CAR_Public/060726.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 147


BEECH-NUT: Recalls Chicken Dices that May Contain Bone Pieces
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: La. Court Dismisses Claims in "Suffern" Case
ENTERGY CORP: Plaintiffs Respond to Summary Judgment Requests
FLORIDA: Willington Resident Plans to Sue Over Fence Ordinance
GEORGIA: Firm Plans to Sue Over Alleged Inmate Sexual Assault

GEORGIA: Judge Considers Legal Challenge to Sex Offender Law
GOOGLE INC: Decision Expected Soon in Ark. "Click Fraud" Deal
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Candies Wrongly Mixed During Packaging
INDIAN TRUST: "Cobell" Plaintiffs Consider $8B Settlement Offer
MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.Y. Consolidated Securities Suit to Proceed

MASSACHUSETTS: Lawsuit Over Care for Mentally Ill Reopened
MASTERCARD INT'L: Enters $336M Deal in Antitrust Litigation
MERCK & CO: N.J. Court to Hear Appeal on Payors' Vioxx Lawsuit
PARMALAT SPA: Foreign Debtors Oppose Amendments in Complaint
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1519 Deal

RAMBUS INC: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in Calif.
SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiff Dickerson Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit
SUUNTO OY: Recalls Wristop Dive Computers to Update Software
TOYOTA MOTORS: Recalls Vehicles with Defective Crankshaft Sensor
VAN DER MOOLEN: Reaches $8M Settlement in N.Y. Securities Suit

WASHINGTON: Report Says County Public Defense System Improving

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADE CORP: The Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Mass.
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Suit
RAMBUS INC: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
SUNTERRA CORP: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
ZALE CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Filing of N.Y. Stock Suit


BEECH-NUT: Recalls Chicken Dices that May Contain Bone Pieces
Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., of Canajoharie, New York, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service, is recalling approximately 9,465
pounds of chicken product due to the possible presence of pieces
of bone.

The product recalled are 1.5-ounce net weight glass jars of
"Beech-Nut Table Time Chicken Dices, with Nonfat Dry Milk and
Wheat Flour Packed in Water."

This product bears the cap code "A0866" and the use by date "61
03 JAN 08," "61 26 JAN 08," "63 20 MAR 08" or "63 21 MAR 08" on
the lid of the jar.  Each jar also bears the code, "P-68" inside
the USDA mark of inspection on the label.

The chicken product was produced on Jan. 3, 2006, Jan. 26, 2006,
March 20, 2006 and March 21, 2006, and was distributed to retail
stores nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the company.  FSIS and the company
have received no reports of injury from consumption of this
product.  Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact Manager of Consumer Affairs Lisa Lewis at (800) 233-

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: La. Court Dismisses Claims in "Suffern" Case
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
dismissed without prejudice certain claims in a purported class
action, "Suffern, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc."

The suit, filed on Jan. 27, 2006, named as plaintiffs Jefferson
Parrish couple, Patrick and Monique Suffern.  The couple
proposed to represent a class of all persons, businesses and
entities who or which have mortgages issued, owned held or
serviced by the company on insured properties damaged in
Hurricane Katrina whose insurance proceeds have been turned over
to or held by the company.  

The suit alleges that the company was too slow in scheduling
inspections of repairs to hurricane-damaged homes and too slow
in funding the repairs from the insurance money received.  These
actions, according to the complaint, were in violation of the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA) and the Consumer
Protection Law.

However, in an order signed on July 12, 2006, Judge Ivan Lemelle
granted the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus
dismissing certain claims in the case without prejudice.  

Judge Lemelle ruled both LUTPA and the Consumer Protection Law
do not apply to the company.  He also pointed out that LUTPA
couldn't support a class action.  

The judge also ruled that no provision of the company's standard
mortgage was violated by its alleged tardiness, and that there
was no fraud.

The complaint and the court's recent decision are available free
of charge at:



The suit is "Suffern et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00358-ILRL-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Ivan L. R.
Lemelle with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is Conrad S. P. Williams, III of St.
Martin & Williams, 4084 Highway 311, P.O. Box 2017, Houma, LA
70361-2017, Phone: 985-876-3891, E-mail:

Representing the company is Stephen Winthrop Rider of McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC, 643 Magazine St., New Orleans, LA 70130-3477,
Phone: 504-586-1200, E-mail:

ENTERGY CORP: Plaintiffs Respond to Summary Judgment Requests
The summary judgment motions of Entergy Corp. and its affiliates
essentially ask the court to decide class certification, on the
merits, before the July 31, 2006 class certification hearing,
and without the benefit of evidence or fully developed record,
says Luke F. Piontek, Esq., at Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache,
Balhoff & McCollister, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Entergy New
Orleans Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 20, July 22, 2006).

The crux of the summary judgment motions, Mr. Piontek notes, is
the conclusory, factually, unsupported, legally incorrect, and
self-contradictory argument that the class certification sought
by the Lowenburg and Gordon Plaintiffs fails to satisfy the
superpriority requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure because:

   (i) either the administrative proceedings already concluded
       at the Council for the City of New Orleans, or, a
       regulatory proceeding before the U.S. Federal Energy
       Regulatory Commission would be a superior procedure for
       resolving the plaintiffs' claims on behalf of ratepayers  
       of Entergy New Orleans, Inc.; and

  (ii) the bankruptcy claims process is superior to class

ENOI's ratepayers have rights based upon their claims and causes
of action in the regulatory proceedings, the Gordon suit before
the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on
appeal of both the Gordon and Lowenburg administrative
proceedings, and in the to-be-refiled Lowenburg class action,
Mr. Piontek notes.

The ratepayers' rights have economic value because if successful
in the lawsuits and appeals, the ratepayers will receive
monetary compensation either in cash payments or credits in
future utility bills, Mr. Piontek asserts.  Therefore, the
Plaintiffs' rights, in behalf of the ratepayers, support their
cause for class proofs of claim and certification for voting

In addition, Civil Rule 56 establishes a motion for summary
judgment as a vehicle to eliminate part or all of a claim or
defense, when the factual bases for the claims or defense are
not disputed, Mr. Piontek notes.  The Entergy Entities
improperly attempt to use Rule 56 through inappropriate
procedural maneuvering, he asserts.

Civil Rule 23 promotes the advantages of class certification in
appropriate circumstances.  The Entergy Entities' suggestion
that the plaintiffs are either relegated to a regulatory process
that is already concluded or to a bankruptcy claims process
without proper notice to the class contradicts the purposes of
Rule 23, Mr. Piontek contends.

The City Council proceedings cannot be superior procedure for
resolving the plaintiffs' claims when they are already concluded
and the Council has already expressly ruled that no claims can
be pursued there, Mr. Piontek further argues.

The City Council already ruled that the Plaintiffs have no right
or mechanism to pursue class-wide remedies before the Council
for other ratepayers and they have no remedies whatsoever
available at the Council, Mr. Piontek points out.  The Louisiana
courts also rejected ENOI's argument that the Council
proceedings were superior based on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiffs also dispute ENOI's suggestion that they should
proceed to the FERC.  The FERC proceedings cannot be superior as
a matter of law, Mr. Piontek contends.  He says that the Gordon
and Lowenburg Proceedings before the Council would not have
occurred if the FERC had exclusive original jurisdiction.

ENOI's suggestion that a bankruptcy claims process without class
certification is superior than class treatment of the
Plaintiffs' claims is unrealistic, Mr. Piontek contends.

Mr. Piontek notes that more than a third of ENOI's total
customers have not returned to New Orleans since Hurricane
Katrina.  The suggestion will create massive logistical problems
because it would require each individual class claimant to file
a proof of claim and establish ENOI's liability on the claim and
its amount.

The plaintiffs maintain that class action treatment of their
claims is superior to other available methods because
adjudication of their claims in any other forum or method would
result in denial of their claims.

                      City Council Reacts

The New Orleans City Council says that the Plaintiffs' objection
contains numerous inaccurate and inflammatory statements
concerning the Council, its advisors and other matters
considered by the Council.

Basile Uddo, Esq., at Sullivan & Worcester LLP in Washington,
D.C., the Council's counsel, proposes to address the Court at
the hearings on the Summary Judgment Motions so as to correct
the record, as it may impact the court's rulings.

                        Further Briefing

After considering the arguments of counsel, the court orders
further briefing by parties, with all briefs due by July 27,
2006 at 4:30 p.m.  The court will take the matter under
advisement at the hearing.

                  Request for Summary Judgment

Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Corp., Entergy Services,
Inc., and System Fuels, Inc., had asked the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to enter a summary
judgment denying class certification to the Gordon and Lowenburg  
Plaintiffs and their proofs of claim, to the extent the claims
are based upon alleged claims of purported class members (Class
Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).  
The Gordon Plaintiffs and Lowenburg Plaintiffs have filed Claim  
Nos. 328 and 329 for $240,000,000 and $82,796,573 in connection
with their allegations against ENOI in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the Council for
the City of New Orleans.  
The Gordon Plaintiffs -- The Reverend C. S. Gordon, Jr., on
behalf of New Zion Baptist Church; J. Michael Malec; Darryl  
Malek-Wiley; Willie Webb, Jr.; and Maison St. Charles, L.L.C.,
d/b/a Quality Inn Maison St. Charles -- filed two actions, one
with the Council of the City of New Orleans, and another in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, against Entergy
New Orleans, Inc., and other Entergy entities.  
The Lowenburg Plaintiffs -- Thomas P. Lowenburg, Martin Adamo,  
Vern K. Baxter, Philip D. Carter, Bernard Gordon, Leonard  
Levine, Ivory S. Madison, Donetta Dunn Miller, and Maison St.  
Charles, L.L.C. d/b/a Quality Inn Maison St. Charles -- also
filed a class action against ENOI and the Council for the City
of New Orleans, seeking various remedies for ENOI's overcharges
in base rates billed to ratepayers since 1975 in violation of
the allowable 2% rate of return on rate base established in 1922
by the Commission Council of the city of New Orleans.  
The Gordon and Lowenburg Plaintiffs had jointly asked the court
    (a) certify the classes of ENOI's customers who have claims  
        for declaratory and injunctive relief, for restitution  
        of ascertainable losses of money, including refund of  
        overcharges, and damages as the result of payments of  
        overcharges for electricity sold by, or electric service  
        provided by, provided by ENOI; and  
    (b) designate representatives of the classes, appoint  
        counsel to represent the classes, and authorize  
        appropriate notice to be provided to the class members.

FLORIDA: Willington Resident Plans to Sue Over Fence Ordinance
Colette Miller, a resident of Wellington, Florida is working
with an attorney to file a lawsuit over the town's fence
ordinance, which was overturned recently by the Wellington
Village Council, the Palm Beach Post reports.

In 2002, the village council passed an ordinance that required
homeowners to install a 5-foot chain link fence obscured by a
wall of hedges.  Residents were given five years to comply.

Ms. Miller is planning a lawsuit in order to recoup $1,200 she
spent to comply with the ordinance, which would have gone into
effect on June 1, 2007.

According to her, the aggravating process over the ill-fated
ordinance wasted her money and that of other residents.  It also
left her with a fence that she never wanted.

Aside from Ms. Miller, more than 100 households in Wellington
also erected chain-link fences in compliance with the fence
ordinance.  Many of them are looking for recourse, according to
the report.

Thus, Ms. Miller has been going door-to-door to let residents
know that she and her lawyer are about to take action and they
hope a court can be persuaded to grant class-action status to
their case.

GEORGIA: Firm Plans to Sue Over Alleged Inmate Sexual Assault
Michael Goldberg at Rogers & Goldberg, LLC in Atlanta notified
Floyd County of his intent to file a lawsuit against the county
for a sexual assault that was reported at its jail earlier this
year, The Rome News-Tribune reports.

Sheriff Tim Burkhalter said he hasn't seen the paperwork of the
planned suit, according to the report.

The incident cited in the letter was the sexual assault and
battery of a male inmate by three men back in March 3, 2006 at
the Floyd County Jail.  Mr. Goldberg represents the sexually
assaulted prisoner, whose name was withheld by The Rome News-

In the letter, Mr. Goldberg told county officials that his
client is seeking $2.75 million in damages.  He added that once
a lawsuit is filed, he would seek class-action status for it on
behalf all inmates similarly situated.

According to Mr. Goldberg's letter, pursuant to the notice
provisions of the State Tort Claims Act OCGA & 50-21-26, the
county was hereby notified that the plaintiff intends to bring a
personal injury claim for all injuries suffered as a result of
this incident including but not limited to physical injuries,
emotional distress, medical expenses for medical and
psychological treatment, lost wages, and punitive damages.

Plaintiff will pursue claims under various theories of recovery
including but not limited to negligence, intentional torts, and
violations of civil rights, the letter states.
These claims, according to the letter, will be brought against
entities including but not limited to:

     -- Sheriff Burkhalter for failing to properly staff,
        supervise, and maintain the jail;

     -- Floyd County Jail for failing to properly staff,
        supervise and maintain the jail; Floyd County for
        failing to properly staff, supervise, maintain and fund
        the jail; and

     -- the Department of Human Resources for failing to
        properly staff, supervise, maintain and fund the jail.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg of Rogers & Goldberg,
LLC, The Cotton Exchange Bldg., 3155 Roswell Road, NE, Suite
330, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, Phone: 404-846-5516, Fax: 404-846-
5591 and 866-390-5516, Web site:

GEORGIA: Judge Considers Legal Challenge to Sex Offender Law
Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has until July 25 to decide whether
to extend a temporary order blocking the enforcement of HB 1059,
a state law banning sex offenders from living near school bus
stops, The Associated Press reports.

HB 1059 broadens the law governing where registered sex
offenders may reside by prohibiting them from living or working
within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or
"area where minors congregate," including parks and recreation
facilities, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools and bus stops (Class Action Reporter,
July 29, 2006).  The law also stiffens minimum prison sentences
and requires certain offenders to wear electronic monitoring

The ruling could decide the fate of the provision, which
essentially prevents sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet
of the stops, according to the report.

An extension to the order would prevent it from taking effect
until a class action is argued, which could take months.  The
Southern Center for Human Rights filed the federal class action
on June 20, 2006.  The suit contends that the law renders vast
tracts of Georgia's residential areas off-limits to state's
roughly 11,000 offenders.  

It also contends that HB 1059 turns the law "from one tailored
to keep offenders away from children into one that essentially
drives every person on the registry from all urban areas and
many rural areas."

Defendants in the case are, Gov. Sonny Perdue; Georgia Attorney
General Thurbert E. Baker; Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in
Cedartown; and Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks.  While
plaintiffs in the case include:

      -- Al Reginald Marks,
      -- Dewayne Owens,
      -- James Victor Wilson,
      -- Janet Jenkins Allison,
      -- Jeffery York,
      -- Rev. Joel Jones,
      -- Joseph Linaweaver,
      -- Lori Sue Collins, and
      -- Wendy Whitaker

In two days of hearings, the civil rights attorneys wielded maps
of Georgia counties with markings that show how the new law
could banish sex offenders from most areas.  Sarah Geraghty,
SCHR staff attorney, called it a "mass forced exodus."

State attorneys, however, argue that the provision is necessary
to protect children.  In disputing claims that sex offenders
would be forced to move, they argued that untold numbers of bus
stops don't meet the letter of the law, which requires that each
stop be officially designated by the school board.

SCHR attorneys explained that the law, which Georgia lawmakers
passed overwhelmingly, is the only one in the nation that bans
offenders from living and working near school bus stops.

Last month's order by Judge Cooper only covers the school bus
stop provision and allowed the rest of the law to take effect on
July 1.  

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


The suit is "Whitaker et al v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Brooks Bright of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail:;

     (2) Margaret Fletcher Garrett of the American Civil  
         Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514  
         75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail:;

     (3) Sarah E. Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail:;

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights  
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:  

     (5) Elizabeth Lynn Littrell of the American Civil Liberties  
         Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75  
         Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail:; and

     (6) Gerald R. Weber of the American Civil Liberties Union  
         Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75 Piedmont  
         Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-6201, E-mail:  

GOOGLE INC: Decision Expected Soon in Ark. "Click Fraud" Deal
Judge Joe Griffin of the Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas
says that he expects to issue a written order by the end of the
week in the $90 million class action settlement between Google,
Inc. and advertisers who say they were victims of "click fraud,"
The Associated Press reports.

The judge's statement came after a July 24 hearing wherein a set
of plaintiffs argued that Google did not exercise care in
preventing "click fraud," which drives up advertisers' bills by
falsely indicating the number of Web users who have "clicked" on
an Internet ad to seek more information about a product.

In that same hearing, plaintiffs also argued that Google
misrepresented efforts to stop swindlers from repeatedly
clicking Web site links to jack up advertising costs.

The July 24 hearing was part of a slated two-day affair that
will tackle the objections to a $90 million deal that were made
by more than 70 companies.  Most of these companies are small
ones that have fewer resources to research their claims,
according to Associated Press.

Recently, Judge Griffin granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the case, which is alleging the company improperly
charged advertisers for fraudulent Web site clicks that drove up
advertising bills.  

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, however.  Instead, the advertisers will
receive advertising credits for future use with Google (Class
Action Reporter, July 25, 2006).

Objectors present during the recent hearing included, attorney
W. David Carter, who represents Advanced Internet Technologies,
a web-hosting company.  Mr. Carter argued that the only winners
in the settlement are the lawyers.  

According to Mr. Carter, his client lost $250,000 due to "click
fraud."  He pointed out that the advertising credits in the deal
were insufficient.

Daralyn Durie, an attorney representing Google, countered that
the majority of class members did agree to the settlement,
including 19 of the company's 20 largest advertisers.

However, another objecting attorney, Steve Malouf, who
represents many of the plaintiffs, told Judge Griffin that in
their view Google has a duty to exercise reasonable efforts to
filter invalid clicks.

Most of the objectors to the settlement come from small
companies who claim that, under the deal, the burden of proof
would switch to them and that they don't have the resources to
pursue their claims.

                         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., (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:; and

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

HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Candies Wrongly Mixed During Packaging
Harry & David Operations Corp., of Medford, Oregon, is recalling
approximately 2,700 bags of Chocolate Covered Pear Bite candies
because the packages may also contain Key Lime Cookie Bite

Both products are spherical, lime-green colored candies.  The
Key Lime Cookie Bite candies look similar to the Pear Bite
candies, but they contain almond, egg and wheat ingredients.

The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to almonds, egg or wheat run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these

Harry & David is recalling all Chocolate Covered Pear Bites with
a Lot Code of 037061 printed in black ink on the bottom of the
bag.  These candies are packaged in clear plastic 8 oz. bags,
tied with a tan ribbon at the top.

These products were produced and packaged by Marich
Confectionery Co. and distributed throughout the U.S. through
Harry and David Stores.

There have been no illnesses reported to date associated with
this product, according to the company.  Anyone concerned about
an illness related to this product are advised to contact a
physician immediately.  If anyone has experienced an injury or
reaction related to this recall, they should contact their local
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office.

The mixing of products occurred during packaging, when the wrong
product was put into a hopper.  Existing product separation
procedures will be reinforced to prevent recurrence.

Consumers with questions about the recalled product may phone
the Customer Service division at 800-345-5655, 24 hours a day.  
Customers may arrange for refunds through this number as well.

INDIAN TRUST: "Cobell" Plaintiffs Consider $8B Settlement Offer
American Indians in the protracted class action, "Cobell v.
Norton," who claims that the government mismanaged billions of
dollars in federal trust funds, are contemplating an offer by
certain members of the U.S. Congress to resolve their case for
$8 billion, according to the Associated Press.

Though the offer is much lower than the $27.5 billion amount
that plaintiffs offered to settle for back in 2005, the Native
Americans now say that they are seriously considering the 10-
digit figure, the report said.

In 2005, plaintiffs offered a settlement package, prompting
introduction of bills that would finally resolve the case.  
However, the settlement amount was a major point of contention.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Elouise Cobell a
Blackfeet Indian who is the lead plaintiff in the case said that
that amount is something she wished was higher, but she was
happy that they (Congress) brought forward something that was

Ms. Cobell was quoted as saying in that interview, "Can we ever
get near the total fair amount that should be given to
individual Indians? I don't think so.  I think individual Indian
account holders would support $8 billion."

Ms. Cobell said the plaintiffs want to settle and move on.  

The class action, which was filed back in 1996 by Ms. Cobell,
became the longest and largest class action brought against the
government.  It involved royalties for farming, grazing, mining,
logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  

Technically, the case dates back to the 1880s, when the
government, trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some
Indian lands, giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native
Americans.  Back then, the government leased the lands for oil,
gas, timber, grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put
into trust funds for Indians and their survivors.

As of the moment the case involves about 500,000 Native
Americans who are asking the Interior Department to account for
the billions of dollars in their ancestors' land and natural
resource assets the federal government has held in trust since

The issue of how to determine what is owed the Indians has
repeatedly gone back and forth from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia to the D.C. Appeals Court during the
last 10 years.

In the last two years though plaintiffs won a series of legal
victories in the case.  This included Judge Royce Lamberth's
ruling to hold interior secretaries Bruce Babbitt and Gale
Norton in contempt.  Another win for the plaintiffs was Judge
Lamberth's order to the Interior Department that it disconnect
its computers from the Internet to secure Indian trust data.

Plaintiffs, however, were recently dealt a big blow when the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
removed Judge Lamberth from the 10-year-old class action, citing
that he had lost his objectivity  (Class Action Reporter, July
13, 2006).

Recently, Ms. Cobell and Keith Harper, one of her attorneys,
revealed that officials have offered an $8 billion settlement
offer almost three weeks ago.

Representatives for the chairmen of the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, and the House Resources Committee said that committee
meetings to work out the details would be held in the next two
months, according to the report.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail:;  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:   or; and
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:    

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: or

For more details, contact

     (1) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail:, Web site:

     (2) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site:;and
     (3) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web

MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.Y. Consolidated Securities Suit to Proceed
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has allowed a consolidated
securities lawsuit to proceed against Marsh & McLennan Cos.,
according to MarketWatch.  The suit concerns allegations of bid
rigging and price fixing by the company's insurance brokerage

The judge also ruled that the company's insurance brokerage unit
Marsh Inc. and former Marsh & McLennan Chief Executive Jeffrey
Greenberg will have to defend themselves against the complaint,
which consolidated dozens of securities lawsuits and is seeking
class-action status.

Judge Kram didn't rule on the truth of the allegations in her
decision, simply that they had been sufficiently argued for the
case to proceed.

According to Judge Kram: "A rational jury could conclude that a
reasonable investor would find it significant that [Marsh &
McLennan] was generating substantial earnings from its improper
business practices and jeopardizing the client relationships
central to its largest business segment by placing insurance
business with the insurance providers offering [Marsh &
McLennan] the highest commissions, rather than those providers
offering the insurance packages best suited to the clients'

                      Case Background

In 2004, Marsh & McLennan faced securities class suits involving
an illicit scheme in which Marsh earned billions of dollars in
revenues by improperly steering clients to certain preferred
insurers in order to obtain undisclosed insurer-paid
commissions.  The action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
     -- insurance brokerage unit Marsh Inc.,
     -- certain of Marsh's officers and directors, and
     -- outside auditors Deloitte & Touche LLP

Lead plaintiffs appointed are:

     -- Class members of The Pubic Employees' Retirement System
        of Ohio,
     -- State Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio,
     -- Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (OBWC),
     -- Dept. of Treasury -- Division of Investment for the
        state of new Jersey,
     -- the Common Pension Fund A,
     -- the DCP Equity Fund, and
     -- the Supplemental Annuity Fund

Plaintiffs allege that certain defendants violated the federal
securities laws by falsely claiming that the company always
acted in its clients' best interests, protected the integrity of
the bidding process used to place insurance policies, fully
disclosed to its clients all contingent commissions paid to
Marsh in connection with the placement of the clients'
insurance, and that the company received contingent commissions
in exchange for legitimate services provided to the insurance

It further alleged Marsh also engaged in bid-rigging to ensure
that policies were placed with insurance companies that had
entered into contingent commission agreements with the Company.
Further, Marsh provided no legitimate market services in
exchange for its receipt of contingent commissions, which were,
in effect, nothing more than kickbacks for the placement of
business with certain insurance companies.

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

The suit is "In Re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Case No.
1:04-cv-08144-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John Balestriere of Ballestriere, P.L.L.C., 225
         Broadway, Suite 2700, New York, NY 10007, Phone: 212
         374-5400, Fax: 212-661-8665, E-mail:;

     (2) Jay W. Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201
         North Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801,
         Phone: (302) 622-7000; and

     (3) Keith Martin Fleischman and Jeffrey Michael Haber both
         of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax:
         (212) 779-3218, E-mail: or

MASSACHUSETTS: Lawsuit Over Care for Mentally Ill Reopened
Plaintiffs in a class action against the state of Massachusetts
over the care of the mentally retarded and other individuals
with developmental disabilities are accusing state officials of
not complying with a 2001 federal court order.

The case, originally, captioned, "Rolland, et al. v. Argeo Paul
Celluci, et al.," is reopened at the request of plaintiffs, and
is now back in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  The suit has the same plaintiffs, but with Gov.
W. Mitt Romney and others as defendants.

Since April, various motions and responses were filed in the
case.  Magistrate Kenneth P. Neiman has even scheduled a non-
evidentiary hearing for the main motion in the case for Oct. 4,

Earlier this year, plaintiffs' attorneys stated in their filings
that seven years after the court ordered the state to provide
active treatment to all class members in nursing facilities who
were determined to need specialized services, it has still
failed to do so.  

Attorneys stated that as a result of such inaction, plaintiffs
have no other option but to seek yet another order for the court
to remedy "this persistent pattern of noncompliance."  They also
want the court to appoint a court monitor to review each class
member's plans and services.

The motion scheduled for an October hearing relates to
plaintiffs' request that the court find the state in non-
compliance with a provision of the original agreements.

The provision in question stipulates that the state would
develop an effective program to prevent the inappropriate or
unnecessary admission of the mentally retarded or other
individuals with developmental disabilities into nursing

Answering the plaintiffs' allegations, the state maintained that
it has not violated the agreements.  State attorneys contend
that plaintiffs' assertion of violations by the state of both
federal law and court orders should be rejected.  They also say
that plaintiffs' motion regarding the state's alleged
noncompliance should also be denied.

Plaintiffs are represented by several lawyers from various
agencies, including the Center for Public Representation and the
Disability Law Center in Northampton.

Previously, in deciding the class action filed by the families
of eight mentally ill children, Judge Michael Ponsor stated that
the state violated federal law by not giving proper medical
assessments and home-based services to children with serious
emotional disturbances (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).

After a six-week trial, Judge Ponsor ruled that thousands of
emotionally disturbed children are unnecessarily confined in
residential facilities rather than getting the help they need at
home.  Thus, the judge ordered lawyers for the families and the
state to work out a system for getting the children the services
they're entitled to.

The suit is "Rosie D., et al. v. Romney, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-30199-MAP," filed in the U.S. District of Massachusetts under
Judge Michael A. Ponsor with referral to Judge Kenneth P.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James C. Burling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-
         526-6416, Fax: 526-5000, E-mail:; and

     (2) Cathy E. Costanzo and Steven J. Schwartz of Center for
         Public Representation, 22 Green Street, Northampton, MA
         01060, Phone: 413-586-6024, Fax: 413-586-5711, E-mail: and  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel J. Hammond and Deirdre Roney of Attorney
         General's Office, One Ashburton Place, Room 2019,
         Boston, MA 02108-1698, Phone: 617-727-2200, Fax: 617-
         727-5785, E-mail: and; and

    (ii) Adam Simms of Deutsch Williams, 99 Summer St., Boston,
         MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2300, Fax: 617-951-2323, E-

MASTERCARD INT'L: Enters $336M Deal in Antitrust Litigation
A nationwide settlement agreement has been reached in a
consolidated federal class action about use of certain payment
cards for foreign transactions "In re Foreign Currency
Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409)".

Under the settlement, defendants will pay $336 million to create
a settlement fund to pay monetary claims by eligible
cardholders, the costs of administering the settlement and
notice to cardholders, and any court-approved fees and expenses
to attorneys for the class and awards to the class

The settlement also includes provisions relating to disclosures
on billing statements and other documents.  Implementation of
the claims process will involve a third party administrator.

The parties will submit the settlement agreement to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for
preliminary approval.

Defendants in the case include:

     -- Visa International,
     -- MasterCard International,
     -- Bank of America,
     -- Bank One/First USA,
     -- Chase,
     -- Citibank,
     -- Diners Club,
     -- HSBC/Household,
     -- MBNA, and
     -- Washington Mutual/Providian.

They deny any wrongdoing.  The court has not made any ruling on
the merits of the case.

Card accounts covered by the settlement include brands such as
Visa, Interlink, Plus, MasterCard, Cirrus, and Maestro.

Settlement was reached following years of litigation, after
extensive negotiations, and with the assistance of a mediator.

                         Case Background

The lawsuit concerns the prices that cardholders of Visa- and
MasterCard-branded credit and debit/ATM cards, and Diners Club
cards, have been charged to make transactions denominated in a
foreign currency or with a foreign merchant.

It seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  The action,
brought on behalf of certain U.S. holders of VISA, MasterCard
and Diners Club branded general-purpose credit cards who used
those cards since March 1, 1997 for foreign currency
transactions, asserts, among other things, claims for alleged
violations of:

     (1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act,

     (2) the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), and

     (3) as to Citibank (South Dakota), the South Dakota
         Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

On Oct. 15, 2004, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification of their Sherman Act and TILA
claims but denied the motion as to the South Dakota Deceptive
Trade Practices Act claim against Citibank (South Dakota).

On March 9, 2005, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motions for reconsideration of certain
aspects of the Oct. 15, 2004 rulings.

Among other things, the District Court narrowed the antitrust
classes to certain VISA-branded or MasterCard-branded
cardholders of Citibank (South Dakota) and J.P. Morgan Chase &

On Dec. 7, 2005, the District Court certified a Diners Club
damages subclass, as well as Diners' antitrust and TILA
injunctive relief subclasses.  The Citigroup defendants, J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and the plaintiffs have appealed certain
aspects of the District Court's class action rulings.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David J. Bershad and Michael Morris Buchman of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300 and
         212-946-9387, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:;

     (2) Christopher Burke and Amelia F. Burroughs of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP, Suite 1800, 600 West
         Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058,
         Fax: (619) 231-7423; and

     (3) Sheldon V. Burman of Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman,
         PC, 110 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 935-1600.

Representing the defendants are, Mark Bruce Blocker of Sidley
Austin, Brown & Wood, Bank One Plaza, 10 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-7000; and Charles E. Buffon
of Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, P.O. Box
7566, Washington, DC 20044, Phone: (202) 662-6000.

MERCK & CO: N.J. Court to Hear Appeal on Payors' Vioxx Lawsuit
The New Jersey State Supreme Court agreed to hear a motion to
appeal a ruling by three New Jersey Appellate Division judges
certifying a Vioxx-related nationwide class action against Merck
& Co., Inc. on behalf of third-party payors, the AP WorldStream

The order, issued recently by the Supreme Court allows the
company to appeal a lower court ruling that would let health
plans that paid for prescriptions of its withdrawn painkiller
Vioxx to sue as a class to recover billions.

Besides seeking reimbursement for their expenditures to make the
arthritis and painkiller drug available to their health plan
members, the third-party payors would be entitled to triple
damages, if ultimately successful on their claims under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

In March, the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously upheld a
trial court's decision certifying a Vioxx-related nationwide
class action against the company on behalf of third-party payors
(Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2006).

The Appellate Division concluded that New Jersey Superior Court
Judge Carol E. Higbee properly exercised her discretion in
certifying a nationwide class, which consists of all non-
governmental health plans that paid for members' Vioxx
prescriptions, and which asserts claims against the company
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to recover losses
incurred in purchasing the now-withdrawn painkiller for their
health plans.

On July 29, 2005, Judge Higbee granted a motion by the class
representative, a labor union health plan, to allow the lawsuit
to proceed as a nationwide class action, based on allegations
that the company engaged in widespread and systematic
concealment of information concerning the safety and serious
health risks of Vioxx.  

The company had opposed the motion, which was filed by Seeger
Weiss -- lead counsel in the action since 2003 -- on behalf of
the International Union of Operating Engineers Local no. 68
Welfare Fund and all other similarly situated third-party
payors.  The company appealed Judge Higbee's ruling to the New
Jersey Appellate Division.

Vioxx, which had peak sales of $2.5 billion annually, was on the
market from May 1999 through September 2004, when the company
voluntarily withdrew it in the wake of a clinical study showing
increased risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months' use.
This revelation followed other evidence that had undermined the
company's justification for charging premium prices for Vioxx,
compared to similar prescription painkiller drugs.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. and David
R. Buchanan, Esq. of Seeger Weiss, LLP, Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 539-4125, E-mail: and, Web site:

PARMALAT SPA: Foreign Debtors Oppose Amendments in Complaint
At least eight parties-in-interest in Parmalat S.p.A. filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
their oppositions, or joinders to oppositions, to the investors'
request for leave to file an amended complaint:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston;

     -- Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.p.A.;

     -- Grant Thornton International;

     -- Deloitte & Touche USA LLP and Deloitte & Touche LLP;

     -- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and James E. Copeland, Jr.;

     -- Banc of America Securities Limited, Bank of America,
        N.A. and Bank of America Corporation;

     -- Grant Thornton LLP; and

     -- Enrico Bondi, extraordinary commissioner of Parmalat
As previously reported, lawyers representing the class
plaintiffs in the securities class action against Parmalat
sought the District Court's permission to amend their complaint
to, among others, assert claims against reorganized Parmalat
S.p.A., the entity that recently emerged from Extraordinary
Administration Proceedings in Italy.

The amended complaint also:

   -- adds other CSFB entities as defendants and asserts new
      securities law claims against them;

   -- adds new allegations against dismissed defendant Grant
      Thornton LLP; and

   -- substitutes Paolo Biaco with a new class representative,
      Margery Louise Kronengold.

                            Too Late

Michael S. Feldberg, Esq., at Allen & Overy LLP, counsel for
CSFB, contends that the addition of a new putative class
representative and a new claim for controlling person liability
is prejudicial to the CSFB Entities.

"CSFB and the other defendants have completed substantial and
costly class discovery and have planned their opposition to
class certification bases on the . . . belief that Paolo Bianco,
the sole purported U.S.-resident purchaser of Parmalat bonds,
would be included among the putative class representatives," Mr.
Feldberg argues.  "CSFB would be forced, unfairly to duplicate
its discovery efforts relative to Ms. Kronengold and divert
resources from, and rethink, its written response to class
certification. . . ."

Banca Nazionale, the Deloitte & Touche Entities, Grant Thornton
International and the Bank of America Entities raise the same
concerns with regards to Ms. Kronengold.  They support CSFB's
opposition to the proposed addition of a new putative class

Grant Thornton points out that almost a year has passed since
the District Court dismissed the investors' claims against it.  
The District Court gave the investors until mid-August 2005 to
make a "final effort" to replead those claims but they did not
try to do so.  Grant Thornton contends that "it is now far too
late" for the investors to re-insert the firm into the Parmalat
securities litigation.

                      Foreign Debtors Respond

Although Parmalat's downfall is the subject of the Securities
Fraud Action, the Foreign Debtors assert that neither they nor
Reorganized Parmalat are defendants in the Securities Fraud

The reason for their exclusion is clear, Marcia L. Goldstein,
Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, in New York, asserts.  The
specific purpose of Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, as well
as the comity principles that underlie that statute, is to
prevent the assertion of claims against the Foreign Debtors and
Reorganized Parmalat in actions like the Securities Fraud
Action, she explains.

Ms. Goldstein argues that the investors are subject to the
Section 304 injunction, and Section 304(c) dictates that the
injunction should not be modified to permit their request.

To obtain relief under Section 304, a request must be made by an
authorized representative of a party in a foreign proceeding,
Ms. Goldstein says.

Ms. Goldstein further notes that, similar to a U.S. Chapter 11
case, Italian law does not permit parties to assert prepetition
claims directly against Reorganized Parmalat.  While Italian law
and the composition with creditors under the Foreign Debtors'
Restructuring Plan permit the assertion of late claims -- unlike
a Chapter 11 case which implements a prescribed bar date -- the
Parma Court, in Italy, has exclusive jurisdiction during the
bankruptcy case to consider the admission of all claims before
any obligation of Reorganized Parmalat arises.

As the bankruptcy case in Italy remains open since certain
creditors have appealed the approval of the Composition, the
investors are required to assert their claims in the Parma

The Foreign Debtors dispute the investors' argument that
Reorganized Parmalat is not entitled to Section 304 injunctive
relief after the Composition was approved.

Pursuant to Section 304, a U.S. court may channel claims to the
foreign proceeding at any stage of the ancillary case -- not
merely the beginning of the process -- as long as there exists a
need to enjoin actions that could jeopardize the success of the
foreign reorganization proceeding.  Thus, Ms. Goldstein says, it
is common for a foreign debtor to complete its foreign
restructuring and seek a permanent injunction pursuant to
Section 304 to assist in the enforcement of its reorganization.

"If a foreign debtor could not obtain a permanent injunction
following confirmation of its bankruptcy plan in the foreign
proceeding, Section 304 would be a pointless, hollow mechanism,"
Ms. Goldstein contends.  "Parties would simply be 'delayed' from
initiating their actions against the foreign debtor . . . until
after the foreign debtor 'successfully' completed its

Clearly, this was not Congress' intent in providing assistance
to foreign proceedings under Section 304."

In addition to lacking merit, the Foreign Debtors believe that
the investors' request to add Reorganized Parmalat as a party is
inexplicably late.

The delay, Ms. Goldstein says, has prevented the Foreign
Debtors' administrator, Dr. Enrico Bondi, and Reorganized
Parmalat from participating in class discovery.

The investors make no effort to explain their delay in bringing
their request, Ms. Goldstein notes.  The investors' request is
not predicated on any recent event, and any factual bases for
their securities fraud allegations have been known to class
counsel since they filed their original complaint in January

The Foreign Debtors ask the District Court to deny the
investors' request (Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 74,
July 21, 2006).

                         Case Background

U.S. holders of Parmalat bonds filed a securities fraud
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against a number of Parmalat banks and auditors
claiming that during the class period -- Jan. 5, 1999 through
Dec. 18, 2003, prior to the Extraordinary Administration, --
those individuals, along with Old Parmalat's banks and
accounting firms, structured and participated in a panoply of
fraudulent schemes designed to hide Old Parmalat's growing debts
to third parties and artificially inflate its assets, revenues
and ultimately, the market prices of its securities.  

In June, Grant & Eisenhofer and Cohen Milstein, law firms
leading a securities class action against Parmalat S.p.a., filed
a fresh motion seeking permission to amend their complaint to
assert claims against Parmalat S.p.A.

The amended complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Grant & Eisenhofer represents  
Parmalat shareholders, including U.K.-based Hermes Focused Asset
Management Europe Ltd.  Law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C. represents Parmalat's former bondholders.  

The amended complaint also contains new allegations against
accounting Grant Thornton LLP, which had previously been
dismissed from the case, showing that it controlled its U.S.
affiliate, defendant Grant Thornton International, which had
participated in the fraud.

Plaintiffs also amended their claims against Credit Suisse First
Boston, now known as Credit Suisse.  They added new claims
against related entities:

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston International, now known as  
        Credit Suisse International,  

     -- Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Limited, now known  
        as Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, and  

     -- Credit Suisse Group,  

for their direct participation in, or control of entities that
participated in, the fraud.

The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:04-cv-00030-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Coughlin of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &  
         Lerach, L.L.P., 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA  
         94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545;

     (2) Joshua Seth Devore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,  
         PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500,  
         Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202)408-4600, Fax:  
         (202)-408-4699, E-mail:;

     (3) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA (DE), Chase  
         Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington,  
         DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100,  
         E-mail:; and
     (4) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,  
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 58 South Service Road,  
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,  
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Christopher Moore Brubaker of Kittredge Donley Elson  
         Fullem & Emb (PA), 400 Market Street, Suite 200,  
         Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215)-829-9900, Fax:  
         (215)-829-9888, E-mail:;
     (2) Donald C. Moss of Moss & Moss, L.L.P., 170 East 61st  
         Street, New York, NY 10021, Phone: (212) 644-1000;  

     (3) Norina I. Edelman of Sidley Austin LLP(Washington),  
         1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202-
         736-8739, Fax: (202)-736-8711, E-mail:  ;

     (4) Dana Leigh Post of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel,  
         LLP, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,  
         Phone: (212) 839-5667, Fax: (212) 839-5599, E-mail:  ;

     (5) Howard A. Ellins of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-450-
         4248, Fax: (212)-450-5548, E-mail:;

     (6) Dennis Eugene. Glazer of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450  
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-450-
         4900 Fax: (212)-450-3900, E-mail:  ;

     (7) Loren Kieve of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &  
         Hedges, 50 California Street, 22nd Flr., San Francisco,  
         CA 94104-2543, Phone: (415) 875-6320, Fax: (415) 875-
         6700, E-mail:; and

     (8) Mark Adam Kirsch of Clifford Chance US, LLP(NYC!), 31  
         West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6131, Phone: (212)  
         878-8192, Fax: (212) 878-8375, E-mail:  

PROGRESSIVE CORP: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1519 Deal
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re The Progressive
Corp. Insurance Underwriting & Rating Practices Litigation, MDL-

The hearing will be held before Judge Maurice Paul at the U.S.
District Courthouse, 401 S.E. First Avenue, Gainesville, Florida

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Aug. 30,
2006.  Exclusions from the settlement must be submitted by Aug.
1, 2006.

The settlement affects all residents of the U.S. who either on
or after Jan. 1, 1997 through Dec. 1, 2004 were charged
increased rates for insurance or had an insurance policy
cancelled in either case by Progressive or any Progressive
affiliated insurance company based in whole or in part on
information contained in consumer reports, or on or after Jan.
1, 1997 through the date of the preliminary approval of the
settlement by the court received a no obligation quotation from
the defendants.

This litigation arises from these consolidated cases:  

      -- "Cathryn Smith, et al. v. The Progressive Corporation
         et al., Case No. 1:00-CV-210-MMP (N.D. Fla.);"

      -- "Sharele Dikeman, et al. v Progressive Corp., Case No.
          3:01-01465-BR (D. Ore);"

      -- "Sharele Dikeman, et al. v. Progressive Halcyon, et
         al., Case No. 3:03cv00302 (D. Ore);"

      -- "Paul K. Cooley, et al. v. Progressive Ins. Co., Case
         No. CV 5:02 2384-S  (W.D. La.);"

      -- "Timothy James Carlson v. Progressive Ins. Co., Case
         No. 3:02-CV-2552 (N.D. Tex.);"

      -- "Gloria Warren v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., Case
         No. 3:03-1176 (N.D. Ala.);"

      -- "Seth Silverman, et al. v. The Progressive Corp., et
         al., Case No. 4:05-CV-1647 (S.D. Tex.);"

      -- "Ruby Johnson, et al. v. The Progressive Corp., et al.,
         Case No. 2:05-CV-1900 (E.D. La.);" and

      -- "Julius Dunmore, et al. v The Progressive Corporation,
         Case No 1:05-CV-150-SPM (N.D. Fla.)."

Plaintiffs in one or more of the consolidated cases alleged,
among other things, that the defendants violated the Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, by not providing proper notice of adverse action
to policyholders and quotation recipients that were denied
insurance coverage, had insurance coverage cancelled, or were
charged or quoted higher premiums based in whole or in part on
information contained in their consumer reports.  

They sought compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages for
negligent and willful violations of the FCRA, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban
         Centre, Suite 550, 4830 West Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL
         33609-2589, Phone: (813) 286-4100, (800) 651-2502 and
         (800) 634-0877, Fax: (813) 286-4174, E-mail:; and  

     (2) Progressive FCRA Settlement c/o The Garden City Group,
         Inc., PO Box 9000 #6242, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Web

RAMBUS INC: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Securities Suit in Calif.
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. filed an amended class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under case number C06-04346 (WHA) 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 Rambus 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

Interested parties may no later than sixty days from July 19,
2006 move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman, Esq., at Kantrowitz,
Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Phone: 800-660-7843 and 845-356-
2570, Email:  

SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiff Dickerson Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit
Ronen Sarraf, Esq., at Sarraf Gentile LLP, in New York, relates
that the U.S. Secretary of Labor has recently opined that the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's
opinion dismissing Jeremy Dickerson's suit against Solutia Inc.
was wrongly decided (Solutia Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 65,
July 20, 2006.

Solutia is seeking the disallowance of Claim No. 14735 based on
the preclusive effect of the District Court's dismissal of Mr.
Dickerson's class action and the doctrine of collateral
estoppel.  Mr. Dickerson, on behalf of the Solutia Inc. Savings
and Investment Plan, its participants and beneficiaries, filed
Claim No. 14735 for $290,845,666, as amended, in connection with
his allegations in the civil suit.

As the entity primarily responsible for enforcement and
administration of the fiduciary standards of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Secretary of Labor's
views in interpreting ERISA, including those expressed in amicus
curiae briefs, are entitled to considerable deference, Mr.
Sarraf asserts.

Accordingly, there is substantial likelihood that Mr.
Dickerson's appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit will succeed, Mr. Sarraf says.

If Mr. Dickerson's appeal is successful, but the Debtors' relief
is granted, the patently unjust result would be that the claim
would have been disallowed and expunged with prejudice based
entirely on an erroneous judgment that was subsequently
reversed, Mr. Sarraf points out.

In addition, Mr. Sarraf argues, the principles of res judicata
and collateral estoppel do not apply to Mr. Dickerson's claim,
contrary to Solutia's contention.  The doctrine requires that
parties in the two cases be the same, or be in privity with the
same parties, Mr. Sarraf asserts, citing Perpetual Securities
Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2002).

Mr. Sarraf adds that courts have frequently stayed application
of the preclusive effects of res judicata and collateral
estoppel pending resolution of an appeal of the first case.

Mr. Dickerson, thus, asks Judge Beatty to stay consideration of
Solutia's objection, as well as his request for class
certification, pending resolution of the Second Circuit

In the alternative, Mr. Dickerson asks the Bankruptcy Court to:

   (a) overrule the Debtors' objection without prejudice to it
       being refiled after the Second Circuit rules; or

   (b) disallow his claim without prejudice, and provide for its
       automatic reinstatement should his appeal be successful.

In either case, Mr. Dickerson requests that the Bankruptcy Court
make express provisions for his continued participation in the
Debtors' bankruptcy process to protect his interests.

                         Case Background

According to an Oct. 2005 issue of the Troubled Company
Reporter, Jeremy Dickerson is a Texas resident and was a
chemical operator for Solutia, Inc., from July 1998 through
October 2003.  Mr. Dickerson is a participant in the Solutia
Savings and Investment Plan, which was created on Sept. 1, 1997,
as a 401(k) plan.  The Investment Plan's purpose is to allow
participants to save money for retirement.  Shares of Solutia
common stock were purchased and held in the Investment Plan for
Mr. Dickerson's benefit from 1998 to 2003.

Mr. Dickerson, on behalf of the Investment Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries, had asked the Court to certify
his Amended Proof of Claim for a class defined as all Plan
participants for whose benefit the Plan held Solutia Stock
between Sept. 1, 1997, until Dec. 15, 2003.

Mr. Sarraf reported then that Mr. Dickerson brings his claim not
as an individual, but, as authorized by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, in a representative capacity on
behalf of the Plan and its participants, seeking recovery of
losses to the Plan as a whole.

Mr. Sarraf explains that Mr. Dickerson's claim is for losses to
the Plan and participants resulting from Solutia's fiduciary
breaches relating to the imprudent investment of Plan assets in
Solutia common stock.  According to Mr. Sarraf, Solutia failed:

    -- to take appropriate steps to restrict or liquidate
       investments in Solutia Stock;

    -- to provide participants with complete and accurate
       information regarding the risks of investment in Solutia
       Stock; and

    -- to appoint an independent fiduciary to make decisions
       regarding the Plan's investments in Solutia Stock.

Since the Plan held investments in Solutia Stock for the benefit
of each participant during the Class Period, and all
participants are members of the proposed class, these failures
to act affected all members of the proposed class.  Moreover,
these breaches all pertain to Solutia's uniform conduct with
respect to the Plan and its administration, Mr. Sarraf said.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Solutia, Inc. -- with its subsidiaries, make and sell  
a variety of high-performance chemical-based materials used in a
broad range of consumer and industrial applications.  The
Company filed for chapter 11 protection on Dec. 17, 2003 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 03-17949).  

SUUNTO OY: Recalls Wristop Dive Computers to Update Software
Suunto Oy of Finland, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,900 units of
Suunto D9 and D6 Model Wristop Dive Computers.

The company said these dive computers could incorrectly track
dive time, which could cause incorrect calculation of
decompression requirements.  This could lead to decompression
sickness.  No injuries were reported.

The D9 and D6 diving instruments are advanced, gas-switching,
multi-mode, decompression dive wristop computers.  The products
included are: the D9 model with serial numbers 62102582 and
below; and the D6 model with serial numbers 62103693 and below.  
The serial number is located on the side of the product.  The
model number is located on the back of the product.

These dive computers were manufactured in Finland and are being
sold at diving specialty shops nationwide, as well as various
Web sites from September 2004 through June 2006 for about $1,275
for the D9 (without wireless transmitter) and $900 for the D6.

Pictures of the recalled dive computers:

Consumers are advised to use these dive computers with backup
instrumentation only.  Consumers should bring the recalled units
to the nearest authorized Suunto dealer for a software update to
correct the problem.  A free battery replacement and pressure
testing will be provided as part of the free software update
service.  All updated products will be marked with an indelible
white dot on the back of the unit, or with an engraved "U" near
the serial number.

For additional information and a list of authorized retailers,
visit,or call Suunto at (800) 543-9124  
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday, and
between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m. Friday, or E-mail to: SuuntoD9-

TOYOTA MOTORS: Recalls Vehicles with Defective Crankshaft Sensor
Japanese automaker Toyota Motors, in cooperation with the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling
about 418,570 vehicles globally, including 150,000 cars sold in
the U.S. and Canada because of a faulty crankshaft sensor,
ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.  The recall includes 8,500 Prius
vehicles, as well as some Lexus hybrids sold in the U.S., and
26,200 Echos in the U.S.

Toyota warned owners that the connector for the crankshaft
position sensor may become disconnected causing the vehicle to
stall.  There have been no reported cases of accidents or
injuries related to the recalled vehicles.

The company reports that because of "improper molding of the
resin body of the crankshaft position sensor, engine oil may
penetrate the seal and enter the connector" in the recalled

In addition, the shape of the locking tab to secure the sensor's
wire- harness connector may be improper.  In this condition, the
oil may expand due to heat from the engine and deform the
connector, as well as create pressure on the locking tab,
causing the crankshaft position sensor to become disconnected.

If the crankshaft position sensor becomes disconnected while the
vehicle is being driven, the engine will stall and will be
unable to restart, according to Toyota.

The Prius recall for a faulty crankshaft sensor does not involve
any hybrid components and Toyota will replace, free of charge,
the crankshaft position sensor on recalled vehicles.

Toyota will notify owners of the involved vehicles of the recall
later this month.

Owners are requested to contact their local Toyota dealer for
diagnosis and repair upon receiving notification.

Last week Toyota recalled 367,594 sports utility vehicles,
including hybrids, in the U.S because of loose clips in the
floor carpet cover that might cause the accelerator pedal to

The vehicles involved in that recall are the Lexus RX 330 and
Toyota Highlander SUVs from 2004 to 2005 model years, and the
Lexus RX 400h hybrid and Highlander hybrid SUVs from the 2006
model year.

Earlier in July, Toyota recalled 24,200 vans in Japan.

The three July recalls are the latest in a string of problems at
Toyota raising doubts over whether the automaker can maintain
quality standards amid booming sales, according to the report.

VAN DER MOOLEN: Reaches $8M Settlement in N.Y. Securities Suit
Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, a 75% owned subsidiary of
Van der Moolen Holding N.V., agreed to settle for $8 million a
securities class action in the U.S. brought by plaintiffs who
were holders of VDM Holding's American Depositary Receipts
traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Under VDM's insurance policies, its insurers will pay 60 percent
of the settlement.  The settlement will be recognized in the
company's second quarter financial statements.

The settlement is preliminary and is subject to, among other
things, approval form a federal judge of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, who is presiding over the

                        Case Background

The complaint in this case was filed on Sept. 14, 2004 on behalf
of a putative class of persons who held ADRs between Oct. 18,
2001 and Oct. 15, 2003.

It alleged that during that time period, the price of ADRs were
artificially inflated because VDM failed to disclose certain
alleged illegal trading activity that was the subject of a
regulatory settlement between VDMS and the NYSE and the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2004.

The co-lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Sept. 16, 2004.  On Nov. 16, 2004, Van der Moolen Holding N.V.,
VDM Specialists and the other New York Stock Exchange specialist
firms moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court heard oral arguments, but has not
ruled on the motion to modify the stay.  Plaintiffs' opposition
to the motion was filed on Jan. 26, 2005, and the defendants'
reply was filed on March 8, 2005.  The court heard oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss on April 13, 2005.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Van Der Moolen Specialists USA, L.L.C.,
     -- Van Der MoolenHolding, N.V.,
     -- Bank of Amereica Corp.,
     -- Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.,
     -- Bear Wagner Specialists, L.L.C.,
     -- Fleet Specialist, Inc.,
     -- Fleetboston Financial Corp.,
     -- Golden Sachs,
     -- George M.L. LaBranche IV,
     -- LaBranche & Co., Inc.,
     -- LaBranche & Co., L.L.C.,
     -- Michael Labranche,
     -- New York Stock Exchange, Inc.,
     -- Performance Specialist Group, L.L.C.,
     -- Quick & Reilly, Inc.,
     -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, L.L.C.,
     -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P.,
     -- Susquehanna International Group,
     -- Susquehanna Specialists, Inc., and
     -- The Goldman Sachs Group Inc

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis
         Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax:
         (212) 755-7306, E-mail:;

     (2) Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, L.L.P. (NYC),
         1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222;

     (3) Richard A. Cirillo of King & Spalding LLP (DC), 1730
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4706,
         Phone: 212-556-2337, Fax: 212-556-2222, E-mail:; and

     (3) Andrew C. Curley of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-
         Cohen, L.L.P., 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs), 655West Broadway, Suite
         1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-7423, Fax:
         631-367-1173, E-mail:;

     (2) Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-
         1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: LSHLLP@LSHLLP.COM;

     (3) Stephen D. Oestreich of Entwistle & Cappucci, L.L.P.,
         299 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10171, Phone: (212) 894-
         7200; and

     (4) Curtis V. Trinko of Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko,
         L.L.P., 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY
         10036, Phone: (212) 490-9550.

WASHINGTON: Report Says County Public Defense System Improving
Grant County's public defender system continued to show signs of
improvement, according to a report by a Seattle criminal defense
lawyer that was appointed to monitor compliance with terms of a
settlement in a lawsuit against the county, The Columbia Basin
Herald reports

In his second-quarter report, attorney Jeffrey Robinson
concluded that following increased criminal defense training and
reduced attorney case assignments, Grant County public defenders
have had "significantly lower caseload(s)" during the last six
months than in previous years.  

Mr. Robinson's six-page report noted that there was no need for
Judge Michael Cooper of Kittitas County Superior Court to
enforce terms of a November 2005 settlement agreement between
the county and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Earlier this year, Mr. Robinson of Schroeter, Goldmark and
Bender was picked by Grant County and the ACLU to ensure
implementation of the terms of the settlement agreement

Brought by the ACLU and Columbia Legal Services back in 2004,
the suit accuses Grant County of using lawyers who were
overworked, unqualified or bound by contracts that discouraged
full and fair representation for the poor.  The case was seen as
emblematic of the problems faced by other financially hard-
pressed public defender programs around the state of Washington
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).

Previously, Judge Cooper ruled that the suit should go to trial,
because indigents charged with a crime in the county have reason
to fear that they will not be adequately represented.  In that
ruling, the judge essentially denied the county's request to
dismiss the case.  The ACLU and Columbia Legal Services sought a
court order requiring the county to offer adequate defense for
people who can't afford an attorney.

Under a settlement reached in November 2005, the county agreed
to improve the quality of its public defense system, including
limiting caseloads and making sure attorneys are qualified for
the level of cases they are handling.

For more details, contact Jeffrey Robinson of Schroeter,
Goldmark & Bender, P.S., 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle,
WA 98104, Phone: (206) 622-8000 and (800) 809-2234, Fax: (206)
682-2305, Web site:

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals

July 27-28, 2006
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710;

September 26-27, 2006
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact:; 1-888-224-2480

September 28-30, 2006
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 12-13, 2006
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

November 16-17, 2006
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 2007
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

* Online Teleconferences

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;   

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

July 1-30, 2006
Contact: 512-778-5665;  

July 27, 2006
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

August 9, 2006
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; time

August 10, 2006
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

August 15, 2006
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; time

August 16, 2006
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;

August 17, 2006
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; time

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

CEB Online
Contact: or 1-800-232-3444

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Big Class Action

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video

Big Class Action

Online Streaming Video

LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute

Online Streaming Video

Online Streaming Video


American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221;  

The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to are encouraged.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADE CORP: The Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Mass.
The Brualdi Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of
shareholders of ADE Corp. between Feb. 22, 2006 and June 27,
2006, seeking remedies under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Massachusetts statutory and common law.  

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against:

     -- the company,
     -- Director Harris Clay,
     -- Director Landon T. Clay,
     -- Director H. Kimball Faulkner,
     -- Director Chris L. Koliopoulos,
     -- Director Kendall Wright,
     -- KLA-Tencor Corp., and
     -- South Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of KLA

The action alleges that the definitive proxy statement
defendants mailed to ADE's shareholders in conjunction with the
proposed sale of ADE to South contains inaccurate statements of
material fact and omits to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of
Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. section 78n, and Rule 14 (a)(9) promulgated thereunder,
Mass. L. ch. 110A section 404, Mass. L. ch. 110C section 7,
section 9, and the Massachusetts common law.

The action also alleges, inter alia, that ADE's Directors
violated their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty owed to
ADE's public shareholders under Massachusetts common law in
voting to approve the Proposed Sale at an inadequate price and
with inadequate protection for ADE's shareholders.

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

For more details, contact Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. and Gaitri
Boodhoo, Esq. of The Brualdi Law Firm, Phone: (877) 495-1187, E-
mail:, Web site:

BROOKS AUTOMATION: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Suit
Federman & Sherwood announces that on June 19, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Brooks Automation, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from July 25, 2001 through May 22, 2006.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Aug. 18,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

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

RAMBUS INC: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Rambus Inc. between Jan. 14, 2004 and
July 18, 2006.

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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Rambus securities.

Defendants include Rambus and certain of its top officers and
directors.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning Rambus'
improper and undisclosed practice of backdating options given to
Rambus executives.  

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

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.

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

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiffs."  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of Abbey Spanier
Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New
York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701, E-mail:

SUNTERRA CORP: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
Wolf Popper, LLP filed a securities fraud lawsuit on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased the securities of
Sunterra Corp. on the open market during the period April 15,
2003 through June 22, 2006.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court, District of
Nevada, against defendants Sunterra, Nicholas J. Benson (CEO),
Steven E. West (CFO), and David R. Harris (Managing Director of
Sunterra Europe) and is seeking remedies under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that statements issued by the defendants
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading
when made because defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- the company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with GAAP;

      -- the company's earnings had been overstated and expenses
         understated because of the underpayment of withholding
         taxes in Spain;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to report accurate financial results
         or ascertain the true financial condition of Sunterra;
      -- defendants had issued false and misleading financial
         projections to investors which the company could only
         achieve by overstating its revenues and earnings; and

      -- that as a result, Sunterra's net income and financial
         results were materially misstated during the Class

As the above revelations entered the market, Sunterra stock fell
34% from its class period high of $16.72 per share.

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

For more details, contact Emily DeMuro, Investor Relations and
Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. of Wolf Popper, LLP, Phone: +1-212-
759-4600 and 1-877-370-7703, Fax: +1-212-486-2093 and 1-877-370-
7704, E-mail: and, Web site:

ZALE CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Filing of N.Y. Stock Suit
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased securities of Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005 and May
5, 2006.  The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

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

Interested parties have until Sept. 18, 2006, in which to move
for Lead Plaintiff status.

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


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


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  * * *