street, Suite 200, Des Moines, IA
         50325, Phone: 515-225-2600, Fax: 225-8581, E-mail:
         connie@lamarcalandry.com and justin@lamarcalandry.com.

Representing the defendants are:

      (1) Dimitry Joffe and Eric M. Roth of Wachtell Lipton
          Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-
          6150, Phone: 212-403-1210, Fax: 512-403-2210, E-mail:
          djoffe@wlrk.com and emroth@wlrk.com; and

      (2) Lance Winfield Lange and Edward M. Mansfield of Belin
          Lamson Mccormick Zumback & Flynn, P.C., 666 Walnut
          Street, Suite 2000, Des Moines, IA 50309-3989, Phone:
          515-283-4639 and 515-243-7100, Fax: 515-558-0639 and
          243-1408, E-mail: lwlange@belinlaw.com and
          mmansfield@belinlaw.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Idaho
-----------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. is defendant in several purported
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers, alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Three substantially similar complaints were filed subsequently.  
The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock during the period Feb. 24,
2001 to Feb. 13, 2003.  

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct or the
company's operations and financial results.  They seek
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.  

The company expects that these four lawsuits will be
consolidated and that a single consolidated class action
complaint will be filed.  

The first identified complaint is "City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System, et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

     (1) 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;

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

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

     (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

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

     (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; and

     (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.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Accused of Antitrust Violations Over DRAM
------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. is defendant in several purported
antitrust class actions in both state and federal courts in
relation to the sale and pricing of Dynamic Random Access Memory
(DRAM) products.

On Jun. 17, 2002, the company received a grand jury subpoena
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking information regarding an investigation by the
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) into
possible antitrust violations in the DRAM industry.  The company
is cooperating fully and actively with the DOJ in its
investigation.  

The company's cooperation is pursuant to the terms of the DOJ's
Corporate Leniency Policy, which provides that in exchange for
the company's full, continuing and complete cooperation in the
pending investigation, the company will not be subject to
prosecution, fines or other penalties from the DOJ.  

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, at
least 84 purported class actions -- seven of which were
dismissed -- were filed against the company and other DRAM
suppliers in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and in
Puerto Rico by direct and indirect purchasers alleging price-
fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws,
violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust
enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products.  

The complaints seek treble damages for the alleged damages
sustained by purported class members, in addition to
restitution, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction
against the allegedly unlawful conduct.  

Three purported class actions were also filed in Canada,
alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act.  The
substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the cases filed in the U.S. and Puerto Rico.  

Based upon the company's analysis of the claims made and the
nature of the DRAM industry, the company believes that class
treatment of these cases is not appropriate and that any
purported injury alleged by plaintiffs would be more
appropriately resolved on a purchaser-by-purchaser basis.  


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Lexar Media Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. is defendant in two of four purported
class action complaints filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of shareholders
of Lexar Media, Inc. against Lexar and its directors in
connection with a merger transaction between Lexar and the
company.

Filed starting March 2006, the complaints allege that the
defendants breached, or aided and abetted the breach of,
fiduciary duties owed to Lexar shareholders by, among other
things, engaging in self-dealing, failing to engage in efforts
to obtain the highest price reasonably available, and failing to
properly value Lexar in the merger transaction.  

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing, or an order of rescission reversing, the merger,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.  


NATIONAL CITY: Circuit Judge Dismisses Fax Fee Lawsuit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber has dismissed a $20 fax
fee class action bought by the Lakin Law Firm against National
City Mortgage Company, according to The Madison St. Clair
Record.

The Lakin Law Firm, representing plaintiffs Donald and Patricia  
Agney, is accusing the lender of charging an unreasonable fee
for faxes in refinancing their loan.  The fee is stated in the
loan agreement, which the plaintiffs were made to sign under
compulsion, according to the plaintiffs' lawyer, Steve  
Schweizer.  

Judge Weber in his order granting summary judgment and
dismissing the suit wrote: "The court is of the opinion that the
crux of this matter is whether or not the Agneys, or their
agent, knew of the fax fee and whether or not the Agneys
voluntarily paid the fee."  Using Donald's deposition Weber
wrote that Mr. Agney stated he was not "threatened" or
"intimidated" into paying the fax fee.

At an Apr. 27 hearing on a motion for summary judgment, an
attorney for National City charged that the suit over fax fees
filed against the company is "manufactured," The Madison County
Record reports (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2006).

While asking why didn't the plaintiffs complain at the signing,
the judge asked whether the plaintiffs were recruited.  He also
asked how they got involved in the suit, to which Mr. Schweizer
answered: "...I don't know."  Mr. Schweizer said he joined the
firm a year ago.

Citing the "Avery v. State Farm" case, the judge wrote "... a
class cannot be certified unless the named plaintiffs have a
cause of action."

Defendant's lawyer Troy Bozarth alleged the Agneys were
contacted by a lawyer looking through loan closings at Centerre  
Title.   

For more details, contact:

     (1) The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229,  
         Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127 and
         (800) 851-5523, Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/;and    

     (2) Troy A. Bozarth of Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, MacDonald,  
         Hebrank & True, LLP, Two Mark Twain Plaza, Suite 300,
         103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville,  
         Illinois 62025-0510, (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-
         0184, Telecopier: 618-656-1364, Web site:
         http://www.ilmolaw.com.   


ORACLE CORP: Sept. 2006 Trial Slated for Calif. Securities Suit  
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 11, 2006 trial date is set for the consolidated
securities class action against Oracle Corp. and certain of its
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Stockholder class actions were initially filed against the
company and the company's chief executive officer on and after
Mar. 9, 2001.  On Jun. 20, 2001, the court consolidated the
class actions into a single action and appointed a lead
plaintiff and class counsel.  A consolidated amended complaint,
adding the company's then chief financial officer -- who
currently is chairman of its board of directors -- and a former
executive vice president as defendants, was filed on Aug. 3,
2001 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
purchasers of company stock from Dec. 15, 2000 through Mar. 1,
2001.  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of its
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.  
They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

On Mar. 12, 2002, the court granted the motion of the company
and the individual defendants to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Apr. 10, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
first amended consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of
purchasers of company stock from Dec. 14, 2000 through Mar. 1,
2001.  On Sept. 11, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss that complaint (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20,
2006).

On Oct. 11, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  In this second amended complaint, the plaintiffs
added allegations that the defendants engaged in accounting
violations and made misstatements about the company's financial
performance, beginning on Dec. 14, 2000 through Mar. 1, 2001
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).  

On Mar. 24, 2003, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal
and, on Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).  

The company and the individual defendants petitioned for
rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and on Oct. 21, 2004,
the petition for rehearing was denied (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 20, 2006).

Currently, the parties are conducting discovery.  Trial was set
for Sept. 11, 2006, although that date may change.

The suit is "Nursing Home Pension Fund et al. v. Oracle Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jennie Lee Anderson, Eli
Greenstein, Mark Solomon and Monique Winkler of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058,
Fax: 619-231-7423 and 415-288-4534, E-mail:
jenniea@lerachlaw.com, Elig@lerachlaw.com, marks@lerachlaw.com
and MoniqueW@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Dorian Daley, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA
         94065, Phone: (650) 506-5200, Fax: (650) 506-7114;

     (2) James C. Maroulis of Oracle Corporation, 500 Oracle
         Parkway, M/S 5OP7, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, Phone:
         650-506-4517, Fax: 650-506-7114, E-mail:
         jim.maroulis@oracle.com; and

     (3) Lee Howard Rubin of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, Two
         Palo Alto Square, Suite 300, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
         Alto, CA 94306-2112, Phone: 650-331-2037, Fax: 540-331-
         4537, E-mail: lrubin@mayerbrownrowe.com.


OUTLOOK GROUP: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Disposal to Vista
------------------------------------------------------------
Outlook Group Corp. and its directors are facing a lawsuit
challenging the company's proposed acquisition by Vista Group
Holdings, LLC.  The lawsuit was filed by an entity that claims
it is a shareholder of Outlook Group and purports to act on
behalf of itself and a class of other similarly situated
shareholders.

In the action, plaintiff alleges that by approving the proposed
acquisition of Outlook Group by Vista Group Holdings, Outlook
Group and its directors allegedly violated a fiduciary duty owed
to shareholders under Wisconsin law because the intrinsic value
of Outlook Group is materially in excess of the amount of the
merger consideration.  

Plaintiff further alleges, among other things, that the terms of
the merger are unfair to the purported class of shareholders,
and that the defendant directors allegedly acted improperly to
maintain and protect their positions with Outlook Group
following the merger and to profit from Outlook Group's 2005
Equity Incentive Plan.  As a result, plaintiff alleges that the
class has and will be damaged, and that the class is entitled to
undefined injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorneys'
fees.

Outlook Group is continuing with preparations for a special
meeting of shareholders to vote on the merger and other
preparations for completion of the merger.  However, the
litigation could affect Outlook's ability to complete the merger
and could delay the completion of the merger.

"Outlook Group and its board of directors continue to believe
that our previously announced agreement to be acquired by Vista
Group Holdings, LLC is in the best interest of our company and
our shareholders," said Joseph J. Baksha, president and chief
executive officer of Outlook Group.

Outlook Group Corp. -- http://www.outlookgroup.com-- is a  
printing, packaging and direct marketing company offering a
variety of related services to clients in markets including
contract packaging, collateral information management and
distribution, direct marketing components and services,
packaging components and materials and specialty print related
services.  Outlook Group leverages its core competencies by
cross-selling services to provide a single-source solution for
its clients.


PATHMARK STORES: Del. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed
the securities class action filed against Pathmark Stores, Inc.
and its directors.

On Jun. 15, 2005, Rick Hartman, a stockholder in the company,
filed the suit asserting on behalf of a purported class of
stockholders of the company a claim against the defendants for
issuing a proxy statement in connection with the securities
purchase agreement dated as of Mar. 23, 2005 among the company,
a group of investors led by The Yucaipa Companies LLC and
certain investment funds affiliated with Yucaipa, which was
allegedly materially false and misleading.

The complaint additionally asserts a claim against the
individual defendants (company directors) for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with the purchase agreement.  It
thus seeks an award of damages for the alleged wrongs asserted
in the complaint.

On Aug. 19, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On Mar. 8, 2006, the court issued an opinion
dismissing the complaint in its entirety (the proxy statement
claims with prejudice, and the breach of fiduciary duty claims
without prejudice).

The suit is "Hartman v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00403-JJF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Elizabeth M. McGeever of
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., 1310 King St., P.O. Box 1328
Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 888-6500, E-mail:
emmcgeever@prickett.com.

Representing the defendants is William M. Lafferty of Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, 1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box
1347, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 658-9200, E-mail:
wlafferty@mnat.com.


PROTECTION ONE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. reached a settlement for
the class action filed against it in the Los Angeles Superior
Court in California, styled, "Milstein v. Protection One Alarm
Services, Inc., John Does 1-100, including Protection One Alarm
Monitoring, Inc., Case No. BC296025."

On May 20, 2003, Joseph G. Milstein filed the suit, alleging
that Mr. Milstein and similarly situated customers in California
should not be required to continue to pay for alarm services
during the term of their contracts if the customer moves from
the monitored premises.  The complaint seeks money damages and
disgorgement of profits based on several purported causes of
action.  On May 29, 2003, the plaintiff added the company as a
defendant in the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2006).  

On Oct. 28, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
compel arbitration of the dispute pursuant to the terms of the
customer contract.  A Clause Construction hearing was conducted
Aug. 10, 2004, and on Oct. 27, 2004, the arbitrator ruled that
the arbitration clause permits the plaintiff to seek to proceed
on behalf of a class (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2006).  

On Feb. 24, 2005, a class certification hearing was conducted
and the parties are awaiting the arbitrator's ruling on whether
the matter may proceed as a class action.   The suit was
subsequently referred to arbitration in accordance with the
terms of the customer contract (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5,
2006).  

The parties mutually agreed to settle the claims underlying the
dispute, and on Sept. 20, 2005, the Court entered an order
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 5, 2006).


RCN CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. is defendant in a consolidated class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).

On May 16, 2005, a consolidated class action complaint "In re:
RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 04-CV-5068 (SRC),"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, naming the company and certain of its current and former
directors, officers, employee administrators and managers, as
well as Merrill Lynch Trust Company, FSB, as defendants for
violations of certain ERISA provisions.  

On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the claims against RCN's current directors.

The class action complaint seeks recovery of unspecified money
damages for the benefit of a purported class of participants and
beneficiaries of the RCN Savings And Stock Ownership Plan as a
result of the defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties under ERISA.  Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety, which will be argued in March
2006.  Plaintiffs, to date, have not filed a motion for class
certification.  This litigation is subject to certain
limitations ordered by the Bankruptcy Court described below.

Previously, on Sept. 22, 2004, former employee Deborah K. Craig,
on behalf of the Savings Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries, filed a motion for leave to file proof of claim
(Late Claim Motion), seeking to assert a claim (the Craig Proof
of Claim) against the company, after the claims bar date of Aug.
11, 2004, for alleged violations of ERISA to recover alleged
losses similar to those alleged in the Class Action complaint.

On Oct. 5, 2004, Craig filed a purported class action complaint
against certain fiduciaries of the Savings Plan within the
meaning of ERISA in a lawsuit "Craig v. Filipowicz, et al., Case
No. 04-cv-07875 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.)," which was subsequently
transferred to the District of New Jersey, with a new Case No.
04-cv-05940 (SRC) (D.N.J.).

On Nov. 3, 2004, the bankruptcy court issued an order denying
the Late Claim Motion in its entirety, which Ms. Craig appealed
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On Dec. 20, 2004, Ms. Craig sought from the Bankruptcy Court
limited relief (the Injunction Relief Motion), for the benefit
of herself and all other similarly situated beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan, from the injunction issued by the bankruptcy
court's order confirming the Plan for the purpose of naming RCN
as a nominal defendant in the New Jersey Action.

On Feb. 16, 2005, Ms. Craig filed a motion on the New Jersey
Action docket to have it consolidated with certain other related
actions, with a proposed caption, "In re RCN Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. 04-cv-5068 (SRC)."

On Mar. 18, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order affirming the Late Claim
Order.  On Apr. 1, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered an order
granting the Injunction Relief Motion to the extent that:

      -- Ms. Craig and all other similarly situated parties
         are permitted to name RCN as a nominal defendant in the
         pending Consolidated Action; and

      -- the plaintiffs may enforce any judgment obtained
         against RCN solely against any applicable insurance
         companies and only up to limits of any applicable
         insurance coverage, to the extent such coverage is
         available.

The Injunction Relief Order does not prevent the plaintiffs from
pursuing litigation claims against others, including current or
former directors, officers, employees, partners, members, or
managers of RCN or any other reorganized debtor and collecting
in full any judgment Plaintiffs may obtain against such third
parties.

As an express condition to the entry of the Injunctive Relief
Order, Ms. Craig waived any right of further appeal to the
denial of the Late Claim Order.  Subsequently, plaintiffs filed
the class action complaint in the ERISA Litigation to pursue
their remedies against RCN, subject to the limitations imposed
by the Bankruptcy Court, and additional third parties.  

The suit is "In re: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com;

Representing the company is Edward Cerasia, II of Proskauer
Rose, LLP, One Newark Center, 18th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5211,
Phone: (973) 274-3200, E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com.


SAKS INC: Adamson Apparel Files Breach of Contract Suit in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saks, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama asserting breach of
contract claims.

Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005.  In its
complaint the plaintiff and alleges that the company improperly
assessed chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions
for merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff class.  
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and
restitution.

The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc v. Saks Incorporated, Case No.
2:05-cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace
Blackburn.  Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Richard T. Dorman Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder &
         Brown, P.O. Box 66705, Mobile, AL 36660, Phone: 1-251-
         471-6191, E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com;

     (2) Rachel J. Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         US, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail:
         rgeman@ichb.com;

     (3) David J. Guin and Tammy McClendon Stokes of Donaldson &
         Guin, LLC, The Financial Center, 505 20th Street North,
         Suite 1000, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-503-4505,
         Fax: 205-226-2357, E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com and
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com.

Representing the defendant Andrew J. Sinor, Jr. of Hand
Arendall, LLC, 1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4400, Fax: 205-397-1310, E-
mail: dsinor@handarendall.com.


SHAW GROUP: La. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has yet to rule on The Shaw Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current officers.

Several purported shareholder class actions were initially filed
against the company alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  The first filed lawsuit is "Earl Thompson v. The Shaw
Group Inc. et al., Case No. 04-1685" (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 9, 2005).

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and Rule 10(b-
5) promulgated thereunder and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from Oct. 19, 2000 to Jun. 10,
2004 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2005).   The complaint
alleges, among other things, that:

      -- certain of the company's press releases and Securities
         and Exchange Commision filings contained material
         misstatements and omissions;

      -- that the manner in which the company accounted for
         certain acquisitions was improper; and

      -- that the company improperly recorded revenue on certain
         projects, and as a result, its financial statements
         were materially misstated at all relevant times.

Since the filing of the Thompson lawsuit, nine additional
purported shareholder class actions have been filed.  Each of
the additional lawsuits includes the same defendants, and
essentially alleges the same statutory violations based on the
same or similar alleged misstatements and omissions.  All of
these actions were consolidated under the Thompson caption in
the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff to represent the members of the purported class (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2005).  

The Court has not certified the consolidated actions as class
actions.  The company recently filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action, which is pending.

The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Helen G. Berrigan.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter E. Seidman, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300;

     (2) Lewis Stephen Kahn, Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650
         Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
         504-455-1400;

     (3) Joel R. Waltzer, Waltzer & Associates, 14349 Chef
         Menteur Hwy., P. O. Box 29423, Suite D, New Orleans, LA
         70189, Phone: 504-254-4400;

     (4) Darren J. Robbins, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619-231-1058;

     (5) John Donellan Fitzmorris, Jr., John D. Fitzmorris, Jr.,
         Attorney at Law, 210 Baronne St., Suite 1122, New
         Orleans, LA 70112, 504-586-9395; and

     (6) David A. Rosenfeld, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.

Representing the defendants are:
     
     (i) Steven W. Copley, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis &
         Eagan LLP, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000, New
         Orleans, LA 70170-4000, Phone: (504) 582-1111;

    (ii) J. J. (Jerry) McKernan, McKernan Law Firm, 8710
         Jefferson Hwy., Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-926-
         1234; and

   (iii) Clifford Thau, Steven R. Paradise of Vinson & Elkins,
         LLP, 666 Fifth Ave., 26th Floor, New York, NY 10103,
         Phone: 212-237-0007.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Securities Suit in Calif. Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action against Siebel Systems, Inc.

On Mar. 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of the company,
filed the complaint against Siebel and certain of its officers
relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and certain
customer satisfaction surveys.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on Aug. 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff.  The consolidated
complaint also raised claims regarding the company's business
performance in 2002.

In October 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was granted on Jan. 28, 2005 with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on Mar. 1, 2005.  They seek
unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and equitable and injunctive relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Apr. 27, 2005, and on Dec. 28, 2005, the court dismissed the
case with prejudice.  On Jan. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  

The suit is "Wollrab v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00983-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Basser of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 402 W.
         Broadway, Ste. 850, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         230-0800, E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com;

     (2) Francis M. Gregorek of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, Symphony Towers, 750 B. Street, Suite 2770, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-239-4599, E-mail:
         gregorek@whafh.com;

     (3) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-mail:
         lifshitz@bernlieb.com; and

     (4) Dale MacDiarmid of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160.

Representing the defendants are Michael D. Torpey, Erin L.
Bansal and Penelope Graboys of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-2669, Phone: 415-778-5700, Fax: 415-778-5759, E-mail:
mtorpey@orrick.com, ebansal@orrick.com and
pgraboysblair@orrick.com.


SNAP-ON INC: Enters $38M Deal to Settle Franchisees' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenosha, Wisconsin-based Snap-On Inc., a maker of tools for
vehicle repair and other industrial uses, agreed to pay $38
million to resolve pending lawsuits by some of its former
franchisees, the Reuters reports.  The franchisees had been
seeking to resolve their claims via a class-action arbitration.

The amount of the payment may change depending on the actual
number of claimants, and the application of various payment
formulas in the agreement, the company said in a regulatory
filing.  It did not admit wrongdoing.

Snap-On Inc. cut 8.3 percent of its 12,000-person work force and
shuttered five factories, six warehouses and 45 to 50 offices in
North America and Europe under a restructuring in the late 90s
(Troubled Company Reporter Sept. 10, 1998).

Snap-on Inc.  -- http://www.snapon.com-- is engaged in the  
innovation, manufacture, and marketing of tool, diagnostic, and
equipment solutions for professional tool and equipment users.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Kans. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Workers at a Tyson Foods Inc. facility alleged in Kansas federal
court on May 15 that the world's largest chicken, beef and pork
processor violated federal and state labor laws.

To date, 262 current and former workers at the Tyson Fresh
Meats, Inc., facility in Holcomb, Kansas have joined the
lawsuit, alleging that they did not receive wages and overtime
pay as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
Kansas state law.

Attorneys from Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, of Kansas City,
Missouri, and Outten & Golden LLP, of New York, represent the
workers and will seek certification of the case as a class
action that includes overtime-eligible Tyson workers who have
worked at the 2,500-employee Holcomb facility during the past
five years.  

The vast majority of workers at the Holcomb facility are
immigrants, many of them from Latin America.  The case is
"Garcia et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 06-2198-
JWL," filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas.  The
class representatives are Adelina Garcia, Jeronimo Vargas-Vera,
and Antonio Garcia, all of Garden City, Kansas.

The lawsuit filing comes after a supreme court's Nov. 8, 2005
unanimous decision in "IBP Inc. v. Alvarez" that meat plant
workers had to be paid for time required to put on and remove
protective clothing and safety gear and for time required to
walk to and from work stations.  Tyson acquired Iowa Beef
Processors (IBP) in 2001, and Tyson continued IBP's unlawful
wage and hour policies and practices at the Holcomb facility,
according to the law firms.

Attorney George A. Hanson, of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody's
Kansas City, Missouri, office, stated: "The Supreme Court's
directive is clear: companies like Tyson cannot uniformly deny
wages and overtime pay to their employees by requiring them to
work 'off the clock.'  Our clients exemplify America's hard-
working immigrant population.  They are lawfully employed, tax-
paying workers, trying to live the American dream.  The time has
come for Tyson to comply with the law and properly compensate
these workers who perform some of our nation's most dangerous
factory jobs under the most difficult conditions imaginable."

Among the work duties that the Tyson workers at the Holcomb
facility allege that they have not been paid for are:

     -- changing into the required work uniforms and safety
        equipment that can include, among other things
        (depending on the task): work pants and shirts; safety
        jump suits; safety boots; hair nets; face nets; hard
        hats; aprons; belts with holsters and knifes; and hand
        and arm protection; and

     -- walking to and from the changing area, work areas and
        break areas.

According to Ms. Garcia, who has worked at the Holcomb facility
for nearly eight years, "The 'off the clock' work we do before
and after shifts and breaks adds up to lot of time during the
work year.  The protective clothing and safety gear required in
our jobs is necessary preparation for the hard and sometimes
dangerous work we do."

Justin M. Swartz, an attorney with Outten & Golden's New York
City office, stated, "Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
are still pervasive in U.S. companies, but the Supreme Court
ruling ends the debate over whether companies in the meat-
packing and poultry processing industries can avoid paying
workers their due compensation."

Last month, about 800 workers at a Tyson plant in Pasco,
Washington, began receiving checks from an $8.4 million
settlement from the company, ending a long legal battle over
overtime compensation.

For more information, contact George A. Hanson or Eric L. Dirks
of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite
250, Kansas City, Missouri, 64112, Phone: (800) 714-0360 or
(816) 714-7100, Fax: (816) 714-7101, E-mail: hanson@sshwlaw.com,
On the Net: http://www.sshwlaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Lawyers to Fight Bans on Multi-Plaintiff Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ), a national public
interest law firm, is launching The Class Action Preservation
Project, a major plan to fight an alleged growing attempt by
corporations to deprive consumers and employees of their legal
rights.

Throughout America, corporations are trying to avoid
accountability for cheating and discriminating against their
customers and workers by slipping class actions bans into the
fine print of their form agreements, a statement released
through LawFuel Press Release Service states.  The Class Action
Preservation Project intends to battle this growing threat to
Americans' rights.

"Corporations are trying to write their own 'get out of jail
free' cards by slipping class actions bans into their form
agreements," said TLPJ Foundation President Thomas M. Dempsey of
Los Angeles.  "They hope no one will notice until it's too late.  
We all have to stop them or justice can never be done."

"Preserving class actions is essential," said TLPJ Executive
Director Arthur H. Bryant.  "In many cases, class actions are
the only way justice can be done.  "Brown v. Board of Education"
was a class action.  So are numerous consumers' rights, civil
rights, workers' rights, antitrust, securities, anti-
discrimination, and toxic pollution cases.  If class actions are
eliminated, many of our rights will be lost."

Class actions are lawsuits brought on behalf of hundreds,
thousands, or even millions of people cheated, discriminated
against, or mistreated in the same way by corporations or the
government.  In most such cases, if class actions are barred,
the wrongdoers will get away scot-free and the victims will
receive nothing at all, the statement said.

Recognizing this fact, employers, credit card companies, banks,
phone companies, cell phone providers, mortgage companies,
insurers, companies selling on the Internet, and others are
increasingly inserting class action bans into their form
agreements, the statement continues.  They claim that people
"agree" to these bans -- which they call "class action waivers"
-- simply by using their credit cards, cell phones, or keeping
their jobs.

This growing threat to Americans' rights was documented last
year in "Opting Out of Liability: The Forthcoming Near-Total
Demise of the Modern Class Action," by Benjamin N. Cardozo Law
School Professor Myriam Gilles in The Michigan Law Review.

"In the ongoing and ever-mutating battle between plaintiffs'
lawyers and the protectors of corporate interests, the corporate
guys are winning because they have developed a new set of tools
powerful enough to imperil the very viability at class actions
in many -- actually, most -- areas of the law," wrote Professor
Gilles.  "In fact, I believe it is likely that, with a handful
of exceptions, class actions will soon be virtually extinct."

TLPJ's Class Action Preservation Project will:

      -- challenge attempts to ban class actions;

      -- fight efforts to improperly limit class actions,
         including through court decisions, legal rule changes,
         and mandatory arbitration;

      -- educate the public about the value of class actions and
         the dangers to them; and

      -- battle illegal settlements and other abuses that
         threaten class actions' integrity or preservation.

Professor Gilles will advise the Class Action Preservation
Project.

TLPJ has already won the two leading cases striking down class
action bans, "Ting v. AT&T" before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in 2003 and "Discover Bank v. Superior Court"
before the Supreme Court of California in 2005.  In the last two
months, TLPJ argued challenges to class action bans before the
Supreme Court of Washington in "Scott v. Cingular Wireless" and
the Supreme Court of New Jersey in "Muhammad v. County Bank."  
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and courts in
Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington have also thrown out class
action bans in other cases.

In contrast, the highest courts of Hawaii, Maryland, North
Dakota, and Washington, D.C., have all enforced class action
bans.  So have lower courts interpreting the law of Alabama,
Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.  
And last month, Utah passed the first law in the nation
validating class action bans in consumer credit agreements.

TLPJ prosecutes a broad range of individual and class action
cases.  For the past decade, it has also operated a special
project to prevent class action abuse, recently challenging a
proposed Netflix nationwide class action settlement that would
have left Netflix better off -- and many of its customers worse
off -- than if no suit had ever been filed, the statement said.  
That work will continue as part of the Class Action Preservation
Project.

The Class Action Preservation Project is part of TLPJ's Access
to Justice Campaign, designed to expose, fight, and defeat the
wide-ranging attacks on the right to a day in court in America
-- including federal preemption, mandatory arbitration, class
action bans and abuses, court secrecy, attacks on the right to
counsel and jury trial, and unconstitutional legislation and
administration actions.

For information about the Access to Justice Campaign, the law
review article quoted above, articles and press releases about
the cases cited above, and briefs in those cases, visit
http://www.tlpj.org.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Lawyers Add BellSouth, AT&T in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. and AT&T Inc. have been added to a class action
filed by New Jersey attorneys on May 12 against Verizon
Communications, Inc., CNN.com reports.

The suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan alleging the
phone company violated privacy laws by participating in a secret
surveillance program with the National Security Agency (Class
Action Reporter, May 16, 2006).  The suit was by lawyer Bruce
Afran and Carl Mayer.  It asked the court to stop the company
from turning over any more records to the NSA without a warrant
or consent of the subscriber, and is seeking $1,000 for each
violation of the Telecommunication Act.

Verizon Communications, Inc. -- http://www.verizon.com--  
provides communication services worldwide in domestic telecom,
domestic wireless, information services, and international
segments.  The company was incorporated in 1983 as Bell Atlantic  
Corp. and changed its name as Verizon Communications, Inc. in
2000.


WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on Workstream, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
securities class action filed against it and its chief executive
officer and its former chief financial officer.

The action, filed on or about Aug. 10, 2005, was brought on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's
common shares during the period from Jan. 14, 2005 to and
including Apr. 14, 2005.  

It alleges, among other things, that management provided the
market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance
on a timely basis.  

The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well as the
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and
expert fees and costs.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added an additional plaintiff and sought to elaborate on
the allegations contained in the complaint.  The company's
counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  That motion
was fully briefed and was scheduled for hearing on Apr. 21,
2006.

The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax:
         (212) 918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com; and
       
     (2) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485
         Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:
         (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         rstone@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants are David M. Doret and H. Robert
Fiebach of Cozen and O'Connor, 45 Broadway Atrium, New York, NY
10006-3792, Phone: 212-509-9400.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased AIM mutual funds
from the AIG Advisor Group (parent company is defendant American
International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from Jun. 30, 2000
through Jun. 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 Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

On Jun. 8, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers
announced that it had fined AIG in connection with the receipt
of directed brokerage in exchange for preferential treatment for
certain mutual fund companies and certain mutual fund families
(the Shelf-Space Funds).

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

The complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the
Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards
to AIG and its personnel based on sales.

Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to
investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined
recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited
number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap
millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds,
with which they had struck secret, highly lucrative deals to
profit at shareholders' expense.  

The defendants' sales practices created a material
insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and
their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to
sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants'
overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the
process.

While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the
defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives
for selling such funds.  The conflict of interest created by the
defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear
violation of federal securities laws.

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased AllianceBernstein
mutual funds from the AIG Advisor Group (parent company is
defendant American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from
Jun. 30, 2000 through Jun. 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 Corp.,
Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

On Jun. 8, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers
announced that it had fined AIG in connection with the receipt
of directed brokerage in exchange for preferential treatment for
certain mutual fund companies and certain mutual fund families
(the Shelf-Space Funds).

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

The complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the
Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards
to AIG and its personnel based on sales.

Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to
investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined
recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited
number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap
millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds,
with which they had struck secret, highly-lucrative deals to
profit at shareholders' expense.

The defendants' sales practices created a material
insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and
their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to
sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants'
overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the
process.

While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the
defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives
for selling such funds. The conflict of interest created by the
defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear
violation of federal securities laws.

Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


ESCALA GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Escala Group,
Inc. (ESCL) common stock between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006.

The complaint charges Escala, its majority shareholder and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Escala is a global network of
leading companies in the collectibles market with operations in
North America, Europe and Asia as well as on the Internet.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and the activities of its majority
shareholder.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Escala stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class period,
reaching a high of $35 per share in February 2006.

On May 9, 2006, Escala announced that it had been advised that
Spanish judicial authorities, as part of an investigation into
the stamps-collectibles sector, had collected documents from
Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. of Madrid, Escala's majority
shareholder, and also from Escala offices in Madrid.  In
addition, the company announced that certain members of the
board of directors of Afinsa, including an Afinsa representative
on Escala's board, were being questioned.

On this news, Escala's stock dropped from $32.00 to $12.23 per
share and then to $6.55 per share on May 10, 2006.  Then on May
11, 2006, Spanish prosecutors charged 11 people involved in the
scheme, including five individuals affiliated with Afinsa, and
Escala's stock collapsed to as low as $4.01 per share, before
closing at $4.34 per share.

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

      -- the company's parent company was engaging in a pyramid
         scheme and lacked requisite internal controls to
         prevent fraudulent activities;

      -- the company's merchant/dealer activities were dependent
         on sales of Afinsa, which accounted for 62% of its
         sales, and Afinsa was engaged in fraud; and

      -- Afinsa was engaging in a pyramid scheme.

Interested parties who wish to serve, as lead plaintiff must
move the Court no later than 60 days from May 9, 2006.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/escala/.  


ESCALA GROUP: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice, LLC filed a class action (civil action no. 06-CV-
3644) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Escala
Group, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003 through May 8,
2006.  

The complaint alleges the company and certain named officers
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
performance and future business prospects.

The company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a global
dealer and auctioneer in collectibles.  The complaint also
alleges that, throughout the class period, the company grossly
inflated certain of its revenues by misrepresenting the true
value of certain transactions with its affiliate, and
controlling shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A., which
constituted the primary source of the company's purported
operating profits.

Moreover, the complaint alleges the company misrepresented its
business prospects by failing to disclose that the company's
profitability resulted from unsustainable business practices
that, if discovered, would be unable to continue.

On May 9, 2006, investors learned that Spanish officials had
raided the Madrid offices of Afinsa in furtherance of a criminal
investigation into a suspected fraudulent investment scheme
operated by Afinsa.

In connection with the raids, Spanish authorities arrested nine
individuals, including Escala's Second Vice Chairman and
Director, froze the Spanish assets of Afinsa and raided over 21
homes.  

As a result of this information, the complaint shows, the
company's stock opened for trading at $16.39 on May 9, down from
the previous closing price of $32.00. During the two subsequent
trading days, the company's stock further declined, and closed
on May 11, 2006, at $4.34 per share, down 86.4% from the pre-
disclosure closing price of $32.00.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired ESCL stock during the class
period and suffered a loss as a result.  

Interested parties who wish to serve, as lead plaintiff must
move the court no later than Jul. 10, 2006 for appointment.

For more details, contact Leslie G. Toran of Motley Rice, LLC,
Phone: 404-201-6910, E-mail: ltoran@motleyrice.com, Web site:
http://www.motleyrice.com.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons who purchased the debt securities of
Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd. (FFH) or (CA) between Mar. 24,
2004 and Mar. 21, 2006, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants Fairfax and V. Prem Watsa, the
company's chairman and chief executive officer.  It alleges
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

The debt securities at issue in this complaint are:

      -- 7.75% notes maturing 04/26/12 ("7.75% Notes");

      -- 8.25% notes maturing 10/01/15;

      -- 6.875% notes maturing 4/15/08;

      -- 8.3% notes maturing 4/15/26; and

      -- 7.375% notes maturing 4/15/18.

The complaint also alleges claims on behalf of a sub-class of
class members who also suffered damages upon purchasing the
7.75% Notes pursuant to or traceable to the company's Aug. 24,
2004 prospectus filed by Fairfax with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 25, 2004 to effectuate a $95 million
aggregate principal amount debt flotation.

The complaint alleges that statements in the Prospectus omitted
material information including, inter alia:

      -- failure to detail the company's increasing liquidity
         problems;

      -- failure to detail second quarter 2004 transactions
         between Odyssey and Fairfax and to explain that the
         arrangements were structured to avoid a liquidity
         squeeze at Fairfax that would have occurred during the
         quarter;

      -- failure to detail Fairfax's exposure stemming from the
         need to collateralize run-off business;

      -- failure to detail the company's reserves and whether
         they were adequate to address the company's growing
         run-off operations;

      -- failure to detail the company's growing exposure to
         finite reinsurance agreements within the overall
         organization; and

      -- failure to detail Fairfax's highly leveraged balance
         sheet and further omissions concerning the company's
         equity position.

The claims brought with respect to the Prospectus seek to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 15 U.S.C. Section 77k
and 77l.

Defendants, with respect to the claims brought under the
Securities Act are Mr. Watsa, the company, and Trevor Ambridge,
the company's chief executive officer and vice president
(principal financial officer), M. Jane Williamson, the company's
vice president (principal accounting officer), Anthony F.
Griffiths, a director of the company, Robbert Hartog, a director
of the company, Bradley P. Martin, vice president and corporate
secretary to the company, and Banc of America Securities LLC,
the underwriter of the company's 7.75% Notes.

The complaint's Exchange Act averments allege that defendants
Mr. Watsa and the company violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's debt securities.

During the class period, the complaint alleges the company and
Mr. Watsa engaged in conduct designed to omit material
information from the public concerning Fairfax's exposure to
nontraditional insurance and reinsurance agreements entered into
by the company and its numerous subsidiaries and affiliates,
including, but not limited to, Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.

The company's class period financial statements also failed to
disclose that Fairfax's current reserve accounts and those
maintained by its subsidiaries and affiliates were similarly
understated.

Further, the company misrepresented its exposure to the risks
associated with Odyssey's finite reinsurance contracts and that
the company's run-off operations required material restructuring
and additions to reserves.

On Mar. 22, 2006, Fairfax announced that U.S. securities
regulators issued subpoenas to third parties (including the
company's independent auditor and a shareholder) in an ongoing
probe into certain financial transactions, including
nontraditional insurance or reinsurance product transactions.

While it was widely known that the SEC was investigating the
U.S. reinsurance industry, this was the first time that the
depth of the investigation was disclosed.  The company's debt
securities declined following this disclosure.

On Mar. 31, 2006, Fairfax filed its delayed annual report on
Form 40-F.  The annual report stated that the company would not
have to restate prior period's earnings even though Odyssey
would restate the period ended Sept. 30, 2005 due to an
additional contract that needed adjustment.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth above, the market price of Fairfax
securities, including its publicly traded debt, was artificially
inflated during the class period.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment,
on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing
Fairfax securities.  Had plaintiffs and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices
that were paid.

The case is "Parks v. Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd., et al.,
06 cv 2820."

Interested parties may request that the Court appoint them as
lead plaintiff by Jun. 12, 2006.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, Phone: (800) 575-0735, E-
mail: Nespole@whafh.com and classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, against GMH Communities Trust (GCT) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
company from Oct. 28, 2004 to Mar. 10, 2006, inclusive.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

GMH Communities Trust is a Maryland corporation that maintains
its principal executive office in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.
GMH provides housing to college and university students residing
off-campus and to members of the U.S. military and their
families.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the
defendants embarked on a scheme to inflate the earnings of GMH
and to issue dividends in violation of its loan covenants, in
order to inflate the price of GMH common stock.  The inflated
stock price allowed GMH to sell a secondary offering in October
2005 on more favorable terms than would otherwise have
pertained.

The defendants were able to accomplish their scheme by issuing a
series of false and misleading financial results to the market.
They portrayed GMH as a growing real estate investment trust
(REIT) in a particular niche market -- student and military
housing -- that pays high dividends.

The complaint further alleges that on Mar. 13, 2006, GMH
announced that it was postponing the release of its results for
the fourth quarter and year ended Dec. 31, 2005.  

The delay was related to events arising from an investigation
initiated by GMH's Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee's
investigation revealed evidence indicating, among other things,
material weaknesses in GMH's internal controls, pressure by key
executives on the accounting function, and the need for
adjustments to GMH's financial statements in current and prior
accounting periods.

GMH also admitted that it had violated the loan covenants in its
credit facility by issuing yearly dividends for 2005 in the
amount of $0.91 per shares.

In response to these revelations, on Mar. 10, 2006, the price of
GMH common stock fell $3.93 per share from the previous day's
closing price, losing over 23% of its value in one day on
extremely high volume, to close at $12.90 per share.  The
company's share price continued its descent until it closed
below $11 per share on Mar. 21, 2006.

On Mar. 31, 2006, GMH reported additional delays in the filing
of its annual report and anticipated restatements of previously
reported results due to improper capitalization of expenses and
the timing of recognition of revenues and expenses.

Interested parties have until Jun. 2, 2006 to ask the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set May 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP reminds current and former
investors of Merge Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Merge Healthcare
(Nasdaq: MRGE) that they have until May 22, 2006 to file lead
plaintiff motions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

The firm was the first to file a class action on Mar. 22, 2006
against the company.  The complaint seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Merge securities from Aug. 2, 2005 through and including Mar.
16, 2006.

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


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a class action against Vitesse
Semiconductor Corp. (Nasdaq:VTSS) and certain officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

The action is on behalf of Vitesse securities purchasers during
the period Jan. 28, 2003 and Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive, for
securities law violations.  

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial statements, including its accounting for product
returns as well as the backdating of executive stock option
grants.  As a result, the price of the company's securities was
inflated during the class period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements to the investment community regarding the company's
financial performance during the class period.  These statements
served to actively conceal that the company improperly accounted
for credits provided to or requested by customers for product-
related issues, including customer returns.

In addition, as the complaint alleges, defendants concealed that
they backdated the award of stock option grants to executives in
order to reflect specific dates corresponding to lows in the
price of the company's stock, thereby maximizing the value of
the option grants.

When the company fully revealed this information, on Apr. 26,
2006, the price of Vitesse stock plummeted, losing $0.69 or
27.4%, from its closing price of $2.51 on Apr. 26, to close at
$1.82 on Apr. 27, on nearly five times normal trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Jul. 3,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: 800/404-
7770 and 860/537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


XM SATELLITE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP initiated a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of XM Satellite Radio Holdings,
Inc. (XMSR) between Jul. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., and its
President and Chief Executive Officer, Hugh Panero, with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during the class period.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants made misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding XM's ability to reduce the costs of
its new subscribers as it reached its goal of 6 million
subscribers by yearend 2005.

In reality, and as known to or recklessly disregarded by
defendants, XM would be forced to spend extraordinarily large
sums of money in the fourth quarter of 2005 in order to stay on
track to achieve its stated goal of 6 million subscribers at
year end by reason of competitive factors known to defendants
since before the beginning of the class period.

Despite defendants' knowledge that XM would be making those huge
expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2005, defendants failed to
disclose to the market that XM's cost of subscriber acquisition
would rise to extraordinary levels, leading to huge increases in
XM's net losses, which was in complete reversal of the trends of
declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses defendants
were reporting and touting throughout the class period.

During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge
sales of their personal holdings in the fourth quarter of 2005,
taking advantage of the artificial inflation of XM's common
stock.  Specifically, defendant Panero sold 413,334 shares on
Dec. 6, 2005, at prices ranging between $28.37 and $28.95 to
reap proceeds of $11,846,000, thus selling 99% of his holdings
in XM.

On Feb. 16, 2006, defendants issued a press release announcing
XM's results for the fourth quarter 2005 and year 2005 results.  
They disclosed the shocking truth about the skyrocketing level
of XM's subscriber acquisition costs.  The market reacted
negatively.  With this disclosure, XM's common stock, on
abnormally heavy trading volume, fell 13% to close at $21.96 on
Feb. 17, 2006.

Interested parties may, no later than Jul. 3, 2006, move the
court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022,
Phone: 1-877-935-7400, E-mail: vsoler@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Janice
Mendoza Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *