CAR_Public/060721.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 144

                            Headlines

ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Asks Court to Dismiss RICO Lawsuit
AT&T WIRELESS: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $150M Settlement in N.Y.
CAREMARK RX: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arizona
COLORADO: ACLU Sues Garfield County Jail Over Prisoner Abuses
COLORADO: Latino Police Claiming Bias Against DPD Increasing

CSA ABSOLUTE: PricewaterhouseCoopers Seeks $206M Compensation
DHB INDUSTRIES: Founder to Leave Board Under $34.9M Settlement
DISTRIBUTIVE NETWORKS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over "Wireless Spam"
E.I. DUPONT: PFOA Contamination Found Near Wastewater Basin
EMERSON RADIO: Del. Court Partially Dismisses Shareholders' Suit

EMERSON RADIO: N.J. Suit's Dismissal Appealed to Third Circuit
ENCORE MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over $870M Deal
GALAXY NUTRITIONAL: Recalls Soy Topping with Undeclared Milk
GOOGLE INC: Advertisers Oppose $90M "Click Fraud" Deal in Ark.
LEGACY HEALTH: Seeks Settlement of Ore. Uninsured Patient's Suit

MASSACHUSETTS: Court Awards Agawam Police Back Pay, Damages
MERCK & CO: Court Rules St. Clair Erred in "Rensing" Vioxx Case
NEW YORK: Court Allows Suit Demanding Prisoners' Parole Rights
NIGERIA: Bakassi Residents Sue Over Transfer of Land to Cameroon
OHIO: $52M Deal Reached in Suit Over Workers' Subrogated Claims

PHILIP SERVICES: Ga. Firm Faces Suit Over Propyl Mercaptan Odor
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: July 31 Hearing set for Elite PRO-x30 Deal
SEMPRA ENERGY: Judge Mulls Approval of Natural Gas Settlement
SHIMANO INC: Recalls Defective Bicycle Quick-Release Skewers
VISTACARE INC: Sept. Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Suit Deal

WRT ENERGY: Judge Certifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ameron International Drop to 924
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Agency to Award JPY3M Payout to Widow
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Awards $11.5M to Navy Veteran
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mining Continues in India, Activist Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Orders Suppliers to Warn Public

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling in Herring Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman's Fund Argues ASARCO Claim Estimate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 110T Germans to Fall Ill in 15 Years, Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Court Overturns AUD320T Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Seeks GBP200T in Suit v. U.K. Council

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Awards $12.6M Payout to Non-Laborer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Taxpayers to Pay GBP5,000 for Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: April 2007 Trial Set for Suit v. Chase Corp
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dockyard Worker's Widow Seeks GBP150,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wife Dies From Laundry Exposure, UK Inquest

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Grace Defendants to be Tried Separately
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capitol Bldg. Tunnels Risky, Health Report
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Units Settle With Insurer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $809.8M Recoverable in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Posts $667.7M Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blue Type Found in Kubota Patients' Lungs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Wife Sues 63 Defendants in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Advocate Confident of Talks With PM
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sand at Ill. Park Poses No Health Threat
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Group Urges Senate to Vote on FAIR Act

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Chemical Workers to Vote on Offer


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit
RAMBUS INC: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in Calif.
RAMBUS INC: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Aug. 1 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff
ZALE CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

ZALE CORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Asks Court to Dismiss RICO Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia asked a federal court on July 17
to reject a class action filed against it over allegations of
federal racketeering and conspiracy laws violations, according
to Philly.com.

The request came in a response by the archdiocese to a suit
filed on June by 12 people claiming they had been abused by
various Catholic priests from 1956 to 1985.  Plaintiffs claim
their civil rights were violated and that the priests named in
the suit engaged in a "massive conspiracy to cover up and
effectively perpetuate" the abuses.  They are seeking
unspecified damages for "severe mental and physical injuries."

The suit names as defendants the archdiocese, Cardinals Justin
Rigali and Anthony Bevilacqua, and the estate of Cardinal John
Krol.

In its response, the archdiocese cited cites 65 federal and
state court rulings in support of its motion to dismiss.  It
argued that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act was not enacted until 1970, which is way beyond the 1940
date of the alleged conspiracy and racketeering activity.

A 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision adopted a four-year statute
of limitations on RICO claims, and the time period begins "when
the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury," the
decision said, according to the report.

The archdiocese also argued that federal courts "have made
clear" that civil RICO claims may not be pursued to recover
personal-injury damages.  Further, regarding claims that the
plaintiffs were deprived of their civil rights, the archdiocese
said that the allegation of conspiracy was not based on racial
or class discrimination, as the law requires.

Six plaintiffs have filed their suit in Philadelphia Common
Pleas court.

Archdiocese of Philadelphia on the Net: http://archdiocese-
phl.org/.


AT&T WIRELESS: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $150M Settlement in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2006 at 10 a.m. for the
proposed $150 million settlement in re: AT&T Wireless Tracking
Stock Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-8754 (MGC).

The settlement covers all investors who bought AT&T Wireless
Tracking Stock from April 26, 2000 to May 1, 2000.

The hearing will be held before the Judge Miriam Goldman
Cedarbaum in Courtroom 14A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312.

Any exclusion from the settlement must be made on or before Oct.
5, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, AT&T Corporation and
C. Michael Armstrong, violated the federal securities laws by
failing to disclose certain material adverse trends in AT&T's
business in the Prospectus for the AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock
initial public offering.  

For more details, contact AT&T Wireless Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 94975-
8061, Phone: 415-461-0410 or 800-447-7657, Fax: 415-461-0412,
Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e16.


CAREMARK RX: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class action in the
U.S. District Court of Arizona alleging that CareMark Rx, Inc.
intentionally concealed revenue in order to avoid paying certain
commissions owed to consultants who marketed and sold its
services.

CareMark and its predecessor companies -- Advance Paradigm Inc.,
HMNHealth Services Inc., and AdvancePCS -- provide
pharmaceutical and formulary services to health plan sponsors
and plan participants throughout the U.S.  Clients include:
corporate health plans, discount card programs, managed care
organizations, insurance companies, labor unions, governmental
agencies, etc.

The company's revenues primarily come through rebates, fees, and
other revenue streams provided by drug manufacturers in exchange
for selling and marketing the manufacturers' drugs to its
clients.

According to the complaint, the company engages consultants to
market and sell its services to health plan sponsors and plan
participants.  If an entity contracts with the company to use
its pharmaceutical services, the consultant is entitled to
either a percentage of the total revenue -- including
administrative fees -- or a set rate for each drug purchased.

The complaint states that the company failed to honor the plain
language of the consulting contracts by not paying commission
based on total revenues and instead paying commission based on
only partial revenues.

According to named plaintiff Jan Peck, the company intentionally
failed to report total revenues earned from four companies she
brought to two of its predecessors.

Mrs. Peck said, "I brought a great deal of business to companies
Caremark purchased, and Caremark did its best to under-report
that revenue, knowing it would affect my commissions," She adds,
"CareMark negotiated new contracts with the customers and then
hid the revenue as separate administrative fees."  Mrs. Peck
estimates that she is owed between $25 and $50 million in under-
reported revenue commission.

Rob Carey, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "We believe that
CareMark's dealings with [Mrs.] Peck was much more than an
accounting oversight, and something that could extend to other
Caremark consultants."  He adds, "We will thoroughly review all
of CareMark's accounting records to ensure Mrs. Peck, and others
who may have been harmed by CareMark's actions, receive the full
compensation they are entitled to."

Filed on July 19, 2006, the suit accuses the company of breach
of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealings, and
misrepresentation.  It thus seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, interest on all owed money to members of the class, and
a release of all revenue information earned under the consulting
agreement.

The proposed class action includes all persons who contracted
with the company or any entity acquired by it to sell or market
formulary services whose compensation was based on a percentage
of revenue generated by clients they brought to the company or
its predecessors, received a set rate for each qualifying drug
purchased by these companies, or a combination of both methods.

The suit is "Peck v. Peck, Case No. 2:06-at-10753," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert B. Carey of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro PLLC, 2425 E Camelback Rd., Ste 650, Phoenix, AZ
85016, Phone: 602-840-3012, Fax: 602-840-5900, E-mail:
rcarey@hbsslaw.com.


COLORADO: ACLU Sues Garfield County Jail Over Prisoner Abuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a class
action in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of prisoners in the Garfield County Jail who were
subjected to widespread excessive force by deputies' misuse and
abuse of pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper
spray, and electroshock belts.

According to Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of
Colorado, "Some of them [devices] may have a legitimate use in a
detention facility, but only in strictly limited circumstances
and under carefully crafted guidelines designed to control the
potential for abuse and the serious risk they pose to prisoners'
health and safety."  

"At the Garfield County Jail, however, there are no written
policies that regulate deputies' use of restraint chairs,
electroshock weapons, or pepperball guns, and the one-page
policy on pepper spray is insufficient as written and regularly
violated in practice," he said.

Defendants in the suit are Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario
and Jail Commander Scott Dawson.  Meanwhile, plaintiffs
representing the class of current and future prisoners are
Clarence Vandehey, William Langley, Samuel Lincoln, and Jared
Hogue.

The ACLU suit alleges that the jail's use of the devices
violates widely accepted standards of law enforcement and
corrections professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and
vendors' training and recommendations for safe and appropriate
use.

It claims that prisoners shot with pepperballs or drenched with
pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair-
sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to
decontaminate.

ACLU of Colorado Staff Attorney Taylor Pendergrass said,
"Deputies have threatened prisoners with Tasers after they are
already fully-restrained and have intentionally strapped
prisoners into the chair in extremely painful positions."  He
adds, "Deputies have used these devices as an abusive form of
summary corporal punishment, causing intense pain and physical
injuries."

Court documents revealed that prisoners going to court are often
forced to wear a remote-controlled electroshock belt during
transport to court and during hearings.  With a push of a
button, a deputy can deliver an incapacitating and painful
eight-second-long electric shock of 50,000 volts.  

Amnesty International condemned the use of such devices as
torture, with prisoners never knowing when or whether a deputy
will push the button.   

The suit alleges that deputies deliberately taunt prisoners to
heighten their anxiety while they are wearing the electroshock
belt by playing "mind games" and suggesting that the prisoners
are about to be shocked.

It notes that electroshock weapons, pepper spray, and restraint
chairs have all been associated with a number of in-custody
deaths, and that the jail's unregulated use of these devices in
combination poses especially serious risks to prisoners' safety.  

Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health
problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated
requests for mental health care.   They have been reportedly
strapped into the restraint chair a total of 12 times between
them, sometimes for over six hours.  

The complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b
  
The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa.

Representing the plaintiffs are Taylor Scott Pendergrass and
Mark Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union - Colorado,
400 Corona Street, Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482,
Fax: 303-777-1773, E-mail: tpendergrass@aclu-co.org and
msilver2@att.net.


COLORADO: Latino Police Claiming Bias Against DPD Increasing
------------------------------------------------------------
More Latino officers are joining a class action claiming
discrimination against the Denver Police Department, according
to the Denver Post.

In March, eight Latino police officers filed a class action
employment discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of
Justice in Washington, D.C., and the federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in Denver alleging the department makeup
does not reflect that of the city.  In May, the number of police
officers filing complaints grew to 29 (Class Action Reporter,
May 17, 2006).  As of July, the complainants now number 31.

The law enforcers specifically alleged that they've been
discriminated against in areas such as recruitment, hiring,
promotions and discipline.

According to a Denver Post report, there are 1,493 officers in
the Denver Police Department with about 20 percent of that being
Latinos -- 36 women and 266 men (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 9,
2006).  

The complaints also alleged that Hispanics have been slow to
earn promotions and minority officers who file hostile work
environment complaints within the department face retaliation or
find their complaints ignored.

The National Latino Peace Officers Association has been
negotiating with the city for three years, and will go forward
with a lawsuit if a settlement cannot be reached with the city
or the police department (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).  
The organization has nearly 100 members locally and 30,000
nationally.


CSA ABSOLUTE: PricewaterhouseCoopers Seeks $206M Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two PricewaterhouseCoopers partners, appointed liquidators of
CSA Absolute Return Fund, initiated a class action against the
fund seeking $206.67 million in compensation for 1,300
investors, who lost money in the collapse of CSA Absolute Return
Fund, the South China Morning Post reports.

The complaint seeks compensation amounting to $198.37 million
and costs of $8.3 million.

Writs were issued against:

     -- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Asia), the fund's
        custodian;
     -- Bank of Bermuda, administrator; and
     -- Ernst & Young, auditor.

According to the writ, CSA, in October 2001 appointed Bermuda
Trust (Far East) - which was acquired by HSBC in 2004 and
renamed HSBC Institutional Trust Services -- as the custodian
for subscription monies from investors to the funds.  At the
same time, it also appointed Bank of Bermuda to perform various
administrative tasks.

The writ alleges HSBC and the Bank of Bermuda failed in their
duty to safeguard investors' money, allowing fund manager
Charles Schmitt to transfer money to various "shadow funds," and
Ernst & Young as failed spot Mr. Schmitt's alleged
misappropriation of clients' assets.

In 2004, CSA Absolute Return Fund went into liquidation after
the Securities and Futures Commission launched an investigation
and police charged Mr. Schmitt with the theft of $930,000 from
the fund.

In 2005, Mr. Schmitt filed a petition in High Court that sought
to declare himself as bankrupt.  According to the fund's Web
site, Mr. Schmitt was a former senior business manager at the
New York Stock Exchange, where he helped manage the NYSE pension
fund.  


DHB INDUSTRIES: Founder to Leave Board Under $34.9M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
DHB Industries Inc. founder and chief executive, David H.
Brooks, will no longer be at the company's board as part of a
class action settlement agreed upon by the company this month,
according to the Long Island Business News.

On July 13, DHB Industries signed a memorandum of understanding
to settle a securities class action and a shareholder derivative
suit (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).  

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 among 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 money is 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
balance.

The company 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.

The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things,
review and approval of the court.  

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. Class Action Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04296-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 in the suit are ECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur
Plan), and RS Holding Group.  The defendants include Andrew
Brooks International Inc., David Brooks International Inc., and
Elizabeth Brooks International Inc.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) George S. Canellos at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
         LLP, One Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, NY 10005,
         Phone: 212-530-5174, Fax: 212-822-5174, E-mail:
         gcanellos@milbank.com; and

     (2) Mary K Dulka at Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, 31 West 52nd
         Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-878-3132, Fax:
         212-878-8375, E-mail: mary.dulka@cliffordchance.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Lynda J. Grant and Christopher
Joseph Keller at Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue,
12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 907-0857, Fax: 212-
818-0477, E-mail: lgrant@labaton.com, ckeller@labaton.com.


DISTRIBUTIVE NETWORKS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over "Wireless Spam"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Distributive Networks, LLC faces a purported class action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division over unsolicited text messages, which are
characterized as "wireless spam," to cellular telephones.

The suit, captioned, "Shen v. Distributive Networks, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2006CH14059," was filed by Illinois resident Lei
Shen on behalf of herself and a class consisting of all persons
who, within four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit:

      -- were sent a text message by defendant without first
         having obtained prior express consent; and

      -- subscribed to a cellular telephone plan wherein they
         were required to pay to receive such text messages.

The company is alleged to do business as several other entities
such as Daily Pop Gossip, Mad Love Tips, Daily Dose of Blue, and
Ringstar Mobile.

The suit alleges that defendants caused consumers actual harm,
not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation
that necessarily accompanies unsolicited wireless spam, but also
because in virtually all instances consumers actually have to
pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such
wireless spam.

It also alleges that the text messages violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unsolicited voice and
text calls to sell phones.

For more details, contact:

     (1) John Blim, Jay Edelson and Myles McGuire of Blim &
         Edelson, LLC, The Monadnock Building, 53 West Jackson
         Boulevard, Suite 1642, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Phone:
         (312) 913-9400 and (888) 325-4652, Fax: (312) 913-9401,
         E-Mail: info@blimlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.blimlaw.com;and  

     (2) John G. Jacobn and Bryan G. Kolton of The Jacobs Law
         Firm, CHTD., 122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850,
         Chicago, Illinois 60603, Phone: (312) 427-4000 and
         Telefax: (312)427-1850.


E.I. DUPONT: PFOA Contamination Found Near Wastewater Basin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Virginia state investigators suspect that a channel pouring
contaminated water into the James River from a wastewater
discharge area of E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. originated from
groundwater seeping to the surface from near the company's
wastewater basin.

The investigation by the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality was launched after the United Steelworkers Union (USW)
and the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club reminded it that the
agency has "not noted in any permit application" for the
channel.  A test by USW representatives and the Sierra Club in
March showed that the water samples revealed 7 parts per billion
of PFOA, a chemical labeled by the U.S. Environmental Protection  
Agency's Science Advisory Board as a "likely" human carcinogen.

Dupont laid down a "PFOA Investigation Plan" in May.  But in a
June letter to the EPA and VDEQ, the USW and Sierra Club called
it inadequate and "designed to delay."

DuPont de Nemours and company is facing a new lawsuit seeking
class action status on behalf of Parkersburg, West Virginia
residents for alleged contamination of drinking water with
perfluorinated chemicals, the Columbus Dispatch reportsv (Class
Action Reporter, June 2, 2006).

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are William R. Rhodes, Russell  
H. Miller and Valori Mace, represented by Harry Deitzler.  

The suit asks the court to make DuPont pay for the medical
monitoring of Parkersburg residents.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont -- http://www.dupont.com/
-- manufactures resins and additives used in the trenchless pipe
rehabilitation industry.


EMERSON RADIO: Del. Court Partially Dismisses Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed the
first cause of action in the purported class and derivative
action against Emerson Radio Corp. and certain other defendants.

On Dec. 15, 2005, Jeffrey S. Abraham, as Trustee of the Law
Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham Money Purchase Plan dated Dec. 31,
1999 F/B/O Jeffrey S. Abraham, on behalf of himself and all
common shareholders of Sport Supply Group, Inc., filed a
putative class action and derivative complaint against:

     -- the company,
     -- Geoffrey P. Jurick,
     -- Arthur J. Coerver,
     -- Harvey Rothenberg,
     -- Collegiate Pacific, Inc. and
     -- Michael J. Blumenfeld, and
     -- nominal defendant Sport Supply

in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Civil Action
No. 1845-N.

Two causes of action were alleged with the first being a
purported class claim against the company and Mr. Jurick for
breach of fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders of Sport
Supply by selling the company's controlling stake in Sport
Supply to Collegiate at a premium, allegedly knowing that
Collegiate intended to use for its own benefit the proprietary
assets of Sport Supply.

The second cause of action asserts a purported derivative claim
against Collegiate and Messrs. Coerver and Rothenberg for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff alleges that in connection with the purchase of the
company's controlling block of Sport Supply's stock, Collegiate
and Messrs. Coerver and Rothenberg breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and good faith to Sport Supply's shareholders
by transferring assets and technology to Collegiate without
compensation to Sport Supply's shareholders.  Plaintiff also
alleges that Collegiate was unjustly enriched through the use
and transfer of Sport Supply's assets.

The company and Mr. Jurick moved to dismiss the first cause of
action, and oral argument on their motion was conducted on June
23, 2006.

On July 5, 2006, the court granted the company and Mr. Jurick's
motion and the first cause of action was dismissed.  

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham,
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
(212) 692-0555.


EMERSON RADIO: N.J. Suit's Dismissal Appealed to Third Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining lead plaintiff in a consolidated putative
securities fraud class action against Emerson Radio Corp.
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit an
order by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
to dismiss the case.

For more than two-and-a-half years, the company has been
defending a consolidated suit, captioned, "In Re Emerson Radio
Corp. Securities Litigation, 03cv4201 (JLL)."

The class action complaint asserted claims against the company
and Messrs. Geoffrey Jurick, Kenneth Corby, John Raab and Jerome
Farnum on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities between Jan. 29, 2003 and Aug. 12, 2003.

By a Dec. 19, 2005 Opinion and Order, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice
and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading
consistent with the rulings in the court's Opinion and Order.

On March 3, 2006, one of the lead plaintiffs, Clark Niss, moved
to withdraw as a lead plaintiff, which motion was granted on
March 29, 2006.  

On April 13, 2006, the court entered a Stipulation and Order
dismissing all claims asserted in the class action complaint
with prejudice.

On April 26, 2006, the remaining lead plaintiff, Jeffrey
Hoffman, filed a Notice of Appeal taking an appeal of the
court's Dec. 19, 2005 dismissal order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The company and the individual
defendants continue to deny all allegations and intend to defend
the appeal vigorously.

Generally, the complaint had alleged that the company and the
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by:

      -- issuing certain positive statements during the class
         period regarding the company's ability to replace lost
         revenues attributable to the Hello Kitty(R) license;
         and

      -- omitting to disclose that the company suffered
         allegedly soured relationships with its largest retail
         customers.

The suit is "In Re Emerson Radio Corp. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Jose
L. Linares.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph J. DePalma, Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark NJ 07102-
         5003 Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and

     (2) Andrew Robert Jacobs, Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, PO Box 901,
         Chatham Township NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com.

Representing the company is Steven M. Hecht of Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland NJ 07068-1791,
Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail: shecht@lowenstein.com.


ENCORE MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over $870M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Another Encore Medical Corp. shareholder initiated a class
action in Delaware's Court of Chancery, challenging the fairness
of Blackstone Group's $870 million dollar deal to take the
company private, according to the Associated Press.

Robert Kemp claims in legal documents that the $6.55-a-share
offer from Blackstone is "unconscionable, unfair and grossly
inadequate."  His complaint accuses Blackstone of taking
advantage of a depression in the company's share price to get
control of the company at a low price.

Previously, a similar shareholder class action was filed in
Travis County District Court, Texas.  The suit was filed on July
7, 2006 by shareholder Louis Dudas.  It named as defendants the
company, Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Davidson, and directors
Alastair Clemow, Karen Osar, Joel Kanter, Richard Martin, Zubeen
Shroff, and Bruce Wesson.

The complaint accuses defendants of "unlawful actions in
attempting to complete the sale of Encore to Blackstone at a
grossly inadequate and unfair price," giving the company and
Blackstone insiders preferential treatment at the expense of
public shareholders (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).

On June 30, the company revealed that it would go private in a
merger deal with Blackstone.  In the buyout, the company's
stockholders will get $6.55 in cash for each share of Encore
common stock they hold -- a 36 percent premium on Encore's
closing price of $4.81 the day of the announcement.

Furthermore, the suit states, "In essence, the proposed
acquisition is the product of a hopelessly flawed process that
is designed to ensure the sale of Encore to Blackstone, on terms
preferential to Blackstone and Encore insiders, and to subvert
the interests of plaintiff and the other public stockholders of
the company."

However, the company denied the allegations, pointing out that
it entered into the merger agreement based on the unanimous
recommendation by a special committee of independent directors
of its board of directors and the unanimous consent of its full
board of directors (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).

It also pointed out that stockholders representing approximately
15 percent ownership of its common stock entered into voting
agreements in which they agreed to vote in favor of the merger.

Both firms anticipate the completion of transaction later this
year.


GALAXY NUTRITIONAL: Recalls Soy Topping with Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc. of Orlando, Florida, in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is
voluntarily recalling all production codes of 4 oz. "Vegan
Parmesan Flavor Grated Soy Topping" because the product may
contain traces of undeclared milk ingredients.

The company said that individuals with allergies or sensitivity
to milk run the risk of mild to possibly serious allergic
reactions, and should not consume this product.

This product is distributed nationwide through natural,
specialty food stores and supermarkets.  The individual product
labeling identifies the products as being manufactured for
Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc., Orlando, Florida.  No other
Galaxy products are affected by this recall.

There have been no serious adverse events reported; however
there have been 2 reports from consumers of mild allergic
reactions.

The Vegan Parmesan Flavor Grated Soy Topping is packed in a 4
oz. shaker canister with a dark purple label, with a UPC code of
77172-64000.  Of the 39,288 shaker canisters distributed, the
majority is being held in warehouse locations and has not
reached consumers.  These expiration code dates are affected:
April 1, 2007; April 15, 2007; April 29, 2007; May 27, 2007.

Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc. voluntarily initiated this recall
immediately after it was discovered that the product may contain
traces of undeclared milk ingredients.  

Consumers who have purchased this product are advised to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund or destroy the
product.

Consumers with questions may contact Galaxy Nutritional Foods at
1-800-441-9419 ext. 224.


GOOGLE INC: Advertisers Oppose $90M "Click Fraud" Deal in Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 40 online advertisers, who are alleging that search engine
Google Inc. conspired to overcharge them, filed objections in
Arkansas' Miller County Circuit Court against the company's
proposed $90 million settlement of a "click fraud" class action,
according to The National Law Journal.

The settlement was reached earlier this year between Google and
Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC, on behalf of Google's
advertising clients.  A fairness hearing for that deal is slated
for July 24.

Under the settlement, eligible advertisers in Google's network
during the past four years will be granted an account credit
that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google
(Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006).  In addition, it will
extinguish any claims for overcharges that all U.S.-based Google
advertisers might have.

The online advertisers, who opposed the deal, are potential
class members of the Google settlement.  Objectors say the
proposed settlement is unfair and inadequate since it includes
poor calculations, excessive attorney fees and e-mailed class
notices that look like "spam."

About 40 potential class members have objected to the
settlement, which applies to advertisers claiming fraudulent
clicks from 2002 to the final settlement date, according to
Darren Kaplan, a partner at Atlanta-based Chitwood Harley
Harnes, who represents two objectors.

Mr. Kaplan's clients opposes the deal due to stipulations that
class members who contributed 10 percent of Google's billions of
dollars in revenue by paying for fraudulent clicks would receive
compensation based on only 10 percent of the $60 million fund,
or $6 million.  Mr. Kaplan also noted that the settlement are
paying potential class members in advertising credits, not cash.

                        Case Background

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact:

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

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

     (3) [Settlement Objector] Darren Kaplan of Chitwood Harley
         Harnes, LLP, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street,
         N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309, (DeKalb & Fulton Cos.),
         Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, Web site:
         http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.


LEGACY HEALTH: Seeks Settlement of Ore. Uninsured Patient's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legacy Health System proposed to settle a class action filed in
Multnomah County Circuit Court against the company on behalf of
uninsured patients, The Portland Business Journal reports.

Terms of the settlement is yet to be announced pending a hearing
on July 20, 2006 at the Multnomah County Courthouse, but Legacy
spokesman Gary Walker had said refunds on 250 bills would amount
to about $194,000.

The lawsuit accuses the company of consistently overcharging its
poorest and most vulnerable patients -- the uninsured -- by
billing them the highest rates without their knowledge.  These
prices far exceed the amounts that the company requires its
insured patients to pay for the same exact services (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2005).  

The case is part of nationwide litigation against nonprofit
hospitals for price gouging and price discrimination against the
uninsured commenced by Richard Scruggs and attorneys around the
country in June 2004.

The company is one of the two largest non-profit healthcare
systems in Oregon.  The defendant hospitals in the case are
Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Legacy Emanuel Hospital in
Portland and Legacy Mount Hood Medical Center in Gresham.

For more details, contact:

     (1) John Phillips and Matthew Geyman of Phillips Law Group,
         PLLC in Seattle, Washington, Phone: (206) 484-0016 and
         (206) 382-1168;

     (2) Michael Williams and Brian Campf of Williams Love
         O'Leary Craine & Powers, P.C. in Portland, Oregon,
         (503) 849-9899; and

     (3) Richard Scruggs and Sid Backstrom of the Scruggs Law
         Firm, P.A. in Oxford, Mississippi, (662) 281-1212, Web
         site: http://www.nfplitigation.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Court Awards Agawam Police Back Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor has ruled that
Agawam police officers are owed withheld overtime pay, plus
damages, according to The Republican.

The Agawam Patrolmen's Association filed a suit against the city
in July 2001 accusing it of violating the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to include pay for incentives in the
rate from which their overtime is calculated.

In January 2002, Judge Ponsor ruled the city correctly
calculated overtime pay for police officers.  However, in 2003,
a panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the
ruling, leaving the U.S. District Court to determine how much
money should be awarded.

The recent ruling will compensate 49 men and women who were
police officers in Agawam between July 1, 1999, and July 31,
2005.

The exact amount owed has yet to be determined, but is estimated
by John D. Connor, lawyer representing the officers, at over
$560,000, excluding additional money that could be owed to
officers who worked after Aug. 1, 2005.

Judge Ponsor gave the police union until Aug. 21 to determine
how much money it thinks it is owed.  The city has until Sept. 8
to respond.

The suit is "O'Brien, et al. v. Agawam, Town of, et al., Case
No. 3:01-cv-30126-MAP," filed in the U.S. District Court of
Massachusetts under Judge Michael A. Ponsor.  It names as
defendants the Agawam Police Dept. and the town of Agawam.

Representing the defendant is David A. Robinson, Attorney at
Law, Suite 301, 935 Main Street, Springfield, MA 01103, Phone:
413-739-4412, E-mail: davidr225@comcast.net.

Representing the defendant is John D. Connor at Moriarty &
Connor, Suite 501, 101 State Street, Springfield, MA 01103,
Phone: 413-827-0777, Fax: 413-827-8867, E-mail:
johnconnor@moriarty-connor.com.


MERCK & CO: Court Rules St. Clair Erred in "Rensing" Vioxx Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled that St. Clair County Circuit
Court's erred when in denied Merck & Co.'s motion to transfer a
Vioxx class action to Cook County, according to The Madison St.
Clair Record.

The lawsuit was filed by Doris Rensing on Oct. 1, 2004 in St.
Clair County after the company withdrew its arthritis pain
reliever from the market.  A study showed that it increased the
risk of heart attack and stroke if taken for more than 18
months.

On Jan. 31, 2005, the company removed Ms. Rensing's case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  But,
it was remanded back.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the company filed a motion to transfer the
case for improper venue.  In its motion the company said that it
is incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal
place of business in New Jersey.  It said that since it did not
have any manufacturing plants, facilities, or operations in St.
Clair County, it does not transact its usual and customary
business within St. Clair County for venue purposes.

On May 19, 2005, Judge Michael O'Malley denied the company's
motion to transfer the case, which Merck appealed to the
Illinois Appellate Court.

Justice Steve Spomer wrote for the majority that the appeal
involved a "pure question of law."  He pointed out that the drug
manufacturer did not design, manufacture or produce its products
in St. Clair County.  

With the ruling, the appellate court transferred Ms. Rensing's
consumer fraud class action to Cook County.  

An estimated 4,200 similar lawsuits have been filed across the
country since Vioxx was removed from the market last Sept. 30,
2004 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2005).  All in all, the
company faces about 16,000 Vioxx lawsuits throughout the
country.

For more details, contact

     (1) [Plaintiff] John J. Driscoll of Brown & Crouppen,
         Generally Admitted, 720 Olive Street, Suite 1800, St.
         Louis, MO 63101-2302, Phone: 314-421-0216, Fax: 314-
         421-0359, E-mail: asmith@brownandcrouppen.com; and

     (2) [Defendant] Dan H. Ball of Bryan Cave - St. Louis,
         Generally Admitted, 211 North Broadway, One
         Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102,
         Phone: 314-259-2000, E-mail: dhball@bryancave.com.


NEW YORK: Court Allows Suit Demanding Prisoners' Parole Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Charles Brieant refused to dismiss a class
action filed against the state Division of Parole, according to
Recordonline.com.

Middletown lawyers Robert Isseks and Alex Smith, and New York
lawyer Peter Sell brought the lawsuit in January on behalf of
inmates in Middletown (Class Action Reporter, Jan 31, 2006).  
They demanded civil rights for inmates who have been repeatedly
denied parole.  Named in the suit were the state Division of
Parole, Gov. George Pataki and his parole board chairman, Robert
Dennison.  The State's Division of Parole was served with the
lawsuit on Jan. 16.  

The suit claims that the parole board has an unofficial policy
that no parole should be granted to anyone who's convicted of
murder or pleads guilty to murder, regardless of how much they
rehabilitate their lives.

Featured in the suit is James Buckley, a prisoner at Mid-Orange
Correction Facility in Warwick, who in 2004 was denied parole
for the eighth time.  He was sentenced to 15 years to life for a
murder conviction in 1976.  The suit claims people like him
should get new parole hearings immediately, instead of having to
wait the requisite two years.

The suit is "Graziano et al. v. Pataki et al., Case No.
7:06-cv-00480-CLB " filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Charles L. Brieant.

Representing the defendant is Neil Shevlin at New York State
Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224, Phone: 212-
416-8561, Fax: (212) 416-6009, E-mail:
Neil.Shevlin@oag.state.ny.us.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Nathan Isseks, 6 North
Street, Middletown, NY 10940, U.S., Phone: (845) 344-4322, Fax:
(845) 341-1760, E-mail: isseks@frontiernet.net.


NIGERIA: Bakassi Residents Sue Over Transfer of Land to Cameroon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some residents in Bakassi Local Government Area in Cross River
State filed a class action with a federal court in Abuja
challenging the legality of the Treaty ceding Bakassi Peninsular
to Cameroon, according to The Day.

The treaty was signed in June by Nigeria President Olusegun
Obasanjo and Cameroon President Paul Biya in New York.

The suit was filed by Chief Orok Eneyo, Emmanuel Effiong Etene,
Ndabu Nakanda, Ita  Okon Nyong, Richard Ekpenyong and Elder Tony
Asuquo on behalf of Bakassi Movement for Self Determination.  
The defendants are the federal government and Cross River State
government.

The suit is asking the court to determine whether:

     -- the treaty has force of law when it has not been enacted
        into law by the National Assembly;

     -- the defendants are competent to expel or remove the
        Nigerian citizens in Bakassi Local Government Area of
        Cross River State; and

     -- the two months notice issued to the plaintiffs by the
        defendants does not contravene the Rent Control and
        Recovery of Premises Law of Cross Rivers State.

No hearing date was set yet.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the treaty and the
expulsion of the plaintiffs unconstitutional and illegal, and to
order perpetual injunction to ban any move to expel or remove
residents from Bakassi Local Government Area of Cross River
State.  They are also asking a declaration that the decision of
the defendants to eject the plaintiffs from their houses within
60 days with effect from June 12 is illegal, unconstitutional,
null and void.

Residents of the area have until Aug. 12 to move out under a
2001 order of the International Court of Justice.

Representing the plaintiff is attorney Femi Falana of Lagos.


OHIO: $52M Deal Reached in Suit Over Workers' Subrogated Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation will return $52 million
to injured workers whose claims BWC subrogated as part of a
statute that has since been declared unconstitutional.

The reimbursement will be paid to about 7,900 injured workers
whose claims were subrogated by BWC under the 1993 and 1995
subrogation statutes.

"Because the Supreme Court found the prior subrogation statute
unconstitutional, the appropriate action is to return all monies
collected under what was clearly determined to be a flawed law,"
according to BWC's Administrator and Chief Executive.

The class action stems from subrogation statutes enacted in 1993
and 1995, which have since been declared unconstitutional by the
Ohio Supreme Court.  Specifically, the court held that the prior
subrogation laws were flawed because they allowed BWC and self-
insuring employers to potentially be reimbursed more than what
was paid in the affected claims.

Under the new law, effective April 9, 2003, injured workers can
place part of their personal injury award in a trust account to
reimburse the bureau for future claims costs as they are
incurred.

Subrogation is the process that allows BWC or a self-insuring
employer to collect claims costs from a third party who caused
the workers' compensation injury.  Normally these collections
come from insurance companies and not directly from the third
parties at fault.

BWC said the current decision has no impact on current
subrogation collections.  The bureau continues to subrogate
claims based on a revised statute enacted in 2003, which
addresses the concerns set forth by the Holeton Supreme Court.  
Additionally, the Supreme Court made it clear in the Holeton
case it feels subrogation is an appropriate collection method
for BWC to employ.

The refunds will be paid to injured workers with dates of injury
between Oct. 20, 1993, and June 27, 2001, whose claims were
subrogated by BWC.  Notification of eligibility letters will be
mailed to the affected injured workers within 60 days from the
date court entry is filed.  The injured workers should receive
their refund within 30 days of submitting properly completed and
notarized forms, according to a statement by BWC.

The settlement was approved on July 19 by Judge Michael Donnelly
of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.  The suit was filed by
Angel Santos of Cleveland.

Representing the plaintiff is W. Craig Bashein, Phone: 216-771-
3239.  Representing the defendant is James A. Barnes, Phone:
614-466-6696.


PHILIP SERVICES: Ga. Firm Faces Suit Over Propyl Mercaptan Odor
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in Fulton County Superior Court over
the hazards brought by the odor of a gas coming from Philip
Services Corp. on Georgia Highway 92 in south Fulton, according
to The Citizen.  The Philip Services plant was the destination
for shipments of propyl mercaptan wash water last month.

Atlanta attorney Scott Zahler filed the suit claiming negligence
by defendants in preventing the release of propyl mercaptan,
nuisance by endangering the health of the general public, and
violation of local ordinances.  He is seeking punitive damages.

More than 200 residents in Fayette and Fulton counties have
complained that they've been physically affected by exposure to
the pesticide component.  Some suffered respiratory illnesses,
headaches and dizziness to nausea and digestive system ailments.

The suit names plant owner Philip Services and propyl mercaptan
maker AMVAC Chemical Corp. and others that may bear legal
responsibility.  AMVAC, located in Axis, Alabama, is named as
having transported multiple shipments of MOCAP pesticide wash
water to the Philip Services facility, though Georgia
Environmental Protection Division had originally indicated that
the propyl mercaptan wash water came from a Bayer Corp. plant in
Alabama.

Propyl mercaptan is a component ingredient of MOCAP.

Mr. Zahler is partner at Goetz, Pierce & Zahler, Overlook III,
Suite 1740, 2859 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30339
(DeKalb & Fulton Cos.), Phone: 770-431-1107, Fax: 770-431-1101.


PIONEER ELECTRONICS: July 31 Hearing set for Elite PRO-x30 Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles will hold a fairness hearing on July 31, 2006 at
9:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in re: Pioneer Elite PRO-
x30 Cases, Case No. JCCP 4390."

The settlement covers all persons in the U.S. who, prior to May
12, 2006, purchased a Pioneer Elite High-Definition, Rear-
Projection Television Model No. PRO-530 HD; PRO-530 HDI; PRO-630
HD; PRO-730 HD; or PRO-730 HDI (Elite PRO-x30 Televisions).

The court will hold the hearing at 600 South Commonwealth
Avenue, Department 324, Los Angeles, California 90005 before
Judge Victoria G. Chaney, to determine whether the proposed
settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate,
and whether judgment should be entered thereon.  

Initially, several suits were filed against Pioneer Electronics
(USA) Inc., Pioneer North America, Inc., and Pioneer Corp.  
Seven of these cases were consolidated for all purposes in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles as, "In re Pioneer Elite PRO-x30 Cases, Case No. JCCP
4390."

The consolidated case alleges that video and power problems
which cause Elite PRO-x30 Televisions to display colored lines
and assert causes of action for violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
the unfair and deceptive practices statutes of various states
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and for breach of warranty
and unjust enrichment.

Any objections to the settlement must be submitted on or before
July 17, 2006.  To view the notice, visit:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?c58

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. of Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite
         4170, Los Angeles, California 90071, Phone: (800)-320-
         5081 and 213-617-1200, Fax: 213-617-1975; and

     (2) [Pioneer] William T. Bisset of Hughes Hubbard & Reed,
         LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3600, Los Angeles,
         California 90071-3442, (Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 213-
         613-2800, Fax: 213-613-2950, Web site:
         http://www.hugheshubbard.com.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Judge Mulls Approval of Natural Gas Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathy Hardcastle of Clark County District Court in Nevada
is still considering whether to approve the settlement agreement
between Sempra Energy and the Nevada attorney general's Bureau
of Consumer Protection in September, Las Vegas Review-Journal
reports.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit alleging natural gas market
manipulations during the Western energy crisis of 2000 and 2001.
The company denied the allegations, but decided to settle the
lawsuit for $30 million in May.

The suit was filed as a class action and state officials decided
it would be inappropriate to use the money for any purpose but
to benefit customers, according to Eric Witkoski, state consumer
advocate and chief of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Under the settlement the company agreed to pay Nevada $30
million over the next eight years to settle the case, which was
filed in November 2002.  Some settlement payments will be
distributed to customers of Southwest Gas Corp. and Nevada Power
Co. as a credit on bills.

The credit would be arranged through adjustments in the
utilities' next energy rate cases.  The next Southwest Gas
adjustment may be effective by winter.

Also benefiting from the settlement would be customers of Valley
Electric Association, a cooperative serving Pahrump, Boulder
City's electric utility and Overton Power District.

Between May 2003 and December 2004, 20 antitrust actions were
filed against the company, one or more of its affiliates, and
various, unrelated energy companies, alleging that energy prices
were unlawfully manipulated by defendants' reporting
artificially inflated natural gas prices to trade publications
and by entering into wash trades.  Several of those lawsuits
seek class action certification (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7,
2005).

For more details, contact Eric Witkoski, State of Nevada
Attorney General Office, Suite 3900, 555 E Washington St., Las
Vegas, NV 89101-1069, Phone: (702) 486-3420, Fax: (702) 486-3416
and (702) 486-3768.


SHIMANO INC: Recalls Defective Bicycle Quick-Release Skewers
------------------------------------------------------------
Shimano Inc., of Osaka, Japan, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,500
units of Shimano Quick Release Device for bicycles.

The company said the quick release skewers can unexpectedly fail
or break when locked in position.  When this happens the rider
could lose control and fall.

Shimano has received one report of the quick release breaking.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves quick releases supplied after Nov. 1, 2005
with Shimano front hubs and front wheels on certain road racing
and MTB bicycles.

Model numbers included in the recall are:

     -- HB-5501,       -- HB-5600,
     -- HB-6600,       -- HB-7800,
     -- HB-HF-08,      -- HB-M756,
     -- HB-M760,       -- HB-M760,
     -- HB-M960,       -- HB-M965,
     -- WH-7801,       -- WH-7801C,
     -- WH-7801C50,    -- WH-7801SL,
     -- WH-R600,       -- WH-M965,
     -- DH-2N71,       -- DH-3N71,
     -- DH-3D71

Only quick releases with silver skewers and without a round
sticker on the back of the quick release lever are involved in
this recall.

Picture of the recalled quick-release devise:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06209.jpg

The quick-release devices were manufactured in Japan and are
being sold at bicycle specialty stores and dealers nationwide
from November 2005 through March 2006 for between $13 and $44.

Consumers are advised to stop riding immediately and take the
quick release device into their local bike dealer or retailer
for a free inspection and repair.

For more information, contact Shimano American Corp. at (800)
353-4719 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://bike.shimano.com.


VISTACARE INC: Sept. Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District Of Arizona will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 2 p.m. for the proposed
$4.6 million settlement in the matter, "In Re VistaCare, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No. CV 04 1661 PHX FJM."

The settlement covers all individuals or entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired VistaCare, Inc. common stock between April
28, 2003 and Aug. 5, 2004.

The court will hold hearing at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401
West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.

Any objections or exclusion to and from the settlement must be
submitted by Sept. 8, 2006. Deadline for submission of a proof
of claim is on Oct. 30, 2006.
                         
The complaint generally alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to properly reserve for accrued reimbursement
obligations owed to Medicare for violations of the per-patient
Medicare Cap limitations, resulting in overstated "net revenues"
and overall earnings, and understated liabilities on its balance
sheet.

At the same time the company's chief executive officer sold
personally held shares of VistaCare stock at inflated prices
while in possession of material, non-public information.

The complaint further alleges that lead plaintiffs and other
class members purchased the common stock of the company during
the class period at prices artificially inflated as a result of
the defendants' dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company, and suffered losses when the
truth about it's financial performance and Medicare cap problems
were revealed, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

For more details, contact

     (1) Beth A. Kaswan, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-
         0165, Phone (212) 594-5300, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;and

     (2) In re VistaCare, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
         Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
         2003, Chanhassen, MN  55317-2003, Web site:
         http://www.vistacaresecuritieslitigationsettlement.com.


WRT ENERGY: Judge Certifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an order certifying the class, appointing class
representative and lead counsel in the securities fraud suit
against WRT Energy Corp.

Filed on May 15, 1996, the suit generally alleges that the
company and the individual defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are Evelyn Lee, Ira Lee,
Berniece B. Wright, Frank Amato, IRA Jeremiah Attard, Michael
Attard, and Michael R. Nadler.

In an opinion and order issued on June 13, 2006 for the case,
"In re WRT Energy Securities Litigation, Case Nos. 96-3610 and
96-3611," Judge John F. Keenan, stated that he is:

      -- certifying this case as a class action;

      -- appointing Michael R. Nadler and Frank Amato, Trustee,
         as class representatives; and

      -- appointing Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as Lead
         Counsel and David B. Kahn & Associates, Ltd. as
         Associate Lead Counsel for the class.

Defendants CIBC, Oppenheimer Corp. and Schroder & Co., Inc.
jointly oppose plaintiffs' motion, while defendants Steven
McGuire, Samuel Guy, Ronald Hale and Dominic Man-Kit Lam
(Individual Defendants) have not opposed the motion.

A status conference is scheduled before the judge on Nov. 14,
2006 at 9:30 a.m.

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

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e14

For more details, contact:

     (1) Richard Henry Weiss and January L. Kerr of Milberg,
         Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, L.L.P., One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300 and
         212-946-9431, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         rweiss@milbergweiss.com and jlkerr@milbergweiss.com;
         and

     (2) David B. Kahn & Associates, Ltd., One Northfield Plaza,
         Suite 100, Northfield, IL 60093-1211, Phone: (847) 501-
         5083 and (800) 536-0499, Fax: (847) 501-5086.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ameron International Drop to 924
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation, as of June 4, 2006, faced
asbestos-related cases involving 924 claimants compared with
2,642 claimants as of March 5, 2006.

As of Nov. 20, 2005, the Company faced asbestos-related cases
involving 8,906 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, April 21,
2006)

The Company defends itself against multi-defendant asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits. These cases seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure
to products previously made by the Company and other
manufacturing firms.

At this time, the Company is not aware of the extent of injuries
allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts supporting
the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's products.

For the quarter ended June 4, 2006, the Company noted four new
claimants. The Company also noted dismissals and settlements
involving 1,722 claimants and no judgments.

During the quarter ended June 4, 2006, asbestos claims-related
net costs and expenses incurred by the Company were less than
US$.1 million.

Based in Pasadena, California, Ameron International Corp. makes
steel pipe, fiberglass-composite pipe, and reinforced concrete
pipe for a variety of industrial uses, including chemical and
petrochemical processing, water transmission, and sewage
collection.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Agency to Award JPY3M Payout to Widow
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency in Japan
will be awarding JPY3 million as compensation to widow Chieko
Kosuge for the death of her husband, Hitoshi Kosuge, from
mesothelioma, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Sources said the Agency recognized the death of Mr. Kosuge, 42,
to have been caused by mesothelioma triggered by breathing
asbestos from his father's contaminated clothing. Mr. Kosuge
died in 1997.

Mr. Kosuge's father worked for a company making asbestos cement
pipes. In 2000, Mrs. Kosuge sued the Company for JPY94 million,
claiming her husband died of secondary damage from asbestos that
clung to his father's work clothes.

However, the Supreme Court had rejected her appeal against a
lower court's ruling, saying no causal connection between
asbestos and Mr. Kosuge's death had been discovered.

According to the Agency, it decided to pay condolence money to
the family of Mr. Kosuge based on the new law to aid asbestos
victims.

The Agency's recognition went against the Supreme Court ruling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Awards $11.5M to Navy Veteran
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court awarded over US$1.1 million to
navy veteran Joseph Garza, and US$400,000 to his wife, Mary, for
loss of companionship. The jury added $10 million in punitive
damages in concluding that defendant Asbestos Corp. Ltd. acted
with malice or oppression, PRWeb reports.

Asbestos Corp. Ltd. is the owner and former operator of asbestos
mines in the Thetford Mines region of Quebec, Canada.  

Mr. Garza was a fireman and boilerman aboard several ships while
working in the Navy from 1948 through 1957. He worked in boiler
rooms and closed quarters where he was exposed to asbestos-
containing cement, insulation, gaskets and packing.

The Navy used Eagle Picher Super 66 insulating cement aboard its
ships. According to expert testimony, mixing, applying or
cleaning up of this dry powder material releases high levels of
asbestos.

From 1935 through 1957, Asbestos Corp. supplied asbestos fiber
to Eagle Picher Industries. The asbestos used in Eagle Picher
Super 66 insulating cement was comprised of Asbestos Corp.'s
asbestos fiber.

Mr. Garza mixed and applied Eagle Picher Super 66 insulating
cements to make repairs, as well as working near others
performing the same tasks. He had not received nor had he worn
any form of respiratory protection. Moreover, he saw no warnings
regarding health hazard on the packaging of this material.

Asbestos Corp. did not put warning labels about asbestos health
hazards on its bags until early 1970. Sales brochures showed
that the Company did not warn about asbestos dangers or advise
consumers about safe work practices before that date.

In 2004, Mr. Garza was diagnosed with asbestosis, a progressive
and debilitating scarring of the lung tissue that is caused by
exposure to asbestos.

Mrs. Garza is disabled and had relied on her husband to perform
household services, such as cooking, cleaning, gardening and
maintenance.

Christopher Andreas and Paul Vaillancourt of the law firm
Brayton Purcell LLP represented Joseph and Mary Garza.

Randall Bernard of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
of San Francisco, California represented Asbestos Corp. Ltd.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mining Continues in India, Activist Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Palu, a Canadian social activist suspected that, despite a
ban by the Indian Government, asbestos might still be illegally
mined in Rajasthan, Indiatimes reports.

Mr. Palu visited asbestos mines and processing units in
Rajasthan and other states to see the working conditions and
safety measures for laborers. In a statement, Mr. Palu said that
he suspected that Rajasthan was producing asbestos for
industrial use.

While white asbestos mining is banned in India, its import,
export or use in manufacturing is permitted. In India, asbestos
is used in the making of pipes for water supply, sewage and
drainage, packing material, brake linings in automobiles, heavy
equipment and thermal plants.

Studies reveal that the demand for asbestos in India is around
100,000 tons, a fifth of which is mined domestically. Moreover,
raw asbestos worth INR100 million is imported annually from
Canada and Russia.

"Asbestos is not viable for commercial production in India.
Studies by public health institutions have confirmed the high
incidence of lung diseases and asbestosis among those involved
in asbestos mining," said Subrata Dutta, communications officer
of Mine Labor Protection Campaign, a Jodhpur-based NGO.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Orders Suppliers to Warn Public
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeal, 4th District, in Florida
ruled that bulk suppliers of asbestos are required to warn the
public of adequate safety, even if they do not sell asbestos
directly to the public, Law.com reports.

In June 2006, the Court overturned the ruling of a Palm Beach
Circuit judge who said that the standard jury instructions for
product liability suits did not apply in an asbestos case
against Union Carbide Corp.

In a 2003 lawsuit filed by William and Elizabeth McConnell
against Union Carbide, Union Carbide argued that it did not make
a product that could be deemed defective under Florida product
liability law. The jury ruled in favor of Union Carbide, and Mr.
and Mrs. McConnell appealed. The Appeals Court reversed the
judge's decision and ordered a new trial.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. McConnell worked in Alabama and
Florida as a carpenter for a drywall business in which he sanded
Ready-Mix. Georgia-Pacific made the joint compound Ready-Mix,
which had an ingredient called Calidria Asbestos marketed by
Union Carbide.
Mr. McConnell alleged he developed asbestosis as a result of
sanding this material. He also said that he was never warned
that this compound contained asbestos.

In a June 2004 opinion on a suit filed by Dennis and Ingeborg
Kavanaugh, the Appeals Court stated that Union Carbide's
negligence led to Mr. Kavanaugh's asbestosis because it did not
take "reasonable precautions."

Mr. Kavanaugh alleged that he was injured by exposure to
asbestos through sanding Ready-Mix, a Georgia-Pacific Corp.
product that contained Union Carbide-provided asbestos. A jury
awarded him US$1.2 million in damages and found Union Carbide to
be 100% liable. Union Carbide appealed.

Lawrie Demorest, Union Carbide's attorney, said she sees some
differences between the two appellate decisions but would not
elaborate. She said the defense is considering its appellate
options.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling in Herring Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, ruled that
Todd Shipyards Corp. was required to notify members of the
Asbestos Workers Union Local No. 7 of its bankruptcy, in
reversing the Superior Court of King County's decision in the
suit by Roger Herring.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Susan R. Agid, Mary Kay Becker,
and C. Kenneth Grosse, heard Case No. 55055-1-I on April 17,
2006.

From 1958 to the mid-1970s, Roger Herring worked as an asbestos
insulator. From time to time, he worked at Todd in the 1960s. He
was also a member of the Asbestos Workers Union Local No. 7.

In 1989, Roger Herring sued makers of asbestos-containing
products. In 2002, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer caused
by asbestos exposure, and he sued in the Superior Court of King
County. In 2003, he amended the complaint to include Todd as a
defendant.

In August 2004, Roger Herring died and the court named his
brother, Edwin Herring, as the estate's personal representative.

On August 17, 1987, Todd filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The
court set the bankruptcy claims bar date for filing proofs of
claims as June 6, 1988. On March 16, 1988, Todd published notice
of the bar date in several newspapers.

On March 19, 2004, Todd moved for summary judgment on Edwin
Herring's claims. The trial court granted the motion, stating,
"Plaintiff's claims were discharged in bankruptcy."

Edwin Herring appealed and argued that his claims were not
discharged because he was not provided with adequate notice of
Todd's bankruptcy.

At the time it filed for bankruptcy, Todd knew that members of
the Asbestos Workers Union Local No. 7 who had worked at Todd
could be expected to suffer asbestos-related diseases for which
they would file tort claims.

Since Todd did not inform Local 7 members of its bankruptcy, the
Appeals Court reversed the Superior Court's decision.

Janet L Rice, William Joel Rutzick, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender,
Seattle, Wash., represented Edwin Herring and Roger Herring.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman's Fund Argues ASARCO Claim Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. complains that the Agreement
regarding the case management of the estimation of the asbestos
claims is unfair.

FFIC asserts that it has submitted several objections to the
Estimation Motion. FFIC previously asked the Court to include
appropriate protective "insurance neutrality" terms in any case
management governing any estimation process. FFIC also asked the
Court to permit it to participate in any estimation proceeding.

FFIC was not included in any negotiations between ASARCO LLC the
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors, and the Future Claims Representative,
Anthony S. Cox, Esq., at Hermes Sargent Bates, LLP, in Dallas,
Texas, tells the Court.

Mr. Cox argues that the Agreement expanded the scope for which
the results of the estimation proceeds will be used. Because of
the expanded scope, Mr. Cox believes that the results of the
estimation proceedings will be used in connection with the
litigation commenced in May 2001 by ASARCO and the Asbestos
Debtors against FFIC captioned ASARCO LLC, et al. v. Allianz
International Insurance, Ltd., et al.

Mr. Cox says the Court should direct ASARCO to include the
appropriate protective "insurance neutrality" terms in any case
management order to streamline the proposed estimation process
by eliminating the need for FFIC's further participation and
avoid the fundamental unfairness of imposing a substantive
result on a litigant that otherwise has no opportunity to
participate in the outcome.

Mr. Cox argues that since FFIC was not included in the
negotiations for the Agreement, it is now a disadvantage for
FFIC to participate meaningfully in the estimation proceeding.
The time for discovery set in the Agreement is unreasonably
short, Mr. Cox says, considering that other parties have
accessed the documentation that must be reviewed to prepare for
the estimation proceeding.

A compromise or a settlement under Rule 9019(a) of the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure cannot be used to avoid the
express jurisdictional requirements of the Bankruptcy Rules.  
Mr. Cox emphasizes that the Agreement is neither a compromise
nor a settlement because nothing is settled. Rather, Mr. Cox
says, the Agreement is an impermissible private re-writing of
the Bankruptcy Rules.

Thus, FFIC asks the Court to:

(a) Include in any case management order governing any
estimation proceedings appropriate protective "insurance
neutrality" terms to the effect that any estimation of the
Asbestos Claims is not binding on FFIC for any insurance
coverage; or

(b) Permit FFIC to fully and meaningfully participate in any
estimation proceedings.

FFIC reserves its rights under its policies in the context of
any pending, or future, insurance coverage among ASARCO and the
Asbestos Debtors.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 25; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 110T Germans to Fall Ill in 15 Years, Study     
----------------------------------------------------------------
The German Association for Pneumology's Professor Diether
Koehler said that 110,000 people in Germany would fall ill to
asbestos-related diseases in the coming 15 years, Bahrain News
Agency reports.

The reason is that many of those diseases have an incubation
period of between 10 and 40 years, Mr. Koehler added. Asbestos
has been banned in Germany since 1993 but "among work-related
illnesses, more deaths are caused by asbestos than by fatal
accidents in the work place."

Diseases related to asbestos poisoning like silicosis, lung
cancer and tumors in the pleural region cause a patient's early
death.

Asbestos was used in the construction industry up until the
1970s.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Court Overturns AUD320T Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Court of Appeal overturned a landmark AUD320,000
payout for asbestos-related disease to Bernard Frost, who used
to work for former James Hardie Industries NV subsidiary Amaca
Pty Ltd, Sunday Star Times reports.

Mr. Frost, aged 61, was exposed to asbestos while installing
insulation products in Cambridge, New Zealand in 1963 to 1966.
However, he was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung disease in
2000, four years after moving to Queensland, Australia.

Graeme Little, Mr. Frost's Australian lawyer, said he would seek
special leave to appeal the decision in the Australian High
Court. He said Accident Compensation Corporation law stated New
Zealanders could sue overseas firms.

"This (decision) means James Hardie could dump deadly blue
asbestos in New Zealand tomorrow without any ramifications and
use you as guinea pigs because of your legislation," Mr. Graeme
said.

In a key concession, Amaca admitted in Mr. Frost's case that it
breached its duty of care by continuing to use asbestos in
Hardie products and failing to replace it with a non-asbestos
material despite knowing it was dangerous to people's health.

About 30 people had gained AUD100,000 payouts before ACC stopped
giving compensation when the high court overturned an earlier
decision allowing payments.

In 2000, a New Zealand study warned of an asbestos disease
epidemic, predicting 4,000 people would die of mesothelioma and
8,000 from asbestos-related lung cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Seeks GBP200T in Suit v. U.K. Council
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Newman launched a legal battle for GBP200,000 compensation
against the Huntingdonshire District Council in the United
Kingdom after her husband, Leslie, died from asbestos-related
cancer, Cambridge Evening News reports.

Mr. Newman was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers when he
worked at the Council between 1974 and 1977. In November 2004,
he was diagnosed with cancer. On June 23, 2005, he died from
malignant mesothelioma, a cancer of the tissues surrounding the
lungs and abdomen.

Mrs. Newman brands the Council negligent and in a breach of
statutory duty by exposing her husband to asbestos. She has
brought her claims to London's High Court under the Fatal
Accidents Act 1976 and the Law Reform Act 1934.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Awards $12.6M Payout to Non-Laborer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court awarded US$12.6 million to
former banker Saeed Behshid, a non-laborer suffering from
mesothelioma, Mealey Publications reports.

The jury's award includes US$12 million for pain and suffering
and US$600,000 for medical expenses.

In the suit, styled Saeed Behshid v. Bondex International Inc.,
et al., No. BC343104, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co., Mr.
Behshid alleged that he was exposed to asbestos while remodeling
12 to 15 homes for personal and investment use during the 1960s
and 1970s.

Members of Mr. Behshid's family testified that Mr. Behshid was
exposed to asbestos dust while mixing and sanding joint
compound. His brother and son were the lone product-
identification witnesses.

Mr. Behshid, aged 71, immigrated to the United States in 1961.
In 2004, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

After a 13-day trial, the jury deliberated for 1 1/2 days before
returning its US$12.6 million verdict and holding Bondex
International Inc. 20% liable for Mr. Behshid's mesothelioma.

Dowmans Products Inc. was not found liable for Mr. Behshid's
disease.

Mealey Publication's sources said the award is one of the
largest asbestos verdicts ever in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court and is particularly significant because Mr.
Behshid was not a laborer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Taxpayers to Pay GBP5,000 for Removal  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayers are to pay up to GBP5,000 to have illegally dumped
asbestos, found in Carrick District and Cornwall County, removed
and disposed of, This is Cornwall reports.

Police are investigating the dumping of 11 tons of potentially
harmful asbestos in a farm gateway. Huge sacks of asbestos roof
tiles were discovered on the St. Agnes to Mount Hawke road, off
the B3277.

The removal tasks would fall to the Carrick District Council and
Cornwall County Council.

Carrick's waste enforcement officer, Ian James, said, "This is a
thoughtless and inconsiderate action as although it is low grade
asbestos it is still potentially harmful to health and the
environment. Whoever dumped this had no consideration of
people's safety and they were breaking the law."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: April 2007 Trial Set for Suit v. Chase Corp
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio Court set a trial date of April 30, 2007 in an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit against Chase Corporation.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in the suit, which
alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in
Chase products. The case's plaintiff issued discovery requests
to Chase in August 2005, to which Chase timely responded in
September 2005.

The case was inactive with respect to Chase until recently, when
the claim against Chase placed on the active docket.

The Company had been a defendant in another personal injury suit
in Mississippi alleging injury from exposure to asbestos in
Chase products. However, the Company was dismissed without
prejudice from that suit in June 2005.

Based in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corp. makes tapes and
protective coatings used by the electronic, public utility, and
oil industries. Products include insulating and conducting
materials, electrical repair tapes, protective pipe coatings,
thermoelectric insulation, and moisture protective coatings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dockyard Worker's Widow Seeks GBP150,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Stephens has launched a legal battle for up to GBP150,000
compensation after her husband, John Stephens, died from
asbestos-related cancer, portsmouth.co.uk reports.

A former dockyard worker, Mr. Stephens died at the age of 62
from mesothelioma. Prior to his death, he launched a legal
battle for compensation from his former employers and Mrs.
Stephens has now continued the fight.

Mrs. Stephens believes her husband was exposed to asbestos dust
and fibers four decades ago while he was an apprentice at
Portsmouth Dockyard and while he was a laborer at Wessex
Construction and Plant Hire in Havant, United Kingdom.

"It keeps bringing all the pain back and it makes it very
difficult. Hopefully it will all be settled soon," Mrs. Stephens
said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wife Dies From Laundry Exposure, UK Inquest
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that Marjorie Fox, a 61-year old woman from
York in the United Kingdom, died from exposure to asbestos dust
after years of washing her husband's work clothes, Yorkshire
Post Today reports.

The inquest came after Pensions Minister John Hutton pledged to
make it easier for asbestos victims and their families to claim
compensation.

Mrs. Fox was believed to have contracted fatal lung cancer after
almost 20 years of shaking the dust from husband Kenneth's
overalls, which he wore while working as a carpenter before
putting them in the wash.

In October 2002, Mrs. Fox noticed a shortness of breath in and
went to her doctor in January 2003. The doctor referred her to
hospital for tests and by February 2003, she was diagnosed with
cancer.

Doctors told Mrs. Fox that she had mesothelioma, and asbestos
particles had been found in her right lung. She went on to have
chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but died in January 2006.

The company Mr. Fox worked for in the 1960s and 1970s has since
paid compensation to her family.

York Deputy Coroner Jonathan Leach recorded a verdict of
accidental death. He said Mrs. Fox had been killed by a blood
clot in her lungs but mesothelioma was a contributory factor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Grace Defendants to be Tried Separately
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy has separated two former W.R.
Grace & Co. executives from a trial against the Company and
other executives accused of conspiring to hide health risks at
the Company's vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, The Associated
Press reports.

The vermiculite mined near Libby was tainted with tremolite
asbestos. People in the Montana town have been sickened, some
fatally, by exposure to asbestos.

A federal indictment unsealed in February 2005, and revised in
July 2006, charged the Company and seven current and former
executives in the alleged conspiracy.

In May 2006, the individual defendants each moved to sever their
trials from the Company and from all other co-defendants.
Defense attorneys argued that trying the cases separately was a
matter of fairness and guards against finding an individual
defendant guilty because of his association with the other
defendants.

Judge Molloy denied five severance motions, but ruled in favor
of motions filed by in-house attorney O. Mario Favorito and
former mine manager Alan Stringer.

The Company and the five Grace defendants whose motions Judge
Molloy denied will stand trial on Sept. 11, 2006, but Mr.
Stringer and Mr. Favorito will be tried jointly on March 19,
2007.

An opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says joint
trials are "particularly appropriate where the co-defendants are
charged with conspiracy, because the concern for judicial
efficiency is less likely to be outweighed by possible prejudice
to the defendants when much of the evidence would be admissible
against each of them in separate trials," Judge Molloy wrote.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capitol Bldg. Tunnels Risky, Health Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a U.S. Public Health Service report for the
Architect of the Capitol, asbestos discovered three years ago in
the entrance to utility tunnels in the Longworth House Office
Building is still present, The Hill reports.

The utility tunnels, with pipes bringing steam and chilled water
to the Capitol campus, are connected to all the House and Senate
office buildings and the Capitol to heat and cool them.
Entrances are behind closed doors that require access cards, but
many of the doors open into areas well-traveled by staff.

The July 10, 2006 "Capitol Power Plant Steam Tunnels Condition
and Hazard Assessment Progress Report" stated that asbestos in
the tunnels' "duct insulation" has been neither repaired nor
abated.

A division of the Public Health Service, Federal Occupational
Health, recommended that the insulation where the asbestos was
found in the "V" tunnel be removed or abated. The tunnel opens
into a room on a lower floor of Longworth, according to a source
close to the project, and who declined to give the exact
location.

The continued presence of asbestos in the V tunnel contradicts
an AoC official's statement to the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Legislative Branch Subcommittee on April 27, 2006.

Stephen Ayers, the AoC's chief operating officer, testified to
subcommittee Chairman Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, that
there was no asbestos in the tunnel. Mr. Ayers said a series of
asbestos samples were taken from several tunnels "with the
exception of the V tunnel, which of course does not have
asbestos in it. It's been completely abated."

Eva Malecki, a spokeswoman for the AoC contended that the "V"
tunnel had been abated in 2005 and the section noted in the
report had recently become friable. She said the area was not
accessible to the general public.

The tunnel workers were notified that they must wear protective
clothing and breathing equipment in the V tunnel; the protective
measures were not required in that area before the report.

Asbestos, or "suspect materials" presumed to contain asbestos,
was also found in the pipe systems in four other tunnels,
prompting Federal Occupational Health to collect at least three
samples from each to provide "comprehensive data for all of the
tunnels without presumptions."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Units Settle With Insurer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries, effective June 30, 2006,
have reached an agreement to settle their asbestos-related
claims for insurance coverage with an additional insurer,
unnamed in the Company's Current Report filed on Form 8-K with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

This settlement provides for:

(1) The payment of money to Foster Wheeler in payments over an
up to 25-year period starting 2006, in exchange for the release
by Foster Wheeler of past, present and future asbestos-related
claims under the insurer's policies;

(2) Agreement by Foster Wheeler to dismiss the insurer from the
coverage litigation; and

(3) Agreement by Foster Wheeler to indemnify the insurer from
claims asserted under the released claims.

As a result of this insurance settlement and based on the
Company's previously reported estimated asbestos liability, the
Company will increase its reported asbestos-related insurance
assets by about US$80 million, and will record a gain of about
US$80 million in the 2006-2nd quarter.

Moreover, this settlement will reduce the estimated net amount
to be funded from the Company's cash flow from operations for
the settlement of asbestos-related claims in 2006 to about US$34
million.

Based in Clinton, New Jersey, Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds
business process and power generating facilities. The Company
operates through two business groups. It also builds, owns, and
leases cogeneration and independent power projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $809.8M Recoverable in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation, as of June 30, 2006, posted US$809.8
million asbestos-related insurance recoverable, according to a
Company press release dated July 19, 2006.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company posted US$777.4 million
asbestos-related insurance recoverable.

Based in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-Mogul Corp. makes
components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles, with
products including chassis and engine parts, pistons, and
sealing systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Posts $667.7M Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc.'s long-term portion of asbestos
liability, for the 2006-2nd quarter, was US$667.7 million,
according to a Company press release dated July 19, 2006.

For the 2006-1st quarter, American Standard's long-term portion
of asbestos liability stood at US$670.2 million, compared to
US$673.0 million in the 2005-4th quarter. (Class Action
Reporter, April 28, 2006)

American Standard's long-term asbestos receivable, for the 2006-
2nd quarter, was US$384.1 million, compared to US$384.0 million
in the 2005-4th quarter.

Based in Piscataway, New Jersey, American Standard Cos. Inc.
makes air-conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. Deriving over half of sales, the
Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and
commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand
names.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blue Type Found in Kubota Patients' Lungs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two patients suffering from asbestos-caused mesothelioma were
found to have highly toxic blue asbestos in their lungs,
according to a study on patients who lived near Kubota Corp.'s
former Kanzaki plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, The Yomiuri
Shimbun reports.

Kubota ran the factory from 1957 to 1975, about the same time
when the two patients lived near the plant.

Yuji Natori, a doctor and director of the Mesothelioma--
Pneumoconiosis--Asbestos Center in Tokyo, made the findings.

He also examined the lungs of six patients aged 52 to 66,
including those who were deceased.

The six patients lived near Kubota's factory when it used blue
asbestos in the making of water pipes. The researchers found 112
to 677 strands of asbestos per gram in lung tissue samples, much
higher than the acceptable average of 35 strands.

The researchers discovered that most of the asbestos in the lung
tissue samples of the two patients was blue asbestos, believed
to be the most carcinogenic type. Its production and use were
banned in 1995 before the banning of chrysotile, a type of
asbestos.

The plant, run by the major machinery manufacturer, used blue
asbestos from 1957 to 1975.

The patients claimed that the Japanese Central Government should
admit that mesothelioma is caused by environmental pollution and
should pay compensation. The patients added that the findings
have further clarified the relationship between the factory and
the disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Wife Sues 63 Defendants in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores Ernst, an Oregon woman suffering from mesothelioma, sued
63 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court last July 18,
2006, claiming she was exposed to airborne asbestos from family
members' clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Ernst is seeking compensatory damages in excess of
US$700,000, plus punitive damages.

Ms. Ernst claimed that her former husband, Robert, worked as a
salesman from 1955 to 1971 at various sites. Her mother and aunt
were factory workers at various locations including Chicago.

Ms. Ernst alleged that her family members worked with and around
asbestos-containing products. She claimed that they would bring
home asbestos dust, on their clothing, where it would become
airborne again.

From 1945 through 2004, Ms. Ernst worked as a clerk at various
sites in Illinois. She claimed asbestos exposure during non-
occupational work projects including home and automotive
repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

On Feb. 9, 2006, Ms. Ernst was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
later became aware her illness was wrongfully caused, the
lawsuit claimed.

The suit alleged that defendants failed to require and advise
their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. Claiming negligence, Ms.
Ernst said she was exposed to asbestos fibers and developed a
disease caused by asbestos, which has disabled and disfigured
her.

Ms. Ernst also said that she has sought full disclosure of
relevant documents and information from the defendants leading
her to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to
asbestos.

Ms. Ernst singled out Olin Corporation, claiming that her former
husband was employed by Olin in Wisconsin and California from
1955 to 1971 and was exposed to raw asbestos that was being used
at the plants. She claimed Olin's use of raw asbestos in a
manner that caused the release of asbestos fibers constituted an
ultra-hazardous activity.

Nicholas Angelides, Perry Browder, and John Barnerd of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton represent Ms. Ernst. The case has
been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Advocate Confident of Talks With PM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Banton, an asbestos victim campaigner, came from a
meeting with Australian Prime Minister John Howard confident
that a compensation deal with James Hardie Industries NV would
proceed, The Daily Telegraph reports.

An agreement depends on a ruling by the Australian Taxation
Office that a fund set up by Hardie to compensate victims is not
a charitable trust for tax purposes.

Mr. Banton said that Prime Minister Howard had told him he
wanted arrangements for future compensation payments finalized
as soon as possible.

Mr. Banton added the Government's legal advice on the
implications of the tax ruling had been different to that
received by victims' groups.

"His (Prime Minister Howard's) advice was that it would only be
(payable) on the interest in the fund and our advice was that it
would be on all of the money paid into the fund," Mr. Banton
said.

Mr. Banton said Hardie and the ATO should now sit down and
attempt to come to an agreement on the tax issue.

The Federal Government has so far resisted moves to allow the
fund full tax exemptions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sand at Ill. Park Poses No Health Threat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago
determined that asbestos found in sand samples at Illinois Beach
State Park poses no significant public health threat, the
Associated Press reports.

Scientists found that 11 of 12 sand samples tested at the Lake
County beach last summer had asbestos. However, further testing
revealed none of the samples posed a cancer risk that was
considered excessive or unacceptable by federal standards.

In 2004, authorities closed part of the park when asbestos
debris was found. It is near the Johns Manville Superfund Site,
where a massive asbestos cleanup was done in 1991. The park
attracted more than 1.2 million visitors in 2004.

Researchers recommended increasing beach surveillance for
asbestos-containing material, reviewing education efforts for
beach visitors about such material and surveying eroded beach
areas for housing infrastructure remains that could have
asbestos.

Officials said this is the fourth asbestos study at the beach to
find no public health threat since 1998.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan released the final results of the
testing she requested from the University researchers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Group Urges Senate to Vote on FAIR Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Individual Freedom joined over 100 groups
representing veterans, healthcare providers, small businesses,
lawmakers and concerned citizens to demand the U.S. Senate vote
on The Fairness in Asbestos Injury and Compensation Act,
according to a CFIF press release dated July 13, 2006.

CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella said, "On behalf of America's
asbestos victims and the many nonprofits and small businesses
whose work has been disrupted by rampant lawsuit abuse, we wrote
to Senator (William) Frist to let him know that the victims of
this broken system can wait no longer."

At stake is compensation for Americans who contracted diseases
from exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

The FAIR Act would allow victims to receive fair compensation by
bypassing courtrooms and the Federal Government's assertion of
immunity from prosecution.

The FAIR Act would work by:

-- Creating a system that allows asbestos victims to pursue
claims without having to wait years for their day in court;

-- Establishing a multi-billion dollar compensation fund
financed by defendant companies and their insurers, not
taxpayers, to pay damages to asbestos victims, which the
Congressional Budget Office has certified has the funds to
handle current and future cases;

-- Enabling veterans who contracted asbestos-related diseases in
the armed forces to get the compensation they are currently
denied, because the U.S. government does not allow itself to be
prosecuted for exposing former service people to asbestos; and

-- Ending lawsuit abuse aimed at America's small and family-
owned businesses that have never manufactured or sold asbestos,
forcing healthy enterprises into bankruptcy, destroying jobs and
employees' livelihoods.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Chemical Workers to Vote on Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Workers of the former Washington Chemical Co. would vote on a
compensation offer, which would see them get 60 percent of what
is due, injurwatch.co.uk reports.

If accepted, the award would utilize a GBP36 million-
compensation cash pot, frozen for five years, which has finally
been made available. Parent company Federal-Mogul Corp. went
into administration in 2001, freezing compensation payments. If
Federal-Mogul had not gone into administration, sufferers would
have 100 percent compensation.

The former Washington Chemical workers have fought a long battle
for compensation after exposure to asbestos by the Company.
However, people who were affected by living near the plant would
only get 20 percent of their award if the offer is accepted.

Claimants would receive a document from Federal-Mogul
administrators laying out terms of the latest offer and former
workers, many of whom suffer from mesothelioma, will now vote on
the settlement.

Maureen Dunn, 70, is eligible to apply for compensation after
her husband Colin died in October aged 66. Mr. Dunn was
diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma 40 years after he first
started work at the factory as a lagger. Just 16 months after
being diagnosed he passed away.

Jack Bedlington, 81, worked at Washington Chemical for 35 years
but has never developed an asbestos related illness. He helps
former colleagues who have been affected to put in compensation
claims.

Houghton and Washington East MP Fraser Kemp said, "I am pleased
this is finally being resolved. I have a large number of
constituents who are battling with the consequences today of
working at the Washington chemical works. It is a tragedy people
have had to wait so long and particularly that a number of
people have died during this process."

Solicitor Ian McFall said, "This is another step forward for
asbestos victims who have been waiting years to be paid
compensation for their illnesses."


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
between April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed
against Par and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that cefendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants reported financial results that were
materially inflated as a result of accounting errors.  These
errors included the understatement of accounts receivable
reserves.  

Additionally, the company has admitted that its revenues were
overstated and as a result, it has overpaid certain of its
business partners with whom the company had various profit
sharing arrangements.  Lastly, Par has announced that it will
write-off approximately $15 million in inventory due to flawed
physical inventory procedures.

As a result of its internal review, Par has decided to restate
its previously reported financial results for the fiscal years
2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006.  In response to these
developments, on July 6, 2006, shares of Par fell $4.78 per
share, losing approximately 26% of its value to close at $13.47
per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
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.


RAMBUS INC: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman and its co-counsel initiated a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 17, 2006 under case number C06-04346 (WHA) on
behalf of a plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of
securities of Rambus, Inc. from Dec. 12, 2001 to June 27, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning Rambus' improper and
undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain
executives which made it appear that such options were issued on
dates when the market price of Rambus stock was higher than the
actual market price on the actual grant dates.

This improper backdating masked the virtually instant profits
the option recipients obtained.  Under generally accepted
accounting principles, these profits were required to be
recognized as an expense in the company's financial statements
for the appropriate period, but were not.

This backdating of options also violated provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments.
Thus, the cfinancial statements in Form 10-K filings for the
years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were materially false and
misleading.

In addition, the company's Proxy Statements for annual
shareholder meetings held in years 2002 to 2005 were materially
false and misleading because they contained statements
concealing Rambus' practice of backdating stock options.

Interested parties have no later than sixty days from July 19,
2006 to seek for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz,
Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Phone: 800-660-7843, E-mail:
ggraifman@kgglaw.com.  


RAMBUS INC: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 17, 2006
under case number C06-04346 (WHA) on behalf of a plaintiff and a
proposed class of purchasers of securities of Rambus, Inc. from
Dec. 12, 2001 to June 27, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning Rambus' improper and
undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain
executives which made it appear that such options were issued on
dates when the market price of Rambus stock was higher than
actual market price on the actual grant dates.

This improper backdating masked the virtually instant profits
the option recipients obtained.  Under generally accepted
accounting principles, these profits were required to be
recognized as an expense in the company's financial statements
for the appropriate period, but were not.

This backdating of options also violated provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments.
Thus, the company's financial statements in Form 10-K filings
for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were materially false
and misleading.

In addition, the company's Proxy Statements for annual
shareholder meetings held in years 2002 to 2005 were materially
false and misleading because they contained statements
concealing Rambus' practice of backdating stock options.

Interested parties have no later than sixty days from July 19,
2006 to seek for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Howard T. Longman, Esq., at Stull,
Stull & Brody, Phone: 800-337-4983 and 845-371-4788, E-mail:
tsvi@aol.com.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Aug. 1 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors of
Vonage Holdings Corp. that August 1, 2006 is the deadline to
request the court for appointment as lead plaintiff for the
class.  

Pomerantz filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey against Vonage Holdings Corp. and other
related defendants.  

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company pursuant to its Directed Share Program,
which was offered in the company's May 23, 2006 Initial Public
Offering.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 5, 11,
12(a) (2), and 15 of the Securities Act.

Vonage describes itself as a leading provider of broadband
telephone services, whose technology enables anyone to make and
receive phone calls with a touch tone telephone almost anywhere
a broadband Internet connection is available.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the company's
Directed Share Program, defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- Vonage's technology platform experienced problems
         carrying telephone data over the networks of certain
         Internet service providers, including AOL;

      -- Vonage's voice-over-Internet protocol technology did
         not properly allow facsimile transmissions; and

      -- the company did not adequately inform Vonage customers
         who opened brokerage accounts and participated in
         Vonage's Directed Share Program concerning the
         customers' obligations to purchase allocated shares.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the IPO offering
violated Section 5 of the U.S. Securities Act because the
company's e-mails to prospective participants in the program did
not include an active hyperlink to the prospectus contained in
Vonage's most recently filed registration statement.

Immediately following the IPO, shares of Vonage declined from
the offering price of $17.00 per share to close on May 24, 2006,
at $14.85 per share, a loss of $2.15, or 12.6 percent, amid
concerns about the company's ability to compete in the market
place.

Thereafter, shares of Vonage continued to slide on news that the
Company's Directed Share Program was a debacle in light of
several technical and legal failures. In the seven days after
the IPO, shares of Vonage plummeted by nearly one third of its
initial offering price of $17.00.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com.


ZALE CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP filed a class action on July 19,
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005
and May 5, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against Zale and Mary L.
Forte, Mark R. Lenz, Cynthia T. Gordon and Sue E. Gove.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market, which had
the impact of artificially inflating the market price of Zale
securities.

Unbeknownst to investors, the representations in the company's
reported results of operations materially overstated Zale's net
cash flows and free operating cash flows, which are important
measures of the company's cash generating abilities. In
addition, the company improperly accounted for extended service
agreements, leases and accrued payroll.

On April 10, 2006, before the open of regular trading, the truth
began to emerge as Zale announced that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission had initiated a broad investigation into
many aspects of the company's accounting, operations and
disclosure practices, including Zale's accounting for extended
service agreements, leases and accrued payroll, executive
compensation and severance, earnings guidance, stock trading and
the timing of vendor payments.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Zale stock fell
from $27.80 per share on April 7, 2006 to $25.16 per share on
April 10, 2006, the following trading day for a one-day loss of
11.5% on unusually heavy volume.

Then on Friday, May 5, 2006, after the market closed, Zale
announced that it had replaced its Chief Financial Officer,
Defendant Lenz, after discovering that the company improperly
inflated its reported net cash flows and free cash flows.

In response to the announcement, the price of Zale stock dropped
by $0.44 per share to close at $24.18 per share on May 8, 2006,
and by another $0.40 per share between May 8, 2006 and May 9,
2006, as the market continued to digest the information.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, Phone: 800-321-0476, Web site:
http://www.labaton.com/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=3/getGlobalID=23
526/CaseGlobalID=23923.


ZALE CORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006.

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

Specifically, the representations in the company's reported
results of operations materially overstated Zale's net cash
flows and free operating cash flows.  In addition, the company
improperly accounted for extended service agreements, leases and
accrued payroll.

On April 10, 2006, before the open of regular trading, the truth
began to emerge as Zale announced that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission had initiated a broad investigation into
many aspects of the company's accounting, operations and
disclosure practices, including Zale's accounting for extended
service agreements, leases and accrued payroll, executive
compensation and severance, earnings guidance, stock trading and
the timing of vendor payments.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Zale stock fell
from $27.80 per share on April 7, 2006 to $25.16 per share on
April 10, 2006.

Then on Friday, May 5, 2006, after the market closed, Zale
announced that it had replaced its chief financial officer,
defendant Lenz, after discovering that the company improperly
inflated its reported net cash flows and free cash flows.  On
this news, the price of Zale stock dropped by $0.44 per share to
close at $24.18 on May 8, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 18, 2006, request for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or 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  * * *