CAR_Public/060718.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 141

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit
BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: L.A. Officials Will No Longer Testify in Farm Suit
CANADA: Cabinet Approves Compensation in Residential School Suit
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Jumbo Franks for Undeclared Milk Content

EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Hearing Set for M53XX Suit Settlement
FEDEX EXPRESS: Settles "Foster" Wage, Hour Litigation in Calif.
FINISAR CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Upholds Class Status Denial
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Proceedings Stayed in Calif. Trailer Suit

FLORIDA: Residents Sue Citrus County Over "Excessive" Water Fees
HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR: Recalls Lawn Tractors to Repair Fuel Line
JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Face Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in RAL Lawsuit
MERRILL LYNCH: Race Bias Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Stock Suit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Deal Yet to Receive Final Approval
PATTERSON COS: Faces Consolidated Stock, ERISA, Derivative Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Resident Sues Allegheny County Over Strip Searches
PHARMACEUTICAL COS: Aussie Firms Enter $23M Deal in Vit. Suit

ROXANE LABORATORIES: Recalls Lot 558470A of Azathioprine Tablets
SALOMON SMITH: Court Sides with State in Phone Call Taping Suit
SAXON MORTGAGE: Settles Consumer Fraud Suit Over Loans in Ill.
SUNTERRA CORP: Law Firms Solicit Clients to Join Fraud Lawsuit
TEXAS: Judge Allows Use of FEMA Housing Aid for Bills Payment

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suits
UNITED KINGDOM: London Court Mulls Certification of Names Suit
WORLDCOM INC: DSI to Accept Bids for Former Chief Exec's Assets


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Aug. Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
INFOSONICS CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif.
IONATRON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Utah
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied
class-action status to a consolidated lawsuit filed against
American Electric Power over allegations that it violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The court subsequently
dismissed the case.

In its July 11, 2006 order the court denied the Motion for Class
Certification filed by a plaintiff who sought to represent a
putative sub-class of participants in the AEP Retirement Savings
Plan.  The plaintiff alleged that AEP breached its fiduciary
duties to the Plan by offering AEP stock as an investment option
under the plan and failing to disclose material information
regarding the stock.

The court found that the proposed class representative lacked
standing under ERISA Section 502(a)(2).  The court accordingly
denied class certification and dismissed the action for lack of
standing.

In 2003, Kermit D. Bridges and Selena Plentl brought the suit on
behalf of the participants in the AEP System Retirement Savings
Plan, together with its predecessors, whose individual accounts
the Plan purchased and/or held shares of the AEP Stock Fund from
Dec. 9, 1998 to present.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants -- American Electric
Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn
Draper, Jr., and Thomas V. Shockley, III -- breached their
fiduciary duties as set forth under ERISA and the Department of
Labor Regulations.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull and Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, E-
         mail: ssbny@aol.com;

     (2) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott, 471
         East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and

     (3) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal
         Reserve Building, 150 E Fourth Street, 4th Floor,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, E-mail:
         jjbraun@strausstroy.com.

Representing the defendants are Michael J. Chepiga, Charlie L.
Divine, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Issa Mikel and George S. Wang of
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York,
NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502, Web site:
http://www.stblaw.com/.


BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed the consolidated class action complaint filed against
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. and certain of its officers,
alleging securities fraud by the company and certain of its
current and former officers.

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing
the plaintiffs until August 14, 2006 to file an amended
complaint, according to a statement from the company.

The court previously consolidated 10 separate actions into this
consolidated class action complaint (Class Action Reporter, July
4, 2006).

                        Case Background

Between May and July 2004, 10 putative securities class actions,
now consolidated and designated, "In re Bally Total Fitness
Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.  

On March 15, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and on
May 23, 2005 the court appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements in
November 2005.  

On Dec. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased Bally stock between Aug. 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004.

The various defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Feb. 24, 2006, which motions are
currently pending, according to the company's June 27, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended March 31, 2006.
  
The suit is "In re Bally Total Fitness Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03530," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Fay Clayton of Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C., 300  
         South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606,  
         Phone: (312) 663-3100, E-mail:  
         fclayton@robinsoncurley.com; and  

     (2) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,  
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite  
         1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403,  
         Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Janet Malloy Link of Latham & Watkins, LLP, (IL), 233  
         South Wacker Drive, 5800 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL  
         60606, Phone: (312) 876-7700, E-mail:  
         janet.link@lw.com;

    (ii) Gregory A. Markel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,  
         LLP, One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281,  
         Phone: (212) 504-6000;

   (iii) Howard Steven Suskin of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM  
         Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th  
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E-
         mial: hsuskin@jenner.com; and

    (iv) Mary Ellen Hennessy of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525  
         West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661,  
         Phone: (312) 902-5200, E-mail:  
         maryellen.hennessy@kattenlaw.com.


CALIFORNIA: L.A. Officials Will No Longer Testify in Farm Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendant agreed on June 14
not to call Los Angeles officials to testify in a suit over the
sale by the city of South Central Farm, according to Associated
Press.

The plaintiffs have subpoenaed Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and
nearly a dozen members of the city council.  But Superior Court
Judge Helen I. Bendix said she would have to limit the type of
questions the urban farmers' lawyers could ask, according to the
report.  Judge Bendix heard on July 12 a series of pre-trial
motions in the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).  

Farmers filed a class action against the city and developer
Ralph Horowitz in February 2004 asking to nullify the sale of
the land in 2003 on grounds that the city did not issue a public
notice prior to the deal.  They said in court papers they could
have raised funds to buy themselves had they known of the
planned sale.  They are also claiming the city sold the land to
Mr. Horowitz for far less than its value, according to NBC4.TV.

The city bought the land from Mr. Horowitz in the 1980s using
its power of eminent domain.  It loaned the land to the Los
Angeles Regional Food Bank, and sold it to the Harbor Department
in 1994.  Mr. Horowitz sued the city over the sale, forcing it
to sell him the land back for $5 million in 2003.

On June 13, the farmers were evicted from the land at 41st and
Alameda streets in South Los Angeles under a court order signed
in May.

Patrick M. Dunlevy is attorney for the farmers.


CANADA: Cabinet Approves Compensation in Residential School Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal cabinet has approved plans for a CA$1.9 billion
compensation package for residential school survivors, according
to the Saskatchewan Sage.

The approval finalizes the agreement-in-principle announced in
November 2005.  The settlement plan, which must still be
approved in nine provincial courts, provides:

     -- at least CA$1.9 billion available for "common
        experience" payments to former students who lived at one
        of the schools.  Payments will be CA$10,000 for the
        first school year (or part of a school year) plus
        CA$3,000 for each school year (or part of a school year)
        after that;

     -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious
        physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious
        psychological effects, to get between CA$5,000 and
        CA$275,000 each.  Students could get more money if they
        also show a loss of income; and

     -- money for programs for former students and their
        families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and
        commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses
        suffered: CA$125 million to the Aboriginal Healing
        Foundation, CA$60 million to research, document, and
        preserve the experiences of the survivors, and CA$20
        million for national and community commemorative
        projects.

The government will pay lawyers representing former students up
to approximately CA$100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes.

In May, the federal government has agreed to pay CA$80 million
to Regina-based Merchant Law Group and a national consortium of
20 law firms.  Survivors, meanwhile, are to get an average of
CA$30,000.
                   
Canada and churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian,
Anglican and United Church operated residential schools in
Canada from 1848 until the 1970s.  Their objectives included
separating aboriginal children from their traditional languages
and cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society.
The Merchant Law Group represents 9,000 survivors, which the
firm's Web site says is half of all those who sought justice by
means of class action (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).

                   Deadline to File Objection

Deadline to file objection to the settlement is Aug. 25, 2006.  
Objections must be filed with the Residential Schools
Settlement, Suite 3-505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo, Ontario
N2J 3G9, Phone: 1-866-879-4913, E-mail:
objections@residentialschoolsettlement.ca.

                        Hearings Schedule

Hearing       Location                 Hearing date         Time

Ontario    Ontario Superior         Aug 29-31, 2006   10:00 a.m.
           Court of Justice
           Court House
           361 University Avenue
           Toronto, ON  M5G 1T3

Quebec     Superior Court           Sept 8, 2006       9:30 a.m.
           of Quebec
           Palais de justice
           1 Notre-Dame Street East
           Montreal, QC  H2Y 1B6

Saskatchewan  Court of Queen's       Sept 18-20,      10:00 a.m.
              Bench                    2006
              Court House
              2425 Victoria Avenue
              Regina, SK  S4P 3V7

Northwest    Court House             Oct 3-4, 2006  10:00 a.m.
              Territories   
              4903 - 49th Street
              Yellowknife,
              Northwest Territories
              X1A 2N4

Manitoba      Court of Queen's        Oct 5-6, 2006  10:00 a.m.
              Bench
              Law Courts Building
              408 York Avenue
              Winnipeg, MB  R3C 0P9

Nunavut       Nunavut Court           Oct 10-11, 2006  9:30 a.m.
              of Justice
              Arnakallak Building
              (Building #224)
              Iqaluit, Nunavut
              X0A 0H0

British       The Supreme Court       Oct 10-12, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              Columbia
              of British Columbia
              The Law Courts
              800 Smithe Street
              Vancouver, B.C.
              V6Z 2E1

Alberta       Court of Queen's        Oct 12-13, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              Bench
              Court House
              611 - 4 St. S.W.
              Calgary, AB  T2P 1T5

Yukon         Supreme Court of        Oct 16-17, 2006 10:00 a.m.
              the Yukon Territory
              2134 Second Avenue
              Whitehorse, Yukon
              Y1A 5H6

With the exception of those who attended the Mohawk Institute in
Brantford, Ontario, former students and their families are
advised to attend the hearing in the Province/Territory in which
they now reside.  Those living in Labrador, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or outside
Canada, are affected by, and may attend, the Ontario hearing.  
Former Mohawk Institute students are affected by the Ontario
hearing regardless of where they now live.

The compensation will only be paid out to former students who
were still living on May 30, 2005, and who have attended a
recognized Indian residential schools.  Students who are
eligible can apply for an advance payment of $8,000 by filling
out a form available on the Indian Residential Schools
Resolution Web site (http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/)or by calling  
1-800-816-7293.   Applications for advance payment will be
accepted until Dec. 31.

For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement
Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Jumbo Franks for Undeclared Milk Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods of Quincy, Michigan, in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service,
is voluntarily recalling approximately 16,716 lbs. of jumbo
franks due to an undeclared milk allergen.

The product label indicates that the package contains jumbo
franks made with turkey and pork; however, the package may
contain cheese-smoked sausage made with pork and turkey.  The
cheese-smoked sausage contains milk, a known allergen, which is
not declared on the label.

The recalled jumbo franks are in 16-oz. vacuum packages of
"Eckrich, Jumbo Franks, Made With Turkey, Pork."  Each label
bears the establishment number "1941" and the lot code "3F."  
Each package also bears the manufacturer's code "0549082306" and
the sell by date, "Aug. 23, 2006."

The franks were produced on May 15, 2006, and were shipped to
retail stores in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia.  

The problem was discovered by the company.  The FSIS has
received no reports of illness due to consumption of this
product.  Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction is advised
to contact a physician.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
company toll-free, 24-hour information line at 1-866-344-6833.

Media with questions about the recall should contact the
company's Communications Director Tania Graves at (402) 595-
6258.


EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Hearing Set for M53XX Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio will hold a
fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "David Heitbrink and Robert Rattner,
et al. v. eMachines, Inc., Case No. G-4801CI200501229."

The case was brought on behalf of all owners of eMachines M5305,
M5309, M5310, M5312 and M5313 series notebook computers (M53XX
Series).

The suit alleges that the M53xx Series computers were defective
in design, causing them to overheat or shut down or experience a
significant reduction in processing speed as a result of
overheating during normal usage.  It further claims that
eMachines knew of and concealed the existence of these issues at
the time it sold the M53xx Series.  

It is, thus, asserting claims for violation of state consumer
protection statutes, uniform written misrepresentation, common
omission, and breach of warranty.

The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Osowik, at the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 700 Adams Street, Toledo,
Ohio, in Courtroom 10.  In that hearing the court will consider
whether to grant final certification to the class for settlement
purposes, and whether to approve the proposed settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate.  

In addition, the court will also consider at this hearing the
request of class counsel for fees amounting to $2,250,000 and
the class representative awards to the two class representatives
of $2,000.00 each, which eMachines has agreed to pay as part of
this settlement over and above the other remedies.

Deadline for any objections or exclusions to or from the
settlement is on July 25, 2006.  Postmark Deadline for
submitting claim form unless the effective date of the
settlement is extended is on Oct. 22, 2006.

For more details, contact eMachines, Class Action Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 91146, Seattle, WA 98111-9246, Phone: 1-
866-817-6513, E-mail: M53xxSeriesSettlement@gardencitygroup.com,
Web site: http://www.m53xxseriessettlement.com/.


FEDEX EXPRESS: Settles "Foster" Wage, Hour Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the wage-and-hour class action, "Foster v. FedEx
Express Corp.," which is pending in a California state court
reached a settlement in the matter.

Plaintiffs in "Foster" represent a class of hourly FedEx Express
employees in California from Oct. 14, 1998 to the present.  They
allege that hourly employees are routinely required to work "off
the clock" and are not paid for this additional work.

The court issued a ruling in December 2004 granting class
certification on all issues.  In February 2006, the parties
reached a settlement that has been preliminarily approved by the
court.

The company continues to deny liability, but entered into the
settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of further
litigation.  The amount of the proposed settlement was fully
accrued at the end of the third quarter of 2006 and is not
material to FedEx Corp.


FINISAR CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Finisar Corp., according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006.

On Nov. 30, 2001, a securities class action was filed
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
common stock from Nov. 17, 1999 to Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaint named as defendants the company, Jerry S. Rawls,
its president and chief executive officer, Frank H. Levinson,
its former chairman of the board and chief technical officer,
Stephen K. Workman, its senior vice president and chief
financial officer, and an investment banking firm that served as
an underwriter for the company's initial public offering in
November 1999 and a secondary offering in April 2000.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in lawsuits relating to more than
300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000,
which were consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002,
all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.  In July 2004, the company and the individual
defendants accepted a settlement proposal made to all of the
issuer defendants.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in
all related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.

Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases.

If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is
required under the guaranty, the company would be responsible to
pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of
the self-insured retention under the company's insurance policy,
which may be up to $2 million.

The timing and amount of payments that the company could be
required to make under the proposed settlement will depend on
several factors, principally the timing and amount of any
payment that the insurers may be required to make pursuant to
the $1 billion guaranty.

The court held hearings on April 13, 2005 and Sept. 6, 2005 to
determine the form, substance and program of class notice and
the scheduling of a fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement.

Subsequently, the court held a hearing on April 24, 2006 to
consider final approval of the settlement and has yet to issue a
decision.

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


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Upholds Class Status Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal upheld the denial of class-
action status to a lawsuit over alleged defects in the plastic
roofing of Fleetwood Enterprises' folding trailers.

Captioned, "Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et
al.," the complaint claims damages arising out of certain
California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a
specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers
produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. from 1995 through
2003.

A California state court denied class certification in the
Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the State of California-
Court of Appeal upheld the denial in a ruling issued on May 11,
2006.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Proceedings Stayed in Calif. Trailer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification proceedings were stayed in a class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. over a specific
type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers.

The suit, "Brodhead, et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.," was
filed on June 22, 2005.  It is claiming damages arising out of
certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged
defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed on the
company's folding trailers from 1995 through 2003.

Plaintiffs have clarified that the class for which they are
seeking certification extends to all owners of folding trailers
produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of
roof, as well as any former owners who may have had to pay to
have this type of roof repaired.

Proceedings relating to the class certification in the Brodhead
matter were stayed pending the outcome of the state court
certification in "Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.
et al."

The suit is "Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises
Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward M. Gergosian and Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. of
         Gergosian and Gralewski, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-230-0104, E-mail:
         ed@gergosian.com; and

     (2) Eric H. Gibbs, Karen Lee Hindin and Jonathan K. Levine
         of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, 601 California St.,
         Ste. 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-981-
         4800, E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com; klh@girardgibbs.com
         and jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Howard B. Golds of Best Best & Krieger, 3750 University
         Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028, Riverside, CA 92502-
         1028, Phone: 951-686-1450, E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com;
         and

    (ii) Lee Ann Anand and Richard K Hines, V of Nelson Mulins
         Riley & Scroborough, 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite
         1400, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-817-6000, E-mail:
         leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com and
         richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com.


FLORIDA: Residents Sue Citrus County Over "Excessive" Water Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrus County, Florida faces a purported class action filed by a
group of Chassahowitzka River property owners, who are
challenging the county's assessments for a new water system, The
St. Petersburg Times reports.

The suit was filed by Lutz attorney Gerald T. Buhr in the Citrus
County Circuit Court on July 14, 2006.  It alleges that
assessments the commissioners approved last month to pay for a
new water system in Chassahowitzka are unfair and excessive.  It
further claims that county officials unfairly burdened
residential property owners by incorrectly calculating the
assessments that owners of commercial properties must pay.

It is demanding that the county, represented by Robert "Butch"
Battista, should add properties north of Chassahowitzka, east of
U.S. 19 along U.S. 98, to the assessment list.  The government
is planning to lay down more than 7,000-foot of water main in
that portion of the road; however, county plans currently don't
require adjoining properties to hook up.

Plaintiffs in the suit are Michael D. Hartley, Clay Steinman,
Matthew Corona and PSC Holdings LLC, representing Chassahowitzka
residents.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Gerald T. Buhr of Gerald T. Buhr, P.A.,
         Northfork Professional Center, Suite 100, 1519 Dale
         Mabry Highway, Lutz, Florida 33548, (Hillsborough Co.),
         Phone: 813-949-3681, Cell Phone: 813-610-8108, Fax:
         813-949-3196; and

     (2) [Defendants] Robert B. Battista, County Attorney, 110
         N. Apopka Ave., Inverness, Florida 34450, Phone: (352)
         341-6560, Fax: (352) 341-6585.


HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR: Recalls Lawn Tractors to Repair Fuel Line
------------------------------------------------------------
Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc., of Augusta, Georgia, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 174,000 units of lawn tractors.  Husqvarna is
formerly Electrolux Outdoor Products Inc.

The company said the fuel line on these lawn tractors can
separate from the fuel tank outlet.  If this occurs, fuel will
spill out, posing a fire hazard.

Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc. received 886 reports of fuel
lines that separated from the fuel tank outlet and 16 reports of
fires related to this issue.  There are three reports of minor
personal injury.

The lawn tractors were sold under the Husqvarna, Craftsman,
Poulan Pro, Poulan, Weed Eater, Southern States and Murray brand
names.  The Recalled tractors' product, model and serial numbers
are listed in the chart below.  To determine if a tractor is
included in the recall, check the lawn tractors' product, model
and serial numbers, located on a label under the seat of the
tractor.

Brand       Product    Model       Serial       Service Center
             Number    Number       Number
                                   Range

Craftsman    NA        917.27662  120905-X00XXXX  (800) 659-5917
                       917.27663  through          Monday to
                       917.27618  061606-X00XXXX   Saturday
                       917.27664                  between 6 a.m.
                                                   & 8 p.m. ET.
                                            http://www.sears.com

             NA        917.27535  090905-X00XXXX  
                       917.27639  through
                       917.27640  062206-X00XXXX
                       917.27641
                       917.27678

Husqvarna 960430003 00 YT1942T    120905-X00XXXX  (866) 721-6091  
                                  through         Monday to
                                  061606-X00XXXX  Friday
                                                  between 8 a.m.
                                                  and 5 p.m. ET
                                               www.husqvarna.com

          960130019 00 LT16542    090905-X00XXXX
                                  through
                                  062206-X00X`XXX

Poulan    960420026 00 C20H42YT   120905-X00XXXX  (866) 284-8872
                                  through         Monday through
                                  061606-X00XXXX  Friday
                                                  between 8 a.m.        
                                                  and 5 p.m. ET
                                           http://www.poulan.com

          960120043 00 PO12538LT  090905-X00XXXX
          960120044 00 PB1638LT   through
          960120044 01 PB1638LT   062206-X00XXXX
          960120044 02 PB1638LT
          960120045 00 PB1842LT
          960120045 01 PB1842LT
          960120053 00 PB185H42LT
          960170004 00 PB18H42LT

Poulan    960420020 00 PB19H42YT  120905-X00XXXX  (866) 284-8872
Pro       960420008 00 PB20H42YT  through         Monday through
          960420009 00 PK20H42YT  061606-X00XXXX  Friday
          960420016 00 XT19H42YT                  between 8 a.m.
                                                  and 5 p.m. ET
                                           http://www.poulan.com

          960160013 00 HD17542    090905-X00XXXX
          960160013 01 HD17542    through
          960120060 00 XT185H42LT 062206-X00XXXX

Southern  960420011 00 SO20H42YT  120905-X00XXXX  (866) 284-8872
States                            through         Monday through
                                  061606-X00XXXX  Friday
                                                  between 8 a.m.   
                                                  and 5 p.m. ET
          960120054 00 SO1638LT   090905-X00XXXX
          960120055 00 SO17542LT  through
          960120057 01 SO19H42LT  062206-X00XXXX

Weed      960160014 00 HD13538    090905-X00XXXX  (866) 284-8872
Eater     960160014 02            through         Monday through
                                  062206-X00XXXX  Friday
                                                  between 8 a.m.     
                                                  and 5 p.m. ET
                                        http://www.weedeater.com

Pictures of the recalled lawn tractors:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06207a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06207b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06207c.jpg

The lawn tractors were manufactured in Orangeburg, South
Carolina and are being sold at home centers, retailers, hardware
stores and dealers nationwide from September 2005 through June
2006 for between $820 and $1,500.

Consumers with recalled tractors are advised to immediately stop
using the tractor and contact the applicable firm listed in
below chart to schedule a free repair.

For more information, call Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc. toll-
free at (866) 284-8872 or visit: http://www.husqvarna.com.  
Consumers with Craftsman-brand tractors should call (800) 659-
5917.

Consumers with Poulan Pro, Poulan, Weed Eater, Southern States
or Murray brand tractors should call toll-free at (866) 284-
8872.


JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Face Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains a defendant in purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California over Refund Anticipation Loans, according
to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2006.

On Dec. 23, 2005, Pierre Brailsford and Kevin Gilmore brought a
purported class action against the company in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County in connection with disclosures
made in connection with the provision of RALs.  

Plaintiffs are alleging that the disclosures and related
practices are fraudulent and otherwise unlawful, and seeking
equitable and monetary relief.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

On Feb. 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was denied, and subsequently answered the complaint, denying any
liability.

The suit is "Brailsford, et al. v. Hewitt, et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-00700-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.

Representing the plaintiffs is Kathryn Chris Palamountain of
Chavez & Gertler, LLP, 42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941,
Phone: 415-381-5599, Fax: 415-381-5572, E-mail:
chris@chavezgertler.com.

Representing the defendants is Joren Surya Bass of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, 4 Embarcadero Center, Ste.
3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-984-6400, Fax: 415-
984-2698, E-mail: jbass@skadden.com.


JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in RAL Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
has yet to rule on both parties' motion for summary judgment in
the class action against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. over
Refund Anticipation Loans.

On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought a purported class action
against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co. and the company in
connection with disclosures made in the provision of RALs,
alleging that the disclosures and related practices are
fraudulent and otherwise unlawful.  The plaintiffs sought
equitable and monetary relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.  In
response, Mr. Benton withdrew his original complaint and filed
an amended complaint on Jan. 3, 2005.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff
filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, both of which are
currently pending, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006.


MERRILL LYNCH: Race Bias Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a race discrimination case against brokerage firm
Merrill Lynch & Co. have filed an amended complaint, contending
that the company systemically limited the opportunities for
blacks to succeed as brokers, according to International Herald
Tribune.

The plaintiffs claim they were denied a fair chance to rise into
management.  They also allege the company retaliated against
those who complained.  Their complaint also includes allegations
of offensive remarks and other slights directed at them.  They
are seeking a large monetary award and court-ordered initiatives
to increase diversity in the ranks, the report said.  They are
seeking class-action status for the case.

Glenn Capel, a black financial adviser in a busy Merrill Lynch
office in Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of dozens of
current and former Merrill brokers who asked to join the suit
after it was filed last year.

In June, Reuters reported that settlement talks in a racial
class action filed against Merrill Lynch failed to reach an
agreement, the company said (Class Action Reporter, June 12,
2006).

The suit was originally filed on behalf of financial advisor  
George McReynold in federal court in Chicago in November.  It  
accuses Merrill Lynch of systematically discriminating against  
African-American brokers in hiring, promotion and compensation.   
It is asking compensatory and punitive damages.  

The suit is "McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Case No.  
1:05-cv-06583," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman,  
with referral to Judge Michael T. Mason.  

Representing the plaintiffs are: Linda Debra Friedman and Mary  
Stowell of Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., 321 South Plymouth Court,  
Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 312-431-0888, E-mail:  
lfriedman@sfltd.com, mstowell@sfltd.com.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against OmniVision Technologies, Inc.

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its present and
former directors and officers on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's common stock at various times from
February 2003 to June 9, 2004.

Those actions were consolidated under the caption, "In re
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. C-04-2297-SC."  It asserts
claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004.  It is seeking
unspecified damages.  It generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper
accounting practices that purportedly led to the company's
financial restatement.

On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The company believes that the complaint
is without merit.  The case is currently in discovery, according
to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel
L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc Louis Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala
         Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 94104, Phone: 610-
         667-6200, Fax: 610-667-9029, E-mail:
         mackerman@brodsky-smith.com;

     (2) Peter A. Binkow 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:
         pbinkow@glancylaw.com; and

     (3) Jeffery C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
         & Pucillo, 8th Floor, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: 6175421194, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants are Jenny L. Dixon, Cameron Powers
Hoffman and Claudia N. Main of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
Phone: 415-947-2000, (650) 493-9300 and 415-947-2053, Fax: 415-
947-2099, E-mail: jldixon@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com and
cmain@wsgr.com.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Deal Yet to Receive Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., according to the company's July
14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006.

On Nov. 29, 2001, a complaint captioned, "McKee v. OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 01CV 10775," was filed
against the company, some of its directors and officers, and
various underwriters for its initial public offering.

Plaintiffs allege that the named defendants violated federal
securities laws because the prospectus related to the company's
offering failed to disclose, and contained false and misleading
statements regarding, certain commissions purported to have been
received by the underwriters, and other purported underwriter
practices in connection with their allocation of shares in the
company's offering.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July
14, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.

Substantially similar actions have been filed concerning the
initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers,
and the cases have been coordinated as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."  

Claims against the company's directors and officers were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.  On Feb.
19, 2003, the court issued an order dismissing all claims
against the company except for a claim brought under Section 11
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

A stipulation of settlement for the release of claims against
the issuer defendants, including the company was submitted to
the court.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement contingent on specified modifications.  On Aug. 31,
2005, the court issued an order confirming preliminary approval
of the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement.
The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final
approval at the fairness hearing.

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


PATTERSON COS: Faces Consolidated Stock, ERISA, Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Cos., Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

Initially, five purported class actions were filed against the
company and certain officers and directors, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating the
cases as "In re Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation,
File No. 05cv1757 DSD/NMJ."

On Sept. 16, 2005, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Vance
Cadd, Derivatively On Behalf of Patterson Companies, Inc. vs.
James W. Wiltz, et al., docketed as 05-cv-02155 RHK/AJB."

The suit names certain officers and directors of the company as
defendants.  It alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.

On Oct. 11, 2005, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Tamara Dolliver,
et al., v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al, Case No. 05-cv-
02383 JNE/SRN."

The class action was brought on behalf of the participants in
the company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan against the company
and certain officers and directors.  It alleges violations of
the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Cadd and Dolliver cases are predicated on essentially the
same factual allegations alleged in, and are related cases to,
the class actions consolidated as, "In Re Patterson Companies,
Inc. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated suit is now "In Re Patterson Companies, Inc.
Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-
01757-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Missouri under Judge David S. Doty with referral to
Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins LLP - SD, 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-338-3801, E-mail:
         andrewb@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Karl L. Cambronne and Jack L. Chestnut of Chestnut &
         Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls, MN 55402,
         Phone: 612-339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940 (fax), E-mail:
         kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com and
         jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com.

Representing the company are Jeffrey A. Abrahamson, Jessica R.
Rosenberg, Frank A. Taylor and Margaret A. Goetze of Briggs &
Morgan, PA, Phone: 651-808-6600, 651-808-6633 and (612) 977-
8663, Fax: 651-808-6450 and 612-977-8650, E-mail:
jabrahamson@briggs.com, ftaylor@briggs.com, mgoetze@briggs.com
and jrosenberg@briggs.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: Resident Sues Allegheny County Over Strip Searches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County and several of its officials face a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania over allegations of civil rights violation in
relation to its strip search policy, The Pittsburgh Tribune-
Review reports.

Michael Rey of Mt. Washington filed the suit on July 13, 2006,
seeking class action status on behalf of everyone who was or
will be strip-searched in county jail after being arrested for
petty crimes. Mr. Rey, according to court documents, was strip-
searched after being arrested for not paying child support

Represented by attorney Rob Peirce, the 44-year-old man, claims
that hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and other
violations are placed in the Allegheny County jail each month
and that at least 5,000 were strip-searched illegally.  Some,
according to his suit, had their civil rights violated on
multiple occasions.

Despite the allegations, Warden Ramon Rustin, who is named in
the lawsuit along with four deputy wardens defended the county
jail's policy, pointing out that they only strip-search people
arrested for drug-related or violent crimes.

The suit states that Mr. Rey was arrested on Feb. 13 on a non-
felony charge of failing to pay child support.  On Feb. 14, he
was transferred from a holding cell at the County Courthouse to
the jail.  There, a guard ordered him to remove his clothes in a
shower room and performed a visual body cavity search, accoridng
to the suit.

The suit is "Rey V. The County Of Allegheny, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00927-TFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Terrence F.
McVerry.

Representing the plaintiffs are D. Aaron Rihn and Rob Peirce of
Peirce Law Offices, 707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, U.S.A, Phone: (412) 281-7229, Fax: (412)
281-4229, E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com.


PHARMACEUTICAL COS: Aussie Firms Enter $23M Deal in Vit. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $23 million (AU$30.5 million) settlement was reached in a
class action filed on behalf of about a dozen Australian
businesses claiming several international companies colluded to
operate as a cartel by illegally fixing vitamin prices, the
Malaysia Star reports.

In 2003, Melbourne-based law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman
commenced the class action against the Australian, Asian and
European divisions of international conglomerates such as Roche,
Aventis and BASF, contending these firms and others colluded to
illegally fix vitamin prices in the 1990s (Class Action
Reporter, July 21, 2003).

The companies allegedly colluded to fix prices across the world
market for vitamins A, C, E, B2, B5 and beta-carotene in
everything from drinks and foodstuffs to pharmaceutical
products, cosmetics and animal feed.

The Australian class action was initiated after a worldwide
conspiracy to raise and fix prices of vitamins was uncovered,
with companies receiving record penalties, according to a report
from the Associated Press.

Terms of the settlement, which is still subject to the approval
of a federal judge until August 31, will be outlined in the
local dailies over the next week, according to Kim Parker,
principal of Maurice Blackburn.


ROXANE LABORATORIES: Recalls Lot 558470A of Azathioprine Tablets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxane Laboratories, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and
Drugs Administration, is conducting a nationwide voluntary
recall of a single manufacturing lot of Azathioprine tablets,
USP 50 mg., (NDC 00054-4084-25, Lot 558470A, Exp Mar 2009).  

Azathioprine is used to help prevent rejection in kidney
transplant patients, and can also be used to manage severe
rheumatoid arthritis.

It was discovered that a single bottle of Azathioprine tablets
from lot 558470A contained Methotrexate tablets USP 2.5 mg.  The
company believes this issue may be limited to this single
bottle, which was not dispensed to a patient, but it decided to
recall the whole manufacturing lot 558470A in order to preclude
any possibility of another such bottle being dispensed or used.

Due to the potentially serious or life-threatening health
affects that could occur if patients ingest the incorrect
medication, Roxane Laboratories is voluntarily recalling the
single manufacturing lot of Azathioprine tablets.

If Methotrexate 2.5 mg. tablets are taken in place of
Azathioprine 50 mg. tablets in accordance with dosing
instructions that may be prescribed for Azathioprine, serious
toxic effects may occur.  Effects may include decreased
resistance to infection, mouth ulcers, reduced blood counts,
vomiting, diarrhea, liver, kidney or lung injury.

There have also been reports of death at high doses of
Methotrexate, such as might result from a substitution of
Methotrexate 2.5 mg. tablets for Azathioprine 50 mg. tablets.

Information has been sent to Pharmacists alerting them of the
details pertaining to this recall.

As described in these recall communications, pharmacists who may
have dispensed Azathioprine tablets to patients from
manufacturing lot 558470A are instructed to contact those
patients to assure they did not inadvertently receive
Methotrexate tablets.

Purchasers of Azathioprine are requested to immediately return
purchased medication to pharmacist.

Consumers are advised to verify they have not received
Methotrexate tablets in their Azathioprine prescription by
visually inspecting Azathioprine tablets, not taking
Azathioprine tablets marked with number 54 323.

Those who bought Azathioprine tablets marked with number 54 323
are advised to immediately contact their pharmacist or
physician.

To request additional information from Roxane Laboratories
Technical Product Information, call 800-962-8364.

Pharmacists and wholesalers that have any bottles of
Azathioprine manufacturing lot 558470A have been instructed to
discontinue distribution and use of this lot immediately and
contact Capital Returns at 800-950-5479 (menu option 1) for any
questions regarding the recall returns.

Requests for additional information should be referred to Roxane
Laboratories Technical Product Information at 800-962-8364.


SALOMON SMITH: Court Sides with State in Phone Call Taping Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
California's Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful for
callers outside the state to secretly tape phone conversations
without the Californian party's consent even if such act is
legal in the state where the other party resides, according to
The Recorder.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in
2002 by residents Kelly Kearney and Mark Levy against Salomon
Smith Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets Inc.  It was
initiated after Smith Barney played back portions of customer's
phone conversations with its brokers as defense in a suit over
investments.

Investors claim the secret recording violates the state's
Invasion of Privacy Act and is an unfair business practice.  
Salomon Smith filed a demurrer to the complaint, maintaining
that no relief is warranted, because the conduct of its Atlanta-
based employees was and is permissible in Georgia, where the
other party to the conversation resides.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge A. James Robertson II
dismissed the suit in 2003.  San Francisco's 1st District Court
of Appeal affirmed a year later.

However, on July 13, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for a
unanimous court that allowing one-sided taping "would
significantly impair the privacy policy guaranteed by California
law."

"California clearly has an interest -- in protecting the privacy
of telephone conversations of California residents while they
are in California -- sufficient to permit this state, as a
constitutional matter, to exercise legislative jurisdiction over
such activity," the ruling stated.

The suit is seeking to obtain injunctive relief against Salomon
Smith's Atlanta-based branch's continuing practice of recording
telephone conversations, resulting from calls made to and from
California, without knowledge or consent of the California
clients.  It is also seeking to recover damages and/or
restitution based upon recording that occurred in the past.  

The ruling is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 06 C.D.O.S.  
A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?dd9

The plaintiffs' lawyer is Edward of Markun Zusman & Compton,
LLP, 465 California Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California
94104 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-438-4515, Fax: 415-434-
4505O.

The company's lawyer is Bill Alderman of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San
Francisco, California 94105 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-773-
5700, Fax: 415-773-5759.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Settles Consumer Fraud Suit Over Loans in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. settled the class action,
"Margarita Barbosa, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et
al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's July 14, 2006
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company collected prepayment
penalties on loans that had been accelerated, constituting
violations of the Illinois Interest Act, the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, similar laws, if any, in other states, and a breach
of contract.

The claims of one of the named plaintiffs have been settled, and
the claims of the remaining named plaintiff against the company
have been dismissed without prejudice.

The remaining named plaintiff re-filed the action in State
Court.  On the company's motion, the action was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The parties agreed to a settlement that would require the
company to pay approximately $0.2 million to a group of 27
former Illinois borrowers and their attorneys in exchange for a
dismissal.  The court has entered an order approving the
settlement.

Each of the 27 former borrowers may choose to opt out of the
settlement and may pursue individual actions against the
company.  

The settlement would not preclude former borrowers in other
states from bringing similar claims, or attempting to assert
similar claims as a class action.

During the three months ended June 30, 2005, the company made
the final payment of $17,800 owed pursuant to the settlement
agreement, and consequently fully performed its obligations
under the settlement agreement.

The suit is "Margarita Barbosa, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage
Services, Inc. (f/k/a Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.), et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-06323," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M.
Manning.

Representing the plaintiffs is Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th
Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail:
courtecl@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendants is Linda Beth Dubnow of
McGuireWoods, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, #4100, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: (312) 849-8100, E-mail: ldubnow@mcguirewoods.com.


SUNTERRA CORP: Law Firms Solicit Clients to Join Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two law firms, Federman and Sherwood and Brower Piven issued
press releases claiming to offer "information" about joining a
class action filed by The Rosen Law Firm against Sunterra Corp.

These firms have not filed a complaint, rather, the press
releases appear to be advertisements designed to solicit clients
so that the firm can participate in the case, according to The
Rosen Law Firm, which filed the complaint against Sunterra in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

On July 12, The Rosen Law Firm filed a complaint against the
company and certain of its officers, on behalf of all investors
who purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 15, 2003 through June 22, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Sunterra issued a series of false and
misleading financial statements as a result of improper
accounting practices in violation of the federal securities laws
and follows an investigation by the Rosen Law Firm.

A copy of the complaint filed by The Rosen Law Firm is available
free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?dc7.

Interested parties may move the court for lead plaintiff
appointment no later than 60 days from July 12, 2006.

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip
Kim, Esq., both of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 5508, New York, New York 10118, Phone: (212) 686-1060 or
(917) 797-4425 (weekends) or Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com, Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


TEXAS: Judge Allows Use of FEMA Housing Aid for Bills Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas ordered the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to allow Hurricane Katrina evacuees under the city-
administered housing voucher program to spend unused portions of
their rental assistance on utility bills, the Associated Press
reports.

According to Hurricane Katrina refugees' lawyer, John Scofield,
the ruling would help victims pay utility costs when the amount
of rental assistance they're eligible for exceeds their actual
rent.  

However, families whose rent meets or exceeds what FEMA provides
won't receive any additional money to help cover utilities.  The
difference in most cities is typically around $100, Mr. Scofield
said.

FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for approximately
17,000 evacuated families who were issued 12-month housing
vouchers by local governments (Class Action Report, May 24,
2006).

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

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

On May 31, as Judge Hittner denied the restraining order, he
ordered FEMA to expedite consideration of voucher extensions for
those evacuees  (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).
  
The suit is "Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Case   
No. 4:06-cv-01709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge David Hittner.   
  
Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A. Caddell and John Blue
Scofield, Jr. of Caddell and Chapman, 1331 Lamar Ste 1070,
Houston, TX 77010-3027, Phone: 713-751-0400, Fax: 713-751-0906
or (713) 752-4221.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIBCO Software, Inc. and several of its officers remain as
defendants in three purported securities class actions pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 4, 2006.

The suits are:

      -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006;

      -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and

      -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-    
         cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005.

Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1,
2005.

The complaints generally allege that the company made false or
misleading statements concerning its operating results, its
business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  It charges the company
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The first identified complaint is "Lance Siegall, et al. v.
Tibco Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

     (5) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com.


UNITED KINGDOM: London Court Mulls Certification of Names Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
London's High Court is contemplating deciding whether the class
suit filed on behalf of 1,100 investors in Lloyd's of London
against the government and the Treasury can go ahead, BestWire
reports.

The court will also have to consider whether too much time has
elapsed for the plaintiffs to claim for compensation since the
Treasury allegedly failed to regulate the insurer properly.

Earlier, lawyer Chris Stockwell initiated a lawsuit on behalf of
1,100 investors in Lloyd's of London against the government and
the Treasury, alleging the Treasury failed to regulate the
insurer properly (Class Action Reporter, July 7, 2006).

The investors, known as Names, claim they made heavy losses at
Lloyd's because the market's watchdog, failed to implement key
European Union directives.  The E.U. directives include a
measure that dictates how much insurers should hold in reserves
when writing certain types of business.

The Treasury promised to defend the suit, which seeks over GBP1
billion in compensation.  Lloyd's is not commenting on the suit,
pointing out that it isn't involved in the action, which is
likely to end in October, according to the report.


WORLDCOM INC: DSI to Accept Bids for Former Chief Exec's Assets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Development Specialists, Inc. says in a notice published in the
Wall Street Journal that it is accepting offers to purchase the
assets of Angelina Properties, LLC, Angelina Grain Elevator of
Concordia Parish, LLC, and Angelina Flying Services, LLC.

DSI acts as the trustee in a trust created under a settlement
agreement in In re: WorldCom, Inc., Securities Litigation 02-
Civ.-3288 (S.D.N.Y.), pursuant to which it is handling the sale
of the assets of former WorldCom Inc. Chief Executive Officer
Bernard Ebbers.

A class action filed against Mr. Ebbers by investors who lost
money when WorldCom collapsed in 2002 calls for him to place his
assets in a trust that is expected to be sold for $25,000,000 to
$40,000,000.  The proceeds from the sale of Mr. Ebber's property
are to be deposited in a fiduciary fund for disbursement to the
plaintiffs.

The Angelina facilities are located in East Central Louisiana,
25 miles southwest of Natchez, Mississippi.  They are generally
used to cultivate corn, soybeans and rice and span 23,000
tillable acres of land, 8,434 acres of which are irrigated.

Assets include two grain elevators with a total capacity of
2,500,000 bushels, a seed plant, a crop-dusting flying service
with four airplanes and related runways, aircraft and equipment.  
The facilities also contain relevant offices, buildings, hangars
and farming equipment.

Parties interested in receiving a bid package, conducting due
diligence or touring the facilities should contact DSI's
representatives or counsel:

   Development Specialists, Inc.
   70 W. Madison Street
   Suite 2300
   Chicago, Illinois 60602
   Attn: Brian C. Weepie
   Phone: (312) 263-4141
   Facsimile: (312) 263-1180
   E-mail: bweepie@dsi.biz

   Development Specialists, Inc.
   200 S. Biscayne Boulevard
   Suite 1818
   Miami, Florida 33131
   Attn: Joseph J. Luzinski
   Phone: (305) 374-2717
   Facsimile: (305) 374-2718
   E-mail: jluzinski@dsi.biz

   Burr & Foreman LLP
   401 E. Capitol Street
   Suite 100
   Jackson, Mississippi 39201
   Attn: Edward R. Christian
   Phone: (205) 458-5155
   Facsimile: (205) 244-5620
   E-mail: echristi@burr.com

The litigation --http://www.worldcomlitigation.com/-- is a  
consolidated, certified class action pending in the Southern
District of New York before District Court Judge Denise L. Cote.  
It is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified class of
all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired publicly
traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through
and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured thereby.

                         Lead Plaintiff

On Aug. 15, 2002, Judge Cote appointed the Comptroller of the
State of New York, the sole Trustee of the New York State Common
Retirement Fund, which is the nation's second-largest public
pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff in the WorldCom
Securities Litigation and approved lead plaintiff's selection of
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.  Fresno County
Employees Retirement Association, the County of Fresno,
California and HGK Asset Management are additional named
plaintiffs and class representatives.

The consolidated complaint of the lead plaintiff was filed in
the fall of 2002, and updated in August 2003 and in December
2003.

On Nov. 7, 2002, Judge Cote ordered the parties to participate
in settlement negotiations under the supervision of Magistrate
Judge Michael H. Dolinger.  In the fall of 2003, the court
invited the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court
Judge, to assist in oversight of the settlement discussions.

Judge Cote certified the lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 24,
2003.  

                           Defendants

The director defendants were: Bernard J. Ebbers, former
president, CEO; Scott D. Sullivan, former CFO; James C. Allen,
former member of the audit committee; Judith Areen, former
member of the audit committee; Carl J. Aycock; Max E. Bobbitt,
former chairman of the audit committee; Francesco Galesi, former
member of the audit committee; Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.;
Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., former chairman of compensation
committee; Gordon S. Macklin; John A. Porter; Bert C. Roberts,
Jr., former chairman; John W. Sidgmore, former vice chairman;
and Lawrence C. Tucker,

Other individual defendants were: David F. Myers, controller and
senior vice president; Buford Yates, Jr., director of General
Accounting; and Arthur Andersen LLP.

Underwriter defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Salomon
Brothers International Limited; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P.
Morgan Securities, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd.; Banc of
America Securities LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (n/k/a
Deutsche Bank Alex Brown Inc.; Chase Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P.
Morgan Securities, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Blaylock &
Partners, L.P.; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; Goldman, Sachs
& Co.; UBS Warburg LLC; ABN/AMRO Inc.; Utendahl Capital; Tokyo-
Mitsubishi International plc; Westdeutsche Landesbank;
Girozentrale (n/k/a WestLB AG); BNP Paribas Securities Corp.;
Caboto Holding SIM S.p.A.; Fleet Securities, Inc.; Mizuho
International plc.

The Salomon defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., as
employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International
Limited; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at
Salomon; Citigroup, Inc., corporate parent of Salomon.

WorldCom, Inc. -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- was not a  
defendant because on July 21, 2002, it filed for bankruptcy
protection.  The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of
New York confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr.
20, 2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11
protection as MCI, Inc.

                           Settlements

* Former WorldCom executives                   $6.136 billion
  Scott Sullivan, David Myers,
  and Buford Yates (taken with the
  anticipated proceeds from the
  Sullivan settlement)                   

* Arthur Andersen LLP                         $65 million
  (funds have already been transferred
   to an escrow account)

* Former Chairman Bert Roberts                 $4.5 million

* 11 Other former director defendants         $20.25 million

* Insurance companies that had written        $36 million
  directors and officers liability coverage
  ($1 million to settle the claims against
   Mr. Roberts and an additional $35 million
   to settle the claims against the other
   former directors)

* Bank of America                            $460.5 million

* Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs,            $100.3 million
  Credit Suisse First Boston, and
  UBS Warburg

* ABN AMRO, Mitsubishi Securities            $428.4 million
  International, BNP Paribas
  Securities Corp. and Mizuho Int'l.    

* WestLB and Cabato Holding                   $112.5 million

* Deutsche Bank                               $325 million

* Blaylock & Partners, L.P.                   $572,840

* Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P.             $234,000

* J. P. Morgan Securities
  and certain of affiliates                   $2 billion

* Citigroup Defendants                        $2.575 billion
  (including Salomon Smith Barney,
   Inc. as employer of Jack Grubman;
   Salomon Brothers International Ltd.;
   Jack B. Grubman, former
   telecommunications analyst at
   Salomon; Citigroup, Inc.)

The sale of assets covered by the June 30, 2005 settlement with
Mr. Ebbers is expected to recover $18 million to $28 million.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Aug. Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith scheduled an Aug. 14, 2006
deadline to move to be lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities
of Herley Industries, Inc. between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14,
2006.  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq., of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E-
mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


INFOSONICS CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Infosonics Corp.
common stock from May 8, 2006 to June 9, 2006.

The complaint charges Infosonics and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The action charges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Infosonics' stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

On June 12, 2006, before the market opened, the company
announced that it had restated certain portions of the financial
statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.

By restating, the company admitted that the previously-issued
financial results were materially inaccurate. On this news,
Infosonics' stock fell from $24.22 to $17.05, a drop of $7.17 or
nearly 30%.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Aug. 14,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press, Esq. and Elaine Mui of
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 888-529-4787 and (212)
317-2300, E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com and emui@kmslaw.com, Web
site: http://www.kmslaw.com.  


IONATRON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona against Ionatron,
Inc.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from June 27, 2005 to May 10, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 11,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2005
and May 2, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against NPS
and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning the potential success of PREOS, the
company's full-length human parathyroid hormone, a drug
candidate treatment for osteoporosis.

Specifically, the defendants allegedly concealed:

      -- the results of the PaTH study that show PEROS was not
         different from Fosamax in both bone density and
         fracture results;

      -- that there was a very small market for this type of
         drug;
        
      -- that a major study concluded that more studies would be
         needed to determine efficacy; and,

      -- that PREOS could not be prescribed for broader fracture
         uses.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 11,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Utah on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between
Aug. 10, 2005 and May 2, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning the potential for success of PREOS, its
full-length human parathyroid hormone (PTH) drug candidate for
the treatment of osteoporosis.

Specifically, defendants allegedly concealed:

      -- results of the PaTH study evidenced that PREOS was no
         different from Fosamax in bone density and fracture
         results;

      -- there was a very narrow market for PTH drugs;

      -- a major study had concluded that further studies were
         necessary to determine the efficiency of PREOS, if any;

      -- unlike other bone density drugs/products which can be
         used for hip fracture risk reduction, PREOS could not
         be prescribed for this use;

      -- that the Center of Medicare Services of Health and
         Human Services had ruled that injectable drugs for
         osteoporosis 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; and

      -- defendants knew PREOS would only be used in the rarest
         cases, since the Physician Desk Reference recommended
         Forteo (and hence, injectable parathormone drugs like
         PREOS) for second line use in osteoporosis after
         failure of oral drugs like Fosamax and for a maximum of
         24 months.

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

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *