CAR_Public/060712.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 137

                            Headlines

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Ex-CEO Files Defense in Investors Suit
AWB LTD: Farmers File $1B Suit in Wash Over RICO Act Violations
BEAR STEARNS: Reaches Settlement in Sterling Foster Litigation
BEAR STEARNS: IPO Antitrust Suit Certification Motions Pending
CALIFORNIA: Baseball Team Wants Suit Over Promo Giveaway Junked

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: July 12 Hearing Set for "Dancer" Settlement
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Refutes Suit Over AT&T Cell Phone System Deal
EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Faces Shareholder Group Suit in Netherlands
EXXONMOBIL CORP: Firms Get $303M From Fla. Petrol Stations' Suit
FORD MOTOR: Lakin Employee Withdraws as Plaintiff in Paint Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss PCB Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Vehicles Unable to Meet Safety Standards
GOOGLE INC: Security Expert Opposes Ark. Click Fraud Settlement
ILLINOIS: Judge Continues Ban on Special-Purpose Funds' Transfer
INSURANCE COMPANIES: Miss. Katrina Suit Remanded to County Court

KUMHO TIRE: Recalls Light Truck Tires for Possible Crash Hazards
MERCK & CO: Deluge of Osteoporosis Drug Suits In the Works
MICROSOFT CORP: Vermont Schools to Receive $4.7M in Settlement
MURPHY OIL: Suit Over La. Oil Contamination on "Fast Track"
NEW JERSEY: Camden Pays $50T to Law Firm in Water Supply Suit

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Fraud Complaints
THUMANN'S INC: Recalls Proscuitto Ham for Possible Contamination
VIRGIN ISLANDS: Faces Motion for Contempt Over Jail Improvement
WILD SIDE: Recalls Beef Stick Products with Incomplete Label


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROOKS AUTOMATION: Charles H. Johnson Files Stock Suit in Mass.
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in Penn.
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Ex-CEO Files Defense in Investors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The former chief executive of insurer American International
Group filed a response on June 30 to a shareholder suit filed
against him.  Maurice Greenberg told a federal court in New York
that the cutting of the company's profits by $3.9 billion in
2005 was unnecessary and designed to force him to retire.  A
second restatement later changed the amount to $3.4 billion.

Last month, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine denied Mr.
Greenberg's and his co-defendants' motion to dismiss complaints
saying he diverted millions from the company through payments to
C.V. Starr & Co., an insurance agency he controlled.

The case will decide whether C.V. Starr & Co. and Starr
International Co., two companies with which Mr. Greenberg is
involved, were legitimate firms, according to Reuters.  Mr.
Greenberg was ousted in March 2005 amid accounting probes by New
York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and U.S. regulators.

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, both of whose combined
losses exceeded $150 million are lead plaintiffs in the
shareholder suit in New York, according to Louis Gottlieb, one
of the plaintiff lawyers (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2005).  

The suit is "In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.

Plaintiffs include:

     -- ll Ohio Public Employees Retirement System,
     -- San Francisco Employees' Retirement System,
     -- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi,
     -- Ohio State Funds,
     -- Robert D. Jaffee IRA Rollover,
     -- Robet D. & Phyllis A. Jaffee Family Foundation

Defendants include:

     -- Starr International Company, Inc.,
     -- Maurice R. Hank Greenberg,
     -- Union Excess Reinsurance Co., Inc.,
     -- Richmond Insurance Co., Ltd.,
     -- PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP,
     -- C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.,    
     -- American International Group, Inc.,
     -- General Reinsurance Corp.,  
     -- Wachovia Securities, Inc.,

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) George M. Garvey of Munges, Tolles & Olsen, 355 South
         Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: (213) 683-
         9100;

     (2) Lewis E. Farberman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
         Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10019 Phone: (212)-373-3577, Fax: (212)-492-0577, E-
         mail: lfarberman@paulweiss.com; and

     (3) Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr. of Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
         570 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)
         446-2300, Fax: (212) 446-2350, E-mail:
         ngravante@bsfllp.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th
         Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0700, Fax:
         212-818-0477, E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com;

     (2) Louis Gottlieb of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 907-0872, Fax: (212) 883-7072, E-mail:
         lgottlieb@labaton.com; and

     (3) Jason Samuel Cowart of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman
         & Gross LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: (212)-661-1100, Fax: (212)-661-8665, E-
         mail: jscowart@pomlaw.com.


AWB LTD: Farmers File $1B Suit in Wash Over RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
AWB Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, AWB (USA) Ltd., were named as
defendants in a purported class action filed by North American
farmers, accusing the Australian wheat exporter of engaging in a
worldwide campaign of racketeering, money laundering, fraud and
bribery to corner grain markets.

The suit, filed in a Washington, D.C. court, is claiming $1
billion in damages from defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' actions in Iraq and several other countries breached
U.S. laws and hurt thousands of American and Canadian farmers.

Farmers, including lead plaintiff Veryl Switzer, are basing
their claims on the U.S. Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organizations Act, which was designed to target the mafia and
other criminal groups.  They are also basing their claims on
alleged breaches by defendants of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.

Currently, the class action only names six farmers, however it
does allow more than 20,000 to join in later.  Reports indicate
that American lobby group, U.S. Wheat Associates, would consider
joining the action if it was approached.  The Canadian Wheat
Farmers Association is reportedly considering joining the class
action as well.

Last year, a U.N. investigative committee found that AWB paid
$290 million in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime to secure
wheat contracts in Iraq.

The Cole Inquiry in Sydney uncovered evidence about AWB's
corruption of the U.N. oil-for-food program between 1999 and
2003, as well as subsequent cover-up attempts.

The Cole Inquiry was an inquiry set up by Australia officials
under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 in November 2005 to
investigate the role of certain Australian companies in the
systematic corruption of the Oil for Food program by Saddam
Hussein.  It was limited to investigating the role of three
Australian companies in paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein,
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_inquiry.

Its Royal Commissioner was the Honorable Terence Cole Q.C., a
former Judge of Appeal of the New South Wales Supreme Court.  
John Agius S.C., Counsel Assisting, and three other barristers,
Gregory Nell, Michael Wigney and Miles Condon, supported Mr.
Terence in the inquiry.

However, AWB's "fraudulent abuse" of the U.N. food program and
"bribery" of Iraqi officials form only part of the "allegations
of fact" in the class action.  In the complaint, obtained by
Australian news agency, The Age, AWB is also being accused of:

      -- bribing Yemeni Government officials to secure a wheat
         contract in 1999;

      -- bribing Pakistani officials for a contract to export
         wheat to Pakistan in 2000;

      -- sabotaging the Indonesian wheat market in 2002 to shut
         out U.S. rivals by fraudulently manipulating the U.S.
         Agriculture Department export-credit program; and

      -- committing perjury and obstructing justice in an effort      
         to cover up the wheat board's corrupt Iraqi dealings.

The complaint also states, "Certain AWB officials .
intentionally and knowingly conspired to utilize illegal tactics
such as wire fraud, bank fraud, bribery, money laundering and
tortious interference with business opportunity in order to gain
an unfair competitive advantage in certain wheat markets
including, but not limited to, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and
Indonesia."

The complaint further claims, "AWB unfair advantage conspirators
formed an ongoing criminal enterprise designed to implement
tactics known to violate international laws and U.S. domestic
laws to effect an unfair competitive advantage for AWB in
specific international wheat markets."

Attorneys are demanding a jury trial, tens of millions of
dollars in compensation, the application of racketeering law
provisions, which would allow the tripling of any damages and
appropriate "additional or alternative relief."

Several U.S. lawyers, including Washington attorney L. Palmer
Foret and Atlanta-based lawyer Roderick E. Edmond, who
specialises in medical negligence cases, are handling the
lawsuit.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Roderick E. Edmond of Edmond & Jones, LLP, Candler
         Building, 127 Peachtree Street NE, Suite #410, Atlanta,
         GA 30303, Phone: (404) 525-1080, Fax: (404) 525-1073,
         E-mail: http://www.edmondfirm.com/index.html;and  

     (2) L. Palmer Foret, The Law Firm of Palmer Foret, PC, Two
         Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 660, Chevy Chase, MD 20815,
         Phone: (301) 656-1888, E-mail: lpforet@aol.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Reaches Settlement in Sterling Foster Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. and Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.
reached settlements in two purported class actions arising out
of Bear Stearns' role as clearing broker for Sterling Foster &
Co., Inc.

A former officer of BSSC is also a defendant in one of the
actions.  Bear Stearns, BSSC, and the former officer of BSSC
have entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and
certain other defendants that would resolve all claims against
them as defendants in both class actions, according to the
company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 10.

This settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, which has scheduled
a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement's terms.

                       Levitt et al. Suit

Bear Stearns was named defendant in a class action, "Levitt, et
al. v. Bear Stearns, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 16, 1999 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2005).  

The purported class action was filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased ML Direct, Inc. common stock or warrants through
Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. between Sept. 4, 1996 and Dec. 31,
1996.  The suit also named as defendant BSSC.

The complaint alleges, among others, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and committed common law fraud in
connection with providing clearing services to Sterling Foster
with respect to certain transactions by customers of Sterling
Foster in ML Direct common stock and warrants.  Compensatory
damages of $50 million and punitive damages of approximately
$100 million were sought Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2005).  

On April 6, 1999, this action was transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On June 27, 2002,
the court granted defendants' motion and dismissed this action
in its entirety.

On July 25, 2002, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
district court order dismissing the complaint in this action.   
On Aug. 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the district court order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded the action to the
district court.

                         Rogers Lawsuit

Bear Stearns and BSSC and a former BSSC officer were named
defendants in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York as "Rogers v. Sterling
Foster & Co., Inc." (Class Action Reporter, Feb 18, 2005)  

The action was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired certain
securities that were underwritten by Sterling Foster.  Named as
defendants, in addition to the Bear Stearns defendants are:

     -- Sterling Foster;

     -- seven individuals alleged to have had an employment
        relationship with, or exercised control over, Sterling
        Foster;

     -- six companies that issued securities underwritten by
        Sterling Foster;

     -- seven individuals who were directors, officers and/or
        employees of these issuers;

     -- one individual who controlled a corporate investor in
        and selling shareholder in the issuers's IPOs; and

     -- Bernstein & Wasserman LLP and two of its partners.

The second amended complaint alleged, among others, that the
Bear Stearns defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
349 of the New York General Business Law and committed common
law fraud in connection with providing clearing services to
Sterling Foster.  Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount
were sought.

On June 27, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the claims against Bear Stearns, BSSC, and
the former officer of BSSC in their entirety.  On Sept. 29,
2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to vacate the June
27, 2002 dismissal and granted plaintiffs' request to amend
their complaint against Bear Stearns and BSSC with respect to
two securities underwritten by Sterling Foster.

The suit is "Rogers, et al. v. Sterling Foster & CO, et al.,
Case No. 0:97-cv-00189-ADS-MLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Arthur D.
Spatt with referral to Judge Michael L. Orenstein.

Representing the defendants are E. Kenly Ames and John R.
Baraniak, Jr. of Choate, Hall & Stewart, Exchange Place, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109-2891, Phone: (617) 248-5000.

Representing the plaintiffs are Peter Steven Linden and Lewis S
Sandler of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600.


BEAR STEARNS: IPO Antitrust Suit Certification Motions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
separately denied and postponed motions in two class actions
filed against Bear Stearns Cos. Inc.

The court denied a motion by plaintiffs in an issuer action for
class certification and postponed a ruling on the class
certification motion in a purchaser action.

Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., along with numerous other financial
services firms, is a defendant in several consolidated
antitrust-related class actions currently pending in the
district court.  

The first consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of stock in initial public
offerings.  The second consolidated action purports to be
brought on behalf of a putative class of issuers of stock in
initial public offerings.  

Each suit alleges that Bear Stearns violated federal antitrust
laws by fixing underwriting fees at 7% for initial public
offerings with an aggregate issuance value of $20-$80 million
for the time period 1994 to the present.  The purchaser action
currently involves only claims for declaratory relief, while the
issuer action asserts claims for treble damages.

On Sept. 16, 2005, plaintiffs in the purchaser action and the
issuer action moved for class certification.  By a Court Order
dated April 18, 2006, the district court denied the issuer
action plaintiffs' motion for class certification and postponed
a ruling on the class certification motion in the purchaser
action pending resolution of whether, in light of the court's
ruling in the issuer action, the purchaser action plaintiffs
nonetheless want to proceed with their action.


CALIFORNIA: Baseball Team Wants Suit Over Promo Giveaway Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim filed a response on July 7 to
a suit filed by a baseball fan who was denied a tote bag
giveaway during a Mother's Day 2005 promotion.

The baseball team asked the court to throw out the case,
according to Justene Adamec of http://blogcritics.org/. It  
accuses the plaintiff's attorney of conducting a "widely known
and ongoing scheme to extort money from California businesses
who dare to give a gift to individuals."  The lawyer has filed
40 similar lawsuits, the blog entry states.

Michael Cohn, a Los Angeles psychologist, is suing the Angels
for alleged sex and age discrimination after being denied the
tote bag (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006).

Mr. Cohn filed the suit on May 4 in Orange County Superior
Court, the Los Angeles Times reported.  It alleged that
thousands of males and fans under age 18 were treated unequally
with women at a "Family Sunday" promotion.  It is seeking $4,000
in damages for each person whose civil rights were allegedly
violated by being denied the giveaway granted to women more than
18 years of age.

The suit names as plaintiff the team and the Corinthian
Colleges.  Corinthian oversees Bryman College, which has an
Anaheim campus and sponsored the event.

Mr. Cohn's is represented by San Diego-based lawyer Alfred Rava.


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: July 12 Hearing Set for "Dancer" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare
West," which is pending in San Francisco Superior Court, reached
a settlement in a suit over pricing and collection practices for
uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare affiliate hospitals,
according to NewsRx.com.

The settlement is to be considered for preliminary approval
before Judge Richard A. Kramer on July 12, 2006.  It will
resolve claims against Catholic Healthcare and its affiliated
hospitals.

Under the settlement, class members will be entitled to make a
claim for refunds or deductions from their prior hospital bills
pursuant to discounted pricing and collections policies
benefiting uninsured patients during the class period.  In
addition, Catholic Healthcare agreed to maintain its uninsured
pricing and collections policies going forward for at least four
years.

Adrienne Dancer and Amber T. Howell filed the suit on behalf of
themselves and hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients at
Catholic Healthcare hospitals in California, Nevada and Arizona.  

Plaintiffs allege that the defendant charged uninsured patients
excessive and unfair prices for medical treatment and services
given at Catholic Healthcare-affiliated hospitals.  They claim
that the hospital also engaged in aggressive and unfair
collections practices.

The proposed class includes all persons who:

      -- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare
         West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of
         preliminary settlement approval;

      -- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and

      -- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household
         income in the calendar year in which they received
         hospital services.

Commenting on the deal, plaintiffs' attorney Kelly M. Dermody of
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, said that it implements
the goals of the lawsuit: a fair system of pricing for Catholic
Healthcare's uninsured patients during the class period, along
with the careful maintenance of policies and practices designed
to help ensure that this vulnerable population is treated fairly
going forward.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street, Suite
         3000, San Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Phone: (415) 956-
         1000, Fax: (415) 956-1008, E-Mail: kdermody@lchb.com,
         Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm;

     (2) Sidney Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., Phone:
         (662) 281-1212;

     (3) Dave Mohel, of the Consejo de Latinos Unidos, Phone:
         +1-703-548-1160.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Refutes Suit Over AT&T Cell Phone System Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cingular Wireless Corp. has denied claims in a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, in relation to its $41 billion acquisition of AT&T
Corp.'s cell phone system in October, 2004.  

A general counsel for Cingular has said that the claims are
without merit and that the wireless carrier is considering
counter suing.

AT&T Wireless Services Customers commenced a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
against Cingular Wireless.  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.

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

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.


EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Faces Shareholder Group Suit in Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederik-Karel Canoy, a lawyer and head of the Association of
Active Shareholders, confirmed the filing of a class suit in a
Haarlem, Netherlands court against European Aeronautic Defence
and Space Co., over the recent drop in the company's share
price, UPI Business News reports.

The shareholders allege that due to the company's announcement
earlier this month of new delays to the Airbus A380 superjumbo
aircraf, together with a profits warning, its market value was
down more than a quarter.  The delays plunged EADS' shares 26%.
It is expected that production hitches would erase US$2.5
billion of its profits over four years (Class Action Reporter,
June 28, 2006).

The suit further alleges "disastrous financial consequences" for
shareholders and follows the decision by the French financial
regulator, AMF, to investigate dealings in EADS shares made just
before the A380 announcement.


EXXONMOBIL CORP: Firms Get $303M From Fla. Petrol Stations' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff &
Sitterson and Pertnoy Solowsky and Allen were awarded a combined
$303 million in attorneys' fees in the settlement of a class
action against ExxonMobil Corp., TheLawyer.com reports.

The firms represented about 11,000 petrol stations in a federal
class action against the company, which claims that it failed to
pay discounts on petrol to offset increased credit card costs.  
The suit was settled for $1.08 billion after 15 years of
litigation.  In April, Judge Alan Gold of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final
approval to the settlement.

Of the $303 million, Stearns Weaver will get $250 million while
Pertnoy Solowsky will get the remaining $53 million.  The award
to Stearns Weaver represents about 75% of an overall fee award
of $325 million that the court approved on behalf of five law
firms.   

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 (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2006).

For more details, contact:

     (1) Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson,
         P.A., Museum Tower, 150 West Flagler Street, Suite
         2200, Miami, FL 33130, Phone: (305) 789-3200 and (954)
         463-5440 Fax: (305) 789-3395; and

     (2) Pertnoy, Solowsky & Allen, PA, Museum Tower, Suite
         2000, 150 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130, Phone:
         (305) 371-2223, Fax: (305) 373-2073.


FORD MOTOR: Lakin Employee Withdraws as Plaintiff in Paint Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Phillips, a former Lakin Law Firm employee, who filed a
class action against Ford Motor Co. through her employer, asked
to be excused from the case, according to The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

On June 23, Lakin attorney Robert Schmieder, asked Madison
County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian for leave to amend the
complaint.  That motion forestalled a June 28 hearing on a
company motion to dismiss.

In seeking an amendment, Mr. Schmieder wrote that the new
complaint would excuse Ms. Phillips and Joseph Gulash, another
plaintiff.  Norma Maag and Peter Yaciuk will replace both
individuals.  Current plaintiffs Daniel Schopp and Beverly
Brede, though, would remain in the suit.

The suit, which claims that the company failed to tell buyers
that paint would "delaminate" and flake off cars, was already
amended twice.

The company plans to resist further amendment.  In a June 29
letter to the court, attorney Joseph Whyte wrote that the
company intended to oppose the motion.

Ms. Phillips was working under an assignment from a temporary
employment agency in the Lakin firm in 1999 when she heard about
the possible suit over paint problems, according to her
deposition in 2002.

Brad Lakin filed Ms. Phillips' suit.  Three months later the
firm hired her as a legal assistant.  In the 2002 deposition it
was revealed that she had no training for the position.

Company attorney Robert Shultz argued that Ms. Phillips was too
closely connected to the firm to represent a class.  He also
pointed out that a class member could wonder where her loyalties
lay.

However, in 2003, Judge Philip Kardis certified Ms. Phillips as
class representative.  He found no conflict of interest between
Ms. Phillips and the plaintiff class.  The judge set trial for
2006, but he retired in 2005.

For more details, contact Robert W. Schmieder, II, Lakin Law
Firm PC, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, IL 62095-
0229, Phone: (618) 254-1127, Fax: (618) 254-0193, Web site:
http://www.lakinlaw.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss PCB Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
refused to dismiss a class action brought by 40 Mohawks against
General Motors Corp. and Alcoa, Inc., who claims that their
health was affected by pollutants from the firms' plants, The
Watertown Daily Times reports.

Filed on Nov. 29, 2005, the suit alleges the companies' Massena
plants negligently dumped polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs,
into the Raquette and St. Lawrence rivers and put PCB-laden
materials into landfills for decades.

PCBs, a known carcinogen, were commonly used as industrial
coolants and insulators before their use was banned by the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1979.

Plaintiffs claim that PCBs dumped from the General Motors and
Alcoa plants made their way into the waterways, groundwater and
soil on the Akwesasne reservation.

They allege that that the contamination caused widespread health
problems on the reservation, including thyroid problems,
learning disabilities, reproductive abnormalities and liver
cancer.

Aside form denying the dismissal motion, Judge Hurd also ordered
plaintiffs' attorneys to provide information about each person
who will be part of the class action.  The judge stipulated that
the information would include when they were first exposed to
PCBs, when they first had symptoms of an illness and when they
first sought treatment.

The suit is "George et al v. General Motors Corporation et al.,
Case No. 7:05-cv-01482-DNH-GHL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge David N.
Hurd with referral to Judge George H. Lowe.

Representing the plaintiffs are Christopher A. Amato, Donald W.
Boyajian and William J. Dreyer of Dreyer, Boyajian Law Firm, 75
Columbia Street, Albany, NY 12210, Phone: 518-463-7784, Fax:
518-463-4039, E-mail: camato@dreyerboyajian.com,
dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com and wdreyer@dreyerboyajian.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael A. Duffy, Richard C. Godfrey, John F. Hagan,
         Mark S. Lillie and James T. McLaughlin, Jr. of
         Kirkland, Ellis Law Firm, 200 East Randolph Drive,
         Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-
         2200 and 312-660-0452, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com,
         rgodfrey@kirkland.com, jhagan@kirkland.com,
         mlillie@kirkland.com and jmclaughlin@kirkland.com; and

     (2) David R. Greene, Ronald W. Zdrojeski and David G.
         Hetzel of LeBoeuf, Lamb Law Firm, Phone: 860-293-3500
         and 212-424-8000, Fax: 860-293-3555 and 212-424-8500,
         E-mail: dxgreene@llgm.com, david.hetzel@llgm.com and
         rzdrojes@llgm.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Vehicles Unable to Meet Safety Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp., in cooperation with the National Traffic
Safety Administration, is recalling about 2,023 units of
Chevrolet/Impala GMX 211 vehicles built in 2006.

The company said certain vehicles are equipped with a manual
passenger seat adjuster that failed to comply with the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210,
"Seatbelt Assembly Anchorages".  The left floor mounting bracket
may be mislocated.  In a severe car crash, the seat adjuster may
separate from the mounting bracket, increasing the risk of
occupant injury.

Consumers are advised to call Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 for
inspection and, if necessary, replacement of the seat adjuster.


GOOGLE INC: Security Expert Opposes Ark. Click Fraud Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc.'s $90 million settlement in a "click fraud" class
action filed in Arkansas' Miller County Circuit Court by
advertisers is being challenged, according to The Texarkana
Gazette.

Under the settlement, eligible advertisers in Google's network
during the past four years will be granted an account credit
that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google.  In
addition, it will extinguish any claims for overcharges that all
U.S. Google advertisers might have.

Google is the only company to agree to put an end to the
lawsuit, which also named other Internet search sites.  The
settlement was reached earlier this year between Google and
Lane's on behalf of Google's advertising clients.

David Carter of Texarkana, an attorney for Joseph A. Kinney, a
North Carolina security expert who operates the Web site
SafeSpaces.com, whose company had ads on Google, argues that the
settlement is unfair.  Mr. Kinney ended his company's
association with Google's advertising division in September
2005.

Mr. Carter pointed out to Circuit Judge Joe Griffin, who is
presiding over the case that plaintiffs attorneys have only
obtained a negligible benefit for the class, which he said
amounts only to "advertising credits with a value of less than a
penny per dollar of injury suffered."  Whereas, he said,
attorneys are at the same time negotiating an enormous windfall
for themselves: "an attorneys' fee of up to $30 million."

Google says Mr. Kinney's motion is an attempt to derail the
fairness hearing the court scheduled for July 24-25.  It is
expected to be the final hearing on Google's part of the case.

According to the motion filed in court, Mr. Kinney didn't state
a claim in his lawsuit on which he could seek relief.  Google
argues that Mr. Kinney's lawsuit did not make sense, since Judge
Griffin does not have the power to reconsider his own ruling
because no ruling exists.  

Mr. Carter further contends that Google elected to negotiate
with plaintiffs in Arkansas who were facing an inevitable
dismissal based upon lack of jurisdiction.  The Google contracts
provided for California as the mandated venue for claims for
Google advertisers, he said.  

Mr. Kinney also argues that these four other actions in the
settlement procedure are unfair in that:

      -- e-mail notice to inform potential claimants is
         inadequate because of spam filters and there is no
         means of officially notifying the class;

      -- Google's release includes claims for which no notice
         has been provided;

      -- the notice makes no mention of the class's waiver to
         their contractual rights to have the matter heard in
         California, the forum provided for in the Google
         Contracts; and

      -- notice deceptively advises the class that the court has
         "certified the class."

                        Case Background

Initially, the case was filed by Texarkana gift shop Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles.  Subsequently, in a suit filed on Feb.
4, 2005 by John C. Goodson and Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg,
other defendants were named, including:

     -- Yahoo! Inc.,
     -- Overture Services Inc.,
     -- America Online Inc.,
     -- Ask Jeeves Inc.,
     -- Looksmart Ltd.,
     -- Lycos Inc.,
     -- Netscape Communication Corp.,
     -- Buena Vista Internet Group,
     -- Findwhat.Com Inc., and
     -- Time Warner Inc., (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).

The suit specifically alleged that defendants overcharged
thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the
"click fraud" strategy.  The scheme involves sending fraudulent
clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts
(Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

According to the suit, defendants worked with one another in a
conspiracy to create an online environment that harms
advertisers.  The search engine companies are being blamed for
growing Internet pay-per-click advertising market, while failing
to disclose they had routinely and systematically overcharged
for PPC advertising revenue from their customers (Class Action
Reporter, April 25, 2006).

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Settlement Facilitator] George L. McWilliams of
         Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, 2900 St.,
         Michael Drive, Fourth Floor Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone:
         903-334-7000, Fax: 903-334-7007, E-mail:
         gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com;

     (2) [Settlement Facilitator] Daralyn J. Durie of Keker &
         Van Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-391-5400; and

     (3) [Settlement Objector] W. David Carter of Mercy, Carter,
         Tidwell, 1724 Galleria Oaks, Texarkana, TX 75503,
         Phone: (903) 794-9419, Fax: (903) 794-1268, Web site:
         http://www.mercylawfirm.com.


ILLINOIS: Judge Continues Ban on Special-Purpose Funds' Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo Zappa of the Sangamon County Circuit Court has
indefinitely extended a court order that blocks the state of
Illinois from transferring about $344,000 out of two special-
purpose funds and into the state's checkbook account, The Copley
News Service reports

The judge's decision was the latest development in a suit filed
by A Brotherhood Aimed Towards Education (ABATE), an
organization representing motorcycle enthusiasts, against Gov.
Rod Blagojevich, Comptroller Dan Hynes and Treasurer Judy Baar
Topinka.

The ABATE suit, filed in June, contends that it is
unconstitutional for the state to divert money from funds that
are supposed to support motorcycle safety and off-road trail
programs.

State government has been using such "sweeps" of special-purpose
funds to put more money in the general revenue fund and help pay
for other expenses, according to the suit.

ABATE is seeking a preliminary injunction to block the fund
transfers and a trial to resolve whether the transfers are
constitutional.

Previously, ABATE attorneys sought to have the lawsuit declared
a class action, which would delay or prevent the transfer of
more than $34 million from dozens of other special-purpose
funds.

However, Judge Zappa only barred the state from transferring
about $344,000 from two funds used to support motorcycle safety
and off-road trail programs, while the more than $34 million
from dozens of other special-purpose state funds were not
blocked (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006).

The two fundS that the judge's barred were the Cycle Riders
Safety Training Fund and the Recreational Trails of Illinois
Fund, which get money from fees that motorcyclists pay for
licenses and vehicle titles.

Judge Zappa pointed out that ABATE has no legal standing to get
involved with special-purpose state funds that do not affect
motorcyclists.  His order lasts until July 10.  ABATE attorneys
plan to pursue efforts to make the order permanent after the
temporary restraining order expires (Class Action Reporter, June
9, 2006).

In the recent court hearing, ABATE attorney George Tinkham
argued that transferring money from the two funds would cause
"irreparable harm."  He pointed out that the safety fund
educates motorcyclists and results in fewer lost lives and less
property damage.

At that point, Judge Zappa told Mr. Tinkham that in his
understanding the state government diverts money only from
excess funds.  However, Mr. Tinkham pointed out that Gov.
Blagojevich's administration deliberately avoids spending money
in the special-purpose funds, which creates "artificial
surpluses."

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Klein, who was in court
representing the state, told Judge Zappa that the General
Assembly, and not the governor, authorized the fund transfers.

Mr. Zappa said his temporary restraining order from mid-June
would remain in effect until he makes a ruling on ABATE's motion
for a preliminary injunction.  He did not set a date for the
ruling though.

Although the recent hearing focused on the two funds affecting
motorcyclists, Mr. Tinkham told The Copley News Service
afterward that he still hopes the judge will grant a preliminary
injunction applying to other special-purpose funds as well.

For more details, contact ABATE attorney George W. Tinkham, 423
W. Vine, Springfield, IL 62704-2932, Phone: (217) 753-2737 and
(217) 789-1192, Fax: (217) 525-0823.


INSURANCE COMPANIES: Miss. Katrina Suit Remanded to County Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit by the state of Mississippi, which urges insurance
companies to honor their policies and pay for damage caused by
storm surge to policyholders, has been remanded back to the
Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi.  Since the state is
seeking injunction, the case will now be expedited, a March
statement from Attorney General Jim Hood stated.

The attorney general filed a civil action in the Chancery Court
of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial District on Sept.
15 against the insurance industry to protect Mississippi's
property owners who incurred damage from Hurricane Katrina.

The lawsuit seeks to make the insurance industry honor their
contracts to pay for losses caused by Katrina, particularly
their attempt to exclude damage caused directly or indirectly by
water, whether or not driven by wind.

The complaint asks the court to declare that certain insurance
contract provisions are void and unenforceable as the same are
contrary to public policy, are unconscionable, and are ambiguous
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2005).  

The provisions at issue attempt to exclude from coverage loss or
damage caused directly or indirectly by water, whether or not
driven by wind.  The complaint states that these provisions
should be strictly construed against the insurance companies who
drafted the insurance policies and their exclusions.  The
complaint also states that the issuance of such insurance
policies violates the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint also asks the court, among other things, to enter
a Temporary Restraining Order to immediately stop insurance
companies from asking property owners to sign documents stating
that their loss was caused by flood or water as opposed to wind,
and to stop using water exclusions to deny or reduce coverage
for hurricane damage or loss.  The court is also being asked to
enter a preliminary and permanent injunction with regard to
these same matters.  

The suit is Civil Action No. G2005-1642 R1.  Defendants are:

     -- Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance,
     -- State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
     -- Allstate Property and Casualty,
     -- Insurance Company, United Services,
     -- Automobile Association, Nationwide Mutual,
     -- Insurance Company, and "A" through "Z" Entities

A copy of the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order is at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d87

For more details, contact Jacob Ray of The Office of the  
Attorney General, P.O. Box 220, Jackson, MS 39205-0220, Phone:  
601-359-3680, Telefax: (601) 359-2009.


KUMHO TIRE: Recalls Light Truck Tires for Possible Crash Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kumho Tire, U.S.A., Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. National
Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 78,321 units
of Nanjing Kumho Road Venture.

The recalls concern Nanjing Kumho Road Venture HT -- 824 and
Road Venture -- KL78 light truck tires manufactured between Jan.
15 and Dec. 24, 2005.  The company said these tires may develop
a noticeable blister on the sidewall, which may eventually
result in tire air pressure loss.  Driving on an under-inflated
tire could result in a vehicle crash.

For more information on the recall, owners are advised to
contact Kumho Tire at 909-428-3341.


MERCK & CO: Deluge of Osteoporosis Drug Suits In the Works
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial lawyers are preparing to file additional cases against
Merck & Co. over its second best-selling drug Fosamax, the Los
Angeles Times, reports.

According to Gary Wilson, a lawyer in the Minneapolis office of
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, his firm is preparing to file
about 20 cases against the pharmaceutical on behalf of potential
plaintiffs who have taken the osteoporosis drug.

Medical reports emerged linking long-term use of the Fosamax and
similar drugs, known as bisphosphonates, to a condition, which
causes patients' jawbones to rot and die.  That disease is known
as osteonecrosis.

According to research, the incidence of osteonecrosis is
relatively rare, but trial lawyers are organizing themselves and
are getting in touch with patients who have taken Fosamax or the
other drugs, for potential clients.

Florida attorney, Timothy O'Brien, initiated a class action
involving Fosamax in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of Boynton Beach resident
Rochelle Kenig.  He expects to file at least 300 more over the
next few months.

For more information on the emerging Fosamax litigation, contact
Gary L. Wilson of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., 2800
LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
612.349.8500, Toll Free: 1.800.553.9910, Fax: 612.339.4181, E-
mail: glwilson@rkmc.com.

The Florida suit is "Secrest et al.v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case
No.2:06-cv-00191-VMC-DNF", filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Virginia M.
Hernandez Covington, with referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

The defendant represented by Michael Joseph Corso of Henderson,
Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, FL
33902-0280, Phone: 239/344-1170, Fax: 239/344-1200, E-mail:
michael.corso@henlaw.com.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) David F. Ennis of Ennis & Ennis, PA, 110 E Broward
         Blvd, Ste 1700, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone:
         954/315-3934, Fax: 954/315-3914, E-mail:
         david@ennislaw.com;

     (2) Timothy M. O'Brien of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas,
         Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor, P.A., 316 S. Baylen, Suite
         600, P.O. Box 12308, Pensacola, FL 32502, Phone:
         850/435-7084, Fax: 850-435-7019, E-mail:
         tobrien@levinlaw.com; and

     (3) Michael J. Ryan of Krupnick, Campbell, Malone, et al.,
         700 S.E. 3 Avenue, Courthouse Law Plaza, Suite 100, Ft.
         Lauderdale, FL 33316, Phone: 954/763-8181, Fax:
         954/763-8292, E-mail: mryan@krupnicklaw.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Vermont Schools to Receive $4.7M in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 135 schools will share $4.7 million worth of
computers and equipment in the settlement of a class action by
Vermont consumers against Microsoft Corp., The Associated Press
reports.

The state is expected to start distributing vouchers to the
eligible public schools this week.  The vouchers will be used to
buy the equipment in lieu of cash.

A copy of the Notice of Settlement is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d97

Previously, the software giant was accused in an antitrust
lawsuit of violating the state's consumer fraud act.  A Windham
Superior Court judge later approved a motion to make that case a
class action.

Under the terms of the settlement, reached in 2004, consumers
and businesses that purchased certain Microsoft products both
directly and indirectly between March 31, 1995, and Dec. 31,
2002, could apply for a reimbursement voucher to buy computer
hardware and software and other technology from any
manufacturer.

The company agreed to pay as much as $9.7 million in vouchers to
consumers and schools.  The number of class members who claim
vouchers, according to the company, determines the number of
vouchers issued.

The vouchers will be available to schools in which 40 percent of
students are eligible for free and reduced lunch.  The vouchers'
value is based on enrollment and ranges from $1,500 for the
Granville School to $168,000 for Brattleboro Union High School.

A Microsoft spokeswoman pointed out that similar lawsuits have
been settled in 16 states and dismissed in 13, while a handful
are still pending.

Back in 2000, the company faced a flurry of lawsuits for using
its market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its
Windows operating system.  These suits allege that the company
competed unfairly and unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for
operating systems and certain software applications, and they
seek to recover alleged overcharges for these products (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).   

Based in Washington, Microsoft Corp. -- http://www.microsoft.com    
-- provides a variety of products and services, including its
Windows operating systems and Office software suite.  The
company has expanded into markets such as video game consoles,
interactive television, and Internet access.

The suit is "Elkins et. al v. Microsoft Corp., Docket No. 165-4-
01," filed in Windham County Superior Court, Newfane, Vermont
under Judge Karen R. Carroll.

Plaintiffs' counsel are:

      (1) Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box
          2305 South Burlington, Vermont  05403, Phone 802-862-
          0030 or (Toll Free) 888-276-5446, Fax: 802-862-0060,
          Website: http://www.jpclasslaw.com/contact.html;and  

      (2) Potter Stewart, Jr. Law Offices, P.C., The Merchants
          Bank Building, 205 Main Street, Suite 8, Brattleboro,
          VT 05301, Phone: 802-257-7244, E-mail:
          khamilton@potterstewartlaw.com, Website:
          http://www.potterstewartlaw.com/contact.html


MURPHY OIL: Suit Over La. Oil Contamination on "Fast Track"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit that accuses Murphy Oil Corp. of contaminating 6
miles of coastland in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, is on a "fast track" to being
possibly concluded, The New Orleans City Business reports.

The suit was filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish,
who are claiming damages as a result of crude oil spillage from
one of the company's storage tankers.  The contaminated area in
St. Bernard Parish included 6,000 households with at least 3,500
damaged families involved in the suit.

According to Sidney Torres, head counsel of the 25 law firms for
the plaintiffs suing the company over the contamination, they're
setting some sort of record in going for a rapid means of
concluding the cases.  He adds, "Everybody agreed to fast track
this.  That never happens."

Judge Eldon Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana already slated an Oct. 6 trial date for
the case.

Payouts have already totaled $150 million, according to Mindy
West, a Murphy Oil spokeswoman.  The company paid nearly $80
million in settlements with about 3,000 households not involved
in the suit.  The company paid another $70 million in cleanup
costs, which insurance will cover.

Already, Mr. Torres won a request to start receiving 7 percent
of the settlements the company is negotiating with the people
who opt out of the suit to settle on their own.

Judge Fallon sided with Mr. Turner, part of Mr. Torres' team,
who argued the company expanded its settlement program to
compensate residents outside the "settlement zone" it
established in the fall 2005.

The company already began to settle an unspecified amount of
claims at $2,700 per household with residents who live outside
the zone in a second map the Environmental Protection Agency
defines as the "oil-plume perimeter."

Though the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
declared that nearly all oil has been recovered or evaporated,
eliminating any long-term effect, the EPA is still monitoring
cleanup.

The company is continuing soil remediation.  To date, 117 homes
have been excavated and 64 yards have been refilled with clean
soil.  A total of 8,097 interior and exterior sediment samples
were collected from 4,859 addresses and the EPA is monitoring
the area, according to Ginny Narsete, public information officer
with the EPA in New Orleans.

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:  

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common  
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-  
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,  
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,  
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.  
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.  
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:  
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NEW JERSEY: Camden Pays $50T to Law Firm in Water Supply Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Camden City Council approved an additional payment of
$50,000 to the law firm representing it in a class action over
allegations the city supplied contaminated water to its
residents, the Courier Post Online reports.

The payment to law firm Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley brings
the total cost of the lawsuit to the city to $350,000, said City
Council President Angel Fuentes.  

In 2002, a group of 3,500 residents of Camden, New Jersey joined
a lawsuit against the city, neighboring Pennsauken and several
companies that they say were responsible for contaminated water
reaching the taps of two-thirds of the city's residents over a
24-year period, Associated Press Newswires reports (Class Action
Reporter, June 6, 2002).  

Keith A. Walker, spokesman for Camden Citizens Against
Contaminated Water, then said the group filed the lawsuit in
Camden Superior Court.  The citizens group wanted the defendants
to provide medical monitoring for Camden residents south of the
Cooper River, who received water from the Puchack Well Field in
Pennsauken.  The suit also asked for reimbursement of water
bills.

Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley on the Net:
http://www.blankrome.com/.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Fraud Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement reached between the parent of a Honda dealership in
Santa Monica, California and the Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office is threatening to affect a pending class action,
according to the Santa Monica Daily Press.

Under a proposed settlement, customers of the dealership
formerly owned by Kramer Motors Inc. are eligible for
reimbursement for money fraudulently taken from them when they
purchased vehicles from the dealer.  The dealership is now owned
by Sonic Automotive Inc.  It has so far paid close to $400,000
to nearly 700 victims between 2000 and 2002, according Los
Angeles Deputy District Attorney Dana Aratani.

However, by signing the claim and receiving a reimbursement
check, customers are waiving their right to pursue further
litigation and cannot receive additional damages in the future,
according to the report.  

A class action is currently pending over an alleged scheme of
former employees of the dealership to charge false state taxes
and fees, and wrong interest rates to customers wanting to buy
or lease vehicles.  The suit was filed in Sept. 25, 2002.

Representing the plaintiffs in the class action is attorney Dan
Hoffman of Ott & Hoffman, Upland, California (San Bernardino
Co.).


THUMANN'S INC: Recalls Proscuitto Ham for Possible Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thumann's Inc. in Carlstadt, New Jersey, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 664 pounds of
boneless proscuitto ham that may contain Staphylococcus aureus
enterotoxin.

The product being recalled are cartons containing two half
pieces of "Thumann's Boneless Prosciutto, Product Of Canada."  
Each label bears the establishment number "507" inside the
Canadian seal of inspection and the lot code "00634."

The proscuitto was produced on April 24, 2006.  The product was
shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments across
the U.S.

Picture of the product label:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/018_2006_Thumanns.jpg

The problem was discovered through testing done by the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency.  FSIS has received no reports of illness
associated with consumption of this product.  Common symptoms of
ingesting products with Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin
include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal cramping.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall are advised
to contact Thumann's purchasing director Warren Lisa at (201)
935-3636 ext. 384.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-
6854).  The hotline is available in English and Spanish and can
be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  


VIRGIN ISLANDS: Faces Motion for Contempt Over Jail Improvement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union filed two motions with a
district court in relation to the implementation a settlement of
a class action charging inhumane conditions for mentally ill
inmates in the Virgin Island Corrections Bureau.

One motion is asking for a fourth contempt ruling against the
state and another asking for the jail system to be placed under
federal receivership.  

ACLU had claimed that Cluster 3 inmates are receiving almost no
psychiatric attention, are taking medications on expired
prescriptions and are not adequately protected from violent
attempts by themselves or other inmates.  The parties reached a
settlement in 1994, which is currently being monitored by Senior
District Judge Stanley Brotman.  Judge Brotman has found the
government in contempt of court in 1997, 2001 and 2003.

Concurrently, Virgin Islands Attorney General Kerry Drue has
asked a federal judge to transfer the custody of a violent and
mentally unstable man jailed in the state's Justice Department
to a civil guardian, according to the Virgin Islands Daily News.

Jonathan Ramos, who has been an inmate at the Farrelly Criminal
Justice Complex Jail since his arrest four years ago on
suspicion of stealing a bicycle, was recently freed of grand
larceny charges.  He was absolved because he had spent prison
time more than what prosecutors would recommend for his theft.  
Mr. Drue said that since the former inmate is no longer facing
criminal charges his care and custody should be entrusted to a
civil guardian under the supervision of the state Superior
Court.

Mr. Ramos has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and
antisocial personality disorder.

The attorney general's motion asks Judge Brotman to vacate an
order he issued on March 22 instructing the Justice Department
to move Ramos to a psychiatric facility by May 22.

ACLU's motions came as a response to the state's failure to
adhere to the order, said Eric Balaban, an attorney with the
ACLU's National Prison Project.


WILD SIDE: Recalls Beef Stick Products with Incomplete Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Side Processing, LLC, in Saginaw, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 765
pounds of beef stick products because they were mislabeled.  The
products require refrigeration, which is not stated on the
label.

These products are subject to recall:

     -- "Maple Hill Smokehouse & Meats Pepperoni Beef Stick,"
         Net Wt.: 0.16 or 0.32 lb.

     -- "Maple Hill Smokehouse & Meats Beef Stick,"
         Net Wt.: 0.16 or 0.32 lb.

     -- "Maple Hill Smokehouse & Meats Jalapeno & Cheddar Beef
        Stick,"
        Net Wt: 0.16 or 0.32 lb.

     -- "Maple Hill Smokehouse & Meats Red Pepper Beef Stick,"
        Net Wt.: 0.16 or 0.32 lb.

Each beef stick displays the establishment number "EST. 20495"
inside the USDA seal of inspection.  On the back of each beef
stick is a small white date sticker.  The products subject to
the recall contain one of these codes: "03226," "04136,"
"05096," "05176," "05236" or "06096."

Pictures of product labels:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/019_2006_Labels1.jpg
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/019_2006_Labels2.jpg

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection program personnel.
FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of these products.

The beef sticks were produced between March 22 and June 9, 2006
and were distributed to retail outlets in northeast Minnesota
and northwest Wisconsin.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall are advised
to contact company President Kevin Zegan at (218) 729-6859.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at the agency's
Web site:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Food_Safety_Education/Ask_Karen/index.a
sp#Question.

The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  


                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


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Charles H. Johnson Files Stock Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Brooks
Automation, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of Brooks between July
25, 2001 and May 22, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by publicly issuing a series of false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results, thus causing Brooks' shares to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

The complaint alleges that on March 18, 2006, The Wall Street
Journal published a story that identified Brooks as one of
several companies "with wildly improbable option-grant
patterns."  On April 26, 2006, Brooks disclosed that its Board
of Directors created a special committee to conduct an internal
review of matters related to past stock option grants.  

On May 11, 2006, Brooks issued a press release which stated,
"the cwill be required to correct certain U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings, including particularly its
financial statements contained in filings for some or all of the
periods commencing in fiscal 1999 and ending in fiscal
2005...(t)he company believes that it accounted for certain
matters concerning stock options incorrectly..." On May 18,
2006, Amin J. Khoury and Roger D. Emerick reportedly resigned
from the company's Board.

The complaint also alleges that the SEC is conducting an
informal inquiry concerning stock option grant practices to
determine whether violations of the federal securities laws have
occurred, and Brooks has allegedly received a grand jury
document subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York requesting records pertaining to the
granting of stock options.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period,
certain company insiders sold approximately 320,000 Brooks
shares at artificially inflates prices for proceeds of
approximately $6.4 million.

For more information, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles
H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton,
MN 55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action on behalf of
investors in Herley Industries, Inc.  The suit is pending in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
The suit seeks recovery on behalf of investors who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Herley between Oct. 1, 2001 and
June 14, 2006.

According to the complaint, Herley and its top officers
defrauded persons investing in Herley securities, violating the
federal securities laws.  On June 6, 2006, Herley revealed that
the company and its chairman, Lee N. Blatt, had been indicted on
multiple charges, in connection with excessive profits
improperly "earned" by Herley on contracts with the U.S.
Department of Defense.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that its operations in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago,
Illinois, and a subsidiary in Farmingdale, New York had been
suspended from receiving new contract awards from the U.S.
Government.  Government contracts had historically accounted for
approximately 25% of Herley's business.

In response to these disclosures, Herley stock plunged on very
high volume, from $19.38 on June 2, 2006 to $9.21 on June 14,
2006.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is no later than Aug. 14, 2006.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas
M. Risen, Esq., Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000.


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. on behalf of I.B.L.
Investments Ltd. and other public investors who purchased the
common stock of Terayon between Oct. 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.;

     -- Zaki Rakib, company board chairman and secretary;

     -- Jerry D. Chase, chief executive officer and director;

     -- Mark A. Richman, senior VP finance and admin. and chief
        executive officer; and

     -- Edward Lopez, senior VP, general counsel.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants' representations concerning the company's financial
condition, impressive income growth, and various other
statements in the company's quarterly and annual financial
results and SEC filings were materially false and misleading.

It further alleges that defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded the company's reported financial results and growth
were attributable to improper accounting practices, including
improper revenue recognition practices, which resulted in an
overstatement of the company's revenues.

Unknown to investors, the company's internal controls and
procedures and, as a result, the company's projections and
reported financial results were seriously flawed.

Furthermore, the company's earnings were not increasing in the
amounts that had been represented by defendants, and the
company's reported earnings statements for the interim periods
were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The complaint claims that on Nov. 7, 2005, after the market
closed, Terayon announced that the company "is reviewing the
recognition of revenue for certain transactions during prior
periods."  More specifically, an internal review was initiated
after the company determined "that certain revenues recognized
in the second half of fiscal year 2004 from a customer may have
been recorded in incorrect periods."

The complaint further alleges that on March 1, 2006, Terayon
issued a press release announcing that the company's
"consolidated financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31,
2004 and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two
quarters of 2005 should no longer be relied upon and will be
restated."

In response to these revelations, the next day, March 2, 2006,
Terayon's stock price fell $0.37 per share-a more than 13%
decline in the stock's value - on extremely heavy trading volume
of more than four million shares.

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

http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d80

The suit is "I.B.I. Investments LTD v. Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.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  * * *