/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060724.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 145


ALCOA INC: Retirees Annoyed by Healthcare Deal Plan to File Suit
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Tex. Court Okays "Fancher" Voluntary Dismissal
AMERICAN STANDARD: Pa. Court Dismisses Fixtures Antitrust Case
AT&T CORP: Court Refuses Motion to Dismiss Wiretapping Lawsuit
AT&T INC: New Hearing Set in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Employees Launch Suit Over Payroll Charges
BAUSCH & LOMB: U.S. Law Firms Represent Plaintiffs in Asia
BP AMERICA: Colo. Landowners Receive Windfall From "Parry" Case
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Calif. Court Confirms Class in Workers' Suit
CYBERONICS INC: Tex. Court Junks Consolidated Stock Complaint

CZECH REPUBLIC: Prague Residents File Suit Over Noise Pollution
DILLARD'S INC: Credit Card Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
EAST COOPER: Aug. Hearing Set for S.C. Patients Suit Settlement
ENBRIDGE GAS: Reaches Settlement in Late Payment Penalties Suit
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Tortilla Chips with Undeclared Milk

MARTHA STEWART: Lawyer Amends Ill. Suit Over "Exploding" Tables
OHIO: Youngstown Renews Bid to Intervene in Mahoning Jail Suit
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Court Awards Retirees $30M in Damages
SASKTEL MOBILITY: "System Access Fee" Suit Denied Class Status
STYLE TRONICS: Recalls Hair Dryers Posing Electrocution Hazard

TENNESSEE: Plaintiffs in Sevier Jail Suit Ordered to Show Cause
TEXAS: Court Orders Full Reimbursement for "Watson" Plaintiffs
TOYOBO: Mass. Police Dept. Seeking Compensation in Zylon Lawsuit
UNION PACIFIC: Workers File Suit Over Identity Theft in Okla.
UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Erred in Claims Dismissal for "Nix"

WESTLING MANUFACTURING: Faces Labor Violations Lawsuit in Minn.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INFOSONICS CORP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in Calif.
IONATRON INC: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities Suit
SUNTERRA CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


ALCOA INC: Retirees Annoyed by Healthcare Deal Plan to File Suit
The recently ratified four-year contract over retiree healthcare
costs between Alcoa Inc. and United Steelworkers, which
represents about 9,000 Alcoa workers, have left some retirees
irate and others wanting to file a class action, according to
Watertown Daily Times.

Though the union declared victory over the company's proposed
retirement benefit cap, which would have quickly absorbed
pension checks, some retirees say the final agreement that
introduces monthly premiums and deductibles for health insurance
isn't much better.

Essentially, the new plan calls for co-payments for doctor
visits and prescriptions.  Starting Jan. 1, those who retired
after May 31, 1993, will be required to cover a deductible, 10
percent of medical costs and monthly premiums, which can be a
financial stress for retirees living on fixed incomes.

According to a statement from the union, the deal includes
average annual raises of 2.6% and a $1,500 ratification bonus
for each worker.  

It added that the new deal includes a single-family health
insurance plan, instead of a multitiered plan proposed by the
company, which offers better coverage than what is available to
the overwhelming majority of U.S. industrial workers.

The deal also stipulates that the company will invest millions
in a fund to cover retiree health care costs.  New hires will be
covered under the same health care plan and defined-benefit
pension plan that current workers receive, instead of just
individual retirement accounts.  The deal also boosts pensions
and sickness and accident benefits, according to the union.

Retiree benefits were a key part of the new agreement covering
workers at plants in North Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, New York, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.

Despite the deal, some question members question whether the
union had the right to represent them in the first place.  

United Steelworkers international leadership is aware of the
frustrations.  To alleviate those frustrations, Mr. Scott
explained that the international is creating a comprehensive
detailed description of the agreement, which should be mailed to
retirees within a month.

The negotiated plan is intended to keep costs reasonable and
preserve health-care quality for retirees, according to Mr.
Scott said.

ALDERWOODS GROUP: Tex. Court Okays "Fancher" Voluntary Dismissal
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, with
permission to re-file a class action against Alderwoods Group,

Initially, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee as Case No. 2:05-145.  It was
later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas as Case No. 4:05-cv-04120.

The suit is a purported class action on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased caskets in the U.S.  It names as
defendants the company and four other public companies involved
in the funeral or casket industry including:

      -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
      -- Service Corporation International,
      -- Batesville Casket Co., and
      -- Hellenbrand Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Ralph Lee Fancher alleges that defendants overcharged
for caskets and violated federal and state antitrust laws by
engaging in anticompetitive practices with respect to sales of

The lawsuit seeks injunctions, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages and treble damages.

On June 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted Mr. Fancher's Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, with permission to re-file its case at another time.

The suit is "Fancher v. Service Corp. International et al., Case
No. 4:05-cv-04120," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with
referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550
W Main Ave., Ste. 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028,
Fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrew K. Doty of Iverson Yoakum Papiano, 624 South
         Grand Ave., Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-624-7444, Fax: 213-629-4563, E-mail:

     (2) Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, 711
         Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
         andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com; and

     (3) Victoria L. Cook of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-653-
         7870, Fax: 713-654-3343, E-mail:

AMERICAN STANDARD: Pa. Court Dismisses Fixtures Antitrust Case
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion filed by
American Standard Cos. and others to dismiss a class action
alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of bath and kitchen

In an order, the court ruled that the complaint fails to provide
the company and other defendants with notice of the grounds upon
which the plaintiffs' claims rest.  In part, the court noted
that the complaint is "devoid of even a minimal factual
background" that gives defendants fair notice of the grounds
upon which the claims are based.

The court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint
before ruling on the issue of final dismissal.

In February 2005, 13 class actions, now consolidated, were
launched on behalf of direct purchasers of plumbing and kitchen
fixtures from:

     -- American Standard Companies, Inc.;
     -- Masco Corporation and its subsidiary, Delta Faucet
        Co.; and
     -- Kohler Co.

As alleged in the complaints, the class consists of "all persons
who purchased fixtures in the U.S. or from a facility in the
U.S. directly from the defendants or any of their predecessors
or controlled subsidiaries."

The suits allege violations of Federal Antitrust Laws in
connection with the sale of certain products in the U.S.

The suit is "Samuel Gordon Architects, P.C. v. American Standard
Cos. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00510-MAM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania
under Judge Mary A. McLaughlin.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Stephen W. Armstrong of Montgomery McCracken Walker &
         Rhoads LLP, 123 S. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19109,
         Phone: 215-772-7552, Fax: 215-772-7620, E-mail:

     (2) Richard J. Favretto of Mayer Brown & Platt, 1909 K St.,
         N.W., Washington, DC 20006-1101, Phone: 202.263.3000;

     (3) Barbara W. Mather of Pepper Hamilton LLP, 3000 Two
         Logan SQ, 18TH & Arch Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19103-
         2799, Phone: 215-981-4895, Fax: 215-981-4756, E-mail:
         matherb@pepperlaw.com; and

     (4) Eric J. McCarthy of Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh
         St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-
         637-2200, E-mail: eric.mccarthy@lw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC,
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-545-7200, E-mail: asher@wka-law.com;

     (2) Deborah R. Gross and Warren Rubin both of The Law
         Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC, Juniper & Market
         Streets, John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450, Philadelphia,
         PA 19107, Phone: 215-561-3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-
         mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com or
         warren@bernardmgross.com; and

     (3) Larry S. Keiser of The Law Offices of Larry S. Keiser,
         138 South Main Street, P.O. BOX 220, Wilkes-Barre, PA
         18703, Phone: 570.822.2929.

AT&T CORP: Court Refuses Motion to Dismiss Wiretapping Lawsuit
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California denied a request by AT&T Corp.
and the U.S. government to dismiss Electronic Frontier
Foundation's class action against them over alleged wiretapping.

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T and its holding company, AT&T Inc.,
are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a massive
warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks the
domestic and foreign communications and communication records of
millions of Americans.

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or
        using plaintiffs' communications;

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of
        plaintiffs' communications;

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On April 28, 2006, AT&T moved to dismiss this case contends that
plaintiffs lack standing, and that it is entitled to statutory,
common law and qualified immunity.

The government moved to dismiss on state secrets grounds,
arguing that civil discovery would impermissibly " confirm the
identity of individuals or organizations whose foreign
communications were acquired by NSA, disclose the dates and
contents of such communications, or divulge the methods and
techniques by which the communications were acquired by NSA."

Earlier, the judge declined to hear motions by EFF to issue a
preliminary injunction against the alleged data collection until
after he considers whether to dismiss the case (Class Action  
Reporter, June 13, 2006).

After hearing oral arguments on June 23, the court denied the
government's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for
summary judgment on the basis of state secrets and denied AT&T's
motion to dismiss.  

According to court documents, the parties are ordered to show
cause in writing by July 31, 2006, why the court should not
appoint an expert pursuant to FRE 706 to assist the court.  The
parties' briefs should also address whether this action should
be stayed pending an appeal pursuant to 28 USC S 1292(b).  The
parties are also instructed to appear on Aug. 8, 2006, at 2
p.m., for a further case management conference.

A copy of the court decision is available free of charge at:


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 defendants 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      

AT&T INC: New Hearing Set in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
A federal appeals court set a new hearing date in a suit filed
by AT&T Inc. employees who took pregnancy leaves in the 1960s
and 1970s and were granted fewer retirement benefits than
workers who took disability leaves, according to The San
Francisco Chronicle.

The court will rehear the case before a 15-judge panel at a
still unspecified date, the report said.

In March, the Ninth U.S. District Court of Appeals in Francisco
ruled that AT&T is not required to equalize retirement credits
of pregnant and disabled employees before 1979 (Class Action
Reporter, March 13, 2006).

AT&T is facing a suit filed by four women in 2001.  Representing
the women is lawyer Suzanne Murphy.  The suit was lodged as a
proposed nationwide class action, but certification was put on
hold pending a ruling on whether the company is required to pay
equal benefits for pregnant and disabled workers.  

The plaintiffs took pregnancy leaves between 1968 and 1976.  At
the time, the company allowed up to 30 days of service credit
for pregnancy leave but granted credit for the entire length of
any other disability leave.

After Congress passed Pregnancy Discrimination Act, AT&T granted
pregnant employees full credit for time spent on leave but did
not equalize credits for pre-1979 leaves.  The women now alleged
they lost between six months and a year of retirement credit.  
They are seeking increases in their current or future benefits.

The women based their arguments on a 1991 appeals court ruling
that required equal retirement benefits for employees who took
pregnancy leave before 1979.  But the court said in a March 8
ruling the 1991 decision had been repealed by a 1994 Supreme
Court order that limited the retroactive effect of new federal

BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Employees Launch Suit Over Payroll Charges
The law firm of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, LLP, filed a class
action against the U.S. Bank of California for charging
employees of business payroll accountholders a $10 fee to cash
their paychecks.  Many of these employees are reportedly lower-
paid workers who do not hold personal checking accounts and rely
on their employers' banks to cash their checks.

"We are seeking an injunction to stop the bank from charging $10
per paycheck cashing fees without notifying its accountholders
of potential adverse legal consequences, or at the very least,
to require U.S. Bank to disclose these practices to current and
future business customers," says Nicholas P. Roxborough, co-
managing partner of RPN who filed the lawsuit.  

"In the meantime, our client is reimbursing his employees who,
to their knowledge, are being charged this additional fee -- a
practice that has not been disclosed by the bank to our client
or other customers."

The plaintiff in the suit against U.S. Bank of California is
Leae Asset Management, a granite, marble and recycling business
that believes the bank's fees have placed the company in
violation of Section 212 of the California Labor Code, which
requires that paychecks 'be negotiable and payable in cash, on
demand, without discount.'  The plaintiff is acting on behalf of
other California employers in the state, many who have lower-
paid workers living paycheck to paycheck.

"Our suit against U.S. Bank of California doesn't focus on
whether or not a bank has the right to charge a check cashing
fee, but it does strongly contend that a bank cannot do so
without advising its clients of the legal consequences, and more
specifically, that this practice may subject employers to
liability of certain provisions of the Labor Code," explains Mr.

The Department of Industrial Relations, which is responsible for
enforcing the Labor Code, has already concurred that this type
of bank fee violates the California Labor Code, stating that it
subjects employers to criminal prosecution and substantial
penalties under Labor Code 215 and 225.

Plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas P. Roxborough of
Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, LLP, 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250
Woodland Hills, CA 91367, Phone: (818) 992-9999, Fax: (818) 992-
9991, E-mail: npr@rpnlaw.com.

BAUSCH & LOMB: U.S. Law Firms Represent Plaintiffs in Asia
The American law firms of de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton,
P.A. and Parker & Waichman, LLP have been retained by citizens
of Asia who have suffered severe damage to their eyes as a
result of using Bausch & Lomb's ReNu with MoistureLoc contact
lens solution.

One of the Asian clients, Teck-Meng Yong, was one of the first
ReNu victims in Singapore to undergo a corneal transplant as a
result of severe damage caused by the Fusarium fungus he
contracted while using Bausch & Lomb's ReNu with MoistureLoc
brand contact lens solution.

Another client from Asia is 19-year-old Jermaine Tan, also from
Singapore.  In January of this year, Mr. Tan also underwent a
corneal transplant as a result of severe damage caused by the
Fusarium fungus contracted while using ReNu with MoistureLoc.

Joel Magolnick, a partner at de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton,
stated, "According to Jermaine's doctors, the Fusarium fungus
had almost eaten all the way through the cornea.  One more day
and it could have been too late.  If Jermaine had not been
treated in time, doctors would have had to remove his entire
eye."  Jermaine Tan has only recovered about 60 percent of the
sight in his left eye, and his vision remains impaired.

De la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton and Parker & Waichman have
been retained by many ReNu victims in the U.S. and abroad, all
of whom have suffered severe injuries due to Bausch & Lomb's
contact lens solution, including injuries requiring corneal
transplant surgery and resulting in permanent vision loss.

The hearing for the numerous product liability class suits filed
against Bausch & Lomb Inc. will begin on July 27 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Class
Action Reporter, July 4, 2006).

                       Case Background

Bausch & Lomb first introduced ReNu with MoistureLoc into the
U.S. and several foreign markets, including Hong Kong and
Singapore, in late 2004.

In November of 2005, the Hong Kong Department of Health asked
Bausch and Lomb to investigate a rising trend in keratitis among
Hong Kong contact lens wearers.

In February of 2006, the Singapore Department of Health
identified ReNu as the common brand of lens solution of 21 of 22
Singapore patients with Fusarium keratitis.   

As a result, Bausch & Lomb withdrew ReNu with MoistureLoc from
the Hong Kong and Singapore markets, but took no action at that
time to withdraw the product from the U.S. market.

On March 8, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control received a
report from an ophthalmologist in New Jersey regarding three
patients with contact lens-associated Fusarium keratitis.

Initial contact by the CDC with several corneal disease
specialty centers in the U.S. revealed that other centers also
have seen recent increases in Fusarium keratitis.   

As of April 9, a total of 109 patients with suspected Fusarium  
keratitis were under investigation in multiple states.  
According to the CDC, of the 30 patients interviewed at that
time, 28 had worn contact lenses, and 26 could specifically
recall using a contact lens solution manufactured by Bausch &

On April 10, the same day as the public release of the CDC data,
Bausch & Lomb announced that it was suspending shipments of ReNu
with MoistureLoc to stores in the U.S.

On May 15, Bausch & Lomb announced that it was permanently
removing ReNu with MoistureLocfrom worldwide markets.  In
announcing the decision, Bausch & Lomb Chief Executive Ronald L.
Zarella acknowledged that, "some aspect of the MoistureLoc
formula may be increasing the relative risk of Fusarium
infection in unusual circumstances."

According to subsequent statements by Mr. Zarella, the company
has determined that certain comfort- enhancing polymers unique
to the ReNu with MoistureLo formula may actually have had the
inadvertent effect of preventing the product's fungal
disinfectant from killing the Fusarium fungus.

As of May 18, the Centers for Disease Control had received
reports of 130 confirmed cases of Fusarium keratitis since June
1, 2005, including 26 cases in Florida (Class Action Reporter,
June 20, 2006).

More information on ReNu with MoistureLoc is available at:    

Bausch & Lomb is represented by Harvey L. Kaplan of Shook Hardy
& Bacon LLP, 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Missouri U.S.A.,
64108, Phone: 816-559-2214 or 816-474-6550, Fax: 816-421-5547.

Representing the Asian plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joel S. Magolnick, Esq. of de la O, Marko, Magolnick &
         Leyton, P.A., Phone: (305) 285-2000, Toll free: (888)
         893-5723, E-mail: magolnick@dmmllaw.com, Web site:

     (2) Jason Mark, Esq. of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone:
         (212) 267-6700 and 800-LAW-INFO or (800) 529-4636, E-
         mail: info@yourlawyer.com, Web site:

BP AMERICA: Colo. Landowners Receive Windfall From "Parry" Case
Checks totaling some $120 million were mailed to about 4,500
Colorado landowners under a settlement reached with BP America,
Inc. over a dispute over natural gas royalty payments, The Rocky
Mountain News reports.

The checks, ranged from a couple of pennies to nearly $2
million, is the result of an out-of-court agreement in a class
action filed in the Sixth Judicial District Court against the
company in May 1994 in which plaintiffs challenged the company's
underpayment of royalties for some 14 years (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 15, 2005).  

Richard Parry, an Ignacio rancher, filed the suit back in 1994
against the former Amoco Production Co., which was later,
acquired by the company.  The suit eventually became a class
action involving landowners from La Plata and Archuleta

The case, "Parry, et al. vs. Amoco Production Co., n/k/a BP
America Production Co., Case No. 94 CV 105," centered on the
underpayment of royalties for natural gas production in the two
counties.  It challenged a company practice that started in June
1991, when the company started deducting the expense of
gathering, treating and compressing gas from royalty payments.

In October 2003, Judge David Dickinson ruled against the company
in the case.  He said it and its predecessor Amoco -- when
calculating royalty payments -- couldn't deduct costs tied to
getting the gas ready for market.

In particular, the company removes water and carbon dioxide from
the gas.  It also raises the pressure of the gas before it's
delivered to interstate pipelines.

The company's payments to the landowners cover royalty payments
dating June 1991 to the present.  In addition to those payments,
the company also agreed to stop making the disputed deductions,
which means landowners will get fatter royalty payments,
according to the report.

For more details, contact Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch,
L.L.C., 125 North Market Street, Suite 1600, P.O. Box 997
Wichita, KS 67201-0997, Phone: (316) 267-7361, Fax: (316) 267-
1754, Web site: http://www.fleeson.com/Parry%20page.htm.

BRINKER RESTAURANT: Calif. Court Confirms Class in Workers' Suit
San Diego County Superior Court Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett
granted class certification to a suit filed against Dallas-based
Brinker Restaurant Corp. over allegations it violated California
law mandating workers' meal and rest breaks, the San Diego
Union-Tribune reports.

Filed in 2004 by five Brinker Restaurant employees, the suit
alleges that Brinker Restaurant, operator of the Chili's and
Romano's Macaroni Grill restaurant chains, routinely denied meal
and rest breaks that are mandated by California law.  Plaintiffs
in the suit are San Diego County residents Adam Hohnbaum of
Carlsbad and Amanda Rader of Chula Vista.

According to plaintiff attorney L. Tracee Lorens the company's
restaurants often violated California meal and break laws by
forcing workers to work through their break times.  In some
cases, she said, the company violated meal laws by requiring
workers to work more than five hours without a meal period.

California law requires employers to provide at least a half-
hour meal period every five hours.  State law also grants
workers 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours on the job.

Ms. Lorens said the allegations cover an estimated 63,000
current and former employees of the restaurant company, and
damages could amount to as much as $100 million.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker -- http://www.brinker.com--  
owns, operates, develops, and franchises restaurants in the U.S.  
It operates restaurants under the names of Chili's Grill & Bar,
Romano's Macaroni Grill, Maggiano's Little Italy, On The Border
Mexican Grill & Cantina, and Corner Bakery Cafe restaurant

CYBERONICS INC: Tex. Court Junks Consolidated Stock Complaint
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
dismissed consolidated complaint against the company and certain
of its officers and directors in the putative securities class
action against Cyberonics, Inc. and certain of its current

The court ruled that the consolidated complaint failed to state
any claim under the federal securities laws because it failed to
allege material misstatements with particularity, failed to
allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference of intent or
severe recklessness, and failed to allege sufficiently the
causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint
might well extend beyond the point of cure," but granted
plaintiffs the right to amend their complaint in light of the
strong legal presumption favoring a right to amend.

Under the terms of the court's order, the plaintiffs will have
30 days to file a further amended complaint in an attempt to
cure the deficiencies.

In 2005, Cyberonics and certain of its current officers faced
securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, alleging, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements relating to the company's Vagus Nerve Stimulation
Therapy System device (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2005).

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed
to disclose that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had
"safety and efficacy concerns" about the use of the VNS Device
for the treatment of depression and that the defendants failed
to disclose the existence of certain "manufacturing and quality
practices," as detailed in the FDA's Dec. 22, 2004 Warning
Letter, that negatively impacted the company's prospects for
obtaining FDA approval to use the VNS Device to treat

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired company securities during the period June 15,
2004 through Oct. 1, 2004.  The complainants seek unspecified
monetary damages and equitable or injunctive relief, if

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc et al.,
Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Abbott, John G. Emerson and Scott E.
         Poynter, all of Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale
         Lane, Suite 100, Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, E-mail:
     (2) Mark A. Golovach, Mark L. Knutson and Jeffrey R.
         Krinsk, all of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, 501 West
         Broadway, Ste 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         238-1333, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail:
         mlk@classactionlaw.com or fk@classactionlaw.com;

     (3) Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler
         III all of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B Street, Ste 1500,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-233-4565.

Representing the defendants is N. Scott Fletcher of Vinson &
Elkins LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-3234, Fax: 713-615-5168, E-mail:

CZECH REPUBLIC: Prague Residents File Suit Over Noise Pollution
Prague residents living near the Magistrala motorway initiated a
class action against the city over high noise levels at the
north-south eight-lane dual carriageway, according to Radio

Everyday, some 100,000 vehicles pass through the motorway, which
was built 30 years ago.  That traffic cuts right through the
center of Prague.

The residents' lawyer Frantisek Korbel, a member of the Green
party and a designated government minister, says four separate
tests have shown that his clients concerns are valid.

Residential areas adjoining the main arterial road suffer a
noise level of 77 decibels during the day and 70 decibels at
night.  The maximum permitted levels are 60 and 50 decibels
respectively.  Based on many tests of large numbers of people, a
sound level of 70 is twice as loud to the listener as a level of

One of the plaintiffs who signed the class action is Zdenek
Synac, whose flat is just 19 meters away from the motorway.  
According to Mr. Synac, who has been living near the motorway
for about forty years, the maximum permitted noise levels are
always exceeded and they are subjected to the noise 24 hours a
day.  Construction work going on around the vicinity has added
to the noise, according to Mr. Synac.

The residents behind the class action are not asking for
compensation, but are putting forward a number of proposals to
combat traffic noise such as the installation of noise barriers,
which deflect noise from adjoining urban areas.  The noise
barriers typically reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 decibels.  

The residents filed the suit after reporting their concern to
the construction companies and city officials, and failing to
get a positive response.

DILLARD'S INC: Credit Card Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
Judge Bob McNatt of the San Joaquin County Superior Court in
California gave preliminary approval to Dillard's Inc.'s
proposed settlement of a class action filed against it for
allegedly putting customers at risk of identity theft, the
Stockton Record reports.

Under the settlement, Dillard's department store customers who
used a non-Dillard's credit card at the Stockton store between
July 4 2004, and July 8, 2005 and were asked for their telephone
numbers are eligible for a $20 gift card.

Notices of the proposed settlement have been mailed to nearly
120,000 people who could be identified.

Plaintiffs' lawyer James M. Lindsay of the law firm Lindsay &
Stonebarger said claims for a $20 gift card may not be filed
until after the settlement is made final next month.

He believes the class action may cover up to 250,000 Dillard's
customers, who shopped at stores in Palmdale and El Centro as
well as Stockton.

The suit cropped up in 2005, when Stockton resident April
Castaneda swiped her credit card through the store's card reader
and was prompted to punch in her telephone number.

According to Mr. Lindsay, Dillard's was utilizing that
information, the telephone number, to find home addresses so
they can market products or do whatever they wanted to do with
that information.

California law prohibits merchants from requesting and recording
personal identification information from customers, or using
forms with blank spaces for that information, in credit card
transactions, according to Mr. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs is James M. Lindsay of Lindsay &
Stonebarger, Forum Building, 1107 9th Street, Suite 1020,
Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: (916) 446-0032, Fax: (916)
446-0034, E-mail: jlindsay@lindstonelaw.com.

For more information on the settlement, call (800) 345-5273 or
E-mail: claimform@dillards.com.

EAST COOPER: Aug. Hearing Set for S.C. Patients Suit Settlement
The Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County will hold a  
fairness hearing on Aug. 29, 2006 at 10 a.m. for the  
proposed settlement in the matter, "Singletary, et al. v. East  
Cooper Community Hospital, Inc., et al., Civil Action Nos. 04-
CP-10-4211 & 04-CP-10-4212."  

The court will hold the hearing to consider the fairness and  
adequacy of the proposed settlement and to consider class  
counsel's petition for fees and costs at the Chester County  
Courthouse, 140 Main Street, Chester, South Carolina.

Deadline for any objections and exclusions to and from the  
settlement is on July 31, 2006.  Claims form must be submitted  
on or before Sept. 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs Robert A. Singletary, Sr. and R. Allen Singletary,  
Jr. brought the actions on behalf of themselves and similarly  
situated persons who were patients of East Cooper Regional  
Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and  
Piedmont Healthcare System.  The two actions were consolidated  
for the purposes of administering the settlement.   

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

It was brought on behalf of a class that consists of two sub-

      -- The Uninsured Class consisting of all persons who were  
         patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center,
         Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont
         Healthcare System from Oct. 7, 2001 to May 22, 2006,
         and were uninsured at the time of treatment; and
      -- The Insured Class consisting of all persons who were  
         patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center,
         Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont
         Healthcare System from Oct. 7, 2001 to May 22, 2006,
         and were insured at the time of treatment.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Singletary v. E. Cooper Community Hospital, Settlement  
         Administrator, P.O. Box 91126, Seattle, WA 98111-9226,  
         Phone: 1-800-280-8427, Web site:  

     (2) A. Camden Lewis, Esquire of Lewis & Babcock, L.L.P.,
         1513 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803-
         771-8000, Fax: 803-733-3534, Web site:  

ENBRIDGE GAS: Reaches Settlement in Late Payment Penalties Suit
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement in a proposed class action related to late payment
penalties charged by the company in the past.

If the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approves the
settlement, the company will donate $9 million to the Winter
Warmth Fund prior to the end of January 2007.

The settlement will also require the company to make payments of
approximately $10.2 million to class counsel on account of the
plaintiff's legal fees and expenses and a payment of
approximately $2 million to the Class Proceedings Fund, operated
by the Law Foundation of Ontario.  

The total amount to be paid by the company in connection with
the settlement is $21.2 million.  The company said its agreement
to settle the matter on this basis does not constitute any
admission of liability on its part.

In order to implement the proposed settlement, counsel for the
plaintiff will bring a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice for approval of the settlement, at which the proposed
settlement will be considered.

The company expects the motion to be heard by the court in mid-
August 2006.  If approved by the court, the settlement will be
implemented on the basis described in this release.  If the
court does not approve the settlement, the settlement agreement
will become null and void, the company will not make the
proposed payments and the litigation will likely continue.

Initially launched by the company, Toronto Hydro and the United
Way in 2004, other Ontario natural gas and electric utilities
have since joined the Winter Warmth Fund.  The Winter Warmth
Fund provides eligible low-income customers of participating
utilities with financial assistance for the payment of their
natural gas and electricity bills.  

Late payment penalty revenues are included in the company's
estimate of revenues for the year and therefore accrue to the
benefit of all customers, reducing the cost of providing
distribution services.  The Ontario Energy Board approves these
estimates and resulting rates each year.  The company intends to
apply to the OEB for recovery of the proposed payments resulting
from the settlement of this action.

                        Case Background

In February 1995, the Ontario Court of Justice, General Division
issued a judgment on a threshold issue in favor of the company
dismissing the class action.  The court concluded that the
company's late payment charge is not interest payable on a
credit transaction, but is an incentive to customers to pay
their bills by a certain date.  The court held that Section 347
of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with interest on
credit transactions, did not apply.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal
regarding that decision in September 1996.  The plaintiff was
granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the
decision of the Court of Appeal.  The Supreme Court of Canada
heard the appeal in March 1998 and the decision of the court was
issued in October 1998.  The court allowed the appeal, set aside
the summary judgment dismissing the action, and remitted the
action back to the Ontario Court (General Division) for
proceedings in accordance with the Ontario Class Proceedings
Act, 1992.

Further motions for summary judgment and related matters brought
by both the plaintiff and the company were argued during March
2000.  In April 2000, the court released Reasons for Decision in
which it dismissed the plaintiff's claim.  In May 2000, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ontario Court of
Appeal.  The appeal was heard in March 2001.

In December 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal relating to the plaintiff's action against
the company claiming that the approved late payment penalty
charged to customers was contrary to Canadian federal law.

On Feb. 1, 2002, the company changed its late payment penalty
from a one-time five percent charge to a one-time two per cent
charge on current gas charges.  These charges were made pursuant
to rate orders issued by the Ontario Energy Board.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the plaintiffs' appeal of a
lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the class action
filed against the company in the Ontario Court of Justice
(General Division) by a customer claiming that the company's
Ontario Energy Board-approved late payment penalties charged to
customers were contrary to Canadian federal law.

The claim sought $112.0 million in "restitutionary payments" and
other relief and was brought on behalf of all people who were
customers of the company and who had paid or been charged for
late payment penalties since April 1, 1981.  The action has not
been certified by the court as a class proceeding although the
Class Proceedings Committee established under the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act 1992 decided that it would fund the action.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal by the plaintiff of
the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in October 2003 and the
court has reserved its decision.

On April 22, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released its
decision requiring the company to repay a portion of amounts
paid to it as late payment penalties from April 1994.  The total
amount of late payment penalties billed between April 1994 and
February 2002 -- when the company's late payment penalty was
revised -- was approximately $74 million.

Based on further direction from the Ontario Energy Board,
company's late payment penalty was changed again in October 2005
to a monthly time-based late payment penalty of 1.5 per cent of
the outstanding balance on a customer's account.

Enbridge Gas Distribution -- http://www.enbridge.com-- is owned  
by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian-based company that is leader in
energy transportation and distribution in North America and
internationally.  It provides distribution services to 1.8
million customers in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick, and in New York State.

HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Tortilla Chips with Undeclared Milk
Harry & David Operations Corp., of Medford, Oregon, is recalling
approximately 47,300 bags of Hot Chili Pepper Tortilla Chips
because they do not list milk in the ingredient statement.

The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to dairy products run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Harry & David is recalling all Wild 'N Spicy Hot Chili Pepper
Tortilla Chips with an expiration date of May 1, 2006 through
Nov. 11, 2006.  These tortilla chips are packaged in 14 oz.
bags.  The expiration date is in the upper right hand corner of
the front of the bag.

These products were distributed from Jan. 1, 2006 through July
13, 2006 throughout the U.S. through Harry and David Stores.

There has been one person who has reported a rash after
consumption of this product.  

Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician
immediately.  If anyone has experienced an injury or reaction
related to this recall, they should contact their local Food and
Drug Administration Office.

This problem occurred because of a miscommunication of spice
ingredients from a vendor.  Subsequently, all ingredient
contents of spice mixtures from this vendor have been reviewed
and verified.

Consumers with questions about the recalled product may phone
the Customer Service division at 800-345-5655, 24 hours a day.
Customers may arrange for refunds through this number as well.

For more information, contact Bill Ihle at 541 864-2145.

MARTHA STEWART: Lawyer Amends Ill. Suit Over "Exploding" Tables
Attorney Richard Doherty of Horwitz, Horwitz and Associates in
Chicago, filed an amended complaint to the suit, "Ronat v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc et al." to include JRA
Century Furniture Industries Co Ltd., which manufactures the
patio tables for Martha Stewart, ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

Mr. Doherty said the latest amendment to the complaint would
delay a final verdict until "late next year barring any further

In July 27, 2005, Mr. Doherty filed the class action against
KMart and Martha Stewart in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, charging both firms with selling
defective glass-top patio tables that are prone to shatter
without warning (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2005).

The suit, filed on behalf of Michelle Ronat, alleged that Martha
Stewart Living and KMart violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act and breached the implied warranty that is part of every
retail transaction.

In the complaint, Ms. Ronat claimed that her Martha Stewart
outdoor patio table, sold exclusively by Kmart, exploded without

Mr. Doherty said he is working with a chemist, who for the
moment must remain anonymous since the individual has not been
named as an official witness, to perform tests to find out for
certain why the glass is spontaneously shattering.

Regardless of the results of the tests, Mr. Doherty asserts that
if it's manufactured and designed properly, it shouldn't
spontaneously shatter and explode.  He believes the defendants
know these tables are dangerous, but continue to sell them to
unknowing customers.

ConsumerAffairs.Com has received hundreds of complaints about
the glass tops of these tables spontaneously shattering,
launching shards as far as 12 feet from the table.  Consumer
complaints show that Kmart has been selling these patio tables
as far back as the summer of 2000 and possibly longer.

Federal and state agencies and the various manufacturers and
retailers involved either know about the problem and refuse to
discuss it, or deny knowing about it, according to a
ConsumerAffairs.com report.

Consumers of these Martha Stewart patio tables are advised to
take pictures if the table shatters and contact the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (http://www.cpsp.com).

The suit is "Ronat v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc et.
al, Case No. 3:05-cv-00520-GPM-CJP," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G.
Patrick Murphy, with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard J. Doherty of Horwitz, Horwitz et al., 25 East
         Washington, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
         372-8822, Fax: 312-372-1673, E-mail:

     (2) Matthew H. Armstrong of Schlichter, Bogard et al. - St.
         Louis, MO, 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900, St.
         Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-621-6115, Fax: 314-621-
         7151, E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com; and

     (3) Michael B. Marker of Rex Carr Law Firm, 412 Missouri
         Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201-3016, Phone: 618-274-
         0434, Fax: 618-274-8369, E-mail: mmarker@rexcarr.com.

OHIO: Youngstown Renews Bid to Intervene in Mahoning Jail Suit
The Youngstown city is planning to file a second motion to
intervene in a class action over operations at Mahoning County
jail, according to Vindy.com.

In March 2005, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. found that the lockup was
overcrowded and unsafe.  To avoid jail overcrowding, Judge Dowd,
Judge Dan A. Polster and U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
Alice M. Batchelder set plans to issue orders concerning
possible inmate releases.

However, the City of Youngstown opposed any existing or future
prisoner release orders and subsequently filed a motion to
intervene in the case.  Federal judges rejected the attempt on
failure to file a legal motion setting forth a claim or defense
for which intervention is sought.

In recent developments, the federal court gave potential
intervenors until July 28 to file motions to join the lawsuit.  
Also, the city council approved a resolution allowing the city
law department to oppose release of prisoners that judges have
ordered held in the jail.

                         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 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.  

PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Court Awards Retirees $30M in Damages
The Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a Marion County
Court on behalf of 300 retirees against Prudential Securities,
awarding the retirees more than $30 million in a case over
alleged unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty.

In October 1998, a company stockbroker sold more than $40
million worth of investments without the clients' authorization.
Once discovered, rather than immediately reversing the
unauthorized trades at its own expense as required, the firm
engaged in a course of action to fraudulently induce the
retirees to ratify the improper trades in an effort to avoid
paying the costs to reverse the trades.

The retirees filed a class action against the company in 1999.
In October 2002, after several weeks of trial, the jury returned
a verdict of $262 million in favor of the retirees, including
$250 million in punitive damages.  The company filed an appeal
in an attempt to overturn the verdict.

"We are pleased with the Court of Appeals ruling as it relates
to our clients' actual losses and the finding that punitive
damages are appropriate," said Columbus attorney David P. Meyer,
co-lead attorney for the class members.  "From the start of this
case in 1999, our goal has been to recover the losses suffered
by our retired clients, to get the attention of brokerage firms
across the country, and make them recognize that you have to
take care of your clients, and I think we have done that."

The Court of Appeals upheld the compensatory damages awarded by
a Marion County jury in the amount of $12.3 million, plus
interest and other damages.  The court further ruled that there
was clear and convincing evidence to support the jury's finding
that Prudential's actions demonstrated a conscious disregard for
the rights and safety of the 300 retirees, and that Prudential
acted with actual malice in its dealings with its clients.

The court agreed with the jury's ruling that an award of
punitive damages was appropriate, and found that a punitive
damage award of $6.8 million (reduced from $250 million awarded
by the jury) is a sufficient amount to both punish Prudential
and to deter future conduct.

"The language in the Court of Appeal's decision is the best
thing to happen to investors in the State of Ohio in a long time
in terms of their legal rights," said Mr. Meyer, whose Columbus,
Ohio, law firm represents individual investors against brokerage
firms.  "I expect this case to go a long way in helping other
Ohio investors who become victims of stockbroker misconduct."

For more information, contact David P. Meyer of Meyer &
Associates, Phone: 614-224-6000, E-mail: dmeyer@dmlaws.com,
Website: http://www.dmlaws.com.

SASKTEL MOBILITY: "System Access Fee" Suit Denied Class Status
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Frank Gerein denied class
certification to a lawsuit filed against SaskTel Mobility and
four other Canadian cellular telephone carriers by the Merchant
Law Group of Regina in 2004, The Leader-Post reports.

Judge Gerein ruled that several of the alleged causes of action
are not grounded in law, thus he declined to certify it as a
class action.  He specifically noted in the ruling that the case
did not have a suitable representative plaintiff or plan for the
class action.

However, he granted the plaintiffs leave to renew their
application "in order to further address the requirements" of a
purported class action.

In August 2004, the Merchant Law Group filed a lawsuit in Court
of Queen's Bench in Regina against defendants alleging that a
hefty "system access fee" charged monthly to wireless customers
had been misrepresented and falsely advertised by wireless

The suit stemmed from an investigation by the Toronto Star in
April 2004 claiming that mobile phone carriers stand to pocket
more than CA$800 million annually from the special fee, which
appears monthly on most wireless phone bills as a CA$6.95
charge, but can sometimes vary in value from region to region.

According to the report, the fee, which can add as much as 30
percent to the advertised cost of some cell phone plans, is a
wireless industry creation not required by the government.

User agreements broadly describe the fee as a charge covering a
number of costs associated with the maintenance and expansion of
mobile phone networks, including government licensing fees and
related regulatory costs.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- SaskTel Mobility;
     -- Bell Mobility;
     -- Telus Mobility;
     -- Aliant Inc.;
     -- Rogers Wireless Inc.; and
     -- Microcell Telecommunications Inc.

In separate judgments, the judge dismissed claims against BCE
Inc., Bell Canada and Bell Mobility Cellular Inc., as well as
Rogers Communications Inc. and Microcell Telecommunications.

In 2004, Mr. Meldrum argued the way SaskTel Mobility deals with
customers is quite different than perhaps the way the other
companies in Canada have both charged the fee, described the fee
and how they deal with customers.

Mr. Meldrum, who disputes an allegation that the companies are
simply pocketing the money, said that SaskTel Mobility charges
its customers a monthly system administration fee of $6.25 a
month, which are fully disclosed in the service contract and
included in SaskTel's unregulated tariff.  

The charges are described as a fee to cover the administrative
expenses incurred by SaskTel Mobility in providing wireless

Despite the ruling, Tony Merchant of the Merchant Law Group said
that they would organize more appropriately, citing that the
cause of action and common issues are sufficient to put the
issues of the class forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TENNESSEE: Plaintiffs in Sevier Jail Suit Ordered to Show Cause
U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan ordered two men who filed a
purported class action against the Sevier County jail officials
to show cause for their complaint, according to The Mountain

The order filed on July 17, gave John Matkin and Randall Myers
20 days to show cause or the suit will be dismissed for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.  

Knoxville attorney John Eldridge initiated the lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Tennessee on behalf of inmate John Matkin last
year.  The suit alleges that the facility is troubled with
overcrowding, inmate violence, inadequate staffing and
unsanitary conditions (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2005).  
Mr. Matkin then was awaiting trial in the death of his
stepfather.  He was eventually convicted of voluntary

Mr. Myers filed his complaint of overcrowding after being held
at the jail from Feb. 28 until March 4.  He is also represented
by Mr. Eldridge.

The complaints have not yet been consolidated.

Meanwhile, in its response to the suit, the county said it was
aware that the jail population exceeds its capacity, and it has
approved a new facility to house inmates.

The suit is "Myers v. Sevier County, Tennessee et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00216," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas A. Varlan with referral
to H. Bruce Guyton.

Representing Sevier County is Rhonda L. Bradshaw at Spicer,
Flynn & Rudstrom, 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1400 Knoxville, TN
37929, Phone: 865-673-8516, Fax: 865-673-8972, E-mail:

Representing the plaintiffs is John E. Eldridge at Eldridge &
Gaines, PLLC, P.O. Box 84, Knoxville, TN 37901-0084, Phone: 865-
523-7731, Fax: 865-523-0341, E-mail: johneldrid@aol.com.

TEXAS: Court Orders Full Reimbursement for "Watson" Plaintiffs
Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in the matter,
"Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency."

In that injunction, the judge ordered FEMA to reimburse
Hurricane Katrina evacuees receiving temporary federal housing
assistance up to the full amount of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development's fair market rent.  This would include
utilities for all recipients of Temporary Housing Assistance
under the Section 408 program.

Judge Hittner also ordered FEMA to reimburse evacuees for
utilities and prohibited the FEMA from terminating assistance on
the basis of the fact that an evacuee used FEMA funds for
utilities (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).

Prior to this ruling, FEMA only provided reimbursement where
utilities were included as part of the rental charge.

                       Case Background

FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for approximately
17,000 evacuated families who were issued 12-month housing
vouchers by local governments (Class Action Report, May 24,

On May 19, a class action was filed against FEMA seeking to stop
the agency from withdrawing the housing support.  The suit was
filed on behalf of evacuees by Houston law firm Caddell &
Chapman in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Class Action Reporter, May 31, 2006).

It alleges that FEMA failed to adjust its estimation of fair-
market rent or provide clear criteria for re-qualification,
whose renewal expires every three months.  It sought a temporary
restraining order against the cutoff.

On May 31, as Judge Hittner denied the restraining order, he
ordered FEMA to expedite consideration of voucher extensions for
those evacuees (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).

On June 1, "Watson" plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and
clarification of Judge Hittner's May 31 decision.  FEMA filed an
opposition to this motion.  Consequently, Judge Hittner issued
an order denying plaintiffs' motion.

On June 20, a hearing was held for preliminary injunction,
addressing only the issue of FEMA's policy to omit payment of
utility costs in the Section 408 temporary housing assistance
program.  Judge Hittner took the matter under submission though
no date for a decision has been set.  

On June 22, "Watson" plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed
order for preliminary injunction.

The suit is "Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Case
No. 4:06-cv-01709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge David Hittner.
Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A. Caddell and John Blue
Scofield, Jr. of Caddell and Chapman, 1331 Lamar Ste 1070,
Houston, TX 77010-3027, Phone: 713-751-0400, Fax: 713-751-0906
or (713) 752-4221.

A copy of the Preliminary Injunction is available for free at:


TOYOBO: Mass. Police Dept. Seeking Compensation in Zylon Lawsuit
Lt. Paul Norton of the Melrose Police Dept. in Massachusetts is
filing a claim in the settlement of a class action against the
manufacturer of bulletproof vest material, Zylon, according to
the Melrose Free Press.  The department is seeking to be
partially reimbursed for 36 vests they've purchased, the report

Massachusetts' attorney general filed a lawsuit against Second
Chance Body Armor Inc., and Toyobo Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of
Zylon in November 2003.  He sought replacement vests or full
restitution for those police departments, organizations and
individuals using the defective vests.

Lawsuits were brought against Second Chance and Toyobo after a  
California police officer was shot and killed in 2003 while  
wearing a vest made with Zylon.  Second Chance recalled more  
than 100,000 vests made with the material after finding that  
Zylon body armor are prone to failure.  Also named as defendant
in the suit is Toyobo America, Inc.

Zylon is sold under the trade names ULTIMA, ULTIMAX and
TRIFLEX. The lawsuit alleged that these vests fail to meet the  
performance characteristics for which they were warranted, that  
the vests are unfit for their intended purpose, and that the  
allegedly defective condition of the vests was withheld from the  

On Sept. 23, the District Court for Mayes County, in Oklahoma  
approved a settlement of the class action.  The agreement  
provided for a settlement fund of $29 million, a replacement  
vest option in which class members can purchase a replacement  
vest from Armor Holdings Products at deeply discounted prices  
and an option to receive a voucher from Armor Holdings in the  
amount of a class member's pro rata share of the settlement fund  
plus 10%.   

In order to receive payments, claimants were required to  
register by Sept. 9, 2005.  That deadline was extended and late  
registrations were accepted until July 1.

Class members who registered their contact information by Nov.  
21, 2005 were mailed an Election of Benefits Form on Nov. 28,  
2005, according to a statement from Zylon Vest Class Action Web  
site.  Proceeds from the Settlement were mailed the week of  
April 17, 2006 to all registrants who timely filed an Election  
of Benefit Form, the statement said.

The first round of the lawsuit parties that had purchased vests
were reimbursed $730, the report said.  The amount of
reimbursement for second-round participants has yet to be
determined, according to Cindy St. Amant of the New Orleans-
based law firm Kanner and Whiteley, which led the lawsuit with
various co-counsels.

The suit is "Lemmings v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc." Cir.  
Ct. Mayes City. OK #CJ-2004-62.  

For more information, visit Zylon Vest Class Action Web site:  


UNION PACIFIC: Workers File Suit Over Identity Theft in Okla.
Lawyers for Union Pacific Railroad Co. employees are asking
Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma to certify as a class action their suit
over alleged theft of personal information against the company,
the Daily Oklahoman reports.

The suit alleges the company's safeguards were inadequate to
protect the employees' personal information.

Earlier, nine company employees filed a class action complaint
in the Pottawattamie County District Court in Iowa on behalf of
a class that could include 30,000 members.  They alleged the
company acted negligently by failing to protect employees'
Social Security numbers, by using them for purposes other than
tax reporting, and by failing to use other employee-identifying
numbers (Class Action Reporter, July 7, 2006).

The suit stems from a police investigation in May over the theft
of a computer with the names and Social Security numbers of
active and retired Union Pacific employees.  The human resources
employee from whose computer the data were stolen on April 29
allegedly violated company policy by transferring work files to
a private computer to work on at home.

A letter from a company executive acknowledged the theft was
filed with the lawsuit.  It indicated the company has purchased
credit-monitoring services for each of the affected employees,
which could number as many as 40,000.

However, plaintiffs claimed that the service is not adequate to
protect the affected employees.  Their suit, thus seeks more
than $5 million in damages.  Plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- David Boiles,
     -- Ronald Hart, and
     -- J.T. Culwell Jr.

The suit is "Boiles et al v. Union Pacific Corp., Case No.
5:06-cv-00759-JH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Joe Heaton.

Representing the plaintiffs are Leslie L. Lynch, Michael R.
Perri, Douglas M. Todd and Thomas G. Wolfe all of Phillips
McFall McCaffrey McVay Murrah, 211 N Robinson Ave., 12th Fl,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-4100 or 405-552-2428,
Fax: 405-235-4133, E-mail: ecf@phillipsmcfall.com.

Representing the defendants are Jeromy E. Brown and David L
Perryman both of Frailey Chaffin Cordell Perryman Sterkel &
McCalla, Chickasha, OK 73023, Phone: 405-224-0237, Fax: 405-222-
2319, E-mail: jbrown@fccpsm.com or perryman@fccpsm.com.

UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Erred in Claims Dismissal for "Nix"
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
erred in dismissing two plaintiffs' reprisal claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction in the case, "James Nix and Yvonne
Davis v. James H. Billington, Case No. 82-00400," according to
CCH, Inc.

The plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision
denying their motion for a status hearing on their pending
reprisal claims.  Those claims arose from alleged violations of
a court-approved settlement agreement in a class action alleging
race bias in hiring and promotion practices by the Library of

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for want of
jurisdiction, finding that because its oversight jurisdiction
under the settlement agreement had expired, it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to address their claims.

However, the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that since the
plaintiffs' claims were filed during the district court's
oversight period, and were still pending before the court when
its oversight jurisdiction under the settlement agreement
expired, those claims were within the court's subject matter

The plaintiffs were not seeking to reopen or extend the district
court's now-expired oversight over the settlement.  Nor were
they seeking to enforce the agreement through newly filed
actions.  Rather, they asked the district court to resolve their
claims, which were filed within the court's oversight period.

The DC Circuit wrote, "There is no doubt that, under the
[settlement agreement], no new retaliation claims could be filed
after the expiration date of the agreement.  But the agreement
cannot plausibly be construed to mean that pending claims must
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if those claims remain
unresolved when the agreement expires."

Essentially, the court concludes: "The district Court had
jurisdiction to resolve appellants' pending retaliation claims
after the expiration of the agreement.  

"The district court's reasons for ending appellants' post-
judgment proceeding were in error.  Its order is hereby
reversed, and the case is remanded to allow appellants' claims
to be addressed and resolved."

The case before the D.C. Circuit is "James Nix and Yvonne Davis,
Appellants v. James H. Billington, Appellee, Case No. 04-5225."  
It was argued on May 4, 2006 and decided on May 23, 2006.  It
was on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Case No. 82-00400.

The appellate court's opinion, including background for the case
on appeal is available free of charge at:


WESTLING MANUFACTURING: Faces Labor Violations Lawsuit in Minn.
Westling Manufacturing Co. faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, claiming that
the company failed to provide mandatory notices pertaining to
the layoffs of about 240 employees, according to the Princeton
Union Eagle.

Filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the suit charges that defendants misled
and/or were negligent in providing information to employees
concerning their employment status.  It also charges defendants
of failing to compensate plaintiffs for wages and benefits due
them and reimburse expenses prepaid by plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants are jointly and severally
liable under the "alter ego and piercing the corporate veil
theories of recovery, and in their capacities as fiduciaries of
benefit plans."

Besides the company other defendants in the case are Westling
Leasing Co., John W. Westling and his children Tom, Allyson
Leonard and Kathryn Westling, and Westling Mfg. chief financial
officer Jeff Tillman.  

Plaintiffs in the suit are Steve Dickinson, Jay Johnson, Chris
Derby, Melinda Harrington, Tom Eller, Russ Balder, Jane St.
George, Mike Bierbaum, Diane Jacobson and Mark Barlage.

According to the suit, the company informed about 78 employees
last Oct. 17 that they were being laid off immediately.  The
number was about 32 percent of the workforce.

On Nov. 2 the remaining employees were called to a meeting and
told the company's creditor had accepted a financial plan and
would work with the company until the end of the year.  The suit
contends that the employees were told they had job security
until the end of the year.

However, on Nov. 3, employees were told the company could not
make the prior week's payroll when it was due on Nov. 4, or the
current week's payroll due in another week.  The suit claims the
employees were not told at that time what their job status were.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants have committed five counts
of violations:

      -- Count 1: failure to provide notice of mass layoff as
         required under the federal Worker Adjustment and
         Retraining Notification Act;

      -- Count 2: violation of the Employee Retirement Income
         Security Act by not paying certain benefits;

      -- Count 3: violation of ERISA, namely breach of
         fiduciary duty;

      -- Count 4: failure to pay wages promptly; and
      -- County 5: conversion of property.

The lawsuit accused Westling Mfg. of Count 1 violation because
it employed more than 100 full-time workers.

According to the lawsuit, some employees used personal credit
cards to pay certain company expenses and were not reimbursed
for them.  

It also claims the defendants did not make certain contributions
to employee accounts within the company's retirement and profit-
sharing plan, even though money was deducted from paychecks.

Another claim is that the defendants failed to pay medical bills
pursuant to the company's group health care plan for medical
costs incurred by individuals prior to defendants informing the
employees their medical insurance was discontinued.

The suit alleges that Westling Leasing, which leased vehicles to
Westling Mfg., was not treated as a separate entity as it should
have been.  

Instead, it alleges that Westling Leasing was used as a siphon
and mechanism to remove funds from Westling Mfg. to other
defendants, including John Westling.

The suit also gives many accounts of the company paying for
various personal purchases or activities that benefited

A pretrial conference was already conducted and the court
notified all parties to be prepared for a jury trial no later
than June 30, 2007.  

The suit is "Dickinson et al v. Westling Manufacturing Co. et
al., Case No. 0:06-cv-00528-JMR-RLE," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M.
Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

Representing the plaintiffs are Clair E. Schaff and Eric D.
Satre of Connor, Satre & Schaff, LLP, Phone: 763-552-1322 and
651-287-5233, Fax: 763-552-1322 and 651-405-4765, E-mail:
clair@connorsatreschaff.com and Eric@connorsatreschaff.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael F. McGrath and Will R. Tansey of Ravich Meyer
         Kirkman McGrath & Nauman, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 4545,
         Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-332-8511, Fax: 612-332-8302,
         E-mail: mfmcgrath@ravichmeyer.com and

     (2) Alan I. Silver of Bassford Remele, 33 S. 6th St., Ste.
         3800, Mpls, MN 55402-3707, Phone: (612) 333-3000, Fax:
         (612) 333-8829, E-mail: alans@bassford.com; and

     (3) Thomas M. Thorfinnson of Thorfinnson Law Offices, PA,
         P.O. Box 44326, Eden Prairie, MN 55347, Phone: 952-974-
         0454, Fax: 952-974-0477, E-mail: tthorf@mn.rr.com.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INFOSONICS CORP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in Calif.
Scott+Scott, LLC filed a class action against Infosonics Corp.
and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

The action is on behalf of Infosonics securities purchasers
during the period May 8, 2006, through June 12, 2006, for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial statements.  As a result, the price of the company's
securities was inflated during the class period, thereby harming

The complaint alleges that defendants embarked on a fraudulent
course of conduct, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, to improperly "mark to market" warrants issued in
conjunction with company financing efforts completed in January

After being "marked to market," the warrants remained booked as
a liability at the end of the quarter ended March 31, 2006, when
they should have been reclassified as equity as of Feb. 17,
2006, the date upon which the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission declared the company's Form S-3 effective, thereby
registering the shares underlying the warrants.

The immediate result was to artificially inflate the company's
net income results for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2006, a condition that remained uncorrected until the end of the
class period.

Finally, on June 12, 2006, the company revealed that it had
restated certain portions of the financial statements for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006.  On this news, the price of
Infosonics' stock fell from $24.22 to $17.05, a drop of $7.17,
on more than three times the normal trading volume.

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

IONATRON INC: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a class action against Ionatron, Inc.
and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

The action is on behalf of Ionatron securities purchasers during
the period June 27, 2005, through May 10, 2006, for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Ionatron develops and
manufactures directed-energy weapons based on its Laser Induced
Plasma Channel technology.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the battle field-
readiness of its weapons.  As a result, the price of the
company's securities was inflated during the class period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, on June 27, 2005, the company
heralded the development of a field-deployable vehicle
incorporating its counter-Improved Explosive Device (IED)
technology, also known as the Joint IED Neutralizer (JIN).

The company announced that it planned to sell this counter-IED
vehicle to the U.S. Government.  Despite the company's claim
that the vehicle would be field-deployable, the complaint
alleges that the company actually concealed that the vehicle was
at best an improvisation, incapable of meeting U.S. Government
specifications for field-readiness.  Meanwhile, company insiders
sold over 1.5 million shares of their Ionatron stock for
proceeds of $18.4 million.

Then, as the complaint states, on May 10, 2006, the company
finally revealed to investors that the JIN vehicle actually was
not "deployment-ready" in that the U.S. Government determined
that the vehicle lacked the ruggedness and capabilities
necessary for field deployment.

As a result of the shocking news, the price of Ionatron stock
plummeted, losing $1.58 or 12.3%, to close on May 11, 2006, at

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

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Juniper Networks, Inc. between Sept. 1, 2003 and May 22,
2006.  Also included are all those who acquired Juniper through
the acquisitions of Perbit Networks and NetScreen Technologies.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false

Specifically, Juniper Networks and its top executive officers
and directors failed to account properly for stock option grants
made to Juniper Networks employees, thereby falsely inflating
the company's reported financial performance.

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

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  

PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files N.Y. Securities 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 Par
Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. securities between April 29, 2004
and July 5, 2006.

The complaint charges Par and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Par engages in the manufacture and distribution of
generic and branded drugs in the U.S.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
that misrepresented these adverse facts:

      -- that Par was materially overstating its financial
         performance by failing to properly reserve for customer
         credits and uncollectible accounts.  During the Class
         Period, Par overstated its income by at least $55

      -- that Par was failing to timely write-down the value of
         impaired inventory.  During the class period, Par
         overstated the worth of its inventory by at least $15
         million, and

      -- based on the foregoing, Par's class period financial
         statements were materially false and misleading and not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles.

The complaint further alleges that, on July 5, 2006, Par
admitted that its previously issued financial results and
financial statements materially overstated the company's
financial performance and that the company's financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP.

On that date, Par issued a press release announcing that it
would be restating its financial statements for fiscal years
2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006 to correct for "an
understatement of accounts receivable reserves which resulted
primarily from delays in recognizing customer credits and
uncollectible customer deductions."

The company reported that the effect of the restatement over
reported periods will be $55 million, that the company would
also write down $15 million in inventory and that its prior
financial statements "should not be relied upon."  

In response to the announcement of the restatement, the price of
Par stock dropped from $18.25 per share to $13.47 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact William Lerach, Samuel H. Rudman and
David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, E-
mail: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/par.

SUNTERRA CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Sunterra Corp. publicly traded
securities between Aug. 14, 2003 and May 17, 2006.

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

Sunterra, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, marketing, sales, financing, management, and
operation of vacation ownership resorts and the points-based
vacation ownership club "Club Sunterra" in North America,
Hawaii, the Caribbean, and Europe.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued false and materially misleading statements regarding the
company's stellar growth and claimed that the company's controls
were providing increased transparency.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Sunterra's stock
traded at inflated levels of as high as $16.72 per share during
the class period, which allowed its top officers to reap tens of
millions of dollars in ill-gotten bonuses.

On May 3, 2006, the company announced that pursuant to an
internal investigation of allegations made by an individual
formerly employed by the company's Spanish operations, the
company determined that it had underpaid withholding taxes in
Spain on wages paid to employees of Sunterra Europe and that it
had voluntarily made a payment of $3.1 million to Spanish tax

Then on May 17, 2006, the company announced that it had received
a letter from the staff of The Nasdaq Stock Market on May 15,
2006, indicating that, as a result of the company not timely
filing the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006, the company was not in compliance with Nasdaq's
filing requirement, and that unless the company requested a
hearing in accordance with Nasdaq rules, the company's
securities would be delisted from The Nasdaq National Market.  
As the above revelations seeped into the market, the company's
stock fell 34% from its class period high.

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 reported expenses were materially

      -- the company's so-called "record" financial results were
         not genuine but rather the result of defendants'
         accounting manipulations;

      -- the company's reported net income was grossly inflated;

      -- as a result of the above, the company's projections for
         fiscal year 2006 were grossly inflated and the company
         was in technical default on its subordinated note

Interested parties must move the Court no later than 60 days
from July 12, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.  

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:


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


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  * * *