---

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

              Monday, July 3, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 130

                            Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Continues to Face Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in Ark.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Okays $1.6M Award to Plaintiff Lawyers
AMERICAN SUZUKI: Cushion Lever Mounting Bracket in ATVs Faulty
ARKANSAS: Primary Election Candidates Challenge Voting Results
ARKANSAS: Phillips County Residents Sue Over District Redrawing

AT&T INC: Petaluma Woman Files Suit Over Phone Call Surveillance
AUTMOBILE CLUB: Faces ERISA, FLSA Violation Lawsuit in Michigan
AWB LTD: Facing $1B RICO Violations Suit Filed by Wheat Farmers
BRISTOL-MYERS: N.Y. Court Issues Settlement Distribution Notice
CALIFORNIA: Office of Education Staff Prevails in Civil Lawsuit

CFM CORP: Recalls Sequoia Wood Burning Fireplaces on Fire Risk
COLUMBIA NATURAL: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Royalties Suit
FORD MOTOR: Employees File Lawsuit in Mich. Over Pension Cuts
HAWAIIAN TELCOM: Faces Wiretapping Suit in Hawaii District Court
ILLINOIS: Advocacy Groups File Complaint Over School Staff Cuts

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settles Enzyme Supplements Lawsuit for $23M
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Sept. Trial Set for Investors Suit Settlement
INCO LTD: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Ontario Suit
IOWA: Judge Grants Class Status to Suit Over Franchise Fees
KMART CORP: Mich. Judge Approves $11.75M Pension Suit Settlement

KPNQWEST NV: Royal KPN Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $4.18M
MCDONALD'S CORP: Ill. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Consumer Suit in Wash. Over MSN Service
MICROSOFT CORP: P.C. User Files Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tool
MSG/NUCLEOTIDES SETTLEMENT: October 25 Fairness Hearing Slated

NEW YORK: Court to Hear Mamaroneck Day Laborer Suit in September
OHIO: Mahoning Opposes Youngstown's Intervention in Inmate Suit
SAGE PRODUCTS: Recalls Washcloth Contaminated with Bacteria
UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholders' Suits in Calif.
WALONG MARKETING: Recalls Cakes with Undeclared Sulfites

WISCONSIN: Strip Search Suit Against Dunn County Jail Dismissed


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HOME SOLUTIONS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INFOSONICS CORP: Hanzman Criden Files Securities Suit in Calif.
KLA-TENCOR: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in Minn.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.J.


                            *********


ACXIOM CORP: Continues to Face Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corp.'s board of directors remains a defendant in a
putative class action filed by the Indiana State District
Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension Fund, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty.

The suit was filed on June 23, 2005 in Pulaski County, Arkansas
Circuit Court.  The plaintiff in the case alleges that the board
members are not independent from Chief Executive Officer, and
Chairman of the Board Charles Morgan, and thus were unable to
use good faith in considering the June 3, 2005 letter from
ValueAct Capital, which previously made two acquisition
proposals for the company.

In addition to seeking class action status, the plaintiffs are
also seeking an order requiring the defendants to properly
consider the ValueAct transaction or any other transaction in
the best interests of Acxiom shareholders and to rescind any
measures that would prevent ValueAct from negotiating the
purchase of the company.  

The complaint has been amended numerous times, according to the
company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD
Carriers Pension Fund v. Morgan, et al., CV05-8498."


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Okays $1.6M Award to Plaintiff Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Illinois Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron has
awarded lawyers in a class action against Allstate Insurance 29%
of a settlement worth $5,541,782, according to Madison St. Clair
Record.

Stephen Tillery of St. Louis, Tillery associate Lisa Kernan and
attorney Jay Angoff of Jefferson City, Missouri will receive
$1,607,116.78 in the settlement of a suit by policyholders over
"tier adjustments."  Of the amount, attorneys will give $5,000
each to eight plaintiffs.

In January, Allstate Insurance settled the suit without
admitting wrongdoing.  The case, which was filed by Priscilla
Spencer and seven other plaintiffs in 2002, claims the insurer
improperly added charges to premiums of drivers who had
previously carried policies of high-risk insurers.

Under the settlement:

     -- policyholders who paid "tier adjustments" from 1997 to
        2005 will get back three fourths of those adjustments,
        minus the attorney's fees;

     -- policyholders who did not receive discounts from 1991 to
        2005 will receive half of the denied discounts, minus
        the attorney's fees; and

     -- policyholders who paid surcharges from 1991 to 2005 will
        get back 17.5 percent of the surcharges, minus the
        attorney's fees.

The defendant is represented by Roger Heidenreich of
Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal, St. Louis
(http://www.sonnenschein.com/). The plaintiffs are represented  
by Stephen Tillery of St. Louis and Jay Angoff of Jefferson
City, Missouri.  


AMERICAN SUZUKI: Cushion Lever Mounting Bracket in ATVs Faulty
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Suzuki Motor Corp., of Brea, California, Montgomery
Motors, Ltd., of Honolulu, Hawaii and Suzuki del Caribe, of Rio
Piedras, Puerto Rico, is recalling about 6,300 units of Suzuki
2006 model year QuadRacer All-Terrain Vehicles.

The companies said the cushion lever mounting bracket on the ATV
frame can break.  If this occurs the rider could lose control of
the ATV and crash, posing a risk of serious injury or death.

Suzuki has received 27 reports of the cushion lever mounting
bracket breaking, resulting in one report of a head injury.

Only the Suzuki 2006 model year LTR450K6 model Quad Racer ATVs
with vehicle identification numbers ending with 00089 through
11626 are included in this recall.  The vehicle identification
number is located on the lower left side of the ATV frame.  
QuadRacer, printed in white letters, and R450 and Suzuki are
written on the side of the ATV.  These ATVs were sold in yellow
or white.

These all-terrain vehicles were manufactured in Japan and are
being sold at Suzuki ATV dealers nationwide from January 2006
through May 2006 for about $7,300.

Picture of the recalled all-terrain vehicle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06560.jpg.

Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles immediately
and contact the local Suzuki ATV dealer to schedule an
appointment for a free repair.  Consumers with the recalled ATVs
are being sent direct notices from Suzuki.

For more information, call Suzuki at (800) 444-5077 between 8:30
a.m. and 4:45 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.suzukicycles.com.


ARKANSAS: Primary Election Candidates Challenge Voting Results
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philips County residents who lost in elections for local offices
are suing the County Election Commission and the Secretary of
State Charlie Daniels over the constitutionality of last month's
primary election in the majority-black Delta region, according
to Associated Press.  They claim that voting problems and the
redrawing of districts compromised the rights of black voters in
the county.

The suit was filed by attorney Jimmie Wilson in U.S. District
Court on June 28.  It claims that the May 23 Democratic primary
was "farcical, incompetent, culpable both civilly and criminally
under federal law, fraudulent in its inception, operation and
calculation of votes relative to the plaintiffs."  It is seeking
class-action status, and asking for compensatory and punitive
damages.  

Presiding over the case is judge James Moody.


ARKANSAS: Phillips County Residents Sue Over District Redrawing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer representing a group of Phillips County residents is
suing Gov. Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Charlie Daniels and
Attorney General Mike Beebe for redrawing legislative districts
in a way that violates the rights of black voters, according to
Associated Press.

Attorney Jimmie Wilson filed the suit before U.S. District Judge
Susan Webber Wright of the Eastern District of Arkansas.  The
suit alleges violation of the constitutional rights of African-
American citizens in Phillips County to exercise their voting
rights as a protected class.

Some districts in the state were redrawn in 2001, resulting to
the addition of one majority-black senate seat and two House
seats.  Plaintiffs alleged the new boundaries have caused
reduced black representation in the General Assembly.  It argues
that there should have been an additional three majority-black
Senate seats and six majority-black House seats.

The suit asks the court to bar the state from holding its
November general election under the current districting.  

Mr. Daniels and Beebe were named as defendants in their official
capacities, although they were not in office when the districts
were redrawn.


AT&T INC: Petaluma Woman Files Suit Over Phone Call Surveillance
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Microsoft SQL Server database administrator from Petaluma,
California joined a suit filed by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation against AT&T Inc. in order to block the U.S.
government from collecting phone call records of its citizens,
the Argus-Courier reports.

Carolyn Jewel alleged that the telecommunications company is
unlawfully giving records of her personal communication, along
with that of many others, to the National Security Agency.

Ms. Jewel in her research as a fiction books writer often uses
e-mail correspondence with people all around the world,
discussing a wide variety of topics.

Although she does not use AT&T's Worldnet e-mail, she does use
several web-based e-mail accounts that transfer data over the
Worldnet network, the dial-up service she has been using since
2000.

"When I'm connected to AT&T Worldnet, which I have to do in
order to check any e-mail or go to any Web site, that flows
through AT&T.  And because of these allegations of how they
allowed the NSA to split their lines, it also goes to the NSA,"
she said.  I get e-mails from readers all over the world.  If
someone from Indonesia e-mails me, should I be worried about
that?  If we start talking about what is the perception of Islam
in the U.S., I should be able to have that conversation at my
computer without fear," she said.

On December 2005, the New York Times reported that the NSA had
been data-mining the records of numerous telephone calls and
Internet communications, searches that were done without
warrants but with the help of the telecom companies.  Later
articles said the records of billions of voice and data
communications had been analyzed, much of the traffic between
the U.S. and overseas countries.

In January, the EFF filed a class action against AT&T, accusing
the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its
customers by collaborating with the NSA in a massive and illegal
program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:        

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454  
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:  
         cindy@eff.org; and  

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman  
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-  
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.


AUTMOBILE CLUB: Faces ERISA, FLSA Violation Lawsuit in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., initiated a class suit in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, against the
Automobile Club of Michigan, based in Dearborn, Michigan.

The following counts have been filed in the lawsuit:

     Count 1 -- Violation of Employee Retirement Income Security
                Act against defendant Automobile Club of
                Michigan, failure to maintain records;

     Count 2 -- Violation of ERISA against all defendants named
                for failure to credit hours of service required
                by ERISA; and

     Count 3 -- Fair Labor Standards Act claims against
                defendant Automobile Club of Michigan.

Plaintiffs Peggy Pauley, Zsa Zsa Richardson and Irene Plonka,
all residents of Macomb County and employees of the Automobile
Club of Michigan, claim they were told by the Automobile Club of
Michigan that they were exempt from overtime payments under
federal law, and that the Automobile Club of Michigan failed and
refused to pay plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class
overtime pay for overtime worked.

For more information, contact Mort Meisner of Mort Meisner
Associates, Phone: +1-248-545-2222, for Sommers Schwartz, P.C.;
or Kristin Schenden Russell of SCI, Phone: +1-248-895-5638.

The suit is "Pauley et al. v. Automobile Club of Michigan et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-12879-GCS-RSW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge George
Caram Steeh, with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph A. Golden and Patricia A.
Stamler both of Sommers, Schwartz, (Southfield), 2000 Town
Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075-1100, Phone: 248-355-
0300, Fax: 248-746-4001, E-mail: jgolden@sommerspc.com and
pstamler@sommerspc.com.


AWB LTD: Facing $1B RICO Violations Suit Filed by Wheat Farmers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta lawyer Roderick E. Edmond and his Australian colleague,
former Adelaide Crown prosecutor and human rights lawyer Michael
Hourigan initiated a class suit against Australian wheat
exporter AWB Ltd., on behalf of U.S. and Canadian wheat farmers,
The Australian reports.

The farmers allege they lost income as a result of AWB's paying
of illegal kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  The
suit seeks $1 billion in damages.

A United Nations report last year found out that AWB paid  
US$221.7 million in kickbacks to a trucking company linked to  
Saddam Hussein's deposed government.  Afterwards, Judge Terence
Cole investigated the firm for payments it made in Iraq through
the United Nations' oil-for-food program (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 14, 2006).  

The Cole Inquiry began public hearings in January (Class Action
Reporter, May 9, 2006).

According to the report, AWB is accused of funneling $290
million to Saddam's regime over four years, from mid-1999 until
the U.S.-led invasion ended the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in
March 2003.

The farmers' lawyers plan to raise plaintiffs' claims using the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The ACT
covers bribery, kickbacks and extortion.  It applies only when
there is a pattern of criminal activity, rather than a "one-off
crime".

Under the RICO law, any person who succeeds in establishing a
claim can automatically receive three times their actual
damages, plus costs.


BRISTOL-MYERS: N.Y. Court Issues Settlement Distribution Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a notice of initial distribution of net settlement fund
in relation to: "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-2251 (LAP)."

The notice is addressed to all persons or entities that
submitted a proof of claim and release form to The Garden City
Group, Inc. the claims administrator, in connection with the
settlement of the suit.

According to the notice, an initial distribution of the
settlement was recently made to all class members who submitted
a claim to the Garden City Group, and who did not receive from
the claims administrator notice that such Claim had been
recommended for complete rejection.

It further stated that if anyone who submitted a claim to the
Garden City Group in connection with the settlements of this
case did not receive notice that the claim has been or will be
recommended for complete rejection, they should have received an
initial distribution check.

The notice further states, that anyone who submitted a claim and
did not receive a rejection notice, but, also, did not receive
an initial distribution check should immediately notify the
Garden City Group.  

In May, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company settled all securities
class actions and derivative suits filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class
Action Reporter, May 12, 2006).

                         Case Background

The suits were filed in 2002 and 2003, against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and accountant,
PricewaterhouseCoopers.  They alleged violations of federal
securities laws and regulations in connection with sales
incentives and wholesaler inventory levels, breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the company's conduct
concerning:  

     -- safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV;  

     -- the company's sales incentives to certain wholesalers  
        and the inventory levels of those wholesalers;  

     -- the company's investment in and relations with ImClone  
        and ImClone's product ERBITUX; and  

     -- alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with  
        BUSPAR and TAXOL (paclitaxel).  

The suit is "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-02251-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Loretta A.  
Preska.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr.,
Gustavo Bruckner and Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein,
Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com or  
kolker@whafh.com.

Representing the company are Elizabeth L. Grayer and Evan R.
Chesler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-
mail: egrayer@cravath.com or echesler@cravath.com.

For more information on the initial distribution of net
settlement fund, contact:

     (1) In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, c/o
         The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O.
         Box 9000 #6252, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: (800)
         326-4150, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/.

     (2) Leslie Stern, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
         Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109,
         Phone: (617) 542-8300; and

     (3) Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq. of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
         Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1400.


CALIFORNIA: Office of Education Staff Prevails in Civil Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights sided
with a Riverside County Office of Education employee in
California who helped a student file a complaint over the
country's special-education offering.

The Civil Rights Office found that the Riverside County Office
of Education violated Sue Barker's civil rights by not
responding to her claims that she was treated differently in the
office after helping a student, Gabriel Martinez, file a
complaint.

After an investigation into allegations by Ms. Barker of
retaliation from her superiors, the Civil Right Office said the
claim is true in the aspect that supervisors were ""unresponsive
to her communications and her employment-related needs" by not
quickly responding to her phone calls, faxes, and e-mails
reporting the indifference with which her colleagues treated
her.

Mr. Barker and Marcia Howard, who were responsible for checking
the status of special-education students in county office-
operated schools, discovered in 2005 that some students were not
receiving proper education they were entitled to.

They helped Mr. Martinez file a complaint and then filed a
class-action complaint on behalf of all the county office's
special-education students.  The Office for Civil Rights
concluded in November 2005 that the county office had neglected
Gabriel's educational needs, according to the report.  The class
action is pending.

Ms. Howard filed a retaliation claim with the Office for Civil
Rights, which was settled in March.


CFM CORP: Recalls Sequoia Wood Burning Fireplaces on Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
CFM Corp. of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,300 units of Sequoia wood burning fireplaces.

The company said that due to insufficient insulation or a
missing weld, some of these fireplaces could pose a fire hazard.
No injuries were reported.

Only models EWF30, EWF36, and EWF36A are affected by this
recall.  The recalled fireplaces are 400 or 700 pound steel
plate wood-burning fireplaces with the trade name "Sequoia."  
The fireplaces measure 30-inches-wide or 36-inches-wide, have
doors, which seal them and are designed for installation in
openings in the walls of homes that connect to chimneys.

Affected model and serial numbers are:

Model Number          Serial Number Range of Affected Units

EWF30                 WFE05HO R052 400001 to WFE05HO R052 400120
(30 inch)             WFE05HO R053 500001 to WFE05HO R053 500060
                      WFE05HO R054 200001 to WFE05HO R054 200100

EWF36A and EWF36      FA2ECB 309950 to FA2ECB 309999
(36 inch)             FA2ECB 339900 to FA2ECB 339999
                      FA2ECB 369900 to FA2ECB 369999
                      FA2ECB 03399899 to FA2ECB 03399998
                      FA2ECB 49989
                      FA2ECB 3249970
                      FA2ECB 3249999
                      FA3ECB 05140001 to FA3ECB 051400100
                      FA3ECB 051900001 to FA3ECB 051900050
                      FA3ECB 052200001 to FA3ECB 052200060
                      FA3ECB 052400001 to FA3ECB 052400100
                      FA3ECB 052800001 to FA3ECB 052800010
                      WFE05H0H054800001 to WFE05H0H054800100
                      WFE05H0H055100001 to WFE05H0H055100005
                      WFE05H0H060600001 to WFE05H0H060600100
                      WFE05H0H061600001 to WFE05H0H061600050

The name "CFM Corporation" and the model and serial number are
located on the rating plate at the bottom right corner of each
fireplace

Picture of recalled fireplaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06198.jpg.

These fireplaces were manufactured in Canada and the U.S. and
are being sold at authorized Vermont Castings dealers in Canada
and the U.S. from Jan. 1, 2003 through mid-April, 2006 for about
$2,200 for the EWF30 and about $3,000 for the EWF36 and EWF36A.

CFM representatives or authorized dealers will arrange to
conduct an in-home repair for every affected fireplace

For additional information, contact CFM Corp. at (866) 757-6649
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.cfmcorp.com.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled against
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. in a suit over royalties to
property owners who leased oil and gas rights to the company.

The court said the company improperly deducted expenses from
revenues before sending out royalty checks at the promised rate
of one eighth, according to The West Virginia Record.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia
Natural, alleging that the company underpaid royalties by
improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair
value for the gas produced from their leases.  Plaintiffs seek
the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive damages claiming
that Columbia Natural Resources fraudulently concealed the
deduction of post-production charges.

The court has certified the case as a class action that includes
any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due
royalties from Columbia Natural Resources, and its predecessors
or successors, on lands lying within the boundary of the State
of West Virginia.  

All individuals, corporations, agencies, departments or
instrumentalities of the U.S. of America are excluded from the
class.  Columbia Natural Resources appealed the decision
certifying the class and the Supreme Court of West Virginia
denied the appeal.  Although NiSource Inc. sold Columbia Natural
Resources in 2003, it remains obligated to manage this
litigation and also remains at least partly liable for any
damages awarded to the plaintiffs.  In December 2004, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion to add the company and Columbia
Energy Group as defendants.

In a June 15 decision, the court found the language in the lease
contracts ambiguous, and thus sided with the plaintiffs
according to a 1934 court decision stating that "uncertainties
in an intricate and involved contract should be resolved against
the party who prepared it."

The questions brought to the Supreme Court include one on
whether a lessee may deduct money or volume from royalty
payments for postproduction costs where the lease does not
specifically provide for deductions.  The answer is no,
according to the report.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is Marvin Masters of Charleston (181
Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301, (Kanawha Co.),
Phone: 304-342-3106, Fax: 304-342-3189.  Representing the
defendants is Timothy Miller, 400 Fifth Third Center, 700
Virginia Street, East, P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia
25326 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-344-5800, Fax: 304-344-9566.


FORD MOTOR: Employees File Lawsuit in Mich. Over Pension Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. and its former parts-making subsidiary Visteon
Corp. were sued by seven employees over what they claim are
improper deductions in their pension benefits, The Associated
Press reports.

Visteon was spun off from Ford in 2000.  Ford took back a number
of Visteon plants last year in an effort to keep the auto
supplier out of bankruptcy.

Recently, the employees, who worked at plants that Ford took
back from Visteon, filed their purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June
27, 2006.  They sought to force the companies to reinstate what
they claim are their full pension benefits.

The suit said that most of the salaried employees working in
Ford's parts factories were told in 2000 that their pay and
benefits would not be affected by the spinoff.  But the contrary
happened.

The named plaintiff in the suit is Mark Ensley, who claims that
when he was at Visteon, Ford changed its salaried employee
retirement program from a defined-benefit to a defined-
contribution plan for new hires.  After rejoining Ford, Mr.
Ensley said he was told that he now would be counted under the
new, less generous plan.

Other named plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Donald Blum,
      -- Gary Chinigo,
      -- Gregory Nycholas,
      -- James Barth,
      -- Joseph Pieprzak,
      -- Robert Matsui

The suit is "Ensley et al. v. Ford Motor Company et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-12845-AJT-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
with referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.

Representing the plaintiffs are Cary S. McGehee, Robert W.
Palmer, Michael L. Pitt and Peggy G. Pitt of Pitt, Dowty, (Royal
Oak), 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804,
Phone: 248-398-9800, E-mail: cmcgehee@pdmmp.com,
rpalmer@pdmmp.com and attorneypitt@aol.com.  


HAWAIIAN TELCOM: Faces Wiretapping Suit in Hawaii District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five telephone customers have filed a suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii seeking to block the U.S.
government from collecting phone call records of its citizens,
the Hawaii News reports.

The plaintiffs -- Charmaine Crockett, Joris Watland, Anakalia
Kaluna, Kim Coco Iwamoto and William Massey -- accuse local
telecoms of collaborating with the National Security Agency in
illegal monitoring of the their long distance calls.

The suit seeks an injunction against the data gathering along
with damages including $100 dollars per day or $10,000 per
defendant.

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Hawaiian Telecom Inc.,
     -- Cingular Wireless LLC,
     -- Nextel West Corp., and
     -- Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC

The suit is "Crockett et al. v. Verizon Wireless et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-00345-JMS-BMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Hawaii under Judge J. Michael Seabright, with
referral to Judge Barry M. Kurren.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Laudig, 2440 Campus Road
#429, Honolulu, HI 96822, US, Phone: 778-4562.


ILLINOIS: Advocacy Groups File Complaint Over School Staff Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Access Living, Designs for Change, Equip for Equality and Family
Resource Center on Disabilities held a press conference on June
28, 2006 to announce the filing of a federal complaint with the
court-appointed monitor in the class action, "Corey H., et al.
v. Bd. of Education, et al., Case No. 1:92-cv-03409".

The advocacy groups for children with disabilities alleged in
its complaint that the elimination of 200 special education
teachers and 750 teacher aides in the Chicago Board of Education
fiscal year 2007 budget is illegal, since it violates the case's
settlement agreements.

According to the groups' press release, the Chicago Board is
seeking to balance its budget by cutting $26.5 million in staff
services to the group of students who are already the most
vulnerable and lowest achieving in the school system.

At the press conference, speakers analyzed the harm that these
staff cuts will cause to vulnerable children, as well as major
inequities and inconsistencies in the methods by which the
Chicago Board calculated these cuts.

The groups' said that this illegal and short-sighted action will
cost the society many times what the short-term savings will be,
in terms of subsequent incarceration of students, welfare and
disability payments, and lost taxes of unprepared and unemployed
persons with disabilities.

                        Case Background

Filed on May 22, 1992, the class action was brought on behalf of
all children who are or will be identified by the Chicago Public
Schools as having a disability and who are entitled to receive
special education services.  

It was brought against both the Board of Education of the City
of Chicago and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)
claiming that, as a result of their policies and practices,
children with disabilities were not educated in the least
restrictive environment as required by federal law.  On Feb. 1,
1993, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

In August 1997, the plaintiffs and the defendant Chicago Board
reached a tentative settlement.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement with the Chicago Board on Oct. 23, 1997.  

The court conducted a fairness hearing regarding the proposed
settlement on Jan. 16, 1998, and entered an order approving the
settlement agreement on that date.

From Oct. 20, 1997, through Oct. 23, 1997, the case against ISBE
went to trial.  In February 1998, the court issued findings of
liability against ISBE.

In mid-December 1998, the plaintiffs and ISBE reopened
negotiations regarding possible settlement.  On March 24, 1999,
the court preliminarily approved the ISBE agreement.  A fairness
hearing was held on June 18, 1999, following which the proposed
agreement was approved and finalized.

A copy of the Corey H. settlement is available free of charge
at:
            http://researcharchives.com/t/s?ca1

For more details, contact Laura Rhyner, or Donald R. Moore, Ed.
D., Phone: 312-236-7252 ext. 242 and 312-236-7252 ext. 236, E-
mail: lrhyner@designsforchange.org and
donmoore@designsforchange.org.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settles Enzyme Supplements Lawsuit for $23M
---------------------------------------------------------------
IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. settled a suit brought against it in
2003 by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. alleging that IMPAX engaged
in false advertising practices dating back to 1998 in connection
with the marketing of two of the company's 10 Lipram pancreatic
enzyme supplements as well as two discontinued pancreatic enzyme
supplements.

Under the settlement, IMPAX will pay $23 million to the
plaintiffs, of which $12 million will be paid immediately from
the company's cash reserves, which total approximately $42
million currently.  The balance will be paid over the next six
years.  Sales and gross profits from these two Lipram products
were not material to IMPAX's results.

Barry R. Edwards, IMPAX's chief executive, commented, "Although
we continue to believe that our advertising of these products
was neither false nor misleading and that Solvay's suit was
without merit, in view of the potential expense, diversion of
management and risks that would have been involved in an
upcoming jury trial in this case, we entered into what we
believe to be a prudent settlement that will result in dismissal
of the suit.  It is in the best interest of shareholders to put
this suit behind us."

IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com-- is a  
technology based specialty pharmaceutical company applying its
formulation expertise and drug delivery technology to the
development of controlled-release and specialty generics in
addition to the development of branded products.


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Sept. Trial Set for Investors Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2006, 9:15 a.m. for the settlement
of the case, "Pozniak v. Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC, et
al., Case No. 1:03cv2457 (NRB)."

The hearing will be at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, New York 10007.

The hearing is also set to consider the proposed plan of
allocation for the settlement proceeds and the application of
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses out of the settlement fund.

In 2003, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed the
complaint, alleging Imperial Chemical misled investors about the
real status of the company's finances.  The suit claimed that
the company 'materially' misrepresented the financial health of
Quest, its fragrances and food flavorings division (Troubled
Company Reporter-Europe, May 6, 2003).  The suit is filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) David A.P. Brower of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         dbrower@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Howard Rudman both of
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins,
         LLP(LIs), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-
         mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and
         srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Robert Frank Wise, Jr of Davis
Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 212-450-4000, Fax: 212-450-3512, E-mail: rwise@dpw.com.


For more information, contact Imperial Chemical Securities
Litigation c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. Claims Administrator
Post Office Box 24644 West Palm Beach, FL  33416 Phone:  (888)
285-7847 Website: http://www.imperialchemicalsettlement.com.


INCO LTD: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Ontario Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear any challenge to an
Ontario Court of Appeal decision that certified a CA$750-million
class action against INCO, Ltd.

The court's decision is a key legal victory to residents of Port
Colborne, Ontario, who were suing the company for allegedly
polluting their properties from 1918 to 1984.  

The residents' suit was filed against the company in 2001,
alleging that the company devalued their properties by
contaminating them with 2.5 million tons of nickel oxide.  The
Ontario Court of Appeal certified it as class action last
November.

Among the 8,000 plaintiffs is Wilfred Pearson, who launched the
suit claiming very high levels of nickel and other metals in the
soil at his property.  

With the high court's decision, the matter now proceeds to the
"merits" stage.  Attorneys for the Port Colborne residents must
now prove that they were economically damaged by the mining
company's actions.

Representing the plaintiff is Eric Gillespie of Markle May
Phibbs, 438 University Ave., Suite 2100, Toronto ON, M5G 2K8,
Phone: 416-593-4385 ext. 225, Fax: 416-593-4478.


IOWA: Judge Grants Class Status to Suit Over Franchise Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert granted class-action
status to a lawsuit filed against Des Moines' franchise fee on
gas and electricity.

With the judge's decision thousands of families could now be
eligible for hundreds of dollars in refunds if a judge
determines any part the fee should be returned.

In January, Judge Huppert refused to expand the case until he
knew more about plaintiff Lisa Kragnes' finances and could
ensure that the interest of tens of thousands of city utility
customers would be properly protected in a broader lawsuit.

New legal agreements between Ms. Kragnes and her attorney, Brad
Schroeder, satisfied those requirements, according to Judge
Huppert's written decision.

                         Case Background

Previously, Judge Huppert ruled that the special fee on utility
bills that officials of the city used to lower property tax
rates is illegal (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006).

From there, the case went all the way to the state supreme
court, which ruled the city might be able to collect a portion
of the fee.  The case though went back to Judge Huppert's court.

The judge's ruling was in the favor of Ms. Kragnes, who sued the
city in 2004 over a 5 percent surcharge on gas and electricity
bills that she said represents an unfair tax, (Class Action
Reporter, March 16, 2006).

Judge Huppert had ruled that the so-called franchise fee should
be abolished.  That ruling though did not address whether those
who've paid the fee should get refunds (Class Action Reporter,
March 16, 2006).

The controversy over the franchise fees started in June 2004,
when Mr. Schroeder sued the city, saying that the fees are
illegal because it amounts to a tax that isn't specifically
spelled out in Iowa law (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006).

The suit sought to block the city from collecting the fee and
demanded a full refund of all money collected over the last five
years (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006).


KMART CORP: Mich. Judge Approves $11.75M Pension Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge
Avern Cohn approved the $11.75 million settlement of a case
filed by former Kmart Corp. workers against the company over a
disastrous pension investment, The Providence Journal reports.

About 125,000 employees and retirees of Kmart Corp. will share
in the $11.75 million fund to settle their 2002 claims against
former Kmart Chairman and Chief Executive Charles Conaway,
former Chief Executive James Adamson, former vice president Jim
Defebaugh and six former members of the board of directors.   

The deal involves those who participated in Kmart pensions from
March 15, 1999 to March 6 2003.

In 2002, former employees of Kmart in Fairfield, sued ex-Kmart
chief executive Charles Conaway and other former executives and
board members in March 2002.

In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that Kmart executives hid
the dire nature of the retailer's finances, prompting workers to
unwittingly invest in the doomed company.  They also charged
that, despite executive knowledge of the company's poor
prospects, Kmart forced workers to maintain the company-match
portion of their 401(k) in Kmart stock until they reached age 55
(Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).

Kmart workers lost millions in retirement savings when the
retailer collapsed in 2002.  Court records show that following
the company's bankruptcy, more than 50,000 Kmart employees
suffered combined losses of at least $100 million in their
401(k) plans when Kmart Corporation stock became worthless
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

Kmart emerged from bankruptcy in May 2003.  In November, Kmart
announced a merger with Sears, and the company was renamed Sears
Holdings, which operates from Hoffman Estates, Illinois.
Shareholders of the former Kmart Corporation have no claim on
the stock issued by the new company (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
13, 2006).

The suit is "Rankin v. Rots, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-71045-AC,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Donald R. Bachand, III of Garratt & Bachand, 74 W. Long
         Lake Road, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304,
         Phone: 248-645-1450, Fax: 248-645-1450,

     (2) Mark B. Blocker, Walter C. Carlson, Erin E. Kelly and
         Scott R. Lassar all of Sidley, Austin, 10 S. Dearborn
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7000, Fax:
         312-853-7000,


     (3) Daniel P. Colling of Miller, Canfield, (Detroit), 150
         W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500, Detroit, MI 48226-
         4415, Phone: 313-496-7646, E-mail:
         colling@millercanfield.com;

     (4) Walter B. Connolly, Jr. of Connolly, Rodgers, 615
         Griswold, Suite 700, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-963-
         8255, E-mail: connollylaw@hotmail.com;

     (5) Lisa B. Deutsch of Dewey Ballantine (New York), 1301
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6092, Phone:
         212-259-8000, Fax: 212-259-6763, E-mail:
         ldeutsch@dbllp.com;

     (6) Seth C. Farber and Robert C. Myers both of of Dewey
         Ballantine, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10019-6092, Phone: 212-259-8000, Fax: 212-259-6333;

     (7) Cara J. Heflin of Howard & Howard (Ann Arbor), 101 N.
         Main Street, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1475,
         Phone: 734-222-1097, E-mail:
         CHeflin@Howardandhoward.com;

     (8) Todd R. Mendel of Barris, Sott, 211 W. Fort Street,
         Suite 1500, Detroit, MI 48226-3281, Phone: 313-965-
         9725, E-mail: tmendel@bsdd.com; and

     (9) Sharon M. Woods of Barris, Sott, 211 W. Fort Street,
         Suite 1500, Detroit, MI 48226-3281, Phone: 313-965-
         9725, E-mail: swoods@bsdd.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Glen M. Connor of Whatley Drake, P.O. Box 10647,
         Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail:
         gconnor@whatleydrake.com;

     (2) Mary Ellen Gurewitz of Sachs Waldman (Detroit), 1000
         Farmer Street, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-965-3464,
         Fax: 313-965-0268, E-mail: megurewitz@sachswaldman.com;
         and

     (3) I. Mark Steckloff of Sachs Waldman, 1000 Farmer Street,
         Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-965-3464, Fax: 313-965-
         3464.


KPNQWEST NV: Royal KPN Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $4.18M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch phone company Royal KPN N.V. has settled for $4.18 million
a securities class action linked to the bankruptcy of KPNQWest
N.V. in 2002, according to Bloomberg News.

The settlement coves investors who bought shares of KPNQwest
between Nov. 9, 1999, and May 31, 2002, KPN said in an e-mailed
statement to Bloomberg.

Initially, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest, N.V.  The suit was filed on Oct.
4, 2002.  

The complaint alleges, on behalf of certain purchasers of
KPNQwest securities, that, among other things, defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme and deceptive course of business
in order to inflate KPNQwest's revenue and the value of KPNQwest
securities.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and/or
rescission as appropriate against defendants, as well as an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

Earlier, Qwest Communications International, Inc. settled a
similar suit for $5.5 million in cash.  The agreement satisfied
the individual claims of the putative class representative and
the claims of the class that the plaintiff purports to represent
against the company and all defendants except Koninklijke KPN
N.V. a/k/a Royal KPN N.V., Willem Ackermans, Eelco Blok, Joop
Drechsel, Martin Pieters, and Rhett Williams.  

The suit is "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Peter K. Leisure with referral to Frank Maas.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Ira M. Press and Mark Booker of Kirby, McInerney &   
         Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10TH Floor, New York, NY   
         10022 USA, Phone: (212) 317-2300;  

     (2) Jacob A. Goldberg, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three   
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USA,   
         Phone: (610) 667-7706; and  

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert M. Zabb, Glancy, Binkow &   
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los   
         Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: (310) 201-9150.  

Representing the company are Barry Howard Goldstein of O'Melveny  
& Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, USA, Phone:   
212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: Bgoldstein@omm.com; and   
Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S Hope Street, Los   
Angeles, CA 90071, USA, Phone: (213) 430-6000.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Ill. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed a securities fraud class action filed against
McDonald's Corp. and certain of its officers and directors.

The shareholders claimed that McDonald's violated U.S. Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles in a venture known as the
"Innovate Project," where the shareholders contended that
McDonald's failed to timely write down the value of hundreds of
underperforming restaurants.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, arguing the shareholders failed to plead with
particularity the factual allegations and the element of
scienter (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2006).

On Sept. 21, 2005, the district court initially declined to
dismiss the suit, giving the shareholders an opportunity to
amend their complaint to include more specific facts regarding a
confidential informant.  The lead plaintiff then filed its first
amended complaint on Oct. 7, 2005.  On Nov. 16, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint (Class
Action Reporter, March 7, 2006).

The district court initially declined to dismiss the suit,
giving the shareholders an opportunity to amend their complaint
to include more specific facts regarding a confidential
informant.

The district court granted McDonald's motion to dismiss, ruling
that, even though the shareholders adequately pled that
McDonald's violated GAAP in its accounting of the Innovate
Project, they failed to plead scienter with particularity.

Further, the district court ruled that the shareholders failed
to plead the particular factual basis in support of their
forward-looking statements, noting that the complaint failed to
allege that the confidential informant had first-hand knowledge
of the company's allegedly fraudulent misstatements.

The suit is "Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-02422," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning.
Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100 and 800-449-4900, E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland &
Ellis LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100,
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
rkopecky@kirkland.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Consumer Suit in Wash. Over MSN Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. and Best Buy Co. are defendants in a purported
class action in the Superior Court for the State of Washington
in and for King County, alleging that both firms engaged in
unfair business practices in the promotion of MSN Internet
service from 2000 to 2004.  

The suit is about whether the defendants engaged in unfair
business practices in connection with the promotion of MSN
Internet access service subscriptions at Best Buy stores.  

From 2000 to 2004, defendants promoted Microsoft's MSN Internet
access service at Best Buy stores by offering MSN subscriptions
with free-trial periods.  

Unless a registered consumer cancelled the MSN subscription
during the trial period, Microsoft would begin charging the
consumer's credit or debit card after the trial period was over,
even if the consumer had never logged on to or used the MSN
account.

Plaintiffs allege that requiring consumers to cancel
subscriptions they never used to avoid being charged was unfair
and deceptive and violated Washington State law.  

The suit specifically alleges violations of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Unsolicited-Goods
Statute and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.  It also claims
fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure and unjust enrichment.

It thus seeks actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages
under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, return or refund of all
amounts paid to defendants for MSN charges, an injunction
prohibiting defendants from engaging in the conduct complained
of, and attorneys' fees and costs of the suit.

The named plaintiffs, James Odom and Katherine Moureaux-Maloney,
brought the suit on behalf of all people who at any time from
Dec. 1, 1999 to the present, paid Microsoft for charges in
connections with the MSN Internet access service account that
was established and activated in their named at a Best Buy store
and did not log on to the account.   

In addition, the complaint states that Ms. Moureaux-Maloney also
brings the suit on behalf of all people who fall within the
class definition and from whose debit card accounts Microsoft,
at any time from May 15, 2002 to the present, withdrew amounts
for charges in connection with an MSN account established and
activated in their names at a Best Buy store.

Defendants though deny that their business practices were unfair
or deceptive, and also say that it was fair to ask plaintiffs to
cancel their trial subscriptions to avoid being charged monthly
fees.

The MSN Litigation Web site: http://msnclassaction.com/.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Beth E. Terrell of Tousley Brain Stephens, PLLC, 700
         Fifth Ave., Suite 5600, Seattle, Washington 98104,
         Phone: (206) 682-5600, Fax: (206) 682-2992;

     (2) Anthony K. Lee, Attorney at Law, 580 California St.,
         16th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104, Phone:
         (415) 439-4862, Fax: (415) 439-4962; and

     (3) Daniel C. Girard, 601 California St., Suite 1400, San
         Francisco, California 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800,
         Fax: (415) 981-4896.


MICROSOFT CORP: P.C. User Files Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tool
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. faces a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington over its
Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) anti-piracy tool, alleging that
it violates laws against spyware, according to Seattlepi.com.

Filed on June 26, 2006, by Los Angeles resident Brian Johnson,
the suit claims that the company didn't adequately disclose
details of the tool when it was delivered to P.C. users via the
company's Automatic Update system.

WGA is an anti-piracy tool designed to check the validity of a
computer user's copy of the Windows operating system.  It
recently became a subject of controversy, after P.C. users
discovered that WGA was contacting the company's servers on a
daily basis without their knowledge.  This allegedly happened
even if a users' software was legitimate.

The suit specifically alleges that the company effectively
installed the WGA software on consumers' systems without
providing consumers any opportunity to make an informed choice
about that software.

Jim Desler, spokesman for the Redmond, Washington-based software
giant called the suit "baseless," disputing the classification
of the tool as spyware.  He pointed out that spyware is a
deceptive software that is installed on a user's computer
without the user's consent and has some malicious purpose.

WGA, according to Mr. Desler is installed with the consent of
the user and seeks only to notify the user if a proper license
is not in place.

The company previously explained that that the purpose of the
daily check-in was to allow for changes in the tool's settings,
since WGA was still in test phase.  It also said that those who
installed the tool via the Automatic Update system have always
seen a license agreement that gave information about the tool.

Despite Mr. Desler statements, the company did issue a software
update to address some of the concerns computer users raised
about the tool.  That update included a finished version of WGA
that the company's claims no longer checks in daily with its
servers.

In addition, the company also issued a revised license agreement
that spells out in greater detail what WGA does, including the
fact that it sends the P.C. user's Windows product key and
Internet Protocol address to the company.

However, the suit goes beyond that issue to challenge the
company's practice of using the automatic updating system as one
method of delivering the tool.  

Although the company has in the past delivered a variety of
programs through Automatic Updates, it's most commonly used for
security updates, and the suit alleges that the software giant
effectively hid delivery of the tool under that guise.

Mr. Desler though disputed that assertion pointing out that the
suit shouldn't obscure what the "real issue," which is software
piracy.  He explains that WGA was developed to tackle an
industry-wide problem in a manner that is lawful, and provides
customers with the confidence and assurance that they are
running legitimate software.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, makes claims under
statutes including the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
California Unfair Competition Law, in addition to anti-spyware
statutes in both states.

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

           http://researcharchives.com/t/s?ca9.

The suit is "Johnson v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
00900-MJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Monica J. Benton.

Representing the plaintiffs are Mitchell A. Broz and Jess
Gilbert Webster of Mikkelborg Broz Wells & Fryer, 1001 4th Ave.,
Ste. 3600, Seattle, WA 98154-1115, Phone: 206-623-5890, Fax:
206-623-0965, E-mail: mbroz@mbwf.com and jgwebster@mbwf.com.


MSG/NUCLEOTIDES SETTLEMENT: October 25 Fairness Hearing Slated
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The court in the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo,
State of New Mexico will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 25,
2006 at 9:00 a.m. MDT for the proposed settlement in the matter,
"Eugene Higgins v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Case No. 06168."

The settlement is brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
monosodium glutamate (MSG) and/or disodium guanylate (DSG, also
known as IMP), disodium inosinate (DSI, also known as GMP), or a
mixture of DSG and DSI (known as I+G) (IMP, GMP and I+G will be
referred to herein collectively as Nucleotides).  Indirect
purchasers are persons or entities that purchased the products
from any entity other than the manufacturer.  

Anyone present in the states below who indirectly purchased MSG
and/or Nucleotides manufactured or sold by any of the defendants
or their co-conspirators at any time during the period from Jan.
1, 1983 to Nov. 1, 1999 is a class member: Arizona, Arkansas,
the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin.  

These products were manufactured or sold by the settling
defendants, which include:

      -- Archer Daniels Midland Company;

      -- Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and Ajinomoto USA, Inc.;

      -- CJ Corp., f/k/a Cheil Jedang Corporation and CJ
         America, Inc.;

      -- Daesang Corporation Daesang Group d/b/a/ Miwon Group,
         Miwon Company Ltd., Daesang Japan, Inc. and Daesang
         America, Inc.;

      -- Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko U.S.A., Inc.,
         Kyowa Foods, Inc., and Kyowa America, Inc.;

      -- Samsung Corp.; and

      -- Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited f/k/a Takeda Chemical
         Industries Ltd.

MSG and Nucleotides are most commonly used in dehydrated soups
and gravies, canned meat, sausage, prepared meals, tomato sauce
and ketchup, mayonnaise, snack foods (mix in salt), soy sauce.  
They are also used in preserved crab, prawn, fish and shellfish,
in Asian cuisine, in prepared vegetables and a variety of other
products.

The lawsuit alleges that from Jan. 1, 1983 until at least Nov.
1, 1999 the defendants, along with their co-conspirators,
conspired to fix prices, allocate market share and otherwise
restrain trade and eliminate competition in the U.S. for the
sale of MSG and Nucleotides, both food flavor enhancers in
violation of state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair
trade practices acts.   

Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement are due on
Sept. 15, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Settlement Administrator] MSG Indirect Purchaser,
         Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 832, Acworth, GA
         30101-0832, Phone: 1-888-245-1009, Web site:
         http://www.msgindirectsettlement.com/;  

     (2) [Plaintiff] David Boies, III of Straus & Boies, LLP,
         4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor, Fairfax, VA  22030,
         Phone: (703) 764-8700; and

     (3) [Defendant] Michael R. Lazerwitz, Esq. of Cleary
         Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 2000 Pennsylvania
         Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, Phone: (202) 974-
         1500.


NEW YORK: Court to Hear Mamaroneck Day Laborer Suit in September
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 11, 2006 hearing has been set in the Mamaroneck day
laborer case after talks to settle the suit out of court failed,
The Journal News reports.

The suit was filed by a legal team from the Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund as well as by an international law
firm, Dewey Ballantine.  It was specifically brought on behalf
of six unnamed day laborers who alleged they were harassed and
their rights violated when the village of Mamaroneck banned them
from gathering at Columbus Park, the hiring site the village
closed Feb. 1.

The suit charges Mamaroneck village with deliberately deterring
the day laborers from soliciting work by closing the hiring site
at Columbus Park and targeting them for harassment by conducting
police surveillance of the area.

