CAR_Public/060705.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 132

                            Headlines

AIRLINES: D.C. Firm Files Antitrust Suit Against Air Carriers
AIRLINES: U.K. Law Firm Employed in Airline Price Fixing Suit
AT&T INC: Appeals Court Stays Consumer Suit Pending Arbitration
AT&T INC: Newspaper Retracts Report Suggesting Wiretapping
AUTOXTYLE: Recalls Conversion Kits with Sub-standard Bulbs

BELLSOUTH CORP: Ala. Court Hears Arguments in Race Bias Case
BROWN-FORMAN: Faces Lawsuits Over Marketing of Alcohol to Minors
CANADA: Appeal on Suit Over Youbou Sawmill Closure Due Today
COACHMEN RV: Recalls Motor Homes to Fix Faulty Workhorse Chassis
DYNCORP INT'L: $100M Suit Over Colombian Crop Spraying Continues

EQUICREDIT CORP: Ill. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Courier Fee
GEOPHARMA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
GEORGIA: Clayton County Joins Suit Against Online Travel Firms
GEORGIA: Suit Against HB 1059 Declared Moot Due to Federal TRO
KANSAS: U.S. Files $10M Suit Against Resident Over Unpaid Loans

MARION BASS: Ill. Court Suggests Venue for Kellerman Lawsuit
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Putative Securities Lawsuits in Wis.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Courts Authorize Release of Settlement Notices
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Holds Response to Individual Suit in Florida
PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Cordless Nailer Posing Puncture Hazard

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Facing Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court Upholds Ruling in TERI Lawsuit
ST. FRANCIS: Enters $157,000 Deal to Settle Suit by Creditors
TENET HEALTHCARE: Reaches Deal in S.C. Insured Patients' Lawsuit
TIFFANY & CO: Fined for Unreported Hazardous Teether Rattles

TOYOBO: N.J. Police Receives $10T in Zylon Vest Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Recovers Stolen Computer Records
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Credit Monitoring Offer to Veterans
WARREN GENERAL: Reaches Deal in Ohio Suit Over Patient Records
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Styrene Leak in Cincinnati


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky % Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
XM SATELLITE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.


                            *********


AIRLINES: D.C. Firm Files Antitrust Suit Against Air Carriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Niagara Frontier Distribution, Inc. commenced a purported
antitrust class action against a dozen major international
airlines over a conspiracy to fix prices of airfreight shipping
services.

The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, brought
the suit on Feb. 24, 2006 on behalf of the D.C.-based
distribution company, which used the services of the defendants
between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present.

Specifically, the suit named as defendants:

      -- Air France ADS,
      -- Air France-KLM Group ADS,  
      -- Air France Cargo ADS,  
      -- Air France-KLM Cargo ADS,  
      -- Asiana Airlines, Inc.,  
      -- British Airways, plc,  
      -- Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.,  
      -- Deutsche Lufthansa AG,  
      -- Lufthansa Cargo AG,  
      -- Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd.,  
      -- Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.,  
      -- SAS AB,  
      -- SAS Cargo Group A/S,  
      -- UAL Corp.,  
      -- United Airlines, Inc.,
      -- United Airlines Cargo, Inc.,  
      -- International Air Transport Association, and  
      -- John Does I-X

The law firm pointed out that the airlines, and many others, are
currently under investigation for cartel behavior, relating to
inflated airfreight surcharges.  

The investigation was the result of a global sting operation
coordinated by governmental antitrust enforcement authorities
from regions including the U.S., the European Commission,
Canada, Switzerland, and Korea.  

According to the complaint, the case arises from a global
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for
fuel, security and insurance surcharges in air cargo shipping.  

Surcharges are charged by the major airlines acting as
airfreight shipping providers that deliver the cargo placed by
their customers, companies or individuals seeking to transport
freight via air on behalf of themselves or others.

The fees are charged to customers purportedly to compensate the
air carriers for certain external costs for including increased
cost for fuels, for additional securities measures after the
Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist incident, for war-risk insurance
premiums applied in conjunction with the outbreak of war in Iraq
in 2003, and for other external costs.  

The complaint states that the plaintiff, on behalf of those
similarly situated, seeks to recover the surcharges paid by it
and other direct purchasers as a result of the airlines'
conspiracy to levy these coordinated and inflated fees on their
airfreight customers.

It claims that the airlines' actions are in violation of the
federal antitrust laws of the U.S., specifically: Section 1 of
the Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and Section 4 of
the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. Section 15.

In addition, the complaint states that victims of the cartel
include all those paying such inflated surcharges.  It also
states that as the defendant airlines' alleged cartel activities
were perpetrated worldwide on a vast number of inter-continental
airfreight shipments, victims of the alleged conspiracy hail
from potentially all parts of the globe.  

The suit is "Niagara Frontier Distribution Inc. v. Air France
ADS, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00325-HHK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Henry H.
Kennedy.

Representing the plaintiff is Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West
Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-
4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: mhausfeld@cmht.com.


AIRLINES: U.K. Law Firm Employed in Airline Price Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K.-based law firm of Irwin Mitchell joins forces with
American class action specialist Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll
in its legal actions against several airlines over price fixing,
according to Lawyer.com.

Irwin Mitchell, which has a transatlantic affiliation with Cohen
Milstein, is working with the firm to direct potential U.K.
claimants to the U.S.  Through an announcement on the firm's Web
site, Irwin Mitchell is alerting U.K. citizens that they may
have a claim.

Irwin Mitchell partner Alan Owens pointed out that that the firm
itself was not launching an action at present, although he said
that there could be causes for litigation in the U.K. as well.

Previously, Cohen Milstein initiated a purported price fixing
class action against British Airways, PLC, and Virgin Atlantic,
Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2006).

Filed on June 23, 2006 on behalf of John C. Gornik, the suit
alleges that British Airways colluded with Virgin Atlantic to
co-ordinate fuel-price surcharges on key transatlantic routes.

Specifically, it claimed that the two carriers and others
operated a "global conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or
stabilize prices for long haul passenger flights to and from the
U.K."

The antitrust class action is seeking damages on behalf of all
individuals who have been victimized by price fixing on
passenger tickets, including fuel surcharges, on long haul
flights in and out of London.

The legal action comes on the heels of British Airways'
admission that antitrust regulators in the U.S. and the U.K. are
probing the carrier's pricing policies on long-haul passenger
routes, including the setting of fuel surcharges.

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

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?c50

The suit is "Gornik v. British Airways PLC, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-03139-SLT-VVP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Sandra L. Townes with
referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

Representing the plaintiffs is Linda P. Nussbaum of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, 30th
Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, (202) 408-4600
and (888) 347-4600, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com.


AT&T INC: Appeals Court Stays Consumer Suit Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff lawyer Thomas Maag, formerly of the Lakin Law firm,
failed to comply with a court order to arbitrate in a class
action filed against AT&T Inc., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The suit accuses AT&T of inflating charges for a "Universal
Service Fund" that the Federal Communications Commission
required communication companies in order to support
telecommunications services for low-income and rural telephone
customers, schools, and libraries.  It accuses the company of
overcharging customers, and secretly keeping the difference.

Madison County, Illinois Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian previously
stayed the suit pending arbitration.  In a mandate issued June
14, Fifth District Appellate Judge Melissa Chapman affirmed
Judge Matoesian's decision to stay the suit pending arbitration.

Mr. Maag is attempting to block arbitration by the American
Arbitration Association as proposed by AT&T, arguing that AT&T's
consumer services agreement improperly prohibited class
arbitration.  

In denying the motion, Judge Matoesian, said the ban on class
arbitration was not unconscionable.  

Mr. Maag is proposing to certify Sandra Ragan and Dennis
Mangiaracino as representatives of a plaintiff class.  The suit
was filed in 2002 in County Circuit Court.

Thomas G. Maag is now connected with Wendler & Ezra, P.C.
Collinsville, Illinois (Madison & St. Clair Cos.).


AT&T INC: Newspaper Retracts Report Suggesting Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------
USA TODAY has retracted a May news story that triggered several
class actions accusing telecommunications companies BellSouth
Corp., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp., and AT&T Inc. of
wiretapping, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports.

In the May article, USA TODAY reported that the companies are
participating with the National Security Agency in a massive
program to collect phone call data from millions of Americans.  
The revelation resulted to a number of lawsuits against the
firm, and BellSouth quickly sought a retraction from the
newspaper.

According to Atlanta Business Chronicle, on June 30, USA TODAY
said it has "now concluded that while the NSA has built a
massive domestic calls record database involving the domestic
call records of telecommunications companies, the newspaper
cannot confirm that BellSouth or Verizon contracted with the NSA
to provide bulk calling records to that database."

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 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  
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.  


AUTOXTYLE: Recalls Conversion Kits with Sub-standard Bulbs
----------------------------------------------------------
Autoxtyle, in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, is recalling about 23 Autoxtyle HID
Conversion Kits.

The company said certain Autoxtyle HID Conversion Kits, Model
Nos. KAS H4, 9007, 9006, and H3, sold as aftermarket for use on
passenger vehicles has bulbs that fail to conform to the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Oncoming traffic may experience a higher than normal amount of
glare which could affect drivers' vision, possibly resulting in
a vehicle crash without warning.

These models are included in the recall:

Make / Models:            Model/Build Years:     

KAS / 9006                      9999
KAS / 9007                      9999
KAS / H3                        9999
KAS / H4                        9999

Consumers are advised to notify Autoxtyle for a repurchase offer
of non-compliant HID kits.

For more information, contact Autoxtyle at 813-842-8278.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Ala. Court Hears Arguments in Race Bias Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
heard oral arguments on June 1, 2006 in the race discrimination
class action, "Gladys Jenkins, et al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case
No. 2:02-cv-01057-VEH."

The suit alleges that the company systematically discriminates
against both African American hourly workers by denying them
promotions into salaried or management positions and against
African American salaried workers by paying them less than their
white peers.

Filed on April 29, 2002, the suit was brought on behalf of about
15,000 African American employees, alleging that the
discriminatory practices outlined in the complaint were long
standing.  

Plaintiffs in the suit include Gladys Jenkins, Denise Levert,
David Williams and Peggy Johnson on behalf of a class of all
similarly situated African American hourly employees; and Sharon
Griffin on behalf of a class of all similarly situated African
American salaried employees.

Specifically, the complaint contends that the company's actions
are in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e,
and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.

According to the complaint, the company has a history of using
invalid tests that even its own executives don't trust and
administering those tests and other prerequisites to promotion
to management in a discriminatory manner.

The complaint also states that about 28% of the company's hourly
employees are African American, however only 16% of management
employees are African American.

Substantial discovery, including obtaining documents, employee
data, and taking depositions were previously completed, and
plaintiffs' motion asking the court to certify the case as a
class action was filed on Dec. 23, 2004.  Briefing on class
certification was completed in mid-July 2005.

The suit is "Gladys Jenkins, et al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case No.
2:02-cv-01057-VEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Sellers and Christine E. Webber of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, West Tower, Suite 500,
         1100 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934,
         Phone: 1-410-408-4604 and 1-202-408-4600, Fax: 1-410-
         408-4699, E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com and
         cwebber@cmht.com; and

     (2) Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1300 19th Street
         NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-822-
         5100, Fax: 202-822-4997, E-mail:
         cmehri@findjustice.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Anne M. Brafford and Michael S. Burkhardt of Morgan,
         Lewis & Bocklius, LLP, Phone: 213-612-7335 and 1-215-
         963-5000, Fax: 213-612-2501 and 1-215-963-5001, E-mail:
         abrafford@morganlewis.com and
         mburkhardt@morganlewis.com; and

    (ii) Jeffrey A. Lee of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, 1901 Sixth
         Avenue North, 2400 AmSouth / Harbert Plaza, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 205-254-1987, Fax: 205-254-1999, E-
         mail: jlee@maynardcooper.com.  


BROWN-FORMAN: Faces Lawsuits Over Marketing of Alcohol to Minors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown-Forman Corp. and many other manufacturers of spirits,
wine, and beer are defendants in a series of essentially similar
class actions seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged
marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers.  

Nine lawsuits have been filed to date, the first three against
eight defendants, including Brown-Forman:

      -- "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al.," District of
         Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183  (November
         2003);

      -- "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al.," District Court,
         Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December
         2003); and

      -- "Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court
         for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
         Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004)."

Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those
in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in
April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight
defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers of
spirits and beer, and are now consolidated as "Eisenberg v.
Anheuser-Busch, Case No. No. 1:04cv1081," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Northern Ohio.  

Five similar suits were filed in 2005:

      -- "Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands," Albany
         County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (Feb. 16,
         2005);

      -- "Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands," Hancock
         County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M,
         (Feb. 17, 2005);

      -- "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," Dane County
         (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court (Feb. 23,
         2005);"

      -- "Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands," Wayne County,
         Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30,
         2005), and

      -- "Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company," Broward
         County, Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30,
         2005).

In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre-
lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act
indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit there
against many industry defendants, including Brown-Forman,
presumably on the same facts and legal theories.

The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive
marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers,
negligently marketed their products to the underage, and
fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.

Plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of:

      -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children  whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

      -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of
         21.

The lawsuits seek:

      -- a finding that defendants  engaged in a deceptive  
         scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
         persons and an injunction against such alleged  
         practices;
    
      -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all
         proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since
         1982; and

      -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled  
         award of actual damages, punitive damages, and
         attorneys fees.

The lawsuits, either collectively or individually, if ultimately
successful, represents significant financial exposure.

The company, in coordination with other defendants, is
vigorously defending itself in these cases.  Brown-Forman and
the other defendants have successfully obtained orders to
dismiss five of the pending cases:

     * Kreft (Colorado) in October 2005,
     * Eisenberg (Ohio) in February 2006,
     * Tomberlin  (Wisconsin) in March 2006,
     * Hakki (D.C.) in March 2006, and
     * Alston (Michigan) in May 2006

In addition, plaintiff Konhauzer (Florida) has voluntarily
dismissed that lawsuit.  The respective plaintiffs are appealing
the involuntarily dismissal, according to the company's June 29,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006.


CANADA: Appeal on Suit Over Youbou Sawmill Closure Due Today
------------------------------------------------------------
The Youbou Timberless Society has until today to appeal the
dismissal of their class action over the closure of the Youbou
sawmill in 2001, according to The Pictorial.

In June, Supreme Court Justice R.D. Wilson dismissed the suit,
saying it was too similar to an Industrial, Wood and Allied
Workers of Canada lawsuit launched in 2001 against the B.C.
government.  The union, now United Steelworkers, filed the suit
in 2003.  It later voted to dismiss the case based on its legal
counsel.

In the same year, Society board member Ken James carried the
suit forward on behalf of 200 displaced workers after TimberWest
closed the Youbou sawmill.

"July 5 is the deadline for the appeal so even if we don't have
enough money by Wednesday we'll still go ahead," Mr. James said.  
The society needs to raise between $15,000 and $20,000 to cover
lawyer expenses.

The suit stems from the government's removal in 1997 of the
clause that tied Tree Farm License 46 to the Youbou sawmill,
allowing TimberWest Forest Corp. to continue harvesting the
timber while shutting down the mill.

Mr. James' lawyer is Joseph Arvay of Arvay Finlay --
http://www.arvayfinlay.com/-- Victoria, British Columbia  
(Vancouver Island Co.).


COACHMEN RV: Recalls Motor Homes to Fix Faulty Workhorse Chassis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coachmen RV, LLC, in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 32 units of
motor homes.

The company said certain motor homes built on Workhorse Chassis
may have been equipped with incorrect steering intermediate
shafts.  The spline can strip while the steering wheel is being
turned.

This steering condition could result in a loss of steering
control, increasing the risk of a crash.

These models are included in the recall:

Make/Models :                Model/Build Years:      
COACHMEN/EPIC                      2007
GEORGIE BOY/CRUISE MASTER          2006

GEORGIE BOY/LANDAU                 2006

Consumers are advised to contact the company for inspection, and
if necessary, replacement of the steering intermediate shaft.

For more information, contact Workhorse at 1-877-294-6773 or
Coachmen RV at 574-825-5821.


DYNCORP INT'L: $100M Suit Over Colombian Crop Spraying Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International, LLC remains a defendant in a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
over the spraying of narcotic plant crops along the Colombian
border adjacent to Ecuador, according the company's June 29,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

On Sept. 11, 2001, a class action seeking $100.0 million on
behalf of approximately 10,000 citizens of Ecuador was filed
against the company and several of its former affiliates.

The action alleges personal injury, property damage and wrongful
death as a consequence of the spraying.  The spraying operations
are conducted under a Department of State contract in
cooperation with the Colombian government (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006).

Ecuadorian Indians are charging that the company was contracted
to carry out fumigation of illicit crops in neighboring Colombia
recklessly sprayed their homes and farms, causing illnesses and
deaths, and destroying crops.

The legal complaint was brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act,
which allows foreign citizens to sue U.S. companies in courts
here over acts committed abroad.

In addition to charging the company with violating the Alien
Tort Claims Act, the complaint alleges the company also breached
the U.S. Torture Victim Protection Act, among others.

It seeks millions of dollars in compensation and an immediate
halt to spraying that allegedly affects Ecuador.  The complaint
also calls into question Plan Colombia, the U.S.-funded strategy
to combat narcotics launched a few years back by Colombian
President Andres Pastrana.

Plan Colombia involves $7.5 billion for social and economic
development and $1.3 billion, pledged by the U.S., mostly for
military equipment and training, and aerial fumigation of
illicit coca, marijuana, and poppy crops.

Colombian politicians and officials have said that although they
favor eradicating narcotics crops, a new strategy is needed
because fumigation with the herbicide glyphosate is causing
illness, destroying pastures and food crops, poisoning
livestock, and displacing thousands of small farmers.

The terms of the Department of State contract provide that the
Department of State will indemnify the company against third-
party liabilities arising out of the contract, subject to
available funding.

The company is also entitled to indemnification by Computer
Sciences Corp. in connection with this lawsuit, subject to
certain limitations.  Additionally, any damage award would have
to be apportioned between the other defendants and the company.

The suit is "Arias et al v. Dyncorp et al, Case No. 1:01-cv-
01908-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Washington under Judge Richard W. Roberts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Bonifaz of The Law Offices of Cristobal
         Bonifaz, 48 North Pleasant Street, P.O. Box 2488,
         Amherst, MA 01004-2488, Phone: (413) 253-5626; and

     (2) Terry Collingsworth and Natacha H. Thys of
         International Labor Rights Fund, 2001 S Street, NW
         Suite 420, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: (202) 347-4100,
         Fax: 202-347-4885, E-mail: terry.collingsworth@ilrf.org
         and natacha.thys@ilrf.org.

Representing the defendants are, Joe G. Hollingsworth, Eric
Gordon Lasker, Katharine R. Latimer and Iqnacia S. Moreno of
Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350 I Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005-3305, Phone: (202) 898-5800, (202) 898-5843 and (202) 898-
5831, Fax: (202) 682-1639, E-mail: jhollingsworth@spriggs.com,
elasker@spriggs.com, klatimer@spriggs.com and
imoreno@spriggs.com.


EQUICREDIT CORP: Ill. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Courier Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber has dismissed a class
action brought against EquiCredit Corp. by the Lakin Law Firm
over a $30 courier fee, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The case is the third Lakin class action dismissed by Judge
Weber in the seven months since he has been judge.  The firm had
made attempts to remove him from all its pending Madison County
class actions.

The suit was filed in 2003 by Gary Treadway as special
administrator of his mother Juanita's estate, claiming his
mother did not know the mortgage company would keep some of the
$30 it charged to obtain loan documents to complete a loan
transaction in 1999.

In his dismissal order, Judge Weber wrote that if the plaintiff
were to prevail she would have received about $10, but should
the case proceeds as a class action, the case would generate
perhaps millions of dollars in attorney's fees.  Judge Weber
said plaintiff's argument was weak by writing.

In concluding, Judge Weber wrote, "This court recognizes the
difference between consumer fraud and sharp, but not lawful
business practices.  In our free society, a buyer has some
obligation to make a reasonable investigation of charges such as
these."

For more details, contact Gerald R. Walters of The Lakin Law
Firm, Phone: (618) 254-1127, Fax: (618) 254-0193, Web site:
http://www.lakinlaw.com/CM/Custom/Home.asp.


GEOPHARMA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class
action against GeoPharma, Inc. over the announcement of
regulatory approval for its medical device Mucotrol(TM).

In December 2004 and January 2005, five securities class actions
were filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws in
connection with certain press releases issued by the company
relating to Belcher Pharmaceuticals' planned introduction of
Mucotrol.  The suits were:

     -- Mat eVentures v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc.
        (SDNY 04 Civ. 9463);

     -- Moshayedi v. GeoPharma, Inc., Jugal Taneja, Mihir
        Taneja, and Kotha Sekharam (SDNY 04 Civ. 9736);

     -- Sarno v. Mihir Taneja, Kotha Sekharam, and GeoPharma,
        Inc. (SDNY 04 Civ. 9975);

     -- Farwell v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05
        Civ. 188); and

     -- Taylor v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05
        Civ. 258)

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, seek unspecified damages allegedly suffered in
connection with their respective purchases and sales of the
company's securities during the class period.

On March 9, 2005 the court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On April 18, 2005
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.

On June 6, 2005 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action.
By Opinion and Order dated Sept. 30, 2005 the court granted
defendants' motion and dismissed the action without prejudice,
with leave to re-plead.

On Oct. 24, 2005 plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
class action complaint in the action.  The company again moved
to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and after
the issues were fully briefed by the parties, by Opinion and
Order dated Jan. 27, 2006 the court again dismissed Plaintiffs'
action, this time with prejudice.

The suit is "In Re: Geopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-09463-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road,
         Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
         631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: 212-
         867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
         rljacobs@pipeline.com.  

Representing the company is Robert Allen Scher of Foley &
Lardner, LLP, 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212)
682-7474, Fax: (212) 687-2329, E-mail: rscher@foley.com.   


GEORGIA: Clayton County Joins Suit Against Online Travel Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clayton County Board of Commissioners agreed to take part in
a class action against online travel Web sites, alleging that
the firms are underpaying taxes to the city for brokering hotel
rooms, the Clayton News Daily-Online reports.

Georgia's Clayton County is trying to recover more than $250,000
from a hotel excise tax, which is allegedly being withheld by
online companies like Expedia.com, Travelocity.com and others.

According Kevin Ross, an attorney handling the case, the travel
agencies gain access to rooms to give to the public and sell
them online, negotiating a low, wholesale rate with hotel
companies for unbooked rooms and adding a fee to rent the room
at a profit to online bookers.

The travel companies allegedly access a full amount of hotel and
sales taxes and collect them, improperly remitting that money to
the local government.

Art Sackler, Executive Director for Interactive Travel Services
Association, which represents 14 online travel service
companies, said the suits wrong on the facts and law, explaining
that these Web sites depend on the hotels to include fees into
the price they quote online.  

Mr. Ross said that the case is still in the preliminary stages,
but he expects the trial to begin in January.

Similar suits are filed in 19 counties or cities in the metro
area, including Cobb County, Dekalb County, Fulton County,
Augusta, Rome, and Alpharetta.

Mr. Ross said that many other areas, such as Los Angeles and
Philadelphia, are also bringing separate class actions against
the on-line travel companies.   Those lawsuits have yet to be
concluded.

Previously, the City of Rome, Georgia, Hart County, Georgia, and
the City of Cartersville, Georgia filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on behalf of themselves and other cities, counties
and governments which have enacted transient occupancy taxes
and/or excise taxes on lodging in the State of Georgia (Class
Action Reporter, June 8, 2006).  

Named as defendants in the suit, which was filed on Nov. 18,
2005, are:

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


GEORGIA: Suit Against HB 1059 Declared Moot Due to Federal TRO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie K. Batchelor of the Gwinnett Superior Court has
denied a registered sex offender's request to be exempted for
six months from residency restrictions under Georgia's House
Bill 1059, citing a recent decision by a federal judge in a
matter related to the case, the Gwinnett Daily Post reports.

On June 29, C.J. "Jack" Spence of Lawrenceville, filed the suit
on behalf of registered sex offender Bryan Sumrak, asking the
judge for a six-month reprieve to give his client time to sell
his house and make other living arrangements.

Citing the recently issued temporary restraining order by Judge
Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, which halts the enforcement of H.B. 1059,
Judge Batchelor said that Sumrak's case was a "moot point."

H.B. 1059 broadens the law governing where registered sex
offenders may reside by prohibiting them from living or working
within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or
"area where minors congregate," including parks and recreation
facilities, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools and bus stops (Class Action Reporter,
June 26, 2006).

Despite the decision, Mr. Spence may still pursue the lawsuit,
because he believes the sex offender law violates the Georgia
Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution.

For more information on the Gwinnett suit, contact C.J. "Jack"
Spence of Giannini & Spence, LLC, 220 W. Crogan Street, Suite
200, Lawrenceville, GA 30045, Phone: 770-237-3800 or Toll-Free:
1-866-733-3800, E-mail: cjspence@gwinnettlegal.com.


KANSAS: U.S. Files $10M Suit Against Resident Over Unpaid Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wamego resident Crystal S. Merritt is facing a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
seeking to recover about $10,953.04 from unpaid loans guaranteed
by the Nebraska Student Loan Program and then reinsured by the
U.S. Department of Education.

Filed on June 27, 2006, the suit named as plaintiff the United
States of America, by and through Eric F. Melgren, U.S. Attorney
for the District of Kansas, and Tanya Sue Wilson, Assistant U.S.
Attorney from the same district.

According to the Count I of the complaint, on Sept. 9, 1992, the
defendant, who is also known as Crystal S. McCarter, executed a
promissory note to secure a loan of $2,625.00 from the Manhattan
Federal Savings & Loan at the applicable note rate.  

The loan obligation was guaranteed by the NSLP and then
reinsured by the Education Department under loan guaranty
programs authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C Section 1071 et.
seq. (34 C.F.R. Part 682).

The holder demanded payment according to the terms of the note,
but no payments were credited to the outstanding principal owed
on the loan.  The borrower defaulted on the obligation on Aug.
7, 1994, and the holder filed a claim on the guarantee.

Due to this default the guaranty agency paid a claim in the
amount of $2,800.27 to the holder.   The guarantor was then
reimbursed for that claim payment by the Education Department
under its reinsurance agreement.  

The guarantor attempted to collect the debt from the borrower,
but was unable to collect the full amount due and on June 13,
2001, assigned its right and title to the loan to the Education
Department.

The complaint claims that the defendant failed to make the
payments due and owing pursuant to the terms of said note, thus
she is wholly in default.  

The lender assigned all right, title and interest in said note,
which was described above, to the U.S. of America as guarantor
pursuant to the terms of the Federal Loan Insurance under Title
IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and, therefore,
plaintiff is entitled to recovery on the promissory note.

Plaintiff elected to exercise its option to declare the entire
unpaid principal plus interest to be immediately due and payable
and has made demand for said amount.  

There is due and owing plaintiff from said defendant in the
amount of $2,800.27 principal and interest of $2,051.00 accrued
to May 3, 2006, together with interest thereafter at the
applicable note rate until date of judgment, plus interest after
the date of judgment at the legal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C.
Section 1961 until paid, plus filing fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2412(a)(2), plus current and future costs of this
action.

Count II of the complaint states that on Jan. 4, 1993, defendant
executed a promissory note to secure a loan of
$3,000.00 from Manhattan National Bank at the applicable note
rate.  

This loan obligation was also guaranteed by the NSLP and then
reinsured by the Education Department under loan guaranty
programs authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended 20 U.S.C. Section 1071 et.
seq. (34 C.F.R. Part 682).  

The holder demanded payment according to the terms of the note.  
No payments were credited to the outstanding principal owed on
the loan.   

The borrower defaulted on the obligation on Feb. 15, 1994, and
the holder filed a claim on the guarantee.  Due to this default
the guaranty agency paid a claim in the amount of $3,462.29 to
the holder.   

The guarantor was then reimbursed for that claim payment by the
Education Department under its reinsurance agreement.  Pursuant
to 34 C.F.R. Section 682.410(b)(2), the guarantor charged the
borrower interest on the total amount paid to the holder.  The
guarantor attempted to collect the debt from the borrower.  

The guarantor was unable to collect the full amount due and on
June 13, 2001, assigned its right and title to the loan to the
Education Department.

Defendant has failed to make the payments due and owing pursuant
to the terms of said note and is wholly in default.  As before,
all right, title, and interest in said note described above was
assigned by the lender to the U.S. as guarantor pursuant to the
terms of the Federal Loan Insurance under Title IV, Part B of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, and therefore, plaintiff is
entitled to recovery on the promissory note.

Plaintiff elected to exercise its option to declare the entire
unpaid principal plus interest to be immediately due and payable
and has made demand for said amount.  

There is due and owing plaintiff from said defendant, on the
note, the sum of $3,462.29 principal and $2,639.48 interest
accrued to May 3, 2006, plus interest thereafter at the
applicable note rate until the date of judgment, plus interest
after the date of judgment at the legal rate set forth in 28
U.S.C. Section 1961 until paid, plus current and future costs of
this action.

The suit seeks a judgment against the defendant, on Court I for
the sum of  $2,800.27 principal and $2,051.00 interest accrued
to May 3, 2006, together with prejudgment interest at 6.10% per
cent until the date of judgment, plus interest thereafter at the
legal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961 until paid.

On Count II, the suit seeks a judgment against the defendant for
the sum of $3,462.29 principal and $2,639.48 interest accrued to
May 3, 2006, together with prejudgment interest at 6.50% per
cent until the date of judgment, plus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2412(a)(2), together with the current and future costs
of this action.

The suit is "U.S. of America v. Merritt, Case No. 5:06-cv-04071-
SAC-KGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas under Judge Sam A. Crow with referral to Judge K. Gary
Sebelius.

Representing the plaintiff is Tanya S. Wilson, Office of U.S.
Attorney -- Topeka, 290 U.S. Courthouse, 444 S.E. Quincy
Topeka, KS 66683-3592, Phone: 785-295-2850, Fax: 785-295-2853,
E-mail: tanya.wilson@usdoj.gov.


MARION BASS: Ill. Court Suggests Venue for Kellerman Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Daniel Stack in Madison County, Illinois invited
any defendant in a suit against Marion Bass Securities to move
to transfer the suit to Cook County, according to The Madison
St. Clair Record.

Earlier, at least one defendant moved to dismiss the suit under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens so plaintiff Al Kellerman
could file it at Hennepin County courthouse in Minneapolis.  
Also, at least one defendant moved for transfer to Tazewell
County courthouse in Pekin.  

But on June 13, Judge Stack signed an order saying "The court
finds, however, that Cook County, Illinois, would appear to be
the most convenient forum for all of the parties."

The suit was filed in 2001, claiming defendants deceived people
into investing in nursing homes.  One of the defendants, Robert
Mitchell, a Chicago attorney, already died this year.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Putative Securities Lawsuits in Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Technologies Inc., d.b.a. Merge Healthcare (Nasdaq: MRGE;
TSX: MRG), faces seven putative securities class actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's common
stock between Aug. 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006.

The suit was filed against the company and two of its former
officers, Richard A. Linden and Scott T. Veech.  One of the
complaints also names Brian E. Pedlar, interim co-president and
co-chief executive officer of the company.  

The cases arose out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that the company would revise the company's results of
operations for the fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept.
30, 2005, as well as the company's investigation of allegations
made in anonymous third-party complaints received by the
company.  Plaintiffs allege that the company and individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints seek damages in unspecified amounts.  Competing
motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff have been filed,
but the court has not yet ruled on them.

On April 24, 2006, the company received a letter from Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLP, purportedly on behalf of a stockholder,
alleging that members of the company's Board of Directors, Mr.
Linden, and Mr. Veech breached their fiduciary duties to the
company by allegedly violating generally accepted accounting
principles and engaging in improper accounting and financial
reporting.

The letter demands that the Board take action to recover damages
allegedly suffered by the company.  The company's board of
directors is considering its response to this demand.

The suits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Rudolph T Randam, are:

     (1) "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.    
         2:06-cv-00349-RTR," on behalf of Rosalind Maiden.
         Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi &
         O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110,
         Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail:
         gademi@ademilaw.com (filed March 22, 2006);

     (2) "Stahl v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
         2:06-cv-00356-RTR," on behalf of Howard A Stahl.  
         Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi &
         O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110,
         Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail:
         gademi@ademilaw.com (filed March 23, 2006);

     (3) "Weber v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-
         cv-00375-RTR," on behalf of Kenneth Weber. Representing
         the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly LLP,
         3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-
         8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
         (filed March 29, 2006);

     (4) "Brotman v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
         2:06-cv-00431-RTR," on behalf of Carl Brotman.
         Representing the plaintiffs is Audley H Fuller of
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 1
         Liberty Sq - 8th Fl, Boston, MA 2109, Phone: 617-542-
         8300, Fax: 617-542-1194 (filed April 6, 2006);
  
     (5) "Smith et al v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
         2:06-cv-00483-RTR Rudolph," on behalf of Glynn D Smith.
         Representing the plaintiffs is Beth J Kushner of von
         Briesen & Roper SC, 411 E Wisconsin Ave - Ste 700, PO
         Box 3262, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3262, Phone: 414-287-
         1373, Fax: 414-276-6281, E-mail:
         bkushner@vonbriesen.com (filed April 11, 2006); and

     (6) "Derzay v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
         2:06-cv-00493-RTR," on behalf of John E Derzay.
         Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi &
         O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110,
         Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail:
         gademi@ademilaw.com (filed April 17, 2006).

Representing the defendants are David H. Kistenbroker and
Michelle T. McGuinness both of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 525 W
Monroe St., Ste. 1600, Chicago, IL 60661-3693, Phone: 312-902-
5200 and 312-902-5490, Fax: 312-577-4481 and 312-577-4418, E-
mail: david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com and
michelle.mcguinness@kattenlaw.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Courts Authorize Release of Settlement Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judges in three Canadian provinces and the U.S. have authorized
the mailing of notices of settlement to hundreds of thousands of
potential claimants around the world in a suit against Nortel
Networks Corp., according to the Toronto Star.

The 33-page notices are to be mailed in mid-July to start the
settlement process, the report said.

Nortel Networks is facing lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts
for the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of
New York and the District of New Jersey and in courts in the
provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in Canada.

The suits were brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Nortel Networks Corp. securities as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and
as late as Feb. 15, 2001.  They allege, among others, violations
of U.S. federal and Canadian provincial securities laws.

                        Settlement Terms  

Earlier in the year, The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board
(OTPP) and several plaintiffs reached agreement in principle
with Nortel Networks Corp. to settle two major securities-
related class actions.  The conditional settlement is for
approximately $2.4 billion in cash and Nortel common stock.

The settlement, which is subject to a number of conditions, is
part of a global settlement between Nortel, and certain of its
current and former directors, and the lead plaintiffs for two
separate securities fraud class actions -- Nortel I and Nortel  
II -- currently pending against the company in the U.S. District
Court in New York, New York.

In 2004, OTPP and the New Jersey Department of the Treasury were
appointed by a U.S. federal judge to head the prosecution of the
Nortel II case, the second of two major cases arising from the
disclosure of significant accounting improprieties at Nortel in
recent years.  The Nortel II case is being prosecuted on behalf
of persons who purchased Nortel common stock between April 24,
2003 and April 27, 2004.  Nortel I's class period is Oct. 24,
2000 through Feb. 15, 2001.

The total consideration Nortel is paying to the two investor
classes comprises $575 million in cash, plus 14.5% of the
company's current equity (approximately 628 million shares).   
Based on the $3.02 closing price of Nortel common stock on  
Feb. 7, 2006, the settlement equity would be worth approximately
$1.9 billion.

The Nortel I settlement calls for certain investors to receive
US$438,667,428 in cash, minus legal fees, litigation expenses
and administration costs, plus 314,333,875 common shares,
according to the report.

The Nortel II settlement calls for certain investors to receive
CA$370,157,418 in cash, minus fees, expenses and administration
costs, plus 314,333,875 shares of common stock of Nortel, the
report said.

                         Court Hearings

New York lawyer George Bauer said the U.S. court hearing to
review objections is set for Oct. 26, 2006 with Canadian
hearings to follow.  Eligible investors will have 120 days from
the date of the notice mailing to file their claims.

The payment by the company will be allocated equally between the
two investor classes using an allocation formula worked out
between the Nortel I and Nortel II lead plaintiffs with the
active assistance of Judge Sweet.

The settlement in principle has at least three significant
conditions, including governance provisions, insurance issues
and securities regulators' approvals for issuing the 628 million
Nortel settlement shares.

If the conditions to the settlement are satisfied, the
settlement must be approved by the Honourable Loretta A. Preska,
U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York,
after notice to the Nortel II class.

Ontario Teachers' was represented in the "Nortel II" litigation
and the settlement negotiations by New-York based outside
counsel at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

For more information contact Deborah Allan, Director,  
Communications of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, Phone:  
(416) 730-5347, E-mail: deborah_allan@otpp.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Holds Response to Individual Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the 11 putative class actions pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
Paincare Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors agreed to make no responses to the individual
complaints until a consolidated complaint was filed.

The suits arose in connection with the company's determination
to restate certain of its historical financial statements.  The
international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP was hired
by the company to defend it against theses suits.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed one of the first
complaints under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, as well as the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

Entitled, "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-CV-00362-JA-DAB," the suit alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the
company's financial statements which appear to relate
principally to the company's previously announced intention to
restate certain past financial statements.

Mr. Mould seeks unspecified damages and purports to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
from Aug. 27, 2002 to March 15, 2006.

Ten additional complaints were filed shortly after before the
same court, which recite similar allegations.

To allow for the selection of a lead plaintiff(s) and counsel,
and the consolidation of the individual class action complaints,
plaintiffs and defendants have agreed that a response to the
individual complaints is not required until after a consolidated
complaint has been filed, according to the company's June 29,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale &
Vianale, LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431,
Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107, Fax: 561/392-4775, E-mail: e-
file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the company is Bruce J. Berman of McDermott, Will &
Emery, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33131-4336,
Phone: 305/358-3500, Fax: 305/347-6500, E-mail: bberman@mwe.com.


PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Cordless Nailer Posing Puncture Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Porter-Cable, of Jackson, Tennessee, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
25,000 units of Porter-Cable Cordless Brad Nailer.

The company said the nailer can eject a nail while the switch is
in the "off" position if the trigger is pulled and it is placed
on a surface.  This can pose a serious injury to consumers or
bystanders.

Porter-Cable has received two reports of injuries, including
puncture wounds to the leg and back requiring surgical removal
of the nail.

The nailer is used to drive nails into wood.  Model number
BN200V12 is located on the name plate on the magazine of the
unit.  "Porter+Cable" is printed on the nailer's motor housing.

The nailers were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold at
major home center and hardware stores nationwide from September
2001 through December 2005 for between $230 and $280.

Picture of the recalled nailer:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06201.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the nailer immediately and
contact Porter-Cable to receive free caution labels and an
instruction manual insert.

For more information, call Porter-Cable toll-free at (800) 940-
3126 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.Porter-cable.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Facing Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries for the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan, filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
Colorado, against:

     * Qwest Communications International Inc., and
     *  Qwest Telephone Concession Plan

for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking:

     -- reformation of the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan and
        the documents governing it to comply with ERISA;

     -- an Order requiring Qwest to fund the Qwest Telephone
        Concession Plan, as reformed, in accordance with ERISA's
        funding provisions;

     -- the appointment of an independent fiduciary to
        administer the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan and
        manage its assets including its right to receive
        contributions from Qwest in compliance with ERISA; and

     -- an Order requiring the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan
        to reinstate the benefits to Plaintiffs and other class
        members consistent with the terms of the Qwest Telephone
        Concession Plan, as reformed.

The lawsuit also seeks a determination that the Plan is a
defined benefit pension plan covered by ERISA, seeks to reform
the Plan so that it complies with ERISA and also seeks to
restore telephone concession benefits to retirees of Qwest (or
its predecessors, such as U.S. West) and its employees who were
vested in the Plan pursuant to ERISA.

Since March 2002, putative class actions were filed under ERISA
against Qwest Communications International, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries for the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans, or the Plan from March
7,1999 to the present.

                          Allegations

The ERISA suits allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and
beneficiaries by allegedly:

     -- allowing excessive concentration of the Plan's assets in
        Qwest's stock;
  
     -- requiring certain participants in the Plan to hold the
        matching contributions received from Qwest in the Qwest
        Shares Fund;

     -- failing to disclose to the participants the alleged
        accounting improprieties that are the subject of the
        consolidated securities action;

     -- failing to investigate the prudence of investing in
        Qwest's stock;

     -- continuing to offer Qwest's stock as an investment
        option under the Plan;

     -- failing to investigate the effect of the Merger on Plan
        assets and then failing to vote the Plan's shares
        against it;

     -- preventing Plan participants from acquiring Qwest's
        stock during certain periods, and,

     -- as against some of the individual defendants,
        capitalizing on their private knowledge of Qwest's
        financial condition to reap profits in stock sales.

In December of 2003, Qwest announced that, beginning in January
of 2004, it would no longer provide the Telephone Concession to
retirees and employees after they retired, who had been
receiving the Telephone Concession, and lived outside the Qwest
service area.

In 2004, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a
complaint against Qwest Communications International Inc., and
the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan, on behalf of its client
alleging that Qwest violated nearly every provision of the ERISA
governing defined benefit plans with respect to the Qwest
Telephone Concession Plan by failing to treat the provision of
the Telephone Concession to retirees as an ERISA covered
employee benefit plan.

In changing the terms of the benefit to the Plaintiffs and the
class they seek to represent, violated the anti-cutback
provision of ERISA Section 204(g), 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g),
which prohibits plan amendments that reduce the accrued benefit
under the terms of the plan.

Likewise, the decision by Qwest to cut benefits applied to
current employees and their beneficiaries living outside of the
Qwest service area who were entitled to receive the same benefit
upon retirement, as of the end of 2003.

As a result of the cut in benefits, these current employees and
their beneficiaries also will be deprived of the benefit when
those employees retire, in violation of ERISA's vesting and
accrual provisions, ERISA Sections 203 and 204, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1053 and 1054.

A copy of the amended complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d03

The suit is "Rathbun v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00711-LTB-MJW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T.
Babcock, with referral to Judge Michael J. Watanabe.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Laurie B. Ashton of Keller Rohrback, PLC, 3101 North
         Central Avenue, #900 Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248-
         0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail:
         lashton@kellerrohrback.com;

     (2) Robert Joseph Barton and Whitney R. Case both of Cohen,
         Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC-Washington, DC, 1100
         New York Avenue, NW, West Tower #500, Washington, DC
         20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, E-
         mail: jbarton@cmht.com and wcase@cmht.com; and

     (3) John F. Head of Head & Associates, P.C., 730
         Seventeenth Street, #740 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-
         623-6000, Fax: 303-623-4211, E-mail:
         jfhead@headlawyers.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael Brian Carroll and Christopher J. Koenigs both
         of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- Denver, United States
         District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth Street, #3000
         Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-299-8474 and 303-299-8458,
         Fax: 303-298-0940, E-mail: mcarroll@sah.com and
         ckoenigs@sah.com; and

     (2) Stephanie J. Quincy of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.-
         Phoenix, 1850 North Central Avenue, #500 Phoenix, AZ
         85004, Phone: 602-636-2000, Fax: 602-234-7979, E-mail:
         squincy@sah.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court Upholds Ruling in TERI Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The state had until July 1 to refund government pensioners the
money they paid as pension contributions when they returned to
work after retiring, according to Associated Press.

In May, the South Carolina Supreme Court found the state in
violation of a labor contract with state retirees who returned
to work when it required them to contribute toward their
pensions.  On June 1, the court upheld its ruling and imposed a
deadline for the state to pay the money back at 6 percent
interest.

Under a Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive program created
in 2001, state employees who retire after 28 years may return to
work and earn pension benefits and a salary for up to five years
without contributing to the retirement system.  The benefits are
set aside until the person retires permanently.  But lawmakers
changed the rules last year and required them to pay.  Now the  
Supreme Court said the state has to return the money plus
interest to retirees who signed up for the program before Jul.
1, 2005.

The money contributed to the TERI program was set aside in
August when the court grated class action status to the case.   
It was to remain in an interest-bearing account until the suit
was settled.  Justices said the case applied to all the 13,400
state retirees in the program.

According to the Associated Press report, the state is paying
$31.9 million to the employees.  A second, smaller group of
refund checks will be mailed by Sept. 1, 2006.  As per the
court's ruling, interest will accrue at 11.25 percent starting
July 1.  The circuit judge has yet to decide how much the
plaintiffs' lawyers will receive.

The Supreme Court has also sent part of the lawsuit back to the
lower court to determine if a contract existed between the state
and another group of working retirees not covered under the TERI
program.

The suit is "Layman v. State of South Carolina."  The employees
are represented by lawyers Cam Lewis and Dick Harpootlian of
1410 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina (Lexington &
Richland Cos.)


ST. FRANCIS: Enters $157,000 Deal to Settle Suit by Creditors
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Francis Health System has settled for $157,000 a class
action filed against it on behalf of creditors, according to the
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  The agreement is part of ongoing
efforts to dissolve the 137-year old hospital system.  

Final payments to distribute assets of the health provider to
creditors and pension-eligible former employees should be made
within the next three months, said attorney Jay Blount of Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, the Downtown law firm in charge of
dissolving St. Francis.  He expects the system to be legally
dissolved sometime next year.

What remains to be distributed are nearly $6 million in proceeds
from asset sales as well as future proceeds from the final
assets of the St. Francis Health Foundation.  Unsecured
creditors will receive about $4 million, and more than 3,000
pensioners will receive $1.9 million.  Pensioners already
received lump-sum payments totaling about $60 million.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Reaches Deal in S.C. Insured Patients' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp., Piedmont Medical Center's parent, has
agreed to refund money to uninsured patients who were treated at
the South Carolina hospital between Oct. 7, 2001, and May 22,
2006, and who paid within 30 days of receiving the bill, The
Herald reports.

According to a legal notice, uninsured patients could be
reimbursed for up to 20 percent of their medical bills by
filling out a claim form and becoming a part of the settlement
class, which is free.

The notice also stated that a final hearing on the state lawsuit
is scheduled on Aug. 29, 2006 at 10 a.m. in the Chester County
Courthouse with Judge Kenneth G. Goode.

The case is a spin-off of one suit filed and settled in
California that contended uninsured people should get the same
discount from health-care facilities as insurance companies.

It alleges that uninsured patients at the hospitals were not
provided the required discount and were overcharged for the
medical care they received.

Cam Lewis, who represents the plaintiffs, explains that
insurance companies negotiate to get medical care discounts of
up to 40 percent, while patients with no insurance pay full
price.

Aside from Piedmont Medical, the proposed settlement also
involves East Cooper Community Hospital in Mount Pleasant and
Hilton Head Health System.

For more details, call (800) 280-8427 or visit
http://www.tenetclassaction.com/tes.


TIFFANY & CO: Fined for Unreported Hazardous Teether Rattles
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany & Co. of New York agreed to pay a $262,500 civil penalty
to settle allegations that the company failed to report a hazard
with its infant teether rattles, a penalty, which has been
provisionally accepted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

CPSC alleged that Tiffany & Co. failed to report to the
government in a timely manner that the center bar on the Farm
Teether Rattle could break, releasing small beads and animal
figures, which posed a choking and aspiration hazard to babies.

Tiffany & Co. received at least three reports of defective
solder joints in the teethers between November 2003 and February
2004.  The company stopped selling the product in March 2004.  
In one incident, a baby was reported to have mouthed a small
animal figure that fell off of the teether rattle.

The firm reportedly failed to notify consumers who had purchased
the teether and did not report the problem to CPSC until after
the Commission had opened its own investigation and requested
Tiffany to do so.

The firm recalled about 3,700 of the teether rattles, which sold
for $150 each, in February 2005.

Picture of the recalled teether rattle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05544.jpg

For more information about the recall, contact Tiffany and
company at (800) 464-5000 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.tiffany.com.

In agreeing to settle the matter, Tiffany denies it violated the
Consumer Product Safety Act by failing to report defects with
its Farm Teether Rattles in a timely manner.


TOYOBO: N.J. Police Receives $10T in Zylon Vest Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Police Department won a $10,220 settlement in a
class action over bulletproof vests made with the material
Zylon, according to NorthJersey.com.

The borough had purchased 14 Zylon vests for approximately $800
each.  It will use the settlement money to buy new body armor
for the borough's Emergency Response Team.

The suit against Toyobo Co., Ltd., the Japanese company that
developed Zylon, as well as Michigan-based body armor
manufacturer, Second Chance Body Armor Inc., was brought 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.

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
marketplace.

On Sept. 23, the District Court for Mayes County, in the State
of Oklahoma approved a settlement of the class action.  Also
named as defendant in the suit is Toyobo America, Inc.

The settlement 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 settlement
proceeds, the settlement required claimants to register by Sept.
9, 2005.  That deadline was extended and late registrations are
being accepted through July 1, 2006.

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 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:

            http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Recovers Stolen Computer Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement authorities have recovered the laptop and
external hard drive stolen in early-May from a Veterans Affairs
employee's home, Veterans Affairs Secretary R. James Nicholson
announced on June 29.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a preliminary
review of the equipment by computer forensic experts determined
that the database remains intact and has not been accessed since
it was stolen.  A thorough forensic examination of the recovered
computer equipment is underway, and the results will be shared
once the investigation is completed, a statement from the
Veterans Affairs said.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is facing class actions
on behalf of individuals whose personal information were stolen
in May.  It is accused of "unreasonably" delaying to report the
theft of the personal information to law enforcers.  

One class action against the company was filed by Mason Law
Firm, the law offices of Peter N. Wasylyk in Prividence, and the
law office of Andrew S. Kierstead in Portland.

The firms did not specify the amount they are asking from the
government for the loss of the files that contain personal data,
including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
disability ratings, and certain medical information.

The data were stolen during a burglary of the home of a Veterans
Affairs employee, who early in May copied the files from the
department's facilities onto his computer and/or external disks
and brought them home for an "unspecified purpose."  The files
have not yet been recovered.  It contains personal information
of 26.5 million veterans discharged since 1975 and as many as
1.1 million active-duty military personnel, 430,000 National
Guard members and 645,000 reserve members

The suit is "Daniel Kennedy, et al. v. U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan.  Defendants are the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs; R. James Nicholson, Secretary; Gordon G. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary; and John Doe, employee of the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.

A full-text copy of the complaint is available for free at:   

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?b53  

A similar suit, "Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al. v.
Nicholson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
James Robertson.  Plaintiffs in the case are:

     -- Citizen Soldier, Inc.,
     -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.,
     -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc.,
     -- Veterans For Peace, Inc.,
     -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc.
     -- Charles L. Clark,
     -- David Cline,
     -- James E. Malone,
     -- John Rowan

Representing the plaintiffs in the Kennedy suit is Douglas J.
Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., 1320
Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: (803) 252-
1300, E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.co.  


UNITED STATES: Court Allows Credit Monitoring Offer to Veterans
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman has allowed the
Veterans Affairs Department to publicize a no-cost credit
monitoring offer to veterans whose personal information was
stolen, according to Associated Press.

Earlier, Judge Bertelsman barred the government from going ahead
with offer, and set a hearing to determine whether the offer
should be revived.  On a June 30 hearing, Judge Bertelsman said:
"I don't see anything objectionable in it...The court can't tell
a government agency how it can communicate with its
constituents."

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is facing class actions
on behalf of individuals whose personal information were stolen
in May.  It is accused of "unreasonably" delaying to report the
theft of the personal information to law enforcers.  

After the suits were filed, the Veterans Affairs Department
announced plans to offer free monitoring for a year to the
victims.  It said it would send out letters to affected veterans
and military personnel in early August.  It also posted
information on the government's Web site.  The Senate already
approved $160 million to pay for the credit monitoring.

But lawyers for the veterans argued that the government's offer
could jeopardize their chance of receiving greater compensation
under a class action.  They said in court papers it should be
made clear whether veterans who take the government deal will
have to give up their rights in court.  The opposition prompted
U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman in Kentucky to hold the
program.

On the recent hearing, Judge Bertelsman ordered the Veterans
Affairs to state on its Web site that accepting the credit-
monitoring offer does not waive a veteran's right to participate
in any future litigation against the department.

One class action against the company was filed by Mason Law
Firm, the law offices of Peter N. Wasylyk in Prividence, and the
law office of Andrew S. Kierstead in Portland.

The firms did not specify the amount they are asking from the
government for the loss of the files that contain personal data,
including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
disability ratings, and certain medical information.

The data were stolen during a burglary of the home of a Veterans
Affairs employee, who early in May copied the files from the
department's facilities onto his computer and/or external disks
and brought them home for an "unspecified purpose."  The files
have not yet been recovered.  It contains personal information
of 26.5 million veterans discharged since 1975 and as many as
1.1 million active-duty military personnel, 430,000 National
Guard members and 645,000 reserve members

The suit is "Daniel Kennedy, et al. v. U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan.  Defendants are the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs; R. James Nicholson, Secretary; Gordon G. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary; and John Doe, employee of the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.

A full-text copy of the complaint is available for free at:   

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?b53  

A similar suit, "Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al. v.
Nicholson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
James Robertson.  Plaintiffs in the case are:

     -- Citizen Soldier, Inc.,
     -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.,
     -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc.,
     -- Veterans For Peace, Inc.,
     -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc.
     -- Charles L. Clark,
     -- David Cline,
     -- James E. Malone,
     -- John Rowan

Representing the plaintiffs in the Kennedy suit is Douglas J.
Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., 1320
Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: (803) 252-
1300, E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.co.


WARREN GENERAL: Reaches Deal in Ohio Suit Over Patient Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warren General Hospital reached a settlement in a protracted
class action pending in Ohio's Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court over patient records, Tribune Chronicle reports.

The 11-year-old class action, which claimed that the hospital
breached patient confidentiality, is entitled, "Cheryl A. Biddle
v. Warren General Hospital."  It was filed in 1995 by two former
patients on behalf of 12,000 hospital users.

According to the suit, patient records were turned over to a
local law firm that wanted to help pay the hospital bills
through federal Supplemental Security Income benefits.

One of the former hospital clients, Ms. Biddle, found that a
secretary with the law firm of Elliot, Heller, Maas, Moro &
Magill, had given her records to a Youngstown television
station.  The firm was also named as a defendant in the suit,
but it later settled the case in December 2003.

Under that deal, the 501 plaintiffs each received between $400
and $800 in damages from the total $130,000 paid out by the law
firm or its insurance carrier.

The latest settlement was between the same plaintiffs and Warren
General Hospital Association, a non-profit holding company.

Attorney Dennis P. Zapka, who represented the plaintiffs,
explains that the $360,000 payment amounted to $513 payments to
478 people.  He said that some 30 other people whose information
was more sensitive, were given between $750 and $1,500.

In addition, a $25,000 incentive award was given to Ms. Biddle.

For more details, contact Dennis P. Zapka of McLaughlin &
McCaffrey, LLP, Eaton Center, Suite 1350, 1111 Superior Avenue,
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2500, Phone: 216-623-0900, Fax: 216-623-
0935, E-mail: dpz@paladin-law.com, Web site:
http://www.lawyers.com/paladin-law/.


WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Styrene Leak in Cincinnati
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Entities involved in Cincinnati East End styrene leak in August
have reached partial class certification and settlement with
residents affected by the accident, according to WCPO.com.

Westlake Chemical Corp., Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals and
Indiana Ohio Railway Corp. reached the agreement in a suit filed
after a rail car leaked styrene near Lunken Airport on Aug. 28,
forcing the evacuation and shelter in place of more than 800
residents and 100 business nearby.  The rail car caught fire
after being parked along the tracks for about nine months.  
Cincinnati then filed a class action against the rail line owner
and the shipping company that sent the chemical.

The suit sought reimbursement for city police, fire fighters,
and other services needed to help contain the hazardous chemical
vapor leak.

The recent settlement will allow those residents who did not
previously settle with the railroad company to be compensated
depending on their proximity to the leaking car.  Financial
details of the agreement were not revealed.

A fairness hearing is set Aug. 28, 2006.  Notices are expected
to be sent out as early as July 12, 2006.

A second settlement was also reached for the businesses and
employees who lost wages during the evacuation, the report said.  
According to an article by The Enquirer in January, companies
linked to the chemical leak agreed to pay at least $2 million in
compensation to residents and businesses, including $28,000 to
Cincinnati Public Schools.

For more information, contact Statman Harris and Eyrich LLC and
Keating Muething and Klekamp: http://www.shselegal.com/.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com   

July 19-20, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

July 20-21, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com   

July 27-28, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 26-27, 2006
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

July 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

July 11, 2006
PPA AND EPHEDRA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 20, 2006
ASBESTOS LEGISLATION - IS A SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS AROUND THE
CORNER?
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 25, 2006
UNDERSTANDING HOW AN MDL WORKS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 27, 2006
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RETAILERS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2006
HEARING LOSS CLAIMS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time  

August 10, 2006
SULFATES LITIGATION
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 15, 2006
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time

August 16, 2006
ASBESTOS SCREENINGS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 17, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS AND DEVICES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org  


________________________________________________________________
______
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky % Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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.

Interested parties may no later than July 7, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


XM SATELLITE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of XM
Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. between the expanded period July
28, 2005 and May 24, 2006, inclusive.

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

Specifically, defendants made misrepresentations regarding XM's
ability to reduce the costs of its new subscribers as it reached
its goal of 9 million subscribers by year-end 2006.  

In anticipation of XM's competitor Sirius' contract with shock
jock Howard Stern, XM began to spend extraordinarily large sums
on its marketing efforts.

Nevertheless, defendants represented that XM expected to exceed
9 million subscribers by year-end 2006 and that XM had been
successful in lowering its subscriber acquisition costs.

Throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose that
XM's subscriber acquisition costs would rise to extraordinary
levels and that it would not meet its subscriber guidance.

During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge
sales of their personal holdings.

On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a much wider loss in the
fourth quarter on higher costs for marketing and acquiring
subscribers.  XM announced that its subscriber acquisition cost
per customer was $89, compared to $64 in the same period of the
prior year.  

Then, on May 24, 2006, XM announced that it was reducing its
subscriber guidance for 2006 from 9 million to 8.5 million.  
Upon this announcement, shares of XM fell $1.76, or 13%, to
close at $13.75 per share.

Interested parties may no later than July 3, 2006, to request
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


                            *********


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  * * *