CAR_Public/060717.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 140

                            Headlines

BAYER CORP: Sept. Hearing Set for Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement
BEAR ARCHERY: Recalls Crossbows with Faulty Trigger Mechanisms
DHB INDUSTRIES: To Settle Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. for $34.9M
FEDEX CORP: Former Driver Awarded Unemployment Compensation
FOREST HILL: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Pre-Need Funeral Policies

GLENVIEW CAR: Reaches $125.5T Deal in Ill. EEOC Harassment Case
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Counsel Withdraws from H-2A Program Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Kinderstart.Com Allowed to Amend Antitrust Claims
HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. District Court Dismisses Securities Suits
LEE ENTERPRISES: Settles Suit Over Payments to Mont. Carriers

LEVEL 3: Sept. Hearing Set in "Salomon Analyst" Suit Settlement
MISSISSIPPI: Army Corps Faces Suit Over Supervision of MR-GO
MORGAN FOODS: Recalls Canned Soup with Undeclared Allergens
NEW JERSEY: Schools Sued for Failing State Proficiency Exams
NEW YORK: Schenectady County Settles Strip-Search Suit for $2.5M

NEW YORK: Suit Over Cryptosporidium Outbreak Gets Class Status
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Purchase Offer Removed After Shareholder Suit
PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SPRINT CORP: Benney, Lundberg Suits Settlement Hearing Set Sept.

TELLIUM INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for N.J. Stock Suit Settlement
TOYOBO: Mass. Communities to Get $1M in Zylon Suit Settlement
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: 2,700 Avails Scholarship as Settlement
WASHINGTON: Enters $30M Settlement in State Workers' Wage Suit
WEST PUBLISHING: Sept. 12 Trial Slated for Suit Over Bar Review

WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set in "Salomon Analyst"
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. 29 Hearing Set in Salomon Analyst Case


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IONATRON INC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
KLA-TENCOR: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Suit in Utah
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Utah
SUNTERRA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Nev.


                            *********


BAYER CORP: Sept. Hearing Set for Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 12, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. for
Bayer AG and Bayer Corp.'s proposed $250 million settlement In
Re: Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. C-04-
1648 (MJJ).

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities in
the U.S. and its territories -- excluding government entities --
that directly purchased rubber chemicals from any defendant at
anytime from May 1, 1995 to Dec. 31, 2001.

The first complaint in the action was filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2003.  
That case and several subsequently filed cases were consolidated
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Nov. 3, 2003.  

On or about March 15, 2005, plaintiffs filed their second
amended consolidated complaint.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix or maintain the prices of, and/or
allocate markets for Rubber Chemicals sold in the U.S. in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  
It also alleges that as a result of this conspiracy, members of
the class paid more for Rubber Chemicals than they otherwise
would have and, thus, were injured.

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom
11, 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

Objections to the settlement must be mailed no later than Aug.
7, 2006.  Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Sept. 30,
2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Gilardi & Co., LLC, 3301 Kerner Boulevard, San Rafael,
         CA 94901, Phone: 415-461-0410, Fax: 415-461-0412, E-
         mail: classact@gilardi.com, Web site:
         http://www.gilardi.com/php/all.php.

     (2) Richard A. Koffman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West,
         Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone:
         202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, Web site:
         http://www.CMHT.com;and

     (3) Steven O. Sidener of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP,
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco,
         California 94105, (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-777-
         2230, Fax: 415-777-5189, Web site:
         http://www.gbcslaw.com.


BEAR ARCHERY: Recalls Crossbows with Faulty Trigger Mechanisms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Archery, of Gainesville, Florida, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,000 units of Fred Bear F-Series and Outfitter Compound
Crossbows.

The company said the triggers on these crossbows could fire when
the safety mechanism is moved from "safe" to "fire" position
without pulling the trigger.  Bystanders could be
unintentionally hit by an arrow fired by these bows. No injuries
were reported.

The recall involves five models of Compound Crossbows:

     -- Outfitter XB340 Compound Crossbow with model number
        AFB8959340
     -- Fred Bear F340 Compound Crossbow with model number
        AFB8949350
     -- Fred Bear F325 Compound Crossbow with model number
        AFB8949325
     -- Fred Bear F300+ Compound Crossbow with model number
        AFB8949301
     -- Fred Bear F300 Compound Crossbow model number
        AFB8949300.

The model name is written on the outside of the bow's bottom
limb.  The model number is written on the product manual.

These compound crossbows were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at hunting and sporting goods stores nationwide and
by Web retailers and in catalogs from July 2004 through January
2006 for between $300 and $800.

Picture of the recalled compound crossbow:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06213.jpg

Consumers are advised to discontinue use of the product and
contact the firm for a free trigger replacement.

For more information, contact Bear Archery Customer Service
Department at (800) 467-1397 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or E-mail: safetyinfo@escaladesports.com.


DHB INDUSTRIES: To Settle Securities Lawsuit in N.Y. for $34.9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
DHB Industries, Inc. signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle a securities class action and a shareholder derivative
suit brought against the company.  

The suits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The class action was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers and others.  The derivative suit was brought by
shareholder Alvin Viray.

The class action will be settled for $34.9 million in cash, plus
3,184,713 shares of company common stock.  The derivative action
will be settled in consideration of DHB adopting certain
corporate governance provisions and paying $300,000, as
attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel in the derivative
action.

The settlement amounts are required to be paid into escrow
within 10 business days of the MOU.  All costs of the settlement
and all attorneys' fees and expenses of plaintiffs' class
counsel will be paid from the $34.9 million.

Of the cash payments to be made, it is expected that the company
directors' and officers' liability insurers will pay
approximately $12.9 million, while the company will shoulder the
remaining balance.

It is expected that David Brooks, chief executive officer, who
was recently placed on administrative leave, will help fund the
payments to be made by the company by exercising 3 million
warrants held by him at an elevated exercise price.  The company
also has the option to put to Mr. Brooks approximately 3 million
shares of common stock to finance the remaining portion of the
cash settlement.

Included in the terms of the settlement are provisions calling
for the release of the company and all of the company's present
and former officers and directors who were named in the class
and derivative actions from any and all claims by the
plaintiffs.

Certain directors will be replaced within one year of the
settlement.  The company has not admitted and will not admit to
any wrongdoing in the cases.  The actions are being settled
because of expense and uncertainty.

As part of the agreement, the company will adopt new corporate
governance standards in an effort to improve controls and
enhance business practices.

The board is in the process of administering a corporate
compliance program, which encompasses long-term strategic
planning and management oversight, internal controls on
financial and performance reporting and review and other
governance matters.

General (Ret.) Larry Ellis, President, CAO and acting chief
executive officer, commented, "We are working to achieve 'best
practices' in everything we do and we remain committed to
implementing changes that will improve our operating, financial,
and competitive, market position.  This is yet another step we
are taking and I remain confident in our ability as a team, to
emerge as a stronger organization."

The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things,
review and approval of the court.  There can be no assurance
that the court will approve the proposed settlement.

In 2005, DHB Industries and certain of its officers and
directors faced several securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities
from April 21, 2004 to Aug. 29, 2005 (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 23, 2005).

The complaints alleged that the company's body armor products
were defective and failed to meet the standards of its
customers, and that these alleged facts should have been
publicly disclosed.

The suit is "In Re DHB Industries, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04345-JS-ETB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Joanna Seybert
with referral to Judge E. Thomas Boyle.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Thomas G. Amon of the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon,
         500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1650, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: 212-810-2430, Fax: 212-810-2427, E-mail:
         tamon@amonlaw.com;

     (2) Jeffrey Fink, Brian Robbins and Steven Wedeking all of
         Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, 610 West Ash Street, Suite
         1800, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-525-3990, Fax:
         619-525-3991, E-mail: jfink@ruflaw.com or
         brobbins@ruflaw.com or swedeking@ruflaw.com; and

     (3) Harry H. Wise, III, 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1650, New
         York, NY 10110, Phone: 212-810-2430, Fax: 212-810-2427,
         E-mail: hwiselaw@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) George S. Canellos and Christopher Neil Gray both of
         Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, One Chase
         Manhattan Plaza, New York, NY 10005, Phone: 212-530-
         5174 or 212-530-5127, Fax: 212-822-5174 or 212-822-
         5127, E-mail: gcanellos@milbank.com or
         cngray@milbank.com;

    (ii) Mary K Dulka and Mark Holland both of Clifford Chance
         U.S. LLP, 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: 212-878-3132 or 212-878-8000, Fax: 212-878-8375,
         E-mail: mary.dulka@cliffordchance.com or
         mark.holland@cliffordchance.com;

   (iii) Jerome Gotkin of Mintz Levin, 666 Third Avenue, New
         York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-935-3000, Fax: 212-983-3115,
         E-mail: jgotkin@mintz.com;

    (iv) Richard B. Harper, Leigh Michele Nemetz and Seth T.
         Taube all of Baker Botts L.L.P., 30 Rockefeller
         Plaza, New York, NY 10112, Phone: 212-408-2500, Fax:
         212-259-2475 or 212-408-2501 or 212-259-2655, E-mail:
         richard.harper@bakerbotts.com or
         leigh.nemetz@bakerbotts.com or
         seth.taube@bakerbotts.com;

     (v) Michael S Kim of Kobre & Kim, 888 Seventh Avenue, New
         York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-586-9150, Fax: 212-586-9600,
         E-mail: michael.kim@kobrekim.com;

    (vi) Matthew T. McLaughlin of Venable LLP, 405 Lexington
         Avenue, 62nd Floor, New York, NY 10174, Phone: (212)
         307-5500, Fax: (212) 307-5598, E-mail:
         tmclaughlin@venable.com;

   (vii) Robert Popeo, Adam L. Sisitsky and John F. Sylvia all
         of Mintz Levin, One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111,
         Phone: 617-542-6000, Fax: 617-542-2241, E-mail:
         rrpopeo@mintz.com or asisitsky@mintz.com or
         jsylvia@mintz.com;

  (viii) Roland G. Riopelle of Sercarz & Riopelle LLP, 152 West
         57th Street, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
         212-586-4900, Fax: 212-586-1234, E-mail:
         rriopelle@sercarzandriopelle.com; and

    (ix) R. Stan Mortenson of Baker Botts L.L.P., 1299
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Phone:
         202-639-7979, Fax: 202-585-1092, E-mail:
         rstanmortenson@bakerbotts.com.


FEDEX CORP: Former Driver Awarded Unemployment Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board found that
former FedEx Ground/Home Delivery route driver Jerry Ferguson is
eligible for unemployment compensation even though he was
neither a direct employee of the company, nor a subcontractor.

The Appeals Board ruled that the company misclassified Mr.
Ferguson of Pasadena, California, as a subcontractor and that
the record revealed that he was an independent contractor in
name only.

In his opinion, Administrative Law Judge Edwin A. Graf says the
company failed to deliver on its promises that Mr. Ferguson
would have autonomy and, instead, exercised near absolute
control over him and his business, including his subcontracted
delivery route driver.

Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., Mr. Ferguson's attorney explains that
the decision is only the second time the state of California has
ruled that a FedEx Ground driver with more than one route is
eligible for unemployment benefits typically denied to
independent contractors.  

Oakland, California-based Ms. Faris, is among the lead attorneys
in a national class action brought against FedEx Corp. -- FedEx
Ground -- by current and former drivers who were misclassified
as independent contractors.

Further information on the class action is available at:  

            http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com.


FOREST HILL: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Pre-Need Funeral Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Hill Cemeteries and Funeral Homes faces a purported class
action in a Tennessee circuit court over allegations that its
owners are not honoring pre-need funeral policies.

Policyholders of pre-need burial contracts filed the suit less
than a week after the company announced it would not honor the
policies.  In their suit, they allege that the company
intentionally deceived them into thinking that the contracts
would be fully honored.

B.J. Wade and Tom Clary of Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt P.C.
and Martin Zummach of Sparkman-Zummach filed the complaint on
behalf of Dianne Camp and David Camp of Mississippi.

According to the complaint, the words and actions of company in
informing plaintiffs and the general public that the pre-need
contracts would no longer be honored amounts to a total and
unqualified refusal to perform the pre-need contracts.

Clayton Smart, the owner of the three funeral homes and 270
acres of cemeteries making up the Forest Hill properties,
previously said that his company would no longer honor the
policies, since a trust fund it was supposed to maintain to
cover the contracts was insufficient.

The announcement constituted an anticipatory breach of contract,
according to the complaint, which seeks actual and punitive
damages as well as other remedies to be determined by the court.

Another class action is also in the works against the funeral
home.  To be filed Germantown attorney Kevin Snider, it could
name up to 20 plaintiff's making the same claims.  Mr. Snider is
claiming the funeral home violated at least four state laws
including the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, P.C., 26 N. Second
         Street, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: (901) 527-4673, Fax:
         (901) 521-0940, Web site: http://www.gewwlaw.com;and

     (2) Sparkman-Zummach, PC, Phone: 901 757 4838 and 662 349
         6900, Fax: 901 737 2738, E-mail: zummach@aol.com.


GLENVIEW CAR: Reaches $125.5T Deal in Ill. EEOC Harassment Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenview Car Wash settled for $125,500 a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleging an operator had sexually harassed male employees for
several years, Pioneer Press Online reports.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the
sexual harassment class action back in September 2005 on behalf
of three current or former male employees.  Court records show
that the employees filed complaints with the EEOC in 2003 (Class
Action Reporter, May 23, 2006).  

Plaintiffs in the suit are Fidencio Antimo, Diego Perez and
Elmer Bethancourth.  The EEOC alleged that an unnamed male
operator had kissed and grabbed the male employees, followed
them into the rest room, sexually propositioned them repeatedly
and offered them money to expose themselves or grab their
coworkers.

In reaching the settlement, Judge Ronald Guzman entered a two-
year consent degree, which stipulated that the amount be paid to
five current and former employees and enjoined the car wash, at
1820 Waukegan Road, from discriminating against employees on the
basis of sex, including sexual harassment.

In addition, the decree also requires the car wash to:

      -- post a notice regarding the consent decree;

      -- train its managers supervisors and employees about
         Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
         prohibits employment discrimination based on race,
         color, religion, sex, pregnancy or national origin; and

      -- report any sex discrimination complaints to the
         commission.

The car wash agreed to the settlement, since it could not afford
to defend itself against a federal agency, according to Peter
Andjelkovich, a Chicago attorney representing defendants.

Mr. Andjelkovich pointed out that none of the five individuals
who stand to collect a portion of the payment would continue to
work at the car wash as part of the settlement.

The suit is "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Glenview Car Wash, Case No. 1:05-cv-05568," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are John C. Hendrickson and Ethan
Cohen of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West
Madison St., Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone (312) 353-8551
and (312) 353-7568 Fax: (312) 353-8555, E-mail:
john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov and ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendant are Bradley J. Wartman and Peter
Andjelkovich of Peter Andjelkovich & Associates, 39 South
LaSalle St., Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 782-
6517.


GLOBAL HORIZONS: Counsel Withdraws from H-2A Program Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. lawyer Natalie Brouwer withdrew as legal representative to
Global Horizons in a suit filed by Yakima Valley farm workers in
the U.S. District Court in Washington, the Yakima-Herald
reports.

Mordechai Orian, the company's president and chief strategic
officer, said the law firm pulled out for political reasons, not
for lack of payment.

On July 2005, 490 farm workers in the Yakima Valley initiated a
lawsuit seeking class-action status against the Los Angeles-
based labor contractor, alleging that the firm violated state
and federal law when it displaced them with workers from
Thailand (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2005).

The suit, filed on behalf of farm workers Jose Guadalupe Perez-
Farias, Jose F. Sanchez and Ricardo Betancourt, challenges the
use of foreign workers under the federal H-2A guest-worker
program.  Under the federal guest-worker program, employers may
import foreign labor only after they've shown they can't find
local workers.

The complaint also names as defendants Valley Fruit Orchards of
Wapato, Green Acre Farms of Harrah and Platte River Insurance
Co. of Madison, Wisconsin, which posted a bond for Global
Horizons.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that company reneged on verbal
agreements to hire local farm workers by never telling them when
and where to report.  It also claims that employers imposed
productivity requirements that weren't explained in writing - as
required by law.

On September 2005, the company signed a settlement agreement
with two state agencies, admitting to violating numerous laws
and agreeing to pay penalties and make complete financial
restitution to workers and the state totaling more than
$230,000.

The settlement provided for an independent investigator to
monitor future compliance with the law, and required the company
to supply information on its activities to the state.  It also
allowed state officials to immediately revoke the company's farm
labor contracting license and force it to discontinue
recruitment services in the event of future violations of the
law or the agreement.

On December 2005, state agencies discovered the company failed
to comply with a number of the conditions stipulated in the
September settlement agreement, resulting in the revocation of
its license.

On Jan. 27, 2006, the company appealed the revocation of its
farm labor contractor license.  

In May, a settlement with the federal government "in good faith"
was reached.  But the Labor Department subsequently published a
news release that unfairly emphasized violations over the
compromise.

An appeals hearing before an administrative judge had been set
to begin Sept. 11, 2006 but the company was granted a
continuance pending the hiring of new legal counsel.

"We plan to reinstate litigation against them," said Deanne
Amaden, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Labor.

The company continues to meet with union negotiators in hopes of
resolving the matter.


GOOGLE INC: Kinderstart.Com Allowed to Amend Antitrust Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave KinderStart.Com, LLC a chance to amend its complaint
against Google, Inc. before it decides whether to dismiss the
case, according to IDG News Service.

On July 13, Judge Jeremy Fogel granted Google's motion for
dismissal pending amendments to KinderStart's complaint, which
alleges that Google violated antitrust and other laws by handing
it low rankings.

Judge Fogel cited in his ruling that KinderStart's arguments
were insufficient.  However, he gave the company a chance to
amend each one.

On March 17, 2006, KinderStart filed a civil complaint, asking
to represent owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's
search engine since January 2001 (Class Action Reporter, July 4,
2006).

In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google wrongfully
banned some Web sites.  It also said that these Web sites could
no longer be restored, since Google does not disclose its
procedures from striking them out.

Claiming that it was dropped from Google's index a year ago
without being informed, KinderStart also alleged that the
practice is anti-competitive and that Google misled the public
by positioning its search engine as an objective source for
finding Internet content.

The suit is seeking class-action status, citing that many other
companies suffered by getting left out of Google search results.   
It seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that
would require Google to change its practices.

With the ruling, KinderStart's best prospect for keeping the
case active may come with its argument that Google defamed the
company by giving it a PageRank of zero, according to the
report.

Judge Fogel wrote in his ruling that due to the way Google
presents its PageRank system, which is the basis of all its Web
search tools, the public might conclude the rankings are facts
that Google arrives at strictly through an algorithm.  

He further wrote that if KinderStart could show that Google
manually changes the results of the PageRank system, then
Google's presentation of the rankings as objective might be
false.

In May, Google filed two motions to have the case dismissed.  
One attacked the foundation of KinderStart's arguments and the
other invoked California's law against Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation, written to prevent suits that are
designed to chill public debate.  According to the motion, by
suing Google, KinderStart is trying to alter its speech, since
it doesn't like what Google has to say.

At the June 30 hearing, Google told Judge Fogel that its Web
site rankings are opinions that are based partly on a
mathematical algorithm and partly on Google studying the quality
of sites and making subjective judgments.

The company can use any criteria it wishes for the rankings and
doesn't have to tell anyone how it does them, argues David
Kramer, a lawyer from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, which is
representing Google.

At that hearing, Judge Fogel put off consideration of the anti-
SLAPP motion until a Sept. 29, 2006 hearing.  At that hearing,
he will also hear arguments on a motion by KinderStart for a
preliminary injunction that would force Google to restore the
company's Web site to its index while the case is in court.

The KinderStart complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dc3

The suit is "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No.
5:06-cv-02057-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory John Yu of the Global Law
Group, 2015 Pioneer Ct., Suite P-1, San Mateo, CA 94403, Phone:
650-570-4140, Fax: 650-570-4142, E-mail: glgroup@inreach.com.

Representing the defendant are Colleen Bal, David H. Kramer and
Bart Edward Volkmer, Esq. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-493-9300 and
(650) 565-3508, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-mail: cbal@wsgr.com,
dkramer@wsgr.com and bvolkmer@wsgr.com.


HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. District Court Dismisses Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed six of eight counts in a securities class action
complaint filed by several plaintiffs against Hollinger
International, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The decision, issued the on June 28, 2006 by Judge David H.
Coar, gave plaintiffs until Aug. 14, 2006 to file an amended
complaint.

In May, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois contemplated on the company's motion to dismiss the
amended shareholder class action (Class Action Reporter, May 5,
2006).

                        Case Background

In February and April 2004, three alleged stockholders of the
company -- Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth
Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund -- initiated purported class actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against:

     -- the company and certain former executive officers and
        former directors of the company;
     -- The Ravelston Corp. Ltd.;
     -- certain affiliated entities; and
     -- KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public
        accounting firm.

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  The consolidated action is entitled, "In re
Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on Aug. 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended class action
complaint on Nov. 19, 2004.

The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class
action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E.
Dean Carlson.

They are purporting to sue on behalf of an alleged class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of securities
of the company between and including Aug. 13, 1999 and Dec. 11,
2002.

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding: certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.  

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, rescission,
and an injunction against future violations.

The suit is "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge David H. Coar.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com;

     (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750;
         and

     (6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


LEE ENTERPRISES: Settles Suit Over Payments to Mont. Carriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 400 carriers of Montana newspapers Missoulian and the
Ravalli Republic settled a class action over payments against
corporate parent Lee Enterprises, according to Missoula
Independent.  

The payments cover the years 2000 to 2005.  Plaintiff attorney
Don Snavely alleged that Lee did not pass on the increase in
newspaper customer rates as supposedly it should under the
carriers' contract that specify the carriers be paid the
difference between the retail subscription rate customers pay
and the wholesale rate carriers are charged.

The settlement is confidential and Missoulian had requested that
the entire court file be sealed, thus there is no public
documents pertaining to the suit, the report said.

Representing the newspaper is attorney Lawrence Daly partner in
Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, 199 West Pine Street,
Missoula, Montana 59802 (Missoula Co.), Phone: 406-523-2500,
Fax: 406-523-2595.


LEVEL 3: Sept. Hearing Set in "Salomon Analyst" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement In Re: Salomon Analyst Level 3
Litigation, Case No. 02-6919.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities,
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4,
1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any
method, including but not limited to in the second market, in
exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a
registration statement or through the exercise of options
including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc., formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman

Beginning in August 2002, at least seven putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the defendants, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common
stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.

By Order dated Jan. 24, 2003, the cconsolidated these actions
under the caption, "In re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation,
Case No. 02 Civ. 6919 (GEL)."

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs'
selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as Lead
Counsel.  

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint alleging that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by publishing false
and misleading analyst reports concerning Level 3.

The lead plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of Level 3
shareholders, claim that:

      -- Mr. Grubman and Salomon Smith violated Section 10(b)
         and Rule 10b-5 for material misstatements and omissions
         with respect to Level 3 research reports, including
         that such research reports falsely stated Mr. Grubman's
         true opinions and failed to disclose the conflicts of
         interest created by Salomon Smith's internal policies,  
         which artificially inflated the price of Level 3
         securities;

      -- Salomon Smith and Citigroup violated Section 20(a) as
         "control persons" of Mr. Grubman related to his
         materially misleading research reports on Level 3.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Deadline for submission of a proof of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=210.


MISSISSIPPI: Army Corps Faces Suit Over Supervision of MR-GO
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which supervises the
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, is facing a class action filed by
residents of St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans' 9th Ward.

The suit is seeking the closure of the waterway to prevent it
from directing floodwaters into their homes and businesses; the
appointment of a panel of scientific experts to study the
dangers posed by the channel and recommend ways to address them;
and the appointment of a special master to preside over the
experts' work and monitor implementation of any remedial
measures ordered by the court.

It accuses the Army Corps of ignoring federal and state laws
requiring studies of the environmental effects of the channel
before it was dug up in 1956.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are St. Bernard Councilman Mark
Madary and New Orleans City Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis,
who represent the 9th Ward and eastern New Orleans.  They are
joined by residents Charles Savoy and Gerald Nevle of St.
Bernard; Pam Nevle, a former member of the St. Bernard Coastal
Zone Advisory Board; Lower 9th Ward resident Pam Dashiell; and
Shawn and Nga Tran.

The suit is brought by 12 law firms from Louisiana, Mississippi,
Florida and California, including attorney Pierce O'Donnell of
O'Donnell Shaeffer Mortimer LLP --  http://www.osmlaw.com-- 550  
South Hope Street, Suite 2000, Los Angeles, California 90071
(Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 213-532-2000, Facsimile: 213-532-2020.


MORGAN FOODS: Recalls Canned Soup with Undeclared Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------  
Morgan Foods Inc., of Austin, Indiana, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 5,402 pounds of
chicken soup due to the presence of undeclared milk and soy
allergens.

The product label indicates that the can contains chicken noodle
soup; however, the can contains cream of chicken soup. The cream
of chicken soup contains milk and soy, known allergens, which
are not declared on the label.

Consumers who have a food allergy, or severe food sensitivity,
should always read ingredient labels.  In restaurants, they
should ask whether an allergy-causing ingredient is in the food.

A food allergy occurs when the immune system reacts to a certain
food, usually within minutes after the food has been consumed.

Symptoms may include throat swelling, breathing trouble or a
rash.

Strictly avoiding the allergy-causing food is the only absolute
way to avoid a reaction.

Several foods account for 90% of allergic reactions.  They
include peanuts, tree nuts (walnuts, pecans, etc.), fish,
shellfish, eggs, milk, soy, and wheat.

Persons who have a severe, life-threatening food allergy should
always carry, and know how to administer, prescription
epinephrine.

The canned chicken soup are in 10.5-ounce cans of "VALU TIME,
Condensed CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP."  Each label bears the
establishment number "P-1469" inside the USDA seal of
inspection.  Each can lid also bears the case code "XCMCC9
BESTBY01/03/08 A0306 (A)" and a number between 1600 and 1800
that indicates the time of production.

The chicken soup was produced on Jan. 3, 2006, and was sent to
distribution centers and retail stores in Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and
Virginia.

FSIS has had no reports of illness due to consumption of this
product.  Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should
contact a physician.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Consumer Relations Specialist Janet McCord at (812) 794-1170.


NEW JERSEY: Schools Sued for Failing State Proficiency Exams
------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgeton, Millville, Salem and 22 other New Jersey school
districts were named as defendants in a purported class action
filed in Essex County Superior Court, alleging that the
districts fail to provide a thorough and efficient education to
their students, according to Bridgeton News.

The suit, filed on behalf of 12 children, proposes that school
districts give children the option to attend another private or
public school anywhere in the state at the districts' expense.

Julio Gomez, one of two attorneys who filed the complaint, told
Bridgeton News that their case is essentially asking the court
to hold the school districts accountable when they don't live up
to the example or standards that were set.

The complaint claims that the 25 districts were picked, since 50
percent or more of their students are failing both the math and
language arts sections of the state proficiency exams, known as
the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment.

Mr. Gomez told Bridgeton News that current students couldn't
wait for the school districts to catch up to the standards of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The federal guidelines fail in two points, according to Mr.
Gomez.  First, the law only allows a choice within the district,
assuming there's another good school in the district; and
second, a student cannot sue for a remedy under it.

Mr. Gomez's remedy is for the districts to take the money they
spend per student and use it to potentially pay tuition
elsewhere.  

For more details, contact Julio C. Gomez of Calcagno &
Associates, Attorneys at Law, LLC, 213 South Avenue East,
Cranford, New Jersey 07016, (Union Co.), Phone: 1-877-NYNJLAW,
Web site: http://www.nynjlaw.net.


NEW YORK: Schenectady County Settles Strip-Search Suit for $2.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schenectady County agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a
class action filed against the Sheriff's Department in New York
by two women who claimed they were improperly subjected to strip
searches at the jail, the Timesunion.com reports.

Both 19-year-old Nichole Marie McDaniel and 18-year-old Lessie
Lee Davies claim they were strip searched at the jail on June
11.  Both were arrested on misdemeanor charges of shoplifting
and endangering the welfare of a child.  The suit, filed on
behalf of at least 5,000 people who were subjected to a strip-
searching since 2001, sought monetary damages and an injunction
barring the county and sheriff from strip-searching those
charged with petty crimes.

Under the recent settlement, the county agreed to adopt a policy
to bar such searches of people accused of misdemeanors and other
minor crimes.  Monetary terms of the settlement will cost the
county taxpayers $130,000, according to the report.  The
county's three insurance companies will cover the rest of the
expense.

U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe will review the
Schenectady settlement for approval, as well as the $650,000
legal bills that plaintiff attorneys Robert Keach and his co-
counsels have submitted.  The lawyers' bills will be paid from
the $2.5 million settlement, with the balance being used to pay
those eligible under the lawsuit, according to the suit.

For more information, contact the law firm of Elmer Robert
Keach, III -- http://www.keachlawfirm.com-- 1040 Riverfront  
Center, P.O. Box 70, Amsterdam, New York 12010 (Montgomery Co.),
Phone: 518-434-1718, Telecopier: 518-770-1558.


NEW YORK: Suit Over Cryptosporidium Outbreak Gets Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New York Court of Claims in Syracuse granted class-
action status to a lawsuit filed against the state over
bacterial outbreak at a spraypark last summer, according to
NBC3.

With the decision, more than 3,000 people who got sick because
of the outbreak can now join the suit, which was specifically
filed against the State of New York Department of Parks,
Recreation and Historical Preservation.

Previously, plaintiffs in the case asked class-action status on
behalf of all persons who became ill with Cryptosporidiosis
and/or were otherwise damaged as a result of the Cryptosporidium
outbreak in 2005.  They sought compensation for injuries and
economic damages (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).  

On Aug. 15, 2005, the state's health department closed the
Seneca Lake State Park Sprayground near Geneva in Ontario County
after a Cryptosporidium contamination was discovered at the
Sprayground's water holding tanks, which were used to recycle
water.

Cryptosporidium, which is commonly know as the parasite Crypto,
lives for long periods of time in water.  It can be passed on
through human or animal feces.

For more details, contact

     (1) Paul V. Nunes of Underberg & Kessler LLP, 300 Bausch &
         Lomb Place, Rochester, New York 14604, (Monroe Co.),
         Phone: 585-258-2800, Fax: 585-258-2821, E-mail:
         pnunes@underbergkessler.com, Web site:
         http://www.underberg-kessler.com;

     (2) Suzanne Schreck of Marler Clark, LLP, Phone: (206) 346-
         1879, E-mail: sschreck@marlerclark.com, Web site:
         http://www.marlerclark.com;and

     (3) Dreyer Boyajian, LLP, 75 Columbia Street, Albany, NY
         12210, Phone: (518) 463-7784, Fax (518) 463-4039, Web
         site: http://www.dreyerboyajian.com.


NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Novellus Systems, Inc.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors of the company manipulated the prices of executive
and director stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock
options).

Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and
directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the
company's internal documents, such as the company's stock option
plan, as well as state laws governing officer and director
fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and
taxation.

In addition, the practice results in lower payments to
companies, results in those companies under-reporting
compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or
executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of
dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate
coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the
company.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (800) 337-
4983, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Purchase Offer Removed After Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PF Acquisition of Florida LLC withdrew its offer to acquire all
of the outstanding common stock of Parlux Fragrances, the South
Florida Business Journal reports.

After the offer was disclosed in Parlux's June 14, 2006 Form 8-K
filing, the company was served with a shareholder class action
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida by Glen Hutton,
purporting to act on behalf of himself and other public
stockholders of the company (Class Action Reporter, June 29,
2006).

Parlux was also served with a stockholder derivative action
filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida by NECA-IBEW Pension Fund,
purporting to act derivatively on behalf of Parlux.

Parlux Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ilia Lekach, who
owns PF Acquisition, said the proposal to take the company
private was intended to offer shareholders a premium over market
value.

But, according to him, the proposal triggered substantial
interest in activities, which, if pursued after the company
became private, could be misconstrued.

He said that to serve the best interests of all shareholders, he
asked his associates to withdraw the proposal to allow
management and the board of directors to collectively focus on
the new offers in the best interest of all shareholders.  

The class action names Parlux Fragrances, Inc. as a defendant,
along with its directors:

     -- Ilia Lekach,  
     -- Frank A. Buttacavoli,  
     -- Glenn Gopman,  
     -- Esther Egozi Choukroun,  
     -- David Stone,  
     -- Jaya Kader Zebede, and  
     -- Isaac Lekach.

Parlux Fragrances, Inc. is a manufacturer and international
distributor of prestige products.  It holds licenses for Paris
Hilton fragrances, watches, cosmetics, sunglasses, handbags and
other small leather accessories in addition to licenses to
manufacture and distribute the designer fragrance brands of
Perry Ellis, GUESS?, XOXO, Ocean Pacific (OP), Maria Sharapova,
Andy Roddick, babyGund and Fred Hayman Beverly Hills.  

For more information, contact Frank A. Buttacavoli of Parlux
Fragrances, Inc., Phone: +1-954-316-9008, ext. 8117.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles L. Brieant of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. in a consolidated putative
securities class action.

The claims were brought by a selling stockholder in the
company's initial public offering.  The court determined that
any stockholder who did not purchase common stock of the company
in the company's initial public offering lacks standing to sue
the company.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint in February 2006.  Oral arguments on the motion
was then set for June 2006, according to the company's June 14,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006.  No
development has yet been reported (Class Action Reporter, June
30, 2006).

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge  
Charles L. Brieant.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr., of Lerach,  
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LIs),  
         50 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,  
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:  
         srudman@lerachlaw.com and malba@lerachlaw.com;   

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East  
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:  
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (4) Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &  
         Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,  
         NY 10119, Phone: (212) 613-5625, Fax: (212) 868-1229,  
         E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com;

     (5) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola  
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:  
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (6) William J. Ban of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two  
         Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA  
         19103, Phone: (215) 963-0600, Fax: (215) 963-0838, E-
         mail: wban@barrack.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Todd R. David and Scott P. Hilsen of Alston & Bird,  
         L.L.P., One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree  
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7357,  
         Fax: (404) 527-8717;

     (2) John Gueli of Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), 599  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 848-
         4744, Fax: 212 848-7179, E-mail: jgueli@shearman.com;
         and  

     (3) Jeff G. Hammel of Latham and Watkins (NY), 885 Third  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 906-1200, Fax:
         (212)-751-4864, E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com.


SPRINT CORP: Benney, Lundberg Suits Settlement Hearing Set Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Twenty-Ninth Judicial District of Wyandotte County, Kansas,
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 12, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in:

      -- "Tom Lundberg, et al. v. Sprint Corporation, et al.,
         Case No. 02CV-4551;" and

      -- "Greg Benney, et al., v. Sprint International
         Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 05CV-1422."

The Benney settlement class involves all current and former
Sprint-branded (Sprint or Sprint PCS) wireless telephone
customers in the U.S. who fall within one of these subclasses:

      -- Benney Subclass 1: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date, who were subscribers during any
         part of the period from Dec. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2003;

      -- Benney Subclass 2: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who became subscribers after May
         31, 2003;

      -- Benney Subclass 3: all former sprint subscribers as of
         the effective date who were subscribers during any part
         of the period from Dec. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2003; and

      -- Benney Subclass 3: all former sprint subscribers as of
         the effective date who became subscribers after May 31,
         2003.

The Lundberg settlement class consists of all current and former
Sprint wireless customers in the U.S. who were customers any
time during the period Jan. 1, 1997 to the effective date, and
who have or could have asserted claims relating to directory
assistance calls, Sprint's practice of rounding minutes up to
the next whole minute, or Coverage and Capacity Issues.  They
are divided into these subclasses:

      -- Lundberg Subclass 1: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who were subscribers anytime  
         prior to June 1, 2003;

      -- Lundberg Subclass 2: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who became subscribers on June 1,
         2003, or later;

      -- Lundberg Subclass 3: all former sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who were subscribers anytime
         prior to June 1, 2003; and

      -- Lundberg Subclass 4: all former sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who became subscribers June 1,
         2003, or later.

In both the Benney and Lundberg suits, plaintiffs brought the
cases as class actions under Rule 60-223 of the Kansas Rules of
Civil Procedure.  

In Benney, plaintiffs allege that:

      -- defendants violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
         and similar laws in other states, by making misleading
         and deceptive statements regarding the Regulatory Fees,
         which defendants have charged their customers in the
         U.S.;

      -- defendants breached contracts with class plaintiff and
         the class members by charging the Regulatory Fees and
         by hiding a "rate increase" in the monthly billing
         statement;

      -- defendants were unjustly enriched by collecting the
         Regulatory Fees; and

      -- defendants committed fraud based upon their charges for
         directory assistance calls and descriptions of the
         Regulatory Fees.

In Lundberg, plaintiffs allege that defendants committed fraud,
violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, and similar laws in
other states, and were unjustly enriched, based upon their
charges for directory assistance calls and descriptions of the
Regulatory Fees:

      -- by making misleading and deceptive statements regarding
         the practice of rounding minutes up to the next whole
         minute without fully disclosing this practice; and

      -- by offering wireless phone service without properly            
         disclosing limitations on the coverage, capacity, and
         geographic scope of the Sprint wireless network
         (including, but not limited to, the availability or
         claimed necessity of software upgrades to phone
         handsets), as well as dropped customer calls or the
         alleged failure or inability to connect customer calls;
         and that as to California customers, defendants
         violated the California Business and Professions Code,
         Section 17200 et seq., and California's Emergency
         Telephone Users Surcharge Act, Cal. Rev. & Tax Code  
         Section 41020(a)-(b).     

In both Benney and Lundberg, plaintiffs allege that defendants
are liable for compensatory, statutory, and related damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under various
statutory and common law theories, and seek injunctive relief
concerning defendants' practices.

For more details, visit:
http://www.sprintclassactionsettlement.com/.


TELLIUM INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for N.J. Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness haring on Sept. 7, 2006 for the proposed $5.5 million
settlement in re: Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003,
numerous class action securities complaints were filed against
Tellium (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006).

On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing
all of the actions was filed.  The complaint alleges, among
others, that the company and its then-current directors and
executive officers, and its underwriters, violated U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements
or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating
to the securities offered in its initial public offering (Class
Action Reporter, June 2, 2006).

The amended complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of the company between May 17, 2001
and July 1, 2002.

The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or
intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or
omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including
compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law
or equity.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
in the Clarkson S, Fisher Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse,
402 East State St., Trenton, NJ 08608.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Analytics
         Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2004,
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004, Phone: 1-800-673-7845, Web
         site: http://telliumsecuritieslitigationsettlement.com;

     (2) Beth A. Kaswan of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119,
         (New York Co.), Phone: 212-594-5300; and

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East, 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330 and
         (877) 247-4292, Fax: (212) 983-9331, Web site:
         http://www.faruqilaw.com.


TOYOBO: Mass. Communities to Get $1M in Zylon Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than five dozens Bay State communities, including Taunton,
Mansfield and North Attleboro, will receive more than $1 million
as refund for defective bulletproof vests they've purchased,
according to Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, as
reported by the Providence Business News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.


UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: 2,700 Avails Scholarship as Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 2,700 students have availed of the $500 scholarship
the University of Missouri System is providing as part of a
settlement of a class action over educational fees, according to
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  

The university has set aside $10 million to settle a class
action accusing it of illegally charging undergraduate students
in-state tuition.  The university started accepting applications
for the 4,770 scholarship grants on Jan. 16.  So far, 2,740 have
signed up for the program, the report said.  

Roughly 104,000 current and former students, their spouses and
children may qualify for scholarships, according to the
university.  Eligible students include anyone who attended any
of the Columbia, St. Louis, Kansas City or Rolla campuses as in-
state undergraduates between January 1995 and August 2001 and
were above the age of 16 and below the age of 22.  

The lawsuit was filed in 1998 on behalf of three students who
argued that Missouri law did not allow the four-campus systems
to charge tuition during their time in the university system.  
The university system was accused of charging in-state students
"fees" that amounted to tuition, violating an 1872 state law
mandating free education for Missouri's homegrown at any of the
four campuses.

The settlement was tentatively approved by St. Louis County
Circuit Judge Kenneth Romines (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18,
2006).  Under it, the university agreed to compensate three
plaintiffs in the suit $27,000, plus other, unspecified
administrative costs not to exceed $100,000.  It also
tentatively agreed to pay $1 million to Robert Herman, the
attorney behind the lawsuit, plus an additional $17,000 for out-
of-pocket expenses.    

Robert Herman is a partner in Schwartz, Herman & Davidson, 621
N. Skinker, St. Louis, MO 63130, Phone: (314) 862-0200, Fax:
(314) 862-3050.


WASHINGTON: Enters $30M Settlement in State Workers' Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington agreed to settle for $30 million a lawsuit filed by
state workers claiming disparity between their wages and that of
other government employees in the same kinds of jobs, according
to The News Tribune.

The suit is before the Washington Supreme Court after Washington
appealed a state Court of Appeals' decision to support
employees' contention that they were denied equal protection
under state and federal laws.  The settlement was reached before
the high court could hear the case.

The settlement will compensate an estimated 9,000 former and
current state agency employees and state college and university
workers, including nurses, custodians, paralegals, dietitians,
cardiologists and a wide range of other occupations.  

The $9 million part of the settlement will be used to increase
salaries of workers over the next five years.  The remaining $21
million, minus attorneys' fees, will go to compensate workers
retroactively for pay disparities.  The first of those payments
is retroactive to July 1.  That money should be forthcoming in
mid-2007, according to Martin Garfinkel, a Seattle lawyer who
represented the employees.

The state plans to fund the settlement with $22.5 million in
supplemental budget.  Lawmakers are expected to contribute $7.5
million.  The settlement still needs approval by Thurston County
Superior Court Judge Chris Wickman.

Mr. Garfinkel said the suit was filed in 1999, though claims
date back 35 years ago when state general government workers and
state community college and university employees were overseen
by two different personnel boards.  The boards were consolidated
in 1993, but the disparity between the wages continues.  
Employees in the class worked for the state between October 1996
and June 30, 2005.

The Washington Federation of State Employees, Washington Public
Employees Association and Local 1199 of the Service Employees
International Union represented the employees in the suit.

Mr. Garfinkerl is with Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, P.S., 500
Central Building, 810 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104
(King Co.), Phone: 206-622-8000; 1-800-809-2234, Fax: 206-682-
2305.


WEST PUBLISHING: Sept. 12 Trial Slated for Suit Over Bar Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Sept. 12, 2006 trial date is slated for a class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against West Publishing Corp.

The suit "Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., Case No. CV-05-
3222 R (MCx)" also names a defendants the BAR/BRI Bar Review and
Kaplan, Inc.

Filed in May 2005 filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, the suit was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have.  

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.

Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar
review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar
examination or any subsequent bar examination is a class member.

For more details, contact BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator,
P.O. Box 24639, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-888-285-
7850, E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com, Web site:
http://www.barbri-classaction.com/barbri/default.htm.

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al v. West Publishing Corporation
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc", filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eliot G. Disner, Esq. of McGuireWoods, LLP, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8299, Fax: 310-315-8298, E-mail:
         edisner@mcguirewoods.com;

     (2) Noah E Jussim of McGuire Woods, 1800 Century Park East,
         8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (3) Sidney K Kanazawa of Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket,
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90067, Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail:
         skanazawa@vsblaw.com;

     (4) Tracy Evans Moyer of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200;

     (5) Colleen M Regan of Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, 1800
         Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-315-8200, E-mail: cregan@vsblaw.com; and

     (5) Joanna Shally of Shearman and Sterling, 599 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4700.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Edward A Klein of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine &
         Regenstreif, 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
         90024-3503, Phone: 310-500-3500;

     (2) Stuart N Senator of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S Grand
         Ave, 35th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-
         683-9100, E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com;

     (3) Lee Scott Taylor of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 South
         Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90071-1560;

     (4) Jeffrey A LeVee of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street,
         50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939,
         E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com;

     (5) Courtney M Schaberg of Jones Day, 555 South Flower
         Street, 50th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         489-3939, E-mail: cmschaberg@jonesday.com; and

     (6) Brian A Sun of Jones Day, 555 South Flower Street, 50th
         Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-489-3939, E-
         mail: basun@jonesday.com.


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set in "Salomon Analyst"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in re: Salomon Analyst Williams
Litigation, Case No. 02-8156.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
Williams Communications Group stock and bonds between Oct. 27,
1999 and Nov. 1, 2001.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action against defendants
Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., formerly Salomon
Smith Barney Inc., and Jack Benjamin Grubman.

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint in this
action against the defendants, asserting securities fraud claims
against defendants under Sections 10(b) (and Rules 10b 5(a) (c)
thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons who:

      -- purchased shares of Williams Stock from Oct. 27, 1999,
         to Nov. 1, 2001, both dates inclusive; and

      -- purchased Williams Bonds, during the same period.

The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in securities
fraud by causing fraudulent Salomon Smith research reports
concerning Williams and authored by Mr. Grubman to be issued.  
It further alleged that the reports were fraudulent because at
least since June 2000, defendants believed that Williams stock
truly warranted a "Sell" rating even though Salomon Smith rated
it a "Buy."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Deadline for exclusions from the settlement is Aug. 31, 2006.  
Deadline for submission of a proof of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Williams Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=209.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. 29 Hearing Set in Salomon Analyst Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in re: Salomon Analyst XO Litigation,
Case No. 02-8114.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities, legal
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 18,
2000 through Nov. 1, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of XO Communications, Inc. common stock by any method,
including but not limited to in the second market, in exchange
for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a registration
statement or through the exercise of options including options
acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants
Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., formerly Salomon
Smith Barney Inc., and Jack Benjamin Grubman.

The lawsuit was initiated on Oct. 11, 2002, with the filing of a
class action complaint by plaintiff Joel Vine against defendants
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of himself and a
class of purchasers of shares of XO Communications, Inc. common
stock from Oct. 11, 1997 through Nov. 1, 2001.  

The suit was styled, "Vine v. Salomon Smith Barney, No. 02 Civ.
8114 (BSJ)."  The court later consolidated this action with
eight related actions.

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and lead plaintiffs' selection of
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (then known as Abbey
Gardy, LLP), and Green Welling LLP (then known as Green &
Jigarjian, LLP) as lead counsel.

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of XO securities during the period
from Jan. 18, 2000, through Nov. 2, 2001.

Lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, allege that:

      -- Mr. Grubman and Salomon Smith violated Section 10(b)
         and Rule 10b-5 for material misstatements and omissions
         with respect to XO research reports, including that
         such research reports falsely stated Mr. Grubman's true
         opinions and failed to disclose the conflicts of
         interest created by SSB's internal policies, which
         artificially inflated the price of XO securities; and

      -- against Salomon Smith and Citigroup violated Section
         20(a) as "control persons" of Mr. Grubman related to
         his materially misleading research reports on XO.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Deadline for submission of proofs of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst XO Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=208.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IONATRON INC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Ionatron, Inc. between June 27, 2005 and
May 10, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements regarding the battle field-readiness of its weapons.

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

Ionatron announced that it planned to sell this counter-IED
vehicle to the U.S. Government.  Despite the company's claim
that the vehicle would be field-deployable, the complaint
alleges that the company actually concealed that the vehicle was
at best an improvisation, incapable of meeting U.S. Government
specifications for field-readiness.

Meanwhile, company insiders sold over 1.5 million shares of
their Ionatron stock for proceeds of $18.4 million.

On May 10, 2006, the company finally revealed to investors that
the JIN vehicle actually was not "deployment-ready" in that the
U.S. Government determined that the vehicle lacked the
ruggedness and capabilities necessary for field deployment.  On
this news, the price of Ionatron stock plummeted, losing 12.3%,
to close on May 11, 2006, at $11.25.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 11, 2006 request the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


KLA-TENCOR: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of KLA-Tencor Corporation
(KLAC) between Feb. 13, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant KLA-Tencor and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Aug. 28,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact Brower Piven of The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.  


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, commenced a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division
on behalf of purchasers of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s publicly
traded securities during the period between Aug. 10, 2005 and
May 2, 2006.

The complaint charges NPS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  NPS engages in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of small molecules and recombinant proteins.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business and prospects, including the potential for success of
PREOS, its full-length human parathyroid hormone (PTH) drug
candidate being developed for the treatment of osteoporosis.

As a result of these false statements, NPS stock traded at
inflated levels during the class period, whereby the company was
able to sell 7 million shares of NPS stock for proceeds of more
than $79 million.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the class period, were that:

      -- contrary to defendants' positive claims concerning the
         PaTH study on Aug. 10, 2005, the results in fact
         evidenced that PREOS was no different from Fosamax in
         bone density and fracture results;

      -- there was a very narrow market for PTH drugs (like
         PREOS and its competitor Forteo): namely, patients
         with severe spinal osteoporosis who had also suffered a
         fracture;

      -- on or before Aug. 2, 2005, defendants were notified
         that a major study performed by a lead researcher in
         the field who had reviewed all PREOS study results had
         concluded that further studies were necessary to
         determine the efficiency of PREOS, if any, in humans;

      -- unlike other bone density drugs/products which can be
         used for hip fracture risk reduction, PREOS, assuming
         it received FDA approval, could not be prescribed for
         this use -- a key market for bone density drugs;

      -- the Center of Medicare Services of Health and Human
         Services had ruled that injectable drugs for
         osteoporosis, like PREOS' competitor Forteo, would be
         reimbursable only for patients who had suffered a
         fracture, which indicated that the market for a drug
         like PREOS was limited to a small subgroup of
         osteoporosis patients who had suffered a fracture while
         on an existing oral drug;

      -- defendants were also aware that physicians would never
         recommend PREOS except in all but the rarest cases,
         since the Physician Desk Reference on drugs recommended
         Forteo (and hence, injectable parathormone drugs like
         PREOS also) for second line use in osteoporosis after
         failure of oral drugs like Fosamax and for a maximum
         of 24 months, which limitations on physician use narrow
         the medical indication for parathormone drugs like
         PREOS; and

      -- the combination of these facts added up to a huge
         hurdle to market success for PREOS because the very
         drug that was the baseline precursor drug for
         osteoporosis, Fosamax, had already been shown to be as
         effective as PREOS in the PaTH studies.

These facts about PREOS, including the limited reimbursement for
the family of parathormone drugs, were critical to understanding
the very difficult prospects for FDA approval and market success
for the drug.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone: (212) 279-
5050 and (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com.  


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
on behalf of purchasers of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. publicly
traded securities between Aug. 10, 2005 and May 2, 2006.

The complaint charges NPS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  NPS engages in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of small molecules and recombinant proteins.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business and prospects, including the potential for success of
PREOS, its full-length human parathyroid hormone (PTH) drug
candidate being developed for the treatment of osteoporosis.

As a result of these false statements, NPS stock traded at
inflated levels during the class period, whereby the company was
able to sell 7 million shares of NPS stock for proceeds of more
than $79 million.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were that:

      -- contrary to defendants' positive claims concerning the
         PaTH study on Aug. 10, 2005, the results in fact
         evidenced that PREOS was no different from Fosamax in
         bone density and fracture results;

      -- there was a very narrow market for PTH drugs (like
         PREOS and its competitor Forteo): namely, patients with
         severe spinal osteoporosis who had also suffered a
         fracture;

      -- on or before Aug. 2, 2005, defendants were notified
         that a major study performed by a lead researcher in
         the field who had reviewed all PREOS study results had
         concluded that further studies were necessary to
         determine the efficiency of PREOS, if any, in humans;

      -- unlike other bone density drugs/products which can be
         used for hip fracture risk reduction, PREOS, assuming
         it received FDA approval, could not be prescribed for
         this use - a key market for bone density drugs;

      -- the Center of Medicare Services of Health and Human
         Services had ruled that injectable drugs for
         osteoporosis, like PREOS's competitor Forteo, would be
         reimbursable only for patients who had suffered a
         fracture, which indicated that the market for a drug
         like PREOS was limited to a small subgroup of
         osteoporosis patients who had suffered a fracture while
         on an existing oral drug;

      -- defendants were also aware that physicians would never
         recommend PREOS except in all but the rarest cases,
         since the Physician Desk Reference on drugs recommended
         Forteo (and hence, injectable parathormone drugs like
         PREOS also) for second line use in osteoporosis after
         failure of oral drugs like Fosamax and for a maximum of
         24 months, which limitations on physician use narrow
         the medical indication for parathormone drugs like
         PREOS; and

      -- the combination of these facts added up to a huge
         hurdle to market success for PREOS because the very
         drug that was the baseline precursor drug for
         osteoporosis, Fosamax, had already been shown to be as
         effective as PREOS in the PaTH studies.

These facts about PREOS, including the limited reimbursement for
the family of parathormone drugs, were critical to understanding
the very difficult prospects for FDA approval and market success
for the drug.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/nps.  


SUNTERRA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Nev.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm commenced a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Sunterra Corp. common stock from April 15, 2003 to
June 22, 2006.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada as Case No. 2:06-cv-00844.  

The complaint charges that Sunterra and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act by issuing materially false and
misleading financial results for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31,
2002 to Sept. 30, 2005 and the first quarter ended Dec. 31,
2005.

On March 27, 2006 the company announced that it had terminated
Grant Thornton as its independent auditor.  On April 10, 2006,
Grant Thornton notified the SEC by letter that it disagreed with
Sunterra's statements concerning Grant Thornton's termination.

Specifically Grant Thornton asserted that an email it had
received from a former employee alleging accounting
improprieties in Sunterra's European operations was a reportable
event, contrary to the representation that Sunterra had made to
the SEC on March 27.  On May 2, 2006, the company terminated th
managing director of Sunterra Europe.

On May 3, 2006 the company announced that its financial results
for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31, 2002 to Sept. 30, 2005 and
the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005 contained material
inaccuracies and should no longer be relied upon.

On June 22, 2006, the company announced that it had placed its
Chief Executive Officer Nicholas J. Benson on administrative
leave pending the completion of the company's investigation into
the company's accounting practices and the allegations by the
former employee.

That same day, the company announced that its chief financial
officer Steven E. West had resigned.  Subsequently, on July 6,
2006 the company's stock was de-listed from the Nasdaq.  As a
result of these adverse events, the company's stock has declined
nearly 50%.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., 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.


                            *********


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  * * *