Village attorneys reasoned that the city closed the Columbus
Park hiring site to protect the municipality from any potential
lawsuits filed by residents who, in the past, questioned why tax
money was being spent on an employment site.

Kevin Plunkett of the law firm Thatcher, Profitt and Wood, which
is representing the defendant, said the village would not settle
the case if it meant admitting police misconduct, paying the day
laborers' legal fees or designating an official hiring site.

The suit is "John Does Nos. 1 through 6, et al v. Village of
Mamaroneck, et al., Case No. 7:06-cv-03243-CM," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Colleen McMahon.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Candace D. Banks and Janis M. Meyer of Dewey Ballantine
         LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212)-259-7166, Fax: (212)-259-6333, E-mail:
         cbanks@dbllp.com and lpmco@dbllp.com;  

     (2) Sandra Del Valle and Foster Maer of Puerto Rican
         Defense & Education Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 14th
         Floor, New York, NY 10013, Phone: (212) 219-3360; and

     (3) Alan H. Levine of Law Office of Alan H. Levine, 99
         Hudson Street, 14th Flr., New York, NY 10013, Phone:
         (212) 739-7506, Fax: (212) 431-4276, E-mail:
         alev@att.net.  


OHIO: Mahoning Opposes Youngstown's Intervention in Inmate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning County is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to dismiss the City of Youngstown's
request to intervene in a federal class action by inmates
concerning jail conditions, The Youngstown Vindicator reports.

In March 2005, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. found that the lockup was
overcrowded and unsafe.  Since that time, the judge has been
overseeing the jail.

To avoid jail overcrowding, Judge Dowd, Judge Dan A. Polster and
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alice M. Batchelder are
planning to issue orders concerning possible inmate releases.

However, the City of Youngstown opposed any existing or future
prisoner release orders and has thus filed a motion to intervene
in the case.

In seeking for the dismissal of that motion, Assistant County
Prosecutor Linette M. Stratford pointed out that the city failed
to file a pleading setting forth a claim or defense for which
intervention is sought.  She also cited that the case made
controversial allegations that aren't part of the court record.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed on Nov. 14, 2003 against the County of
Mahoning, Ohio, A Local Government Entity; Dave Ludt; Edward J.
Reese; Randall A. Wellington; and Vicki Allen Sherlock.  Named
as plaintiffs in the case are:

      -- James Joseph Mancini,
      -- Joshua Baird,
      -- Kevin Whitacker,
      -- Leland Scott,
      -- Maurice Barnes,
      -- Mike Hamad,
      -- Nathaniel Roberts,
      -- Rodney Gray

The suit is "Roberts, et al. v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, A
Local Government Entity, et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-02329-DDD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio under Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas
Kelley of Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker, Ste. 720, 159
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-434-2113, Fax:
330-434-2158, E-mail: robattarm@aol.com and tkelley1@neo.rr.com.

Representing the defendants is Sharon K. Hackett, Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County, 120 Market Street,
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-740-2330, Fax: 330-740-2366.

Representing the Intervenor is Anthony J. Farris, City of
Youngstown, Department of Law, 26 South Phelps Street,
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-742-8874, Fax: 330-742-8867, E-
mail: ajf@cityofyoungstownoh.com.


SAGE PRODUCTS: Recalls Washcloth Contaminated with Bacteria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sage Products Inc., of Cary, Illinois, is initiating a voluntary
recall of specific lots of Comfort Shield Perineal Care
Washcloth product codes due to contamination with Burkholderia
cepacia.

Specific recalled lots are listed below:

Code         Lot         Dates shipped

7403         1301        Feb. 10 - Feb. 13, 2006

7403         1312        Feb. 13 - March 2, 2006

7403         1312        Feb. 13 - March 2, 2006

7403         1457        Feb. 24 - March 1, 2006

7403         1677        May 2   - May 3, 2006

7408         1848        April 18, 06

7503         1999        May 3 - May 16, 2006

7524         2070        May 1 - May 15, 2006

7524         2086        May 11 - May 15, 2006

7905         1766        March 22 - June 12, 2006

7503-M       1702        April 13, 2006

7503-M       1995        April 13 - May 19, 2006

No other lots of Comfort Shield Perineal Care Washcloths from
Sage Products are known to be affected by this recall.

Burkholderia cepacia can cause serious infections including
pneumonia and bacterial sepsis in immunocompromised persons,
persons with cystic fibrosis, in hospitalized patients in
general as well as certain other patient groups.

The product was distributed to hospitals, medical centers and
long-term care facilities in the U.S. and Canada.  There was no
known distribution through retail sales.

Sage Products initiated this recall after receiving and
investigating a Canadian complaint on lot 1457 of off odor. At
the present time, Sage Products Inc has received no reports of
patient injury. This voluntary recall is being conducted with
the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration.

Customers who have the affected lots of these products are
advised to stop usage, sale and distribution, and should contact
Sage Products to coordinate product return and replacement.

Product is available for immediate replacement and no stock
outage is anticipated.  To arrange for product replacement,
contact Customer Service at 1-800-323-2220.  Return affected
product only, to Sage Products Inc, 3909 Three Oaks Road, Cary,
IL 60013, attention: Customer Service.

For more information, contact Sage Products Inc., Phone: 1-800-
323-2220.


UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholders' Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Univision Communications Inc. filed two putative
class actions in Los Angeles Superior Court against the company
and its board members, claiming they breached their fiduciary
duty when they agreed to sell the Spanish-language broadcaster
to a consortium of private investors, according to BusinessWeek.

One suit filed on June 27, 2006, on behalf of a shareholder
identified as L A Murphy, seeks a court order blocking the sale
of the company "at a price that is not fair and equitable," and
unspecified damages to the shareholders.

Mr. Murphy claims in the suit that:

      -- the company's board put its own personal interests and
         the interests of the winning bidder ahead of
         shareholders;

      -- failed to adequately evaluate the company's worth; and
   
      -- failed to create "an active and open auction for
         Univision products."

The other suit filed on June 28, 2006 claims that the company's
board structured the buyout deal with an eye on benefiting
company insiders, not average shareholders.

The company put itself up for sale in February.  Two investor
consortiums ended up vying to take over the broadcaster.

On June 26, 2006, the company accepted a $36.25 per share cash
offer that equals about $12.3 billion, not including about $1.4
billion in debt.

The winning bid was submitted by a group of investors including
Texas Pacific Group Inc., Thomas H. Lee Partners, Madison
Dearborn Partners LLC, Providence Equity Partners Inc., and
media mogul Haim Saban.

The other consortium was led by Mexican broadcaster Grupo
Televisa SA, and included private equity firms Bain Capital
Partners LLC and Cascade Investment LLC, which invested for
billionaire Bill Gates.


WALONG MARKETING: Recalls Cakes with Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------
Walong Marketing Inc. of Buena Park, California is recalling
"G.W. Strawberry Cake," and "G.W. Honey Dew Melon Cake" "Asian
Taste Dried Sweet Potato" because it may contain undeclared
sulfites.

The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.  
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

"G.W. Strawberry Cake," and "G.W. Honey Dew Melon Cake" and
"Asian Taste Dried Sweet Potato" were distributed nationwide via
retail stores.

"G.W. Strawberry Cake comes in 7.76-ounce, in a red plastic bag.
"G.W. Honey Dew Melon Cake comes in 7.76 -ounce.  It is a
product of Taiwan. "Asian Taste Dried Sweet Potato" comes in 7
ounce.  It is a product of China.

The recall was initiated after a routine sampling by the Los
Angeles Department of Food and Drug Administration and
subsequent analysis by the department's food laboratory
personnel, revealed the presence of sulfites in product
packages, which did not declare sulfites on the label.

Consumers who have purchased "G.W. Strawberry Cake" and "G.W.
Honey Dew Melon Cake" and "Asian Taste Dried Sweet Potato" are
advised to return it to the place of purchase for full refund.
Consumers with question may contact the company at 1-877-675-
8899.

For more information, contact Walong Marketing Inc., Phone: 1-
877-675-8899.


WISCONSIN: Strip Search Suit Against Dunn County Jail Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of
Wisconsin dismissed a purported class action alleging that
thousands of Dunn County Jail inmates had been illegally strip-
searched, Dunn County News reports.

On Dec. 30, 2005, a suit was filed by Vincent Moccio of the
Minneapolis firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Cerisi on behalf
of Robert Thurber.  The suit names as defendants Dunn County and
Sheriff Dennis Smith.

Mr. Thurber alleges that he was illegally searched on two
separate occasions.  The first incident, according to the suit,
took place on June 12, 2000, when he was booked into the Dunn
County Jail after being arrested for a misdemeanor charge of
issuing worthless checks.  After less than two hours following
the arrest, he was released.

The second incident occurred on Oct. 13, 2004, following an
arrest for an outstanding warrant due to Mr. Thurber's failure
to pay a fine for a city disorderly conduct violation.  He was
released from the Dunn County Jail the following day.

Facts presented in the case indicated that Mr. Thurber changed
from his street clothes into an orange jail jumpsuit, but was
not strip-searched.  

In a press release from Nicholas P. Lange, interim corporation
counsel for Dunn County, noted, "After interviewing jail staff
and reviewing thousands of pages of inmate and jail records, Mr.
Moccio advised Dunn County's legal counsel, Andrew A. Jones of
Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., ... that he would not be seeking
certification for a class action."

On April 12, Mr. Thurber's attorney withdrew the case.  On May
24, Judge John C. Shabaz dismissed the case, noting that the
plaintiff had not produced any evidence to contradict the
affidavits submitted by the county as defendants.

The suit is "Thurber, Robert v. Dunn County, Wisconsin, Case No.
05-C-0750-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin under Judge John C. Shabaz.

Representing the plaintiff is Vincent J. Moccio of Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle
Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-349-8500 and 1-800-
553-9910, Fax: 612-339-4181, E-mail: vjmoccio@rkmc.com.

Representing the defendants is Andrew A. Jones of Whyte
Hirschboeck Dudek, S.C., 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1900,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3819, (Milwaukee Co.), Phone: 414-
273-2100, Fax: 414-223-5000, Web site: http://www.whdlaw.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HOME SOLUTIONS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed an amended class action against Home
Solutions of America, Inc. and certain officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  

The action is on behalf of Home Solutions securities purchasers
during the period April 11, 2006 and June 6, 2006, inclusive,
for federal securities law violations.  The complaint alleges
that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
the company's revenue opportunities.

As a result, the price of the company's securities was inflated
during the class period, thereby harming investors. Meanwhile,
the Company's officers and directors aggressively sold shares of
their Home Solutions stock, resulting in proceeds of
approximately $12.2 million. The complaint earlier mistakenly
reported insider proceeds at over $15.7 million.

According to the complaint, on April 11, 2006, Home Solutions
announced it had been awarded a contract valued at up to $20
million, to provide infrastructure support for Hurricane Katrina
rebuilding efforts. Following this, the Company announced a
string of contract awards, including substantial contracts with
Home Depot Inc. and American Renaissance Homes ("ARH").

On June 6, 2006, however, the Company issued a shocking press
release, revealing that it was, in fact, lending up to $800,000
to ARH for "working capital," secured by its modular homes and
land.

As the complaint alleges, defendants' prior representations
regarding the dramatic growth in revenues based on the announced
contract opportunities were false and misleading, concealing
from the investment community the Company's inability to
dramatically expand both revenues and margins, in a low-margin
and highly competitive market space.

On this news, Home Solutions' stock price plummeted, losing
29.1% or $2.80, to close on June 6, at $6.80, on unprecedented
volume of 26.2 million shares, over eighteen times normal
trading volume.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Aug. 21,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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


INFOSONICS CORP: Hanzman Criden Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A. filed a class action complaint
against InfoSonics Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased the publicly traded securities of InfoSonics during
the period from May 9, 2006 through and including June 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that InfoSonics and its top officers
engaged in a scheme to defraud InfoSonics investors in violation
of the federal securities laws by reporting false financial
results on May 8, 2006 for its first quarter ended March 31,
2006.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants knew, or
with deliberate recklessness disregarded, that the company had
improperly accounted for warrants issued in connection with a
January 2006 private placement, which enabled it to report net
income of $1.738 million for that quarter.

Before the market opened on Monday, June 12, 2006, InfoSonics
shocked the market when it disclosed that it would need to
restate its previously reported net income for the first quarter
down to $1.173 million, a decrease of 32.5%, due to the improper
accounting treatment of the warrants.  InfoSonics stock
immediately plunged more than 28% that day on extraordinarily
high volume.

The Complaint further alleges that, while in possession of
material nonpublic information concerning InfoSonics accounting
for the warrants, defendants sold massive amounts of their
personal holdings between May 11, 2006 and June 7, 2006 for
proceeds exceeding $3 million.

Indeed, as the company admitted in a Form 8-K filed on June 12,
2006 with the SEC, InfoSonics had determined by Monday, June 5,
2006 that it would need to restate its previously reported
financial results because it had improperly accounted for the
warrants.

Nevertheless, its Chief Financial Officer and the President of
the Company's Latin American operations continued to sell their
personal InfoSonics stock even after that determination.

Interested may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, move the court for
appointment as a Lead Plaintiff.

For more details, contact Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Phone:
(305) 357-9010.  


KLA-TENCOR: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP, filed a securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of KLA-Tencor Corp. (Nasdaq: KLAC) stock
during a class period of Feb. 13, 2003 to May 22, 2006.

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

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

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

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


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities UnitedHealth Group, Inc. between Dec.
27, 2004 and May 23, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

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

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

      -- that the Company purposely concealed the true dates of
         stock option grants;

      -- that the Company failed to properly record its stock-
         based compensation expenses;

      -- specifically, that the Company improperly treated stock
         option expenses as deductible, thereby failing to
         comply with Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue
         Code, overstated its earnings, and understated its
         expenses;

      -- that the Company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- that the Company lacked the necessary personnel and
         controls to issue accurate financial reports and
         projections; and

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On April 7, 2006, UnitedHealth stunned investors when it
announced that the Company had received an inquiry from the SEC.

Specifically, the Company reported that its Board of Directors
had formed a Committee comprised of independent directors to
retain and work with outside legal counsel to review the
Company's current and historic stock option grant practices.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock dropped $2.96, or
5.43 percent over the course of several days, from $54.51, on
April 6, 2006, to close, on April 11, 2006, at $51.55.

On April 26, 2006, after the market closed, UnitedHealth
announced that the Company had adopted enhanced corporate
governance policies, including share ownership guidelines for
officers and directors.

On May 22, 2006, Moody's Investors Service revised its outlook
on the Company to negative from stable, citing increased
uncertainty over the outcome of investigations into the
Company's practices of granting stock options.  

On this news, shares of the Company's stock dropped 90 cents, or
2.1 percent, to close, on May 23, 2006, at $42.82 per share.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com, E-mail:


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey,
against Vonage Holdings Corp. and other related defendants.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company pursuant to its Directed Share Program,
which were offered in the Company's May 23, 2006 Initial Public
Offering.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 5, 11,
12(a) (2), and 15 of the Securities Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties have until Aug. 1, 2006 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S.
Moskowitz, Phone: 888.476.6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *