CAR_Public/060725.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 146

                            Headlines

AMCOR LTD: Files Cross Claim Against Visy in Price-Fixing Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Newby" Litigation
BERLEX INC: Initiates Nationwide Recall of Ultravist Injection
BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Recalled Tires
BROKERAGE FIRMS: Former SEC Counsel Testifies in Fraud Inquiry

CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Salmonella Contamination Prompts Choco Recall
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Latinos Fight Calif. Price Gouging Deal
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Blocks Price Gouging Agreement
CHINA TONG: Suit Filed Over Effects of Longdan Xieganwan Herb
COLORADO: Garfield Sheriff Denies Allegations of Prisoner Abuses

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Violations Suits
EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Investors' Attorney Claims Massive Abuses
GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Mulls Objections to "Click Fraud" Deal
HO'S TRADING: Recalls Supreme Apricot Due to Undeclared Sulfites
ILLINOIS: Motion to Drop Deceased Defendant in Bond Suit Filed

ITALY: Consumers Welcome Bill Offering Punitive Damages Award
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
LOUISIANA: Ind. RV Makers, Govt. Sued Over Contaminated Trailers
MASTERCARD INT'L: Testimonies Heard in Interchange Fees Lawsuit
OHIO: Attorney Requests for Release of Traffic Fines in Escrow

RAMBUS INC: Stull, Stull Files Amended Stock Compliant in Calif.
ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Securities Fraud Settlement Faces Opposition
SAVE MART: Sued for Asking Phone Data from Credit Card Holders
SPRINT NEXTEL: Asks Kans. Court to Junk Stock Recombination Suit
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of N.Y. Antitrust Suit Appealed


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Calif.
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Ann D. White Files Securities Suit in N.J.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.J.
RAMBUS INC: Paskowitz & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif.

ZALE CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces Filing of N.Y. Stock Suit


                            *********  


AMCOR LTD: Files Cross Claim Against Visy in Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging company Amcor Ltd., which is facing a purported class
action over alleged anti-competitive practices, has filed a
cross claim against Visy Industries, according to The Age.

The Abbotsford, Australia-based company is facing a CA$300
million class action filed in April in federal court in Sydney
on behalf of about 1,700 businesses (Class Action Reporter,
April 12, 2006).  

Plaintiffs in the suit claim to have been damaged by price
fixing and market sharing in the cardboard box industry between
2000 and 2005.  Ben Slade at law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman
estimated that businesses incurred damages at between $2 million
and $3 million as a result of anti-competitive practices in the
industry.  

According to a previous report by The Sydney Morning Herald, the
main industries involved in the action include fruit and
vegetable growers, and people in the meat, milk, beer and wine
market.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigated
the matter.  Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted
immunity by the commission in return for information about the
practice.

Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.   


BARCLAYS PLC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Newby" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays plc said it received an order from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division
regarding the dismissal of claims against it, Barclays Bank plc
and Barclays Capital Inc. in the Enron class action, "Newby"
litigation.

This order, unless successfully challenged by the plaintiffs,
ends the Newby litigation for Barclays, according to the
company.  Barclays didn't give the court's reason for the
dismissal of the case.

The suit "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al.," was filed Oct.
22, 2001.  The complaint alleges, among others, that several
companies helped Enron misrepresent, its earnings and revenues
in the fourth quarter of 1999.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enron Corporation filed for
chapter 11 protection on Dec. 2, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No.
01-16033) following controversy over accounting procedures,
which caused Enron's stock price and credit rating to drop
sharply.  Judge Gonzalez confirmed the Company's Modified Fifth
Amended Plan on July 15, 2004, and numerous appeals followed.  

The Debtors' confirmed chapter 11 Plan took effect on Nov. 17,
2004.  Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq., and Brian S. Rosen, Esq., at
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, represent the Debtors in their
restructuring efforts.  Luc A. Despins, Esq., Matthew Scott
Barr, Esq., and Paul D. Malek, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy, LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors.


BERLEX INC: Initiates Nationwide Recall of Ultravist Injection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berlex, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drugs
Agency, initiated a nationwide recall of a single lot (No.
41500A) of its intravenous X-ray contrast agent, Ultravist
Injection 370 mgI/mL, 125 mL (iopromide injection) NDC 50419-
246-12, EXP 01/2007, due to the presence of particulate matter
in conjunction with crystallization.

Berlex said it is undertaking this recall in consideration of
the potential for serious safety problems if the product is
administered to patients, including thrombosis of blood vessels,
thromboembolism, and injury or infarction of end organs such as
heart, kidney, and brain.

Hospitals, imaging centers and other healthcare facilities are
warned against using any of the affected lot number 41500A of
Ultravist Injection 370mgI/mL, 125 mL for patient care and are
advised to immediately quarantine any product for return.  
Berlex is working closely with the FDA to communicate and
coordinate this recall.

Berlex, Inc. is voluntarily recalling this lot after an
investigation of two customer complaints of vials that exhibited
crystallization.  Berlex, Inc. immediately placed remaining
inventory of Ultravist 370 mgI/125 mL, lot number 41500A on hold
to prevent further distribution of product from this lot.  The
investigation is ongoing regarding this matter to determine
whether any other lots of this product might be affected.

As is standard practice and per the Ultravist package insert,
all parenteral drug products should be inspected visually for
particulate matter and discoloration prior to administration,
and should not be used if particulates are observed or marked
discoloration has occurred.

Berlex will credit accounts for all returned products from lot
number 41500A and shipping costs.  Berlex is working with
Capital Returns, Inc. to facilitate the return process.

Healthcare providers, imaging centers, wholesalers or patients
with questions may contact the company at 1-866-BERLEX-5 or 1-
866-237-5395.


BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Recalled Tires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC is a defendant in
two class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California over its defective tires made for
the Ford Explorer and other sports utility vehicles in the late
1990s.

The suits were filed by Linda Featherstone of Northridge and
Francis A. O'Brien of Bakersfield, respectively.

In 2000, Bridgestone recalled 6.5 million tires from the
Wilderness and ATX series, in light of tire separations problems
linked to rollover accidents and deaths.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the new lawsuits said they
waited until six years after the recall to file suit, because
"enough time had to elapse to record a sufficient number of
tread separations."

The lawsuits call for a criminal investigation into the tire
maker's actions related to tires from its Wilderness, ATX and
Firehawk series.  


BROKERAGE FIRMS: Former SEC Counsel Testifies in Fraud Inquiry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Senior Counsel Gary
Aguirre testified in a June senate hearing in relation to two
class actions alleging fraud in securities lending practices by
several leading brokers.

In June, The Electronic Trading Group, LLC accused brokerage
units of:

     -- Bank of America Corp.,
     -- Bear Stearns Cos.,
     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Merrill Lynch, and others

with charging unearned fees, commissions and interest on short
sales when the broker-dealers failed to borrow or deliver the
stock to back a short position (Class Action Reporter, April 19,
2006).

Others defendants in the suit, include:

     -- Credit Suisse Group,
     -- Deutsche Bank,
     -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,
     -- Lehman Brothers Inc.,
     -- Morgan Stanley,
     -- Bank of New York, and
     -- UBS AG

"Defendants collusively condone and engage in these practices to
their individual and collective enrichment, routinely
alternating among themselves in the roles of prime broker who
fails to deliver and third-party broker-dealer who permits the
(failure to deliver) to persist," according to the filings.

According to Dow Jones, the complaint says that Electronic
Trading Group isn't challenging the practice of naked short
selling per se, but rather is suing the broker-dealers for
anticompetitive actions "by which they have arrogated to
themselves illicit and anticompetitive profits at the expense
and without the participation of their clients."  The lawsuit
alleges the broker-dealers charged Electronic Trading Group and
other legitimate short sellers for "covering" short positions
that the broker-dealers actually didn't cover and then
concealing that fact.  

Electronic Trading Group said in the complaint it was charged
improper fees, commissions and interest by the broker-dealers
from April 2000 to present.  "In effect, plaintiff and other
members of the class were charged and paid costs and fees, but
did not receive the bargained-for value in return," the lawsuit
claims.  

On a June 28 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the hedge
fund relations with independent research firms, Mr. Aguirre said
that the SEC's investigation of hedge fund Pequot Capital
Management began after 18 reports of suspected insider trading
from self regulating organizations, such as the National
Association of Securities Dealers or New York Stock Exchange.  

According to him, his superiors allowed him to subpoena the
central target of insider trading cases after interviewing with
dozens of witnesses.  However, the effort was derailed after he
revealed that the primary suspect is John Mack, who was then
being recruited as the chief executive of Morgan Stanley.  Mr.
Mack was later hired as CEO of Morgan Stanley.

According to the report, Mr. Aguirre said his "superiors told
him Mr. Mack's political connections were so powerful he should
not be subpoenaed."  Mr. Aguirre was later fired after he
persisted in contacting SEC's higher officials.

Meanwhile, the Senate Banking Committee has delivered a letter
to the Judiciary Committee asserting exclusive jurisdiction over
the SEC, according to the report.

The SEC voted at a public hearing on July 12 to consider minor
changes in its regulation to eliminate or punish failures-to-
deliver shares sold short.


CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Salmonella Contamination Prompts Choco Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cadbury Schweppes PLC, in cooperation with the Food Standards
Agency, is recalling seven brands of chocolates after detecting
salmonella contamination in products from its plant in
Marlbrook, Herefordshire in the United Kingdom in January 2006.

The Cadbury Brand chocolates in the recall are:

     -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Turkish 250 g.,
     -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Caramel 250 g.,
     -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Mint 250 g.,
     -- Cadbury Dairy Milk 8 chunk,
     -- Cadbury Dairy Milk 1 kg.,
     -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Button Easter Egg 105 g.,
     -- Cadbury Freddo 10p  

The Cadbury Freddo 10p being recalled is the one where '10p' is
printed onto the foil that each product is wrapped in.  Some
boxes have '10p' printed on the box and not on the individual
foil; these are not being recalled.

In addition, the Cadbury Dairy Milk Mint 250 g. bar, which has
been recalled, is also available, with 33% extra free, printed
onto the foil.  These are also being recalled.

Salmonella can cause sickness and diarrhea and the agency is
advising people not to eat any of the affected products listed
below.

As part of its investigation into salmonella contamination that
led to Cadbury Schweppes' recall of some of its chocolates, the
Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF)
concluded that:

     -- the presence of salmonella in ready-to-eat foods such as
        chocolate is unacceptable at any level;

     -- end-product testing is not a suitable instrument for
        guaranteeing the safety of the food and a robust Hazard
        Analysis Critical Control Point needs to be in place.

     -- in order to give assurance about the absence of
        salmonella or any other pathogen in food a prohibitively
        large amount of product would need to be tested.
        However, even this would not guarantee absence of the
        micro-organism;

     -- Cadbury's risk assessment assumes that a threshold for
        infection can be estimated from previous outbreak data
        on levels of micro-organisms in chocolate.  Such a
        threshold is not the same as the minimum infectious dose
        for salmonella in chocolate; no minimum infectious dose
        can be defined and infections may occur in consumers
        exposed to significantly lower levels than that seen in
        previous outbreaks;

     -- Cadbury's risk assessment does not address the risk of
        salmonella in chocolate in a way which the ACMSF would
        regard as a modern approach to risk assessment;

     -- based on the information provided, Cadbury appears to
        have used methods for product testing which the
        committee considered would underestimate the level and
        likelihood of salmonella contamination.  Sample
        heterogeneity including clumping of bacteria will
        influence the Most Probable Number (MPN) estimate and
        therefore the approach cannot be relied upon in foods
        such as chocolate.

     -- in the ACMSF's view, using the MPN approach to assess
        the risk of small levels of salmonella contamination in
        a product like chocolate is unreliable; and

     -- the committee also commented that where contaminated
        chocolate crumb was used in the manufacture of products
        other than those recalled, there could also be a cause
        for concern. However, the committee acknowledged that it
        was difficult to quantify the risk.

However, the Agency and local authorities are continuing to
investigate the incident.

The food safety requirements of European Commission Regulation
178/2002 require that food shall not be placed on the market if
it is considered injurious to health or unfit for human
consumption.

Cadbury has agreed to take remedial action to address issues
identified at the plant, including comprehensive cleaning of the
production lines.

Cadbury has told the Agency it is now operating a positive
release system, with product only being released for onward
distribution and use after it has tested negative for
salmonella.  Cadbury said it will increase its sampling and
testing to levels that will provide a higher degree of
reassurance that contamination would be picked up.

The FSA, local authorities and public health agencies are
continuing their investigations into the contamination of
Cadbury chocolate products with salmonella.

Consumers are advised to return products to: Cadbury Recall,
Freepost MID20061, Birmingham B30 2QZ for a voucher.

For more details, contact the Cadbury Schweppes helpline number
on 0800 818181.


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Latinos Fight Calif. Price Gouging Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Healthcare West's proposed settlement of a California
class action over hospital price gouging has triggered protests
by Latinos.

Security officers at CHW's California Hospital Medical Center in
Los Angeles blocked access to the main entrance of the hospital
last week as dozens of Latino protesters marched in front of the
embattled hospital, accusing CHW of price gouging uninsured
patients.

CHW's proposed settlement designs a discount program for the
uninsured that would exclude anyone who had had or could have
qualified for health insurance 24 months prior to when emergency
hospital services were rendered.

CHW's discount program would also exclude residents who do not
live in California, Arizona, and Nevada.

"CHW has a ridiculous discount plan for the uninsured that
excludes 99 percent of the uninsured," said protest organizer
Lourdes Galvez-Galvan, Deputy Director of the Consejo de Latinos
Unidos, a national non-profit advocacy group that educates and
assists the uninsured.  "CHW will continue to price gouge
thousands of uninsured patients with their insidiously designed
plan."

Routinely, hospitals charge the uninsured three or four times
more than what a hospital would accept as payment in full from
an insurance company.  The aggressive practices by hospitals
like those owned by CHW impacts Latinos more greatly because one
in three Latinos is uninsured.

Protesters, who held signs that read, "99% of Uninsureds
Excluded" and "CHW is Anti-Catholic," marched in front of the
CHW's flagship hospital in Los Angeles for over 20 minutes as
cars and trucks honked horns in support.

The protest came on the eve of a court hearing to approve the
settlement on July 24 in San Francisco.


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Blocks Price Gouging Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court denied preliminary approval to
the settlement of a class action against Catholic Healthcare
West in relation to hospital price gouging.

Advocates of the uninsured had attacked the settlement,
describing it as being grossly unfair and nothing more than a
price gouging protection act.

CHW's proposed settlement designed a discount program for the
uninsured that would exclude anyone who had had or could have
qualified for health insurance 24 months prior to when emergency
hospital services were rendered.  

CHW's discount program originally excluded residents who did not
live in 478 specific Zip Codes in California, Arizona, and
Nevada.

The Zip Code provision was changed in an Amended Settlement
Proposal after a public outcry led by the Consejo de Latinos
Unidos, a national advocacy group that educates and assists the
uninsured.  

The Consejo believes CHW should charge all uninsured patients,
regardless of race, ethnicity, or income, a fair and reasonable
price, like a health maintenance organization.  Currently,
hospitals charge the uninsured four or five times more than what
they would accept as payment in full from an insurance company.

                          The Settlement

The settlement resolves the plaintiffs' and class members'
claims against CHW and its affiliated hospitals (Class Action
Reporter, June 15, 2006).

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

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T.
Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of
uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare hospitals in
California, Nevada and Arizona, alleging that Defendant Catholic
Healthcare charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair
prices for medical treatment and services given at Catholic
Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and
unfair collections practices.  Defendant denies wrongdoing and
liability in the case.

                         Proposed Class

The proposed class includes all persons who:  

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

     -- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and  

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

The suit is "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare West."  Counsel for
named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid Backstrom of the
Scruggs Law Firm.  More information about the settlement can be
found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm.

For more information, contact Lulu Galvez-Galvan of Consejo de
Latinos Unidos, Phone: +1-323-401-0503.


CHINA TONG: Suit Filed Over Effects of Longdan Xieganwan Herb
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100 Chinese patients who are suffering ailments in the
kidney launched a class action against the maker of the herb
Longdan Xieganwan, according to the Press Association.

The suit emerged in reports about a 30-year-old Chinese patient
who suffered bladder cancer and kidney failure as a result of
long-term use of the herb.  According to Press Association, the
man took Longdan Xieganwan, manufactured by China Tong Ren Tang,
to "enhance" his liver for at least five years.  Later, a team
at the Whittington Hospital in London found that he had a
bladder tumor, which was surgically removed.  He eventually
suffered kidney failure, and was preparing for dialysis last
month.

Longdan Xieganwan contains a plant ingredient, aristolochic
acid, which has been linked to bladder cancer and kidney damage,
according to the report.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
previously issued warning about aristolochic acid.


COLORADO: Garfield Sheriff Denies Allegations of Prisoner Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario denied all allegations in
the lawsuit filed against him and Jail Commander Scott Dawson in
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by the American
Civil Liberties Union, the Glenwood Springs Post Independent
reports.

According to Mr. Vallario, the allegations were baseless,
unjustified and frivolous.  He pointed out that they do not
abuse and torture people, since certain policies govern them.

Mr. Vallario explains that on Jan. 1, 2004, the Sheriff's Office
adopted a policy governing the use of force demanding deputies
to follow state law in using force against a person, and
authorizes use of "intermediate weapons," such as chemical
irritants, electronic restraining devices and "other non-lethal
weapons as defined by the Sheriff's office and consistent with
individual/team training."  All uses of force must be
documented, and deputies' use of excessive force must be
reported.

Previously, the ACLU of Colorado filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
prisoners in the Garfield County Jail who were [allegedly]
subjected to widespread excessive force by deputies' misuse and
abuse of pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper
spray, and electroshock belts (Class Action Reporter, July 21,
2006).

The 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.

The lawsuit seeks a court order stopping jailers' alleged
abusive practices.  It claims that the jail lacks adequate
written policies governing restraint devices, pepper spray,
pepper guns and electric shock belts.

Mr. Vallario, however, has not seen the case yet.  He said that
if the case proceeds, it could drag on for a long time and could
potentially cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b

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


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, Inc. remains a defendant in two class actions
brought by former employees in California court.  The suits are:

      -- "Vega v. Domino's Pizza," and
      -- "Jimenez v. Domino's Pizza"

The "Vega" case was filed on June 10, 2003 in Orange County
Superior Court over allegations that the company failed to
provide meal and rest breaks to its employees.  The case is in
the discovery/deposition stage and no determination with respect
to class certification has been made.

A former general manager, alleging that the company
misclassified the position of general manager, filed the
"Jimenez" case on Aug. 19, 2004 also in Orange County Superior
Court.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Sept. 17, 2004 and the motion for
class certification was heard on June 5, 2006.  

The company classifies the general manager of a Domino's Pizza
store as an exempt employee.  The case involves the issue of
whether employees and former employees in the general manager
position who worked in the company's 60 California stores during
specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived
of overtime pay and meal and rest periods.  

The company is awaiting the court's decision on the motion for
class certification.

The federal suit is "Wilber Jimenez v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, et
al., Case No. 8:04-cv-01107-JVS-RC, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge James
V. Selna with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew Roland Bainer and Scott Edward Cole of Scott
         Cole and Associates, World Savings Tower, 1970
         Broadway, Suite 950, Oakland, CA 94612, US, Phone: 510-
         891-9800, E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com and
         scole@scalaw.com;

     (2) Timothy D. Cohelan, Isam C. Khoury, Kimberly Dawn
         Neilson and Michael D Singer of Coheland and Khoury,
         605 C. Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-595-3001, Fax: 619-595-3000, E-mail:
         kneilson@ck-lawfirm.com and
         msinger@californiaclassactions.com; and

     (3) Jose R. Garay of Jose Garay Law Office, 2030 Main St.,
         Ste. 1300, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-260-9193.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Timothy M. Freudenberger, Ursula R. Kubal and Jehan N
         Jayakumar of Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger, 2600
         Michelson Dr., Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612, Phone: 949-
         622-1661, Fax: 949-622-1669; and  

    (ii) Jennifer White-Sperling of Morgan Lewis and Bockius,
         300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA     
         90071, Phone: 213-612-7205, E-mail:
         jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com.


EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Investors' Attorney Claims Massive Abuses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederik-Karel Canoy, the French lawyer bringing a class action
against the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., said he
has a list of 150 EADS and Airbus executives allegedly involved
in trading abuses, according to The Times.

Mr. Canoy, who heads the Association of Active Shareholders, has
confirmed the filing of a class suit in a Haarlem, Netherlands
court against EADS over the recent drop in the company's share
price (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006).

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

The suit follows a decision by the French financial regulator to
investigate dealings in EADS shares just before the A380
announcement.

Press contact for Mr. Canoy: Phone: 06 13 80 22 21, Fax: 01 43
98 23 18, E-mail: frederik-karel.canoy@wanadoo.fr.


GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Mulls Objections to "Click Fraud" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
At least 51 objections have been lodged over the $90 million
class action settlement between Google, Inc. and advertisers who
say they were victims of "click fraud," according to Associated
Press.

Judge Joe Griffin of the Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas
is now weighing objections after giving preliminary approval to
the settlement in the case, which alleges that the company
improperly charged advertisers for fraudulent Web site clicks,
droving up advertising bills.

The two-day hearing for the objections began on July 24.  Under
the $90 million settlement, a third of which will be awarded to
lawyers, thousands of advertisers worldwide will have a $60
million fund against which they can file a claim.  No one will
receive cash.  Instead, the advertisers will receive advertising
credits for future use with Google.

                         Case Background

Initially, Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana 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.,

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; and

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


HO'S TRADING: Recalls Supreme Apricot Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York is recalling Master Chao
Brand Supreme Apricot because it contains undeclared sulfites.  
The company said people who have severe sensitivity to sulfites
run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot is packed in a 6
oz., un-coded plastic container.  The product was sold
nationwide.

The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food
Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared
sulfites in Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot, which did not
declare sulfites on the label.  The recall was initiated after
routine sampling.  

The consumption of 10 mg. or more of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot
should return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with
questions may contact Alvin Ho at 1-718-622-2288.


ILLINOIS: Motion to Drop Deceased Defendant in Bond Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney of a man who died still facing a class action in
Madison County moved on July 3 to dismiss his client as
defendant in the suit, according to The Madison St. Clair
Record.

Attorney Joe McDonnell of Belleville asked Madison County
Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that Robert Mitchell of Chicago be
dismissed from the suit because plaintiffs had not filed a
motion to substitute a personal representative for him within
the required 90 days.

Mr. Mitchell was sued in 2001 as attorney of a Chicago non-
profit group that bought nursing homes in Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin.  The nursing homes backed municipal bonds that
defaulted.  Plaintiffs Al Kellerman of Monroe County, Lillard
Hedden of Peoria, and Franck Crabtree of Ada, Oklahoma charged
fraud against the nonprofit group, brokers, bankers, attorneys,
accountants, and contractors.

McDonnell said the case had nothing to do with Madison County,
according to the report.

Judge Stack set an Aug. 23 hearing on the motion.

Mr. McDonnell is member of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C. at
12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100 (Swansea), Belleville, Illinois
62226 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-257-7308, Fax: 618-257-7353.


ITALY: Consumers Welcome Bill Offering Punitive Damages Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers have approved en-masse the bill on the class action
law presented by the government, according to Italy's Agenzia
Giornalistica Italia.

According to a briefing entitled Class Action Litigation in
Europe by international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Italy has no class action legislation governing the filing of
claims for damages or sums of money; however, consumer
associations can file claims on behalf of groups of consumers
enabling them to obtain judicial orders against corporations
that cause injury or damage to consumers.

"It's what we've been always asking for," said Federconsumatori
President Rosario Trefiletti.  "Unlike before, intervention
possibilities have been broadened, because they also extend to
the telecommunications sector," according to him.

Consumer claims "are increasing and courts have recently allowed
them against banks that continue to apply compound interest on
retail clients' current account overdrafts," Freshfields
Bruckhaus stated.

The current bill, according to Freshfields Bruckhaus, focused on
claims triggered by the retail placement of financial
services/products and also provided for the introduction of
punitive damages.


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidmetal Technologies reached agreements in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action filed against it
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in nine purported class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida and the Central District of
California, Southern Division.  

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

In August 2004, four complaints were consolidated in the Middle
District of Florida as, "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23EAJ."  John
Lee, Chris Cowley, Dwight Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark
Rabold were appointed co-lead plaintiffs, but Mr. Mamanteo later
withdrew.  

In September 2004, the five complaints filed in the Central
District of California were transferred to the Middle District
of Florida for consolidation with the Primavera Investors
action.  

The lead plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class
action complaint on Jan. 12, 2005.  The amended complaint
alleges that the prospectus issued in connection with the
company's initial public offering in May 2002 contained material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the company's
historical financial condition and regarding a personal stock
transaction by the company's former chief executive officer.  

The lead plaintiffs further allege that during the proposed
class period of May 21, 2002 through May 13, 2004, the
defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition with respect
to certain of the company's business transactions, failed to
maintain adequate internal controls, and knowingly disclosed
unrealistic but favorable information about market demand for
and commercial viability of the company's products to
artificially inflate the value of the company's stock.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  The company, along with other defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action
complaint in March 2005.  

The motion to dismiss was denied in December 2005, and the
defendants served their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the
consolidated amended class action complaint on Dec. 16, 2005.  

The lead plaintiffs motion for class certification was presently
due on April 2006, but the company reached agreements in
principle to settle the case on that same month.

As part of the agreements, the company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance carriers will contribute a total
of $7.5 million including $475,000 for two derivative actions)
to settle all of the actions (Class Action Reporter, April 28,
2006).  

The funds paid to settle the consolidated class action will be
principally paid into an escrow account within a specified
period of time after the federal court grants preliminary
approval to the settlement.  

The funds will be disbursed to certain purchasers of the
company's securities according to a distribution plan to be
devised and approved by the federal court.  

The suit is "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech., et al.,
Case No. 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Steven D.
Merryday with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
         1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 730, Washington,
         DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (4) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com;

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL) 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400;

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

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

     (8) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608;

     (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, e-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com; and

    (10) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A. Nichols, Holland &
         Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box
         1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
         813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com and
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and

    (ii) Tiffani G. Lee, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500 ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799,
         E-mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com.


LOUISIANA: Ind. RV Makers, Govt. Sued Over Contaminated Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Sean Trundy initiated a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over dangerous
levels of formaldehyde in Federal Emergency Management Agency
trailers provided to Hurricane Katrina victims, the South Bend
Tribune reports.

The suit alleges that high concentrations of formaldehyde,
emitted from products in the Indiana-made trailers, caused "a
clear and present danger to the health and well-being" of the
people who live in the trailers.

Mr. Trundy claimed the trailers caused his clients to experience
allergy or flu like symptoms including headaches and stuffed
noses.

After Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the Gulf Coast region,
the federal government bought thousands of trailers to house
victims of the storm, according to the report.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- United States of America,

     -- Federal Emergency Management Agency,

     -- Gulf Stream Coach of Nappanee,

     -- Pilgrim International Inc. of Middlebury,

     -- KZRV LP of Shipshewana,

     -- Starcraft RV of Topeka,

     -- Monaco Coach of Oregon with plants in northern Indiana,

     -- Fleetwood Enterprises of California with operations
        south of Fort Wayne

The suit seeks a court order that will require the government to
fix the problem rather than offer a monetary award.

The suit stemmed from tests conducted by the Sierra Club on 31
FEMA trailers and found out that 29 trailers were above the 1
part per million-formaldehyde safety limit recommended by the
federal government and the American Lung Association.

The suit is "Hillard et al. v. United States of America et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02576-MVL-KWR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Mary Ann
Vial Lemmon with referral to Judge Karen Wells Roby.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sean K. Trundy of The Law Office of Sean K. Trundy,
         LLC, P. O. Box 41343, North Charleston, SC 29423,
         Phone: 843-747-4424;

     (2) J. Michael Veron of Bice Palermo & Veron, 723 Kirby
         St., P. O. Box 2125, Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125,
         Phone: 337-310-1600, E-mail: mike@bpvlaw.com;

     (3) Paul A. Dominick of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard &
         Robinson, LLP, P. O. Box 486, Charleston, SC 29402,
         Phone: 843-577-9440;

     (4) J. Rock Palermo, III of Bice & Palermo, 723 Kirby St.,
         P. O. Box 2125, Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125, Phone:
         337-310-1600; and

     (5) Richard L. Tapp, Jr. of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard &
         Robinson, LLP, P. O. Box 486, Charleston, SC 29402.


MASTERCARD INT'L: Testimonies Heard in Interchange Fees Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee heard on July 19 testimonies
in a suit filed by merchants against Visa International and
MasterCard Inc. over interchange fees collected by the companies
for processing credit-card transactions.

On Jun. 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against
MasterCard International, Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa
International Services Association and a number of member banks
alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 40 similar complaints filed on behalf of merchants
against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member
banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.  
Majority of the 40 suits are styled as class actions although
six complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings.  

The suits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial
proceedings under the caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-CLP."

On Apr. 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a first amended class action complaint.  Taken together, the
claims in the first amended class action complaint and in the
six complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are
generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these
claims:

      -- that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
         fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions)
         violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

      -- that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced
         various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
         purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
         1 or 2 of the Sherman Act;

      -- that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the
         acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit
         cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

      -- that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
         bundled transaction fees.

In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law,
some of these complaints contain certain state unfair
competition law claims based upon the same conduct described
above.  These interchange-related litigations also seek treble
damages in an unspecified amount as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.  Several of the complaints allege that the
plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of
billions of dollars.

MasterCard's responses to the first amended class action
complaint and the individual merchant complaints were due on
Jun. 6, 2006.  The court has ordered that new fact discovery may
proceed, and such fact discovery is to be completed by Nov. 30,
2007 with expert discovery scheduled to be completed by Jul. 18,
2008.  Summary judgment and other pretrial motions are to be
completed by Nov. 24, 2008.

During the Senate Judiciary hearing, the merchants proposed to
Congress that lawmakers pass legislation that would guide a
court settlement to break up Visa and MasterCard's dominance of
credit transaction processing.

According to the report, one issue of contention between the
merchants and card companies is the amount of information Visa
and Mastercard share with merchants.

Plaintiffs in Lakeshore Interiors v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. 05-cv-
5081JG JO are represented by Darla Jo Boggs and W. Joseph
Bruckner at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneappolis, MN 55401, U.S., Phone:
612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com,
wjbruckner@locklaw.com.

Plaintiffs in civil action NuCity Publications, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. 05-cv-5075 JG-JO are represented by Bonny E.
Sweeney at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655 W
Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, U.S., Phone: 619-231-
1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail: bsweeney@lerachlaw.com.

Defendant Fifth Third Bancorp is represented by Patrick F.
Fischer at Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, One East Fourth
Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400,
Fax: 513-579-6457, E-mail: pfischer@kmklaw.com.

Defendant Capital One Bank is represented by Andrew J. Frackman
at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036,
Phone: 212-326-2017, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail:
afrackman@omm.com.


OHIO: Attorney Requests for Release of Traffic Fines in Escrow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney James Denney, who won a class action against the use of
traffic cameras by Girard city, filed a motion seeking the
release by the city of speeding fines that is currently held in
escrow, The Youngstown Vindicator reports.

Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge John M. Stuard ruled in favor
of more than 1,500 car owners who argued that use of speed
cameras by the city of Girard, Ohio to nab traffic violators was
unconstitutional and in violation of due process laws (Class
Action Reporter, July 10, 2006).

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

The camera, furnished to the city by Traffipax, a Maryland-based
firm, was used primarily on U.S. Route 422, for eight hours a
day, six days a week.

Back in January, Judge Stuard certified a class in the suit that
includes anyone who received a ticket from the camera and didn't
pay it, who are contesting citations or who have yet to receive
one in the mail.  He also ordered that all fines collected from
citations be put into an interest-bearing escrow account.  The
ruling against use of the camera did not specify what would be
done with the funds being held in escrow.

Since then, more than $172,000 in camera-related fines are in
escrow, the report said.

In his motion, Mr. Denney asked Judge Stuard to order the city
to release the money, and pay attorney's fees of 15% for him and
his co-counsel.  He said the motion also asks that some expenses
incurred by the city be taken out of the funds.

TraffiPax has until Aug. 5 to appeal the judge's decision that
determined the use of the camera to be unconstitutional.

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


RAMBUS INC: Stull, Stull Files Amended Stock Compliant in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed an amended class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of plaintiffs and a proposed class of purchasers of
securities of Rambus, Inc. from Dec. 12, 2001 to July 18, 2006.

The amended complaint was filed in order to extend the class
period contained in the original complaint to include the period
up to the time the company announced that it would restate its
financial results going back to 2003 because of its practice of
backdating options given to various executives of the company.

The amended 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 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 may, not later than sixty days from July 19,
2006, move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

The suit is docketed as Case No. C06-04346.

For more details, contact Howard T. Longman, Esq. of Stull,
Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983 or 845-371-4788, E-mail:
tsvi@aol.com.


ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Securities Fraud Settlement Faces Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Drs. W.C.M. Oud has filed a notice of appeal against the final
order and judgment of Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, approving Royal
Ahold's agreement with the lead plaintiffs to settle the suit,
"In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation."

Previously, Judge Blake rejected Mr. Oud's objection.  Both
Ahold and the Public Employees' Retirement Association of
Colorado (COPERA) believe his appeal has no merit and intend to
oppose it.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.  
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia.  It alleged
that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate
financial picture of the Company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock.

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING
Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24, 2003
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2005).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a
final order and judgment approving Royal Ahold's settlement of
the suit for US$1.1 billion (EUR937 million) in June.

The settlement covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the individual defendants and the underwriters.  

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The
settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23,
2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their
Ahold shares (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2005).

The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares
from about 800 million qualifying shares.  The average payment
is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share
for Fund B shares, according to court documents.  Claims are to
be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  The Company though denies any
wrongdoing in the settlement.

The suit is "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-md-01539-CCB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C. Blake.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle and Cappucci, 299 Park   
         Ave., New York, NY 1171, Phone: 12128947200, Fax:   
         12128947251, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com;

     (2) Daniel L. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger and   
         Grossmann, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY   
         10019, Phone: 12125541406, Fax: 12125541444, E-mail:  
         dan@blbglaw.com;

     (3) Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament   
         and Rubenstein PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800,  
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13125212725, Fax:   
         13125212100, E-mail: ccrowley@muchshelist.com;

     (4) Seth D. Goldberg of Seth D. Goldberg PC, 5335 Wisconsin   
         Ave. NW Ste. 440, Washington, DC 20015, Phone:   
         12022430594, Fax: 12026865517;  

     (5) Robert Ira Harwood of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488   
         Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, NY 10022, Phone:   
         12129357400, Fax: 12127533630, E-mail:  
         rharwood@whesq.com;

     (6) Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman   
         and Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016,   
         Phone: 12125454600, Fax: 12125454653;  

     (7) Andrew J. Levander of Dechert, LLP, 30 Rockefeller   
         Plz., New York, NY 10112, Phone: 12126983500, Fax:   
         12126983599, E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com;

     (8) Lester Levy of Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones,   
         845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022  

     (9) Christopher Lometti and Frank R Schirripa of Schoengold   
         and Sporn, PC, 19 Fulton St., Ste. 406, New York, NY  
         10038, Phone: 12129640046, Fax: 12122678137;  

    (10) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World   
         Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,   
         MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:  
         piven@pivenlaw.com;

    (11) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff and  
         Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017-5563,   
         Phone: 12129070863, Fax: 12128837063;  

    (12) Ronald B. Rubin of Rubin and Rubin Chtd, One Church   
         St., Ste. 301, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13016109700,  
         Fax: 13016109716, E-mail: rrubin@rrubin.com;

    (13) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller  
         Rudman and Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406,  
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax:   
         16313671173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;

    (14) Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling Schachter and Zwerling,  
         LLP, 41 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010, Phone:   
         12122233900, Fax: 12123715969, E-mail:   
         rschachter@zsz.com;

    (15) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman   
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., 49th Fl., New York, NY  
         10119-0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E-  
         mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

    (16) Steven Donald Silverman of Silverman and Thompson, 201   
         N. Charles St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:   
         14103852225, Fax: 14105472432, E-mail:  
         ssilverman@mdattorney.com;

    (17) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone and Bonner, LLP, 485   
         Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10018, Phone: 12122394340;   
         and  

    (18) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll,   
         PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., NW West Tower, Ste. 500,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 12024084600, Fax:  
         12024084699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are:   

     (1) John Arak Freedman of Arnold and Porter, 555 12th St.,  
         NW Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: 12029425000, Fax:  
         12029425999, E-mail: john_freedman@aporter.com;

     (2) Gerard J Gaeng of Rosenberg Martin Funk and Greenberg,  
         LLP, 25 S. Charles St., Ste. 2115, Baltimore, MD 21201-  
         3305, Phone: 14107276600, Fax: 14107271115, E-mail:   
         ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com;

     (3) Glenn M. Kurtz of White and Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of  
         the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 12128198200,   
         Fax: 12123548113, E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com;

     (4) Richard A. McGuirk and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon   
         Peabody, LLP, Clinton Sq., P.O. Box 31051, Rochester,   
         NY 14603, Phone: 15852631000, Fax: 15852631600, E-mail:   
         rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com and           
         cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com;

     (5) Charles P. Scheeler of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US,  
         LLP, 6225 Smith Ave., Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone:   
         14105803000, Fax: 14105803001, E-mail:   
         charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com; and  

     (6) Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell and Moring, LLP, 1001   
         Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595, Phone:   
         12026242500, Fax: 12026285116, E-mail:  
         adegramont@crowell.com.


SAVE MART: Sued for Asking Phone Data from Credit Card Holders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney James Lindsay of Lindsay & Stonebarger filed a class
action against supermarket Save Mart Supermarkets over alleged
violation of California law by requiring customers to provide
phone numbers on credit card payment slips, the Modesto Bee
reports.

According to Mr. Lindsay, 96 Save Mart-owned stores used such
slips before a plaintiff, who he did not identify, filed the
lawsuit.  The company then stopped requesting phone numbers on
its slips, but has not yet been willing to settle the lawsuit.

California law prohibits merchants from requesting and recording
personal identification information from customers, or using
forms with blank spaces for that information, in credit card
transactions, according to Mr. Lindsay (Class Action Reporter,
July 24, 2006).

The law stipulates that addresses and phone numbers fall under
the definition of personal information.  It calls for a $250
fine for the first penalty and $1,000 fines for subsequent
penalties, Mr. Lindsay said.

Miles Bristow, a spokesman for the California Department of
Consumer Affairs said the law is intended to prevent identity
theft.

Mr. Lindsay said there is no indication the information
collected by Save Mart has been used for identity theft.

For more details, contact James M. Lindsay of Lindsay &
Stonebarger, Forum Building, 1107 9th Street, Suite 1020,
Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: (916) 446-0032, Fax: (916)
446-0034, E-mail: jlindsay@lindstonelaw.com.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Asks Kans. Court to Junk Stock Recombination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. has asked a state court in a motion for
judgment on pleadings to dismiss a suit filed against it over
the recombination of its FON and PCS tracking stocks, according
to the Kansas City Star.

In March 2004, eight purported class actions were filed in
Johnson County District Court in Kansas over the recombination
of Sprint's FON and PCS tracking stocks.

Sprint split its common stock into the two tracking stocks in
November 1998 when FON Group was designed to track its wireline
business, and PCS Group was designed to track its wireless
business.  Later, Sprint recombined them saying it was changing
its focus to sell all of its services on a bundled basis.

Seven of the lawsuits were consolidated in the District Court of  
Johnson County, Kansas.  The eighth, pending in New York, was
voluntarily stayed (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2005).  

The consolidated lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and
breach of fiduciary duty in the recombination.  The lawsuit
seeks to rescind the recombination and is asking for monetary
damages.
  
The suit also alleges that company officers and directors,
including Messrs. Esrey and LeMay, had an incentive to favor FON
stock over PCS stock because they owned far more FON shares than
PCS shares.  

It contends as well that both men had an additional incentive to
favor FON shares, since they were threatened with personal
financial ruin at the time after the IRS challenged their
participation in tax shelters it deemed questionable.

The company has insisted that the recombination was necessary
since it was changing its focus to sell all of its services on a
bundled basis.  Previously, the company was organized in
divisions, selling wireless, local, business and long-distance
services separately.  

According to the company, merging the tracking stocks eliminated
accounting and other issues that made it more difficult for it
to jointly market its services.

In early 2005, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint

In the recent motion to dismiss, Sprint argue that the claims
asserted in the lawsuit are barred by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which prohibits class actions
based on state law claims alleging the manipulation of stock.  
The act, it said, requires the securities class actions to be
based exclusively on federal law.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in April 2007.

Meanwhile, Judge Kevin P. Moriarty has recently found that
plaintiffs attorneys in the suit violated a protective order
covering documents in the case by providing The Kansas City Star
with depositions taken in the case.  

One of the plaintiffs' attorney is Jay Eisenhofer at Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (New Castle Co.), Phone: 302-
622-7000, Fax: 302-622-7100.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of N.Y. Antitrust Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York of the consolidated class action
against United Technologies Corp., Otis Elevator Co. and other
elevator and escalator manufacturers.  

The suit alleges a worldwide agreement among elevator and
escalator manufacturers to fix prices in violation of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit did not specify the
amount of damages claimed.  

On June 6, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without leave to re-plead.  On June 30, 2006, the
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

The suit is "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04-
cv-01178-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Jane Fait, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Stuart
         S. Saft, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz,
         L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600, E-mail: fait@whafh.com,
         isquith@whafh.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
         B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA, Phone:
         619-231-7423; and  

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller, Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi
         & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-
         mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com, bkeller@faruqilaw.com and
         avozzolo@faruqilaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Deborah M. Buell, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 1 Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006,
Phone: 212-225-2000, Fax: 212-225-3499, E-mail:
maofiling@cgsh.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. stock during a class
period of Sept. 1, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

The complaint charges Juniper Networks and its top executive
officers violated the federal securities laws by failing to
account properly for stock options made to Juniper Networks
employees.

The complaint charges that Juniper Networks improperly expensed
stock options, thereby falsely inflating the company's reported
financial performance.

Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than Sept. 15, 2006.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.  


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central
Division on behalf of all securities purchasers of NPS
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) from Aug. 10, 2005 to May 2, 2006.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that the PaTH study, released on August 10, 2005 and
         touted by the company, did not show that PREOS was
         superior to Fosamax in treating postmenopausal
         osteoporotic women;

      -- that problems existed regarding the risks associated
         with PREOS;

      -- that patients taking PREOS were at risk of developing
         hypercalcemia;

      -- that the injection device used to deliver PREOS to the
         patient was unreliable;

      -- that such issues, as described above, would result in a
         significant delay in PREOS' approval because further
         clinical trials would be needed to gain U.S.
         Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval; and

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's
         statements concerning PREOS and its sales figures were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 2, 2006, after the market closed, NPS announced the
results of the company's meeting with officials from the FDA
regarding the FDA's March 2006 approvable letter concerning the
company's parathyroid hormone PREOS.  

NPS reported that the FDA had proposed that NPS generate
additional clinical data in the form of a new clinical trial in
order to address the hypercalcemia issue raised in the March
approvable letter.

On this news, shares of NPS plummeted $3.22, or 39.2 percent, to
close, on May 3, 2006, at $4.99 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

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

For more detaisl, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.  


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Ann D. White Files Securities Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann D. White Law Offices filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc. between April 29, 2006 and July 5, 2006.  Defendants
include Par and certain of its top officers and directors.

The action alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
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 and as a
result, it overpaid certain of its business partners with whom
the company had various profit sharing arrangements.

Additionally, 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 announced it will be
restating its previously reported financial results for the
fiscal years 2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006.

On this news, 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.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Sept. 15, 2006.

For more details, contact Ann White, Mandy Roth or Ronald Lopit
of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274, E-
mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com.  


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. between April 29, 2004 and July
5, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning the company's financial condition.

Specifically, 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.  On this news, shares
of Par fell $4.78 to $13.47 per share on July 6, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 15, 2006, request the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


RAMBUS INC: Paskowitz & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Rambus Inc. (RMBS) from
Jan. 14, 2004 through July 18, 2006.  Defendants include Rambus
and certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning Rambus'
improper and undisclosed practice of backdating options given to
Rambus executives.

Such a scheme improperly provides the executive with an unearned
benefit -- instead of the option being priced at the market
price of the shares, it is priced at a lower price.  

The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Rambus' earning between 2003
and 2005.

Under accounting rules, backdating the option is deemed the
payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as
an expense, but Rambus did not properly account for the options
granted.

As a result, Rambus has been forced to restate its previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal years 2003-2005.  In
addition, the company has stated that the Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q filed with respect to each of these fiscal years, and
the financial statements included in the company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006,
should no longer be relied upon, and will be restated.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Sept. 18, 2006.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz &
Associates, Phone: (800) 705-9529, E-mail:
lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com.   


ZALE CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces Filing of N.Y. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C announces that a lawsuit was filed
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 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, Zale
announced that the SEC 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.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *