CAR_Public/060710.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 135

                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Mo. Court Okays Class in "Stocking" Gender Bias Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Employee Lawsuit in W.Va. Sent to Mediation
BOEING CO: Ex-McDonnell Douglas Workers File ERISA Suit in Ill.
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Sued Over Purchase of AT&T Cell Phone System
ENRON CORP: Stock Suit Plaintiff to Vote on Suit Against Mr. Lay

EXXON MOBIL: Fla. Law Firm Gets $247M in Station Owners' Suit
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls Motor Homes with Faulty Shafts
HARLAND FINANCIAL: Removes "Kitson" Case to Ill. Federal Court
HYPERCOM CORP: Ariz. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
LEVEL 3: Delays Mount in Ill. Landowners' Right of Way Lawsuit

L'OREAL USA: Former Model's Suit Continues in Calif. High Court
MASSACHUSETTS: Worcester Library Faces Suit by Shelter Residents
MASSACHUSSETTS: Police Unions Allege Late Payment of Detail Work
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Second Suit in Wash. Over Anti-Piracy Tool
MINNESOTA: Black-Owned Businesses Sue St. Paul Over Racial Bias

NATIONAL ENTERPRISES: Feb. 2007 Hearing Set for Lakeshore Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 2006 Car Models with Faulty Piston Rings
NORBOURG GROUP: Canadian Regulator Seeks to Junk Brokers' Suit
OHIO: County Judge Prohibits Use of Speed Camera in Girard City
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Ill. Court Nixes Class in Landowners' Suit

RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Consolidate Suits Over Merger Plans
SWISS COLONY: Recalls Money Bag Candles Posing Fire Hazard
TOBACCO LITIGATION: High Court Reverses $145B Award in "Engle"
UNITED STATES: Health & Human Services Dept. Amends Medicaid Law
WORKHORSE CUSTOM: Recalls Motor Home with Defective GM Engines

WORLDCOM INC: Trustee Accepting Bids in Columbus Lumber Interest


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application in Stock Suit Due Today
ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application in Stock Suit Due Today
KINDER MORGAN: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Tex.


                            *********


AT&T CORP: Mo. Court Okays Class in "Stocking" Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
granted class-action status to the suit, "Stocking v. AT&T
Corp., Case No. 03-421 CV-W-HFS."

The suit was filed on May 12, 2003 by Susan Stocking and Jane
Lund.  It challenges a corporate policy excluding coverage of
prescription contraceptives from employee health plans that
cover other prescription drugs and devices.  

It contends that excluding prescription contraceptives
disproportionately harms women, and is therefore sex
discrimination, which is barred under Title VI, the federal
anti-discrimination law.  

In its June 7, 2006 class certification order, the court defined
the class as, "all female employees of AT&T enrolled in the
Occupational Medical Expense Plan who, for their own use, at any
time between Oct. 31, 2001 and June 30, 2002 purchased
prescription contraception solely for birth control without
insurance reimbursement from said Plan."

The court also held that the company was required under Title
VII and/or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to cover
prescription contraceptives for birth control under its
Occupational Medical Expense Plans, but failed to do so.

The court's class certification order is available free of
charge at:

           http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d66.

The suit is "Stocking v. AT&T Corporation, Case No. 03-421 CV-W-
HFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Rick D. Holtsclaw of DeFeo, Holtsclaw, Kendall, LLC,
         2029 Wyandotte, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64108,
         Phone: (816) 221-2555, Fax: (816) 221-2508, E-mail:
         rick@holtsclaw-kendall.com.

     (2) Sylvester James, Jr. of The Sly James Firm, Trial
         Lawyers, PC, 802 Broadway, 7th Floor, Kansas City, MO
         64105, Phone: 816-472-6800, Fax: 816-472-6805, E-mail:
         sly@slyjamesfirm.com.

Representing the company are:

      (i) Laura M. Franze of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld,
          LLP, 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100, Dallas, TX
          75201, Phone: (214) 969-2779, Fax: (214) 969-4343, E-
          mail: lfranze@akingump.com; and

     (ii) Brian N. Woolley of Lathrop & Gage, L.C., 2345 Grand
          Blvd., Suite 2500, Kansas City, MO 64108, Phone: (816)
          292-2000, Fax: (816) 292-2001, E-mail:
          bwoolley@lathropgage.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Employee Lawsuit in W.Va. Sent to Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge James Turk has ordered mediation in a class
action filed against Bank of America Corp. by a former employee,
according to The Roanoke Times.

Mediation is set next month before U.S. Magistrate Judge B.
Waugh Crigler of the Charlottesville division of the courts.

The suit was filed by Cynthia Diane Deel in early 2004, claiming
that she was denied overtime by the company.  A judge approved
the suit as class action in the same year.  Ms. Deel left the
company in July 2003.

In 2005, a federal judge in the Western District of Virginia
ruled that about 250 current and former Bank of America
employees may join a class action seeking compensation for
unpaid overtime labor, the Associated Press reports (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 14, 2005).

The suit charges that Bank of America improperly classified the
workers as ineligible for overtime between September 2002 and
April 2003.  Furthermore, the suit also charges the bank of
changing their classification, but improperly discouraged
overtime claims.

The affected employees had worked for the Banking Center Control
Review department, performing on-site reviews at Bank of America
branches.   

The suit is "Deel v. Bank of America Corp., Case No. 7:04-cv-
00150-jct," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia under Judge James C. Turk.

Representing the defendant are:

     (1) Richard F. Kane of Mcguire Woods LLP, Suite 2900, 100
         North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-4011, Phone:
         704-373-8957, Fax: 704-373-8828, E-mail:
         rkane@mcguirewoods.com; and

     (2) Bruce M. Steen of Mcguire Woods LLP, Suite 2900, 100
         North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-4011, Phone:
         704-353-6244, Fax: 704-353-6200, E-mail:
         bsteen@mcguirewoods.com.

Representing the plaintiff are John Palmer Fishwick, Jr. and
Devon James Munro of Lichtenstein, Fishwick & Johnson, plc, P.O.
BOX 601, Roanoke, VA 24004-0601, Phone: 540-345-5890, Fax: 540-
345-5789, E-mail: jpf@vaonline.com, devon@vaonline.com.


BOEING CO: Ex-McDonnell Douglas Workers File ERISA Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four former employees of McDonnell Douglas, with which Boeing
Co. merged in 1997, filed a purported class action against
Boeing Co.'s Pension Value Plan for Employees, alleging
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 26, 2006 by:

     -- Larry Wheeler of Edwardsville,
     -- David and Maral Keeton of Wildwood, Missouri, and
     -- Vincent Parisi of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri

who, according to the complaint, were transferred to work for
Boeing on Aug. 1, 1997.  The workers are seeking injunctive
relief pursuant to ERISA, claiming the current method of
calculation of their pension is unlawful.

                           Allegations  

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that their retirement benefits
are less than the accrued benefit to which they are legally
entitled, since the plan failed to properly apply accrual and
vesting rules imposed by ERISA.  The conduct mentioned is
widespread, affecting hundreds of plan participants, according
to the complaint.  

Plaintiffs also claim that the plan violates ERISA's anti-back
loading provisions by making benefits accrue very slowly over
time until the participants nears the normal retirement age so
that a participant's vested pension rights have very little
value until they complete a very long period of service.

In addition, plaintiffs argue that under ERISA a defined benefit
plan must allow a participant to accrue, i.e. earn benefits no
less that ratably over a working career so as to prevent
employers from using creative plan designs to avoid the
protection afforded by ERISA's vesting rules.

                          Relief Sought

Furthermore, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to appropriate
equitable relief to redress the plan's violations of ERISA and
to enforce provisions, and incidental monetary relief
mechanically flowing from injunctive relief in the form of a
common fund equal to the difference between what they were paid
under the alleged unlawful method of computing their pension
benefits.

The suit is asking the court for a declaration that the pension
plan's method of computing benefits is unlawful, a judgment for
them and against the company and a permanent injunction
preventing the plan from calculating pension benefits in
violation of ERISA.

Plaintiffs are also asking for the creation of a common fund
equal to the amount of pension benefits due, pre and post
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
common fund/benefit doctrine or any other applicable laws and
any other relief the court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.

The suit is, "Wheeler et al v. Pension Value Plan for Employees
of The Boeing Co. et al, Case No. 3:06-cv-00500-DRH-PMF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
under Judge David R. Herndon.

Representing the plaintiffs are Matthew H. Armstrong and Jerome
J. Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard, Phone: 314-621-6115 and 618-
632-3329, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com and
jschlichter@uselaws.com.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Sued Over Purchase of AT&T Cell Phone System
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Wireless Services Customers commenced a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
against Cingular Wireless Corp., based on conduct related to the
recent $41 billion acquisition of AT&T Corp.'s cell phone system
in October, 2004.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all AT&T Wireless customers
who were allegedly deceived or overcharged by Cingular's actions
related to the merger.  The class action is brought by a group
of lawyers and law firms, including attorneys for the non-profit
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, the law firm of
Cotchett, Pitre, Simon and McCarthy, of Burlingame, California,
and Stritmatter, Kessler, Whelan, Withey and Coluccio, based in
Seattle.

The suit charges that Cingular engaged in false advertising,
breached the contracts with AT&T customers, and violated the
consumer protection laws of each of the 50 states.

Specifically, it alleges that:

     (1) prior to the merger, Cingular promised that AT&T
         Wireless customers would "continue to enjoy the
         benefits of their current phones, rate plans and
         features, without any service interruption";

     (2) after the merger, Cingular implemented a deliberate
         scheme to dismantle the AT&T Wireless network in order
         to degrade the service provided to AT&T Wireless
         customers and induce them to "transfer" to the Cingular
         network;

     (3) AT&T Wireless customers have complained of increasing
         dropped calls, and poor or no reception;

     (4) dissatisfied AT&T Wireless customers are given the
         option to "upgrade" to Cingular;

     (5) AT&T customers who do not agree to such an "upgrade"
         are left with the choice of fulfilling their contract
         term with AT&T despite degraded or non-existent
         service, or paying an early termination fee of $175 to
         cancel service before the expiration of the 12- or 24-
         month contract term.

The lawsuit stems from an investigation of numerous complaints
received by the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, a California-based crusader for consumer rights.

FTCR on the Net: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org.

The class covers all AT&T Wireless customers who were customers
as of October 26, 2004.

The suit comes one week after the California Court of Appeal
upheld a decision by the California Public Utilities Commission
imposing a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for promising
cell phone service it could not provide and charging customers
who tried to cancel early termination fees of up to $500.  FTCR
has sued Cingular for that conduct; that case is underway.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d63

The suit is "Coneff et. al. v Cingular Wireless Corp. et. al.,
Case No. CV06-0944," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce L. Simon, Esther L. Klisura both of Cotchett,
         Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200,
         Burlingame California 94010, Phone: (650) 697-6000,
         Fax: (650) 697-0577, E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com;

     (2) Paul L. Stritmatter, Michael E. Withey, Kevin Coluccio
         all of Strimatter Kessler Whelan Withey Coluccio, 200
         Second Ave., West Seattle, WA 98119, Phone: (206) 448-
         1777, Fax: (206) 728-2131, Email: mike@skwwc.com; and

     (3) Harvey Rosenfeld and Pamela Presley both of The
         Foundation for Tax Payer and Consumer Rights, 1750
         Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA
         90405, Phone: (310) 392-0522, Fax: (310) 392-8874, E-
         mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org.


ENRON CORP: Stock Suit Plaintiff to Vote on Suit Against Mr. Lay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the shareholder class action against Enron
Corp. and its executives are expected to drop claims against the
estate of former chief executive Kenneth Lay after his recent
death, reports say.

The Regents of the University of California are the lead
plaintiffs in the suit on behalf of all investors who lost
billions when the energy company collapsed.  

Trey Davis, a spokesman for the University of California, said
"The final decision is up to the Regents but I do not imagine it
would be worth our while to go after what [Mr. Lay] has left
behind," according to The Australian.  The Regents will meet
this month to decide whether to remove him from the suit.

Following U.S. law, all his liabilities from civil litigation
will pass to his estate after his death.  The suit will be dealt
with by benefactors.  But Mr. Lay, whose personal assets are
estimated at $US50 million when the Enron trial began, is
believed cash-strapped upon his death, according to the report.  

Mr. Lay's wife and children are understood to have sizeable
annuities, which is protected from creditors under Texas law.

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease, according to the
forensic pathologist who performed his post-mortem examination.  
He was holidaying near Aspen, Colorado when he died.  Six weeks
before, he and another former Enron chief executive, Jeffrey
Skilling, were found guilty of hiding financial troubles at
Enron.

A civil litigation trial on the case against Mr. Lay and Mr.
Skilling has earlier been set Oct. 16, 2006, according to
plaintiff attorney William Lerach.  

                         Case Background

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP attorneys filed a consolidated class action against Enron
Corp. in the U.S. District Court in Houston.  The suit seeks
relief for purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt
securities between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and
directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations
of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants
engaged in massive insider trading while making false and
misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.  

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The U.S. District Court in Houston has denied a number of
motions to dismiss Lerach Coughlin's securities litigation.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery and motion practice;
depositions began in the summer of 2004, according to the law
firm.

                         Lead Plaintiff

The lead plaintiff is the University of California Regents.

Settlements

The lead plaintiff has reached settlements with Lehman Brothers,
Bank of America, the Outside Directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan
Chase and CIBC totaling over $7 billion for investors.  The
court granted on May 24 final approval for three banks to pay
$6.6 billion to settle civil claims of conspiracy with Enron.

The deal was made by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Inc.  It brings the
settlement to a total of $7.3 billion, including interest.  

The banks entered these settlements last year:

        CIBC           $2.4 billion  
        JPMorgan       $2.2 billion  
        Citigroup      $2 billion  

Previously some $500 million of settlements had been reached
with Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Bank of America Corp.,
Andersen Worldwide, and 18 former outside Enron directors.

                     Non-settling Defendants

The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,  
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,  
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.   
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.    

Representing the defendants are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and   
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:   
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and   
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,   
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


EXXON MOBIL: Fla. Law Firm Gets $247M in Station Owners' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
awarded a Florida law firm $247 million for its work in a
protracted class action against Exxon Mobil Corp. by a group of
gas-station owners, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The award, given to the firm of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson on July 6, 2006, represents about 75% of an
overall fee award of $325 million that the court approved on
behalf of five law firms.  Previously, other law firms had
argued that Stearns Weaver didn't deserve the award.

The windfall stems from a 15-year-old case in which gas-station
owners accused the oil company of overcharging them for
gasoline.  

Unlike many class actions that were eventually settled, the case
was tried twice before a jury and later went to the Supreme
Court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last year.  In
April, Judge Alan Gold in Miami granted final approval to a
$1.08 billion settlement.

The fee controversy hinged on an agreement struck in 1996 in
which Stearns Weaver, which began working on the case that year,
signed an agreement to receive 25% of the total legal fees
awarded in the case.

However, the law firm later requested 77% of the total fee,
maintaining it did a disproportionate amount of the work
compared with the other law firms over the next 10 years.

Judge Gold that Stearns Weaver performed "the near totality of
the real legal work."

Besides the fees for lawyers, a share of the broader settlement
goes to the nine gas-station owners who served as class
representatives in the case, which was brought on behalf of more
than 11,000 current and former Exxon gas-station owners.

Judge Gold awarded the class representatives $15.9 million in
incentive awards.

Attorneys involved in the matter were Jewel Grutman of Grutman,
Greene & Humphre and Daniel Jarcho of McKenna Long & Aldridge in
Washington, D.C.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls Motor Homes with Faulty Shafts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., in cooperation with the National
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 947 units of
Fleetwood motor homes.

The company said the Workhorse chassis built on certain Class A
motor homes 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 this recall:

     Make/Models:           Model/Build Years:      

     FLEETWOOD/BOUNDER           2005-2006
     FLEETWOOD/FLAIR             2005-2006
     FLEETWOOD/PACE ARROW        2005-2006
     FLEETWOOD/SOUTHWIND         2005-2006
     FLEETWOOD/STORM             2005-2006

Consumers are advised to contact Fleetwood at 1-800-322-8216 or
Workhorse at 1-877-294-6773 for inspection and, if necessary,
for replacement of intermediate shafts.


HARLAND FINANCIAL: Removes "Kitson" Case to Ill. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Harland Financial Solutions removed a protracted
class action pending in St. Clair County Circuit Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Originally filed in 2002 by Kenneth Kitson, the company claims
that it was not named as a defendant in the case until June 26,
2006.  That was the time when plaintiff was granted leave to
amend his complaint.

Citing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the company argues
that the case should be removed to federal court since its value
exceeds $5 million.  It also pointed out that the company has
its principal place of business in Oregon, while the plaintiff
is a citizen of a different state.

In the amended complaint, Mr. Kitson seeks monetary damages in
excess of $50,000 for an alleged breach of contract, an
injunction enjoining the company from licensing and collecting
licensing fees from the Bank of Edwardsville for Laser Pro
Software, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees.

The suit is "Kitson v. Bank of Edwardsville, The et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00528-GPM-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy,
with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Pat Ducey of Law Offices of Pat Ducey, Generally
         Admitted, 41 Oakbrooke, Troy, IL 62294, Phone: 618-667-
         3367, E-mail: cpatoutd@yahoo.com; and

     (2) Bernard J. Ysursa, Sr. of Cook, Ysursa et al.,
         Generally Admitted, 12 West Lincoln Street, Belleville,
         IL 62220, Phone: 618-235-3500, E-mail:
         bjy@cooklawoffice.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Barry Goheen and Misty M. Speake of King & Spalding,
         LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street N.E., Atlanta, GA 30309-
         3521, Phone: 404-572-4600, Fax: 404-572-5139; and

    (ii) Russell K. Scott of Greensfelder, Hemker et al. -
         Swansea, Generally Admitted, 12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite
         100, Swansea, IL 62226, Phone: 618-257-7308, E-mail:
         rks@greensfelder.com.  


HYPERCOM CORP: Ariz. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered
judgment dismissing with prejudice the second consolidated
amended class action company that was filed against Hypercom
Corp. and John W. Smolak, the company's former chief financial
officer.

The amended complaint related to Hypercom's restatement of its
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2004
because certain leases generated by Hypercom's U.K. subsidiary
were incorrectly accounted for as sales-type leases, rather than
operating leases.

In its July 5, 2006, Order, the district court found that the
amended complaint failed to state claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Case Background

In February and March 2005, various shareholder class action
complaints were filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of its
common stock in the period from April 30, 2004 to Feb. 3, 2005.

The complaints alleged that the company, and certain of its
executive management, violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 based on its February 2005 announcement that certain
leases in the U.K. had been incorrectly accounted for as sales-
type leases, rather than operating leases, and that the company
would restate its financial statements for the first three
quarters of 2004.

In May 2005, these class actions were consolidated into one
action and the designated lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.

In January 2006, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
class action complaint, and in February 2006, the plaintiffs
filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint in April
2006.

The suit is "Ray v. Hypercom Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-00455-NVW," filed in the U.S. District Court for District of
Arizona under Judge Neil V. Wake.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. of Bonnett Fairbourn
         Friedman & Balint, PC, 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 1000,
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-
         274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com; and

     (2) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Nicole Healy, Bruce Gordon Vanyo
and Lloyd Winawer of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page
Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-496-4334, 650-320-4904
and 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nhealy@wsgr.com,
bvanyo@wsgr.com and lwinawer@wsgr.com.


LEVEL 3: Delays Mount in Ill. Landowners' Right of Way Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing in a railroad right of way lawsuit
pending in Madison County Circuit Court against Level 3
Communications has been delayed intermittently, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

In April 2002, the company and two of its subsidiaries were
named as a defendant in the case, "Bauer, et al. v. Level 3
Communications, LLC, et al.," a purported class action covering
22 states (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2006).

While Judge Andy Matoesian keeps preparing for a hearing, the
parties kept putting it off, the report said.  In the last 10
weeks, attorneys for the company and three plaintiffs have
agreed to continue a hearing on class certification four times.

Neither side has submitted briefs that Judge Matoesian ordered
last August on the Illinois Supreme Court decision in "Avery v.
State Farm."  In March, Judge Matoesian ordered Avery briefs on
April 7, however he hasn't seen any.

The Avery decision threw out a Williamson County verdict worth
about $1.2 billion and derailed class action in the state of
Illinois.

In the Level 3 case, Harriet Bauer, George Schillinger and Ruth
Schillinger claim that the company trespassed while laying fiber
optic cable.

Troy Bozarth, Level 3 attorney countered last year that
plaintiffs owned no interest in railroad right of way where the
company laid cable.  

To back his statement, Mr. Bozarth also submitted back then a
copy of a "quit claim" deed from 1859, for right of way
adjoining the Bauer property.  He also submitted a copy of a
condemnation from 1857 for right of way adjoining the
Schillinger property.

Case Background

The action involves the firm's right to install its fiber optic
cable network in easements and right-of-ways crossing the
plaintiffs' land.  In general, the companies obtained the rights
to construct their networks from railroads, utilities, and
others, and have installed their networks along the right-of-way
so granted (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2006).

However, plaintiffs in the suit assert that they are the owners
of lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and
that the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the
company the right to construct and maintain their networks did
not have the legal authority to do so (Class Action Reporter,
March 15, 2006).

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as
punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2006).

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Elizabeth V. Heller of Goldenberg, Miller,
         Heller, & Antognoli, P.C., 2227 S. State Route 157,
         P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, IL 62025, Phone: (618) 656-
         5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail: liz@ghalaw.com, Web
         site: http://www.gmhalaw.com/;and  

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


L'OREAL USA: Former Model's Suit Continues in Calif. High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a suit
filed by a former Beverly Hills hair model against L'OREAL USA
late in May, according to Law.com.

Amanza Smith filed the suit in 2004 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  Ms. Smith worked as a hair model at a show featuring
L'Oreal products that time.  She accepted the assignment for
$500 for one day of work.  She received her pay two months later
in the form of a check sent from the company's main accounting
office in New York.

She is claiming that the failure of the company to pay promptly
constituted conversion, fraud, unfair business practices,
violation of Labor Code sections requiring immediate payment
upon discharge, breach of contract, and negligent
misrepresentation.

L'Oreal claimed Smith was an independent contractor, not an
employee within the meaning of the state Labor Code, and
therefore, not entitled to immediate payment.  The company
denied it owes her or any other hair model so-called waiting
time penalties.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Frances Rothschild
granted summary judgment for L'Oreal, and Los Angeles' 2nd
District affirmed in 2004.

During the May hearing, the court seemed almost annoyed by
arguments of the defendant's attorney that individuals who sign
on for work for an agreed-upon period of time aren't entitled to
prompt payment, according to the report.  They were especially
concerned that a ruling against Ms. Smith could subject the
state's day laborers to delayed payments, the report said.

The suit is Smith v. Superior Court (L'Oreal USA), S129476.  
Representing L'Oreal's is William Carroll Morgenstein &
Jubelirer LLP -- http://www.mjllp.com-- One Market, Spear  
Street Tower, 32nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94105 (San
Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-901-8700, Fax: 415-901-8701.

The plaintiff is represented by Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg,
Lionel Z. Glancy, Kevin F. Ruf and Avi Wagner.  On the Net:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Worcester Library Faces Suit by Shelter Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed on July 6 in federal court in Worcester is
challenging the Worcester Public Library's policy restricting
the borrowing privileges of residents of homeless shelters,
transitional housing programs and adolescent programs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Worcester residents
affected by the policy.  The lead plaintiff, identified in the
complaint as "Jane Doe," is a resident of a family shelter and
was attempting to home school her child but was allegedly unable
to obtain the necessary educational materials from the library.

In addition to the individuals, the suit was brought by the
Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless and the Central
Massachusetts Housing Alliance.  The lawsuit names the City of
Worcester, the Worcester Public Library, and the Library's Board
of Directors as defendants.

The challenged policy allegedly limits residents of homeless
shelters, transitional housing programs and adolescent programs
to borrowing a maximum of two items.  After borrowing for the
first time, other library patrons -- including individuals who
reside outside of Worcester -- are not limited to borrowing only
two items, according to a statement by ACLU Massachusetts.  The
library allegedly keeps a list of the names and addresses of the
shelters and programs whose residents are limited in their
borrowing privileges.  As a result of the library's policy, the
plaintiffs were supposedly unable to borrow books they needed
for themselves and their children.

The lawsuit alleges that the policy is unlawful because it
violates the guarantees of equal protection of the law, freedom
of speech and expression and due process in both the federal and
state constitutions as well as the rights of library patrons who
are specifically guaranteed by the Massachusetts General Laws.

The lawsuit, brought by the Legal Assistance Corporation of
Central Massachusetts and the American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts, seeks to restore the full and equal library
privileges of all residents of homeless shelters and
transitional housing programs in the City of Worcester.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d70

The suit is Civil Action No: 06-40133, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Plaintiffs
are "Jane doe," Suzette Lindgren, Andrew Moyer on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and Massachusetts
Coalition for the Homeless, and Central Massachusetts Housing
Alliance.

Defendants are the City of Worcester, Worcester Public Library,
and Worcester Public Library Board of Directors.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan L. Mannina and Kate J. Fitzpatrick of Legal
         Assistance Corp. or Central Massachusetts, 405 Main
         Street, Fourth Floor, Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
         Phone: (508) 753-3718; and

     (2) John Reinstein of American Civil Liberties Union of
         Massachusetts, 211 Congress St. Suite 300, Boston,
         Massachusetts 02110, Phone: (617)482-3170.


MASSACHUSSETTS: Police Unions Allege Late Payment of Detail Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrolman John Slaney initiated a class suit against the city of
Melrose, alleging violation of state law, the Melrose Free Press
reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of members of the Melrose Police
Patrolmen's Union and the Melrose Superior Officer's Union,
accuses the city delaying payment for detail work and training
time.

According to Melrose police Sgt. Jim Smith, under Massachusetts
General Law, detail work is to be paid within seven days of the
pay period when the work was performed.

The complaint by both unions claim that officers perform detail
work -- the extra work police officers and patrolmen perform in
addition to their regular duties -- for which they still haven't
received pay some six to eight weeks after the work.

According to City Auditor Patrick Dello Russo, the late pay is
from the third-party vendors, companies such as Verizon and
National Grid, for whom the police perform the detail work.  
These third-party vendors often hire police officers to provide
detail around their construction sites.

But Terry Coles, plaintiffs' lawyer, refuted the city's
inclination to hold the police department accountable for
enforcing timely payment from third-party vendors, saying the
burden of being paid is on the officers' employer, which is the
city.

Recently, Mr. Dello Russo said the city, through the general
fund, will advance between $40,000-50,000 to cover the back
detail pay.   The plan is still subject to bureaucratic
approval.

Plaintiffs are represented by Terry Coles and Liss-Riordan both
of Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18
Tremont Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: (617) 367-
7200.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Second Suit in Wash. Over Anti-Piracy Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. faces a second putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington over its
Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) anti-piracy tool, alleging that
the company pushes it to all Windows PCs, whether or not they
have Automatic Updates turned on.

Filed on June 30, 2006, plaintiffs in the suit were identified
as Engineered Process Controls, LLC, and Univex, Inc., along
with individual end users David DiDomizio, Edward Misfud and
Martin Sifuentes.  

The individual plaintiffs are listed as owners of licensed
copies of Windows XP running WGA, which was designed to check
the validity of a user's copy of the Windows operating system

Plaintiffs are charging that the anti-piracy tool amounts to a
form of spyware.  In addition, they also charged the company of
misleading users by labeling WGA as a critical security update
without telling them that it would secretly communicate with its
servers.

According to the suit, since WGA gathers data that can easily
identify individual PCs and could potentially be used to gather
other types of information, it is akin to malicious threats.  In
so doing, the suit claims that the program violates Washington's
anti-spyware laws.

The suit is demanding unspecified damages.  It also calls on the
company to warn users of the risks associated with using WGA, as
well as the creation of a tool to remove it from users'
machines.

The case is the second legal action the company faces in
relation to WGA.  On June 26, 2006, Los Angeles resident Brian
Johnson, filed a suit against the company claiming that it
didn't adequately disclose details of the tool when it was
delivered to users via its Automatic Update system.

Mr. Johnson's suit, which was filed on June 26, 2006, alleges
that the company effectively installed the WGA software on
consumers' systems without providing consumers any opportunity
to make an informed choice about that software.

It also challenges the company's practice of using the automatic
updating system as one method of delivering the tool.  Though in
the past, the company has delivered a variety of programs
through Automatic Updates, it's most commonly used for security
updates.  But, the suit alleges that the software giant
effectively hid delivery of the tool under that guise.

Like the June 30 class action, the "Johnson" case is seeking
unspecified damages.  It also makes claims under the Washington
Consumer Protection Act and California Unfair Competition Law,
in addition to anti-spyware statutes in both states.

The suit is "Engineered Process Controls LLC et al v. Microsoft
Corporation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00927-JLR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington under
Judge James L. Robart.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Elliot Breskin of Short Cressman & Burgess, 999
         3rd Ave., Ste. 3000, Seattle, WA 98104-4088, Phone:
         206-682-3333, Fax: 340-8856, E-mail:
         dbreskin@scblaw.com; and

     (2) William W. Houck of Law Offices of William W. Houck,
         4045 262ND Ave., SE Issaquah, WA 98029, Phone: 425-392-
         7118, E-mail: houck@houcklaw.com.


MINNESOTA: Black-Owned Businesses Sue St. Paul Over Racial Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of St. Paul faces a purported racial discrimination
class action alleging that the city discriminates against black-
owned businesses in the area in awarding bids for contracts

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  Plaintiffs in the case are seeking remedy in this
claimed discrimination to ensure their businesses are given
equal opportunity to participate in city contracting.   The suit
names as plaintiffs:

      -- Brian Conover,
      -- Frederick Newell,
      -- Joe Boone,
      -- Mel Tyner,
      -- Michael Thomas

Plaintiffs are also alleging that the city fails to contact them
about bid opportunities, and when they are contacted, it is
without adequate notice, thereby making it difficult to submit a
timely or competitive bid.

The suit is "Thomas et al v. City of Saint Paul, Case No. 0:06-
cv-02860-JNE-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Joan N. Ericksen with referral
to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Blair M. Jacobs of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP,
         1275 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004,
         Phone: 202-383-0773, E-mail: blair.jacobs@sablaw.com;

     (2) Tricia G. Jefferson of Lawyers' Committee for Civil
         Rights, 1401 New York Ave., Ste. 400, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: 202-662-8332, E-mail:
         tjefferson@lawyerscommittee.org; and

     (3) Stephen L. Smith of Law Firm of Stephen L. Smith, PLLC,
         10 S. 5th St., Ste. 700, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-
         305-4355, Fax: 612-305-4388, E-mail:
         smith@trial-advocate.com.


NATIONAL ENTERPRISES: Feb. 2007 Hearing Set for Lakeshore Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Garland County, Arkansas will hold a
hearing on February 2007 in the class action, "Donald D. Kessler
and Mary L. Kessler, et al. v. National Enterprises, Inc. and
Arkansas No 1 LLC, Case No. E-96-1637-11."

The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the time-
sharing condominium units at the Lakeshore Resort & Yacht Club,
located on a parcel of land situated at 3501 Albert pike Road,
Hot Springs, Garland County, Arkansas, during the period from on
or about June 28, 1985 through on or about April 12, 1994.

In the suit, plaintiffs sought restitution and rescission of
their purchase contracts and raised claims of misrepresentation
and breach of contract.  The circuit court later certified the
class and on that same date granted summary judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs and against defendants on issues involving
liability and damages.

Pursuant to an order of the court issued on June 12, 2006, a
heaing will be held before Judge Vicki Cook in the Courtroom No.
102 in the Garland County Courthouse, 607 Ouachita Ave., Hot
Springs, Arkansas 71901 on Feb. 5, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and ending
Feb. 16, 2007 to the claims of the class members, the damages
they sustained and for the entry of final judgment against the
defendants.

Parties interested in joining the suit must submit a claim from
by Sept. 29, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) George Jay Bequette, Jr. of Skokos, Bequette &
         Billingsley, 425 West Capitol, 3200 TCBY Tower,
         Little Rock, AR 72201-3439, Phone: (501) 374-1107;
         and

     (2) Don M. Schnipper of Wood, Smith, Schnipper & Clay,
         Smith Building, 123 Market Street, Hot Springs, AR
         71901-5398, Phone: (501) 624-1252.


NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 2006 Car Models with Faulty Piston Rings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc., in cooperation with the National
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 85,000 units
of Nissan Altima and Sentra.

The Nissan models affected in this recall are NISSAN/ALTIMA
built in 2006, and NISSAN/SENTRA also built in 2006.

The company said certain passenger vehicles equipped with 2.5 L
engines may experience excessive oil consumption as a result of
improper performance of the piston rings.  If the oil is not
maintained at least at the minimum level, engine damage can
occur and in extreme cases result in an engine fire.

For more information on this recall, call Nissan at 1-800-647-
7261.


NORBOURG GROUP: Canadian Regulator Seeks to Junk Brokers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing in respect of the motion for authorization of a class
action filed by Francis Rosso on behalf of all representatives
who sold Norbourg, Evolution and Perfolio funds since inception
or are part of Tandem Wealth Management began on July 6 in
Superior Court.

Mr. Rosso is a former manager at Gestion de Patrimoine Tandem
Inc., a brokerage that was part of the Norbourg group and sold
Norbourg, Evolution and Perfolio mutual funds.

The action relates solely to the Autorite des marche financiers
(AMF) and not to any of the main players in the Norbourg matter.  
At the hearing, the AMF asked Judge Jean-Yves Lalonde to dismiss
the motion for authorization of the class action.

According to the AMF, the proposed class action does not meet
any of the criteria required for authorization.

In particular, AMF said that the group of representatives
covered by the class action is in no way homogeneous and cannot
be addressed as part of a class action because it includes:

     -- representatives whose clients have not incurred a loss
        as a result of the conduct of the Norbourg Group, and
        this includes representatives who:

        * purchased and sold units in the Evolution and Perfolio
          Funds before they were acquired by Norbourg,

        * did not sell a single unit in the Evolution, Norbourg
          or Perfolio Funds to clients;

     -- representatives who took part, according to statements
        made in the course of other proceedings, in the offences
        alleged in the Norbourg matter;

     -- representatives who, in exchange for transferring
        clients, received money from the Norbourg Group totaling
        almost $4.8 million.

Francis Rosso himself allegedly received $40,000 from the
Norbourg Group on Feb. 15, 2005.  Some representatives,
including Mr. Rosso, would have therefore derived benefits at
the expense of defrauded investors, the AMF said.

Mr. Rosso is claiming $161,000.

The Autorite des marches financiers is the regulatory and
oversight body for Qu,bec's financial sector.  On the Net:
http://www.lautorite.qc.ca.


OHIO: County Judge Prohibits Use of Speed Camera in Girard City
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge John M. Stuard ruled in favor
of more than 1,500 car owners who argued that use of speed
cameras by the city of Girard, Ohio to nab traffic violators was
unconstitutional and in violation of due process laws, Tribune
Chronicle reports.

With the ruling, Judge Stuard ordered the city to stop using its
cameras and to stop collecting fines claimed under its civil
ordinance against speeding.

According to his ruling, "The Legislature has authorized civil,
non-criminal penalties to be set by municipalities for parking
tickets.  There has been no legislative action by the state to
allow the extension of this concept to speeding."

Judge Stuard explains in his ruling that state law takes
precedence over a local ordinance if it is in conflict with the
state statute, if it is an exercise of police power rather than
self-government or if the statute is a general law.  He found
that the city failed each of those tests.

Furthermore, Judge Stuard ruled that the city not only changed
speeding violations from being criminal to civil infractions,
but also was changing a previously set punishment for those
crimes.  Whereas traffic violations amount points to drivers'
licenses, the city's tickets simply are paid and forgotten like
a parking ticket.

The camera, furnished to the city by Traffipax, a Maryland-based
firm, was used primarily on U.S. Route 422, for eight hours a
day, six days a week and yielded an obvious reduction in
speeding along the thoroughfare.

Back in January, Judge Stuard certified a class in the suit that
includes anyone who received a ticket from the camera and didn't
pay it, who are contesting citations or who have yet to receive
one in the mail.

Of the $85 filed collected from violators, $60 goes to the city
and the remaining amount goes to Traffipax, which was contracted
to install and operate the device.  Judge Stuard previously
ordered that Traffipax's portion of the fine also be placed in
escrow (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006)

In addition, the judge allowed both the city and Traffipax to
sue those who refused to pay the tickets, but prohibits them
from doing so until the issues questioning the legality of the
camera have been settled (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006)

For more details, contact James A. Denney, 1631 S. State St.,
Girard, OH 44420-3370, Phone: (330) 545-4250, Fax: (330) 545-
4255.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Ill. Court Nixes Class in Landowners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied class-action status to the suit, "McDaniel v. Qwest
Communications Corp."

Filed on Feb. 18, 2005, the case was brought as a putative class
action by 14 landowners against various telecommunications
firms, including the company.  

The suit involves whether fiber optic cable lines are
trespassing on the plaintiffs' properties.  Various railroads
acquired rights-of-way during the 19th century over these
parcels and have since granted the telecommunications companies
the right to lay their cable lines across the rights-of-way.

Plaintiffs though contend that the rights conveyed by their
ancestors to the railroads do not encompass these fiber optic
cable networks.  

The court's opinion is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d65.

The suit is "McDaniel et al v. QWest Communications Corporation
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01008," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca
R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Arthur T. Susman of Susman, Watkins & Wylie, LLP, Two
         First National Plaza, Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60603,
         Phone: (312) 346-3466, Fax: 312-346-2829, E-mail:
         asusman@ameritech.net; and

     (2) William T. Gotfryd, 20 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL
         60603, Phone: (312) 346-3466, E-mail:
         wtglawproj@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) John F. Daum of O'Melveny & Myers, 400 South Hope
         Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899, Phone: (213) 669-
         6000;

    (ii) Emily J. Brubaker of Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner
         & Preece, 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900, Seattle, WA
         98154-1051, Phone: (206) 625-8600; and

   (iii) Kevin Buckley Duff of Rachlis Durham Duff & Adler, 542
         South Dearborn Street, Suite 1310, Chicago, IL 60605,
         Phone: (312) 733-3950, E-mail: kduff@rddlaw.net.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Consolidate Suits Over Merger Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Riviera Holdings Corp. shareholders has filed a class
action complaint against the company's board, consolidating
several individual complaints that had been filed in April over
plans to sell the company.

The complaint was filed in Clark County, Nevada District Court
on June 19, according to In Business Las Vegas.  It was
specifically directed at a definitive merger agreement under
which Riv Acquisition Holdings, Inc. will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the company (Class Action Reporter, June
14, 2006).

Between April 6, 2006 and April 25, 2006, five class action
complaints were filed against the company and its directors,
each on behalf of a named plaintiff shareholder and all others
similarly situated.

The named plaintiffs in the complaints are:

      -- "Thomas A. Trozzi (Case No. A520076, filed on April 6,
         2006)";

      -- "Phillip LaBarbara (Case No. A520100, filed on April 7,
         2006)";

      -- "Todd Veeck (Case No. A520136, filed on April 7,
         2006)";

      -- "Norberto Silva (Case No. A520638, filed on April 19,
         2006)"; and

      -- "Robert Strougo (Case No. A520911, filed on April 25,
         2006)."

Plaintiff Thomas A. Trozzi notified the company on April 10,
2006, that he did not agree to be a party to a lawsuit filed
against the company or to have such a lawsuit filed in his name.  
On April 17, 2006, the Trozzi complaint against the company was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs in each of the four remaining lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the company shareholders by entering into the
agreement and plan of merger, dated April 6, 2006, among Riv
Acquisition Holdings Inc., Riv Acquisition  Inc. and Riviera
Holdings Corp. (RHC) at a price the plaintiffs considered to be
inadequate.

On April 6, 2006, RHC and Riv Acquisition Holdings Inc., entered
into a definitive merger agreement under which all of the
outstanding shares of RHC will be acquired for $17.00 per share
in cash, other than shares owned by William L. Westerman, RHC's
chief executive officer.  

Mr. Westerman had entered into a previous personal agreement to
sell his shares to the investment group for $15 per share in
cash and to vote his shares in favor of the acquisition.  The
transaction is expected to be complete sometime in the first
half of 2007, subject to shareholder approval and licensing by
gaming authorities.

In the complaints the plaintiffs request the court to do the
following, among others:

      -- certify all company shareholders, other than the
         defendants and persons or entities related to or
         affiliated with any defendants, as a class for purposes
         of a class action;

      -- enjoin consummation of the transactions contemplated by
         the merger agreement; and

      -- rescind the merger agreement.


SWISS COLONY: Recalls Money Bag Candles Posing Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss Colony, of Monroe, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
65,500 units of "Money Bag" candles.

The company said the decorations on the candle can ignite,
posing a fire hazard.  Also, excessive pooling of wax from the
burning candles poses a burn hazard.

The Swiss Colony has received four reports of incidents
involving the candle igniting nearby combustibles including one
report of extensive property damage.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled product is the "Money Bag" candle, which is 3 1/4-
inches tall and green in color.  There is a gold glitter dollar
symbol on the front of the candle and the candle is molded in
the shape of a bag.  Inside the candle is a varying amount of
money from a $1 coin to a $50 bill.  Hang tags on the candle
identify the candle as "The Money Bag by The Original Treasure
Candle, Inc."  They were sold under item numbers BI4372, BR4372,
RA7372, RB4372, RG4372 and RW4372.  The item number is not
written on the candle.

These money bag candles were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold by The Swiss Colony catalog, Web site and outlet
stores nationwide from September 1997 through April 2006 for
about $20.

Picture of the recalled money bag candle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06196.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using this recalled product
immediately and contact The Swiss Colony for instructions on how
to return the product for a full refund.

For additional information, consumers should contact The Swiss
Colony at (800) 991-4442 between 8 a.m. and 12 a.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.swisscolony.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: High Court Reverses $145B Award in "Engle"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court decertified the Engle class and
reversed the state court jury's award of $145 billion in
punitive damages because, as a matter of law, the award was
improper and excessive.

The High Court also concluded that certain issues decided by the
Engle trial jury may be considered as resolved for any potential
future cases filed by former class members.

In its 68-page opinion, the three-judge panel set forth in
considerable detail why the Engle case failed to meet virtually
every legal requirement for class certification.  In addition,
the court said that the three individual Engle plaintiffs, whose
claims were tried in the second phase of the trial, were not
entitled to damages.

The court also criticized the plaintiffs' lawyer for his
misconduct throughout the trial and found that it inflamed the
jury into awarding an excessive $145 billion in punitive
damages.

In summary, the Court said, "The fate of an entire industry and
of close to a million Florida residents cannot rest upon such a
fundamentally unfair proceeding."

The Engle plaintiffs asked the Third DCA to reconsider its
ruling, and that the entire Court consider the matter.  The
Engle plaintiffs also asked the Third DCA to "certify" certain
legal issues for review by the Florida Supreme Court.  Philip
Morris USA and other tobacco companies have said the court's
decision was correct, as a matter of law, and reconsideration is
unnecessary.

Case Background

Miami lawyers Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt, purportedly on
behalf of all "addicted" smokers in the U.S. who had suffered
alleged smoking-related injuries, filed the Engle case in 1994.

In 1996, an intermediate state appellate court ruled that the
case could proceed as a class action, but it reduced the breadth
of the class to Florida residents.

In July 1999, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs on a number of these broad questions, such as generic
causation and addiction.  In addition, the jury returned a
verdict for plaintiffs on extremely broad questions dealing with
fraud, breach of warranty and strict liability, among others.  
The jury also said that the tobacco companies' conduct rose to
the level that would permit the potential award of punitive
damages.

On April 7, 2000, the jury determined that the companies bore
the majority of responsibility for the plaintiffs' injuries and
that compensatory damages should be awarded.

The trial then entered a punitive damages phase, and on July 14,
2000, the jury awarded plaintiffs $145 billion.  In November,
Judge Robert P. Kaye entered an order of final judgment in that
amount.

On May 21, 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal set
aside a Dade County Circuit Court jury's decision in the Engle
case and ordered the Engle class decertified against Philip
Morris USA and other cigarette makers, overturning the nearly
$145 billion punitive damages award

On September 22, 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal
rejected all petitions by the Engle class for reconsideration
and other relief.  Attorneys for the class have sought review of
the Third District decision by the Florida Supreme Court and the
parties are awaiting the court's decision.

On May 12, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to consider
the Engle plaintiffs appeal and directed all parties to brief
the issues involved.  All briefing has been completed, and oral
argument before the court occurred on November 3, 2004.

A copy of the Florida Supreme Court Engle opinion is available
free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d60.


UNITED STATES: Health & Human Services Dept. Amends Medicaid Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has now
exempted the elderly and the disabled from having to prove their
U.S. citizenship in order to qualify for Medicaid, according to
All Headline News.

A Medicaid law that went into effect on July 1 required Medicaid
beneficiaries and applicants to provide proof of citizenship to
receive benefits.   Specifically, it required people to supply
original documents like passports or birth certificates.  That
law sought to ensure that only citizens or qualified legal
immigrants gain access to Medicaid, the state-federal health
insurance program for the poor (Class Action Reporter, July 4,
2006)

The law met protests, including a class action.  The Shriver
Center on Poverty Law in Chicago filed a case on June 28, 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, arguing that the law would hurt the most vulnerable
people.

The suit was filed on behalf of nine plaintiffs who say they
cannot document their citizenship and might lose their Medicaid
benefits if the law is implemented (Class Action Reporter, July
4, 2006).  It sought to enjoin the Bush administration from
implementing the law, which allegedly violates the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding due process of law.
(Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006)

On Friday, John Bouman, an attorney for the Shriver Center, said
the law has now been amended to exempt the elderly and the
disabled.  However, the exemption wouldn't be applicable on
certain groups, including those on Medicare and those who get
certain Social Security benefits.

The suit named as plaintiffs:

      -- Ruby Bell,
      -- A.L.,
      -- Alocia Brown,
      -- Della Otis,
      -- George Crawford,
      -- Kevin Harris,
      -- Ruby Bell,
      -- Ruby Trammell, and
      -- Robert Patterson

According to Mr. Bouman, plaintiffs will be seeking to extend
the amendment to key groups like the homeless and victims of
natural disasters, who still face significant challenges to
comply with the law.

A brief hearing at the U.S. District Court in Chicago on the
plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order was held
July 7, 2006, but a new hearing was set for July 28 in light of
the new regulations.

The suit is "Bell et al. v. Leavitt, Case No. 1:06-cv-03520,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Anderson and David E. Morrison of Goldberg Kohn,
         55 East Monroe, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60603, US,
         Phone: (312) 201-4000, E-mail:
         mary.anderson@goldbergkohn.com and
         david.morrison@goldbergkohn.com.

     (2) John Mark Bouman of Poverty Law Project, 111 North
         Wabash, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 263-
         3830, E-mail: johnbouman@povertylaw.org; and

     (3) Thomas D. Yates of Health & Disability Advocates, 205
         West Monroe Street, 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606-5013,
         Phone: (312) 223-9600, E-mail: tyates@hdadvocates.org.

Representing the defendant is Jonathan C. Haile, U.S. Attorney's
Office, NDIL, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL
60604, Phone: (312) 353-5300, E-mail: jonathan.haile@usdoj.gov.


WORKHORSE CUSTOM: Recalls Motor Home with Defective GM Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse Custom Chassis, in cooperation with the National
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 17,033 units
of motor home and truck chassis.

The company said certain motor home and truck chassis equipped
with General Motors' 8.1L V8 engines, results to improper
hardening during the heat treatment process, which causes the
fuel rail pulse damper retainer clip to fracture.  This could
result to an inadequate retention of the damper.  If the damper
becomes loose, fuel could be dumped by the fuel pump into the
under hood area.  In the presence of an ignition source, a fire
could result.

The models affected by the recall include:

Make/Models:           Model/Build Years:      

WORKHORSE/P32                 2004

WORKHORSE/W20                 2004

WORKHORSE/W22                 2004

WORKHORSE/W24                 2004

WORKHORSE/W52                 2004

Owners are advised to contact Workhorse at 877-294-6773 for
replacement of the fuel rail pulse damper retainer clips on the
engines, free of charge.


WORLDCOM INC: Trustee Accepting Bids in Columbus Lumber Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Development Specialists, Inc., as Trustee, pursuant to a Trust
that was created under a settlement agreement In re: WorldCom,
Inc., Securities Litigation 02-Civ. 3288 (S.D.N.Y.), will accept
bids to purchase membership interests in Columbus Lumber, LLC,
on July 17, 2006, 2:00 p.m., at the offices of:

     Burr & Forman, LLP
     401 East Capitol Street, Suite 100
     Jackson, MS 39201

Columbus Lumber's primary business contains a southern yellow
pine sawmill operation including a log yard, wet yard, sawmill
equipment, planer mill, material handling equipment, kilns, a
wood treating facility, rolling rock, sheds and buildings all
situated on approx. 91 acres of property.

Assets also include inventory of timber tracts, logs, lumber and
accounts receivable.  The Trustee has received a qualified bid
of $17.7 million, less certain long-term debts of approximately
$3.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2005, for a net bid of $14.6
million.  Any competing bids must be at least $18.5 million,
less that debt, or net of $15.4 million, in cash, and include
terms that are equal to or better than the terms within the
initial bid.

Bidders must make an initial deposit of $1,543,000 to be
considered as a qualified bidder, and must post a cashier's
check or wire transfer with the Trustee five days prior to the
sale.  Parties interested in receiving a bid package, conducting
due diligence or viewing the property and submitting offer for
the property must contact the Trustee's counsel, Burr & Forman
LLP, and the Trustee's representatives:

     Development Specialists, Inc.
     Attn: Brian C. Weepie
     70 West Madison Street, Suite 2300
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 263-4141
     Fax: (312) 263-1180

         -- and --

     Development Specialists, Inc.
     Attn: Joseph J.Luzinski
     200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1818
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 374-2717
     Fax: (305) 374-2717

Also being sold is a property of former Worldcom chief executive
Bernie Ebbers in Lincoln County, Mississippi (Class Action
Reporter, June 28, 2006).

A suit filed against Mr. Ebbers by investors who lost money when
WorldCom collapsed in 2002, calls for him to pay $5 million up
front and to place the remainder of his assets in a trust that
is expected to be sold for an estimated $25 million to $40
million.  All monies from the sale of Mr. Ebber's property are
to be deposited in a fiduciary fund for disbursement to
plaintiffs in the class action.

Headquartered in Clinton, Mississippi, WorldCom, Inc., now known
as MCI -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- is a pre-eminent global  
communications provider, operating in more than 65 countries and
maintaining one of the most expansive IP networks in the world.
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532).  On March 31, 2002, the
Debtors listed $103,803,000,000 in assets and $45,897,000,000
indebts.  The Bankruptcy Court confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct.
31, 2003, and on Apr. 20, 2004, the company formally emerged
from U.S. Chapter 11 protection as MCI, Inc. (Troubled Company
Reporter Vol. 10, No. 160)


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application in Stock Suit Due Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, reminds interested parties may
move the court not later than July 10, 2006 for appointment as
lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit filed on behalf of all
persons and institutions, who purchased securities of Escala
Group, Inc. between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006, inclusive.

The company charges Escala and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Escala's business and financial
performance caused the company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Escala, formerly, Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., operates through
various subsidiaries as a global collectibles merchant and
auction house network specializing in auctions, merchant/dealer
operations and trading in various collectibles and precious
metals.

The company alleges that the company represented throughout the
class period that it was achieving record results --
particularly as a result of agreements entered into with its
majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. -- without
disclosing that these results were actually achieved from
questionable and potentially illegal activities.

Defendants also stated that they had complied with the reporting
requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and had
voluntarily complied with the reporting requirements of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The company alleges that representations Escala made about its
financial condition, business prospects, and operations were
false and misleading and the individuals in charge of managing
the company had a duty to disclose the company's true condition
to the investing public.

Throughout the Class Period, Escala suffered a range of problems
affecting its bottom line that remained undisclosed to
investors.  When investors finally learned that Escala's
majority shareholder, from whom Escala derived substantial
revenue, was engaged in a pyramid scheme, the market reacted
negatively. Shares of the company declined approximately 85% in
heavy trading volume in the days following the company's
disclosures.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888)
773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


ESCALA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application in Stock Suit Due Today
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until July
10, 2006 to seek appointment by the court as lead plaintiff in
the class action filed on behalf of purchasers of Escala Group,
Inc. stock during the period between Sept. 5, 2003 through May
8, 2006.

The complaint filed by the Rosen Law Firm specifically alleges
that the company misrepresented the true value of transactions
with its affiliate and controlling shareholder Afinsa Bienes
Tangibles, S.A. The company alleges that these transactions were
in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Afinsa in Spain
and constituted the primary source of the company's purported
operating profits.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: (212) 686-1060, (917) 797-
4425 and 1-866-767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com and pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


KINDER MORGAN: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of holders of common stock of Kinder
Morgan, Inc.

The complaint charges certain of the officers and directors of
Kinder Morgan with violations of applicable state law on behalf
of the company's shareholders. Specifically, the stockholder
class action is brought on behalf of the holders of Kinder
Morgan common stock against Kinder Morgan's senior officers and
directors arising out of their efforts to complete a management-
led buyout of Kinder Morgan via an unfair process at a grossly
inadequate and unfair price of $100 per share.

The complaint further alleges that, in pursuing the unlawful
plan to cash out Kinder Morgan's public stockholders for grossly
inadequate consideration and without full and fair disclosure of
all material information, each of the defendants violated
applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding other
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, candor, good faith and fair dealing.

Instead of attempting to obtain the highest price reasonably
available for the company's stockholders, the company alleges
defendants spent a substantial effort tailoring the structural
terms of the Acquisition to meet the specific needs of the
Management Buyout Group, which includes the company's top
officers and directors as well as a group of private equity
funds.

The company explains that because defendants dominate and
control the business and corporate affairs of Kinder Morgan, and
are in possession of private corporate information concerning
Kinder Morgan's assets, business and future prospects, there
exists an imbalance and disparity of knowledge and economic
power between them and the public shareholders of Kinder Morgan
which makes it inherently unfair for them to pursue any proposed
transaction wherein they will reap disproportionate benefits to
the exclusion of maximizing stockholder value.

The company provides examples of such disparities. For example,
the company describes how Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
(KMP) and its partner Sempra Energy are moving forward on the
$4.4 billion Rockies Express Pipeline project after obtaining
binding commitments from creditworthy shippers for all 1.8
billion cubic feet (Bcf) of transportation capacity on the
1,323-mile pipeline that will move natural gas from the Rocky
Mountain region to the eastern U.S.

KMP also has binding commitments with major oil companies to
support the $500 million Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline
project, which will transport regasified liquefied natural gas
from the Gulf Coast into the country's pipeline network.

Combined, these two projects alone are expected to result in an
increase of $0.50 to $0.60 in earnings per share at Kinder
Morgan once they are fully completed in 2009, and will be
substantially accretive prior to that as certain segments of
each project come online.

The company further alleges in detail how these investments were
made on the backs of the company's public shareholders.

Defendants now wish to squeeze the company's public shareholders
out of their shares in the company so that they, and they alone,
can enjoy the fruits of these strategic investments. In
addition, once the Acquisition is completed, the defendants will
also have the opportunity to acquire the Trans Mountain Pipeline
system in British Columbia from the company on terms which they,
and they alone, can and will dictate.

Thus, the company claims that not only will defendants' personal
profits generated from the Acquisition be affected by their
paying the lowest price to shareholders in connection therewith,
but also, defendants will profit from these piecemeal projects
by selling various parts of the company to themselves.

Thus, collectively, as alleged in the company, it is in
defendants' interests to conceal the true value of the company,
including various methods of extracting further profits from
these future "side deals," which defendants are already
negotiating for themselves.

In short, the company alleges that the Acquisition is designed
to unlawfully divest Kinder Morgan's public stockholders of a
large portion of the valuable assets of the company -- assets
defendants know will continue to produce substantial revenue and
earnings -- for grossly inadequate consideration.

Although the company has formed a so-called "Special Committee"
to evaluate the Acquisition, the decision is essentially a fait
accompli, as the Special Committee is dominated and controlled
by various members of the Management Buyout Group, many of whom
are the company's top executives and private equity firms, and
all of whom have structured the Acquisition to share in the
company's spoils to the exclusion of the minority shareholders,
who for years have shouldered these very investments/benefits
which they are being squeezed out of benefiting from.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Acquisition of Kinder Morgan on
behalf of the company's minority shareholders. The plaintiff is
represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving mergers and acquisitions on terms detrimental
to the interests of minority shareholders.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone:
(800) 449-4900 or (619) 231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *