CAR_Public/060731.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 31, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 150

                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Wiretapping Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Cases
CHEVY CHASE: Reaches $16.1M Settlement in Md. Consumer Lawsuit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Recalls Possibly Defective Dodge Durango
GENERAL MOTORS: $1.2M Settlement in Wyo. Pollution Suit Okayed
GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Approves $90M "Click Fraud" Settlement

IKEA HOME: Recalls Beds to Provide Cover for Folding Mechanism
JANSSEN-ORTHO: Faces Suit in Canada Over Contraceptive Patch
KMART CORP: Colo. Court Approves $13M Disability Suit Settlement
MEIJER: Recalls Candleholders for Fire and Laceration Hazards
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Broker Fee Agreements Suit Resumes in N.J.

MONTANA: Court Reverses Ruling in Homeowners Blackfeet Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Settlement in Del. Shareholder Suit Deemed Final
NEW JERSEY: Discovery Ongoing in Lawsuit Over Burlington Flood
PACIFIC COAST: Settles Roof Shingles Litigation in Washington
PARMALAT S.P.A.: Could Face Shareholders' Lawsuit in S.D. N.Y.

RAMAR FOODS: Recalls Hot Dogs for Listeria Contamination
ROYAL AHOLD: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Appeal Withdrawn
ROYAL DUTCH: Allots $500M to Settle Reserves Misstatement Suits
T-MOBILE USA: Mich. Court Denies Arbitration Motion in "Wong"
UNTIED STATES: Securities Fraud Suits Down in H1, Research Says

WORLDCOM INC: SEC Issues Judgments Against Former Executives


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Cotchett, Pitre Files Calif. Stock Suit
HCA INC: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn.
JOS A BANK: Schatz & Nobel Announces Filing of Md. Stock Suit
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Aug. Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector, Roseman Notes Stock Suit Filing

RAMBUS INC: Federman Sherwood & Announces Securities Suit Filing
SUNTERRA CORP: Zwerling, Schachter Notes Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AT&T CORP: Wiretapping Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the U.S. government and other parties suing AT&T
Corp. for wiretapping the phone conversations of Americans have
asked a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation to
consolidate the suit, according to the Jurist.

The government wants about 20 purported class actions filed
against the company consolidated and assigned to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiffs'
lawyer in a San Francisco case wants the panel to give the cases
to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

A decision from the panel is expected in three to six weeks,
according to the report.

Plaintiffs in the suit are alleging that AT&T and its holding
company, AT&T Inc., are collaborating with the National Security
Agency in a massive warrantless surveillance program that
illegally tracks the domestic and foreign communications and
communication records of millions of Americans.

The suits filed against AT&T includes:

     -- that of Fresno, California attorney Nicholas "Butch"
        Wagner in Fresno Superior Court against AT&T Inc.,
        BellSouth Corp., and Verizon Communications, Inc.;

     -- "Cross et al. v. AT&T Communications, Inc. et al., Case
        No. 1:06-cv-00847-RLY-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Southern District of Indiana;

     -- "Harrington et al. v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
        00374-LY," filed in the local division of the U.S.
        District Court for the Western District of Texas;

     -- "Dubois et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No. 5:06-
         cv-00085-RHB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
        Western District of Michigan;

     -- that of the Mason Law Firm, P.C. against Verizon Corp.,  
        AT&T Inc., and BellSouth Corp., filed in U.S. District
        Court for the District of Columbia; and

     -- "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No.   
        3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
        the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn
        R. Walker.

In April, AT&T moved to dismiss this case contending that
plaintiffs lack standing, and that it is entitled to statutory,
common law and qualified immunity.  The government moved to
dismiss on state secrets grounds.

Recently, Judge Walker denied a request by AT&T Corp. and the
U.S. government to dismiss the suit "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T
Corp."  


CHEVY CHASE: Reaches $16.1M Settlement in Md. Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Circuit Court Judge John M. Glynn gave preliminary
approval to a $16.1 million settlement of a nationwide class
action pending in Baltimore Circuit Court against Chevy Chase
Bank, F.S.B., Baltimore Sun reports.  

The suit accuses the bank of charging higher-than-promised
interest rates on credit cards.  The bank denied wrongdoing, but
opted to settle to avoid further protracted and expensive
litigation.  

F. Paul Bland Jr., the lead plaintiffs' attorney, told The
Baltimore Sun that after legal fees, about $11 million will be
paid to cardholders around the country.  Some cardholders,
according to Mr. Bland, could be paid damages in the thousands
of dollars.

Mr. Bland also said that the bank agreed to remove negative
reports sent to the major credit bureaus for cardholders who
missed payments or couldn't make full payments after the rates
went up.

He added that several consumers recount how hard it was to buy a
house since the bank listed them as a bad debtor on their credit
report.  Mr. Bland explains that getting that corrected was an
important part of the deal and could turn out to be worth more
than the cash.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a public interest law firm
based in Washington, filed the suit in February 1999.  Styled,
"Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., Civil No. 24-C-99-000202,"
it was filed on behalf of credit cardholders who alleged they
were being charged excessive interest rates.

The suit alleged that the bank breached its contracts with
consumers by raising interest rates above a promised 24 percent
ceiling, and imposed newer and higher fees.  The ceiling was the
maximum allowed under Maryland law.

The changes were made in 1996 when the bank moved its home
office to McLean, Virginia, a state with no limits on interest
rates.  The bank later sold its card portfolio to First USA, now
owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co., but retained liability in the
protracted case.

The Maryland Court of Appeals settled two sticking points in the
case before eventually reaching the current settlement.  Those
points were a lower-court ruling that blocked the lawsuit on
grounds the dispute had to be resolved through arbitration,
which was overturned and another ruling that found the
plaintiffs' claims were pre-empted by federal law.

The amended complaint and the court's preliminary approval order
of the settlement is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e88

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e86

For more details, contact F. Paul Bland of Trial Lawyers For
Public Justice, P.C., National Headquarters, 1825 K. Street, NW
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-797-8600, Fax: 202-
232-7203, Web site: http://www.tlpj.org.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Recalls Possibly Defective Dodge Durango
--------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corp., in cooperation with the U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 230
units of 2006 Dodge Durango.

The company said that on certain sport utility vehicles, the
left rear suspension watts link may have been damaged during
vehicle assembly and could fail, which could adversely affect
vehicle handling and cause a crash without warning.

Consumers are advised to contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-
1403 for free replacement of the left rear suspension watts
link.


GENERAL MOTORS: $1.2M Settlement in Wyo. Pollution Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis Kolenda of Kent County Circuit Court approved a
$1.2 million settlement in a ground water contamination class
action between General Motors Corp. and about 300 Wyoming
residents, The Grand Rapids Press reports.

To qualify for the windfall eligible residents must submit a
copy of their deed or land contract and proof of identification
to the claims administrator by Aug. 11.  Failure to do so will
forfeit their share of the settlement, which will then be
refunded to the company.

The case, "Kelly Koszewski-Jones, et al. v. Delphi Corp., Case
No. 04-09808-CE," started in 2004, when real estate agent Kelly
Koszewski-Jones got a notice from Delphi Corp., the company that
now operates the plant, alerting her that vinyl chloride, a
cancer-causing chemical leaked from the former General Motors
plant at 2100 Burlingame Ave., contaminating a swath of land 800
feet wide and a half-mile long.

After receiving the notice, Ms. Koszewski-Jones contacted an
attorney and organized her neighbors.  Though she sold her house
in 2005, she lost more than $10,000 on the deal due to
contamination concerns.

Under the settlement, the company admitted no wrongdoing.  Court
documents revealed that company officials opted to settle to
avoid expensive litigation.

Represented the property owners is Carole D. Bos at Carole Bos
of Bos & Glazier P.L.C., 990 Monroe Avenue, Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49503, (Kent Co.), Phone: 616-458-6814, Fax: 616-459-
8614.

On the Net: http://www.bosglazier.com/delphi_class_action.html.


GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Approves $90M "Click Fraud" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas approved a $90
million settlement of a class action over alleged "click fraud"
filed by online advertisers against Google, Inc.

In approving the settlement, Judge Joe Griffin called it "fair,
reasonable and adequate."  He also downplayed claims that it
hurt small advertisers, after more than 70 objections were
filed.  Most of these objections came from smaller firms that
claim they didn't have the resources to prove "click fraud"
losses.

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,
however, will receive cash and instead the advertisers will
receive advertising credits for future use with Google.

The settlement also stipulated that if advertisers do not claim
the full amount available, a portion would be made available to
charitable organizations.  

In pay-per-click online advertising, clicking on ads -- usually
displayed at the top and sides of Web pages -- triggers sales
commissions even if the activity does not lead to an actual
sale.  

Technically, "click fraud" occurs in this form of advertising
when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a
legitimate user of a Web browser clicking on an ad for the
purpose of generating an improper charge per click.  Unless a
click is determined to be fraudulent, advertisers pay per click.

Some of the plaintiffs in the Arkansas case went before Judge
Griffin last week to argue that Google had not taken reasonable
care to prevent click fraud and overstated how the company
defends itself against such activities.

According to Judge Griffin, he approved the deal, based on the
strength of the plaintiff's case, Google's ability to pay, the
potential expense of further litigation and the limited amount
of opposition.

Opponents of the deal argued that it switched the burden of
proof to them, and that they argued they did not have the
resources to easily pursue their claims.  However, Judge Griffin
pointed out that their task would not be impossible.  

The judge wrote in his approval order that the settlement class
is not required to submit records or documents that they simply
do not possess.  He also wrote that the settlement class is s
not burdened or discouraged from filing claims, since they are
required only to provide information to the best of their
knowledge in submitting a claim form.

Google attorney Daralyn Durie told The Associated Press that the
majority of class members agreed to the settlement, including 19
of the company's 20 largest advertisers.

                         Case Background

Initially, Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana, Arkansas
filed the case.  Subsequently, in a class action 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.


IKEA HOME: Recalls Beds to Provide Cover for Folding Mechanism
--------------------------------------------------------------
IKEA Home Furnishings of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Product Consumer Safety Commission, is
recalling about 100,000 LYCKSELE chair and sofa beds.

The company said fingers can become caught in the folding
mechanism of the chair bed/sofa bed, posing a laceration and/or
amputation hazard.

IKEA has received one report of a consumer who has been injured
when attempting to operate the folding mechanism.  The incident
involved a fingertip amputation.

This recall involves LYCKSELE chair beds and sofa beds produced
before July 2005 and date stamped (year/week) 0526 and earlier.  
The frames are constructed of iron and have natural wood slats.  
IKEA, the article number (700-326-82 chair bed and 900-326-81
sofa bed), and a four-digit date stamp printed on a white
sticker located on the underside of the product.

Pictures of the recalled LYCKSELE chair and sofa beds:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06218a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06218b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06218c.jpg

The LYCKSELE chair and sofa beds were manufactured in France,
Bulgaria, China, and Romania and are being sold at IKEA stores
nationwide and on the Ikea Web site from April 1999 through June
2006 for $40 (chair bed) and $90 (sofa bed).

Consumers who have a LYCKSELE chair bed or sofa bed date stamped
0526 or earlier and which is missing safety covers for the
folding mechanism are advised to call or visit their local IKEA
store to receive free safety covers which fit over the folding
mechanism to prevent finger access.  LYCKSELE chair beds and
sofa beds produced since July 2005 (date stamp 0527 and later)
were sold with safety covers.

For more information, consumers can call IKEA at (888) 966-4532
anytime or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.ikea-usa.com


JANSSEN-ORTHO: Faces Suit in Canada Over Contraceptive Patch
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Siskinds, LLP has launched a class action against
Janssen-Ortho Inc. over its contraceptive skin patch Ortho Evra.

The Statement of Claim in the suit alleges that Janssen-Ortho
Inc. failed to adequately warn patients and physicians that
Ortho Evra has been associated with an increased risk of
developing blood clots, pulmonary emboli, strokes, heart attacks
and/or deep vein thrombosis.

Michael Peerless, a partner with Siskinds, LLP, says "We believe
that through this lawsuit Janssen-Ortho will be required to
explain to Canadian consumers what it knew about the risks
associated with Ortho Evra and when it first became aware of
those risks.  In this case, as with all of these types of cases
our firm is involved in, we are concerned about whether
Canadians were adequately warned of the risks associated with
using the product in question."

Ortho Evra was first approved for marketing and sale in Canada
as a contraceptive patch in 2002.  Since then, sales of Ortho
Evra have been strong.

On Nov. 10, 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
announced new prescribing information for the brand of Ortho
Evra patch marketed in the U.S.  The U.S. prescribing
information was revised to include a new, bolded warning
alerting health care providers that the amount of estrogen
delivered through the skin produces a higher estrogen exposure
than when taking the typical birth control pill and that greater
exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of blood clots.

On Nov. 28, 2005, Health Canada issued a warning advising
consumers that it is in the process of reviewing whether any
product labeling changes are required for the Canadian version
of Ortho Evra.

On March 30, 2006, Health Canada issued an advisory that it is
currently reviewing the results of two studies looking at the
risk of serious side effects when using Ortho Evra and
continuing to monitor the safety of using Ortho Evra.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Michael Peerless of Siskinds LLP, Siskinds Desmeules,
         43 Rue Buade, Bur 320, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, G1R
         4A2, Phone: (519) 672-2121 (Ext. 369) or 519-660-7866,
         E-mail: mike.peerless@siskinds.com;

     (2) Claude Desmeules, Phone: (418) 694-2009; and

     (3) Ortho Evra Case Information, Phone: 1-800-461-6166, Web
         site: http://www.classaction.ca.


KMART CORP: Colo. Court Approves $13M Disability Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado approved a
$13 million settlement reached between Kmart Corp. and disabled
shoppers in a lawsuit over access at its stores, according to
The Associated Press.

Announced by both parties in March, the agreement also gives the
company about seven-and-a-half years to bring its stores
nationwide into compliance with federal standards for
merchandise, counters, restrooms, fitting rooms and parking
lots.  The $13 million includes $8 million in cash and $5
million in gift cards.  

Plaintiffs' attorney, Amy F. Robertson, said that the settlement
would be distributed to plaintiffs in states whose laws have
minimum damages for failing to comply with disability access
rules.  Those states are California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Texas.  

She added that the most an individual could receive would range
from $100 in Colorado to $8,000 in California, depending on each
state's laws.

Carrie Ann Lucas, who uses a wheelchair because of a type of
muscular dystrophy, filed the suit in Oct. 1, 1999.  

Kmart, a subsidiary of Illinois-based Sears Holdings Corp., also
agreed to pay $3.6 million in attorney fees, according to Judge
John L. Kane's approval order.

The suit is "Lucas, et al. v. Kmart Corp., Case No. 1:99-cv-
01923-JLK-CBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge John L. Kane with referral to
Judge Craig B. Shaffer.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Wayne Breeskin of Arc of Denver, Inc., 1905
         Sherman Street, #300 Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-831-
         7733, Fax: 303-839-5178, E-mail:
         mbreeskin@arcofdenver.org;

     (2) Amy Farr Robertson of Fox & Robertson, P.C., 910 16th
         Street, #610 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-595-
         9700, Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail: arob@foxrob.com; and

     (3) Bill Lann Lee of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94111, U.S.A, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008,
         E-mail: blee@lchb.com.

Representing the defendants are, Steven M. Kaufmann, David F.
McDowell and Robert A. Naeve of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Phone:
303-592-2236, 213-892-5383 and 949-251-7500, Fax: 303-592-1510,
213-892-5454 and 949-251-0900, E-mail: skaufmann@mofo.com,
dmcdowell@mofo.com and rnaeve@mofo.com.


MEIJER: Recalls Candleholders for Fire and Laceration Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 6,500
units of clear glass candleholders.

The company said the glue connecting the candleholder could fail
causing the candleholder to fall apart.  This poses a fire and
laceration hazard to consumers.  No injuries were reported.

The clear glass candleholders are vase-shaped and measure about
11-inches tall.  "At Home with Meijer" is printed on a label on
the bottom of the candleholders.

These clear glass candleholders were manufactured in China and
are being sold exclusively at Meijer stores in the Midwest from
September 2004 through November 2005 for about $8.

Pictures of the recalled candleholders:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06568a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06568b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled candleholders
immediately and return them to any Meijer store for a full
refund.

For more information, contact Meijer toll-free at (866) 280-8419
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.Meijer.com


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Broker Fee Agreements Suit Resumes in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action over commercial insurance commissions against
Marsh & McLennan Cos. resumes in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey with a hearing on defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The case pits 14 businesses, two municipalities and three
individuals against 78 commercial insurers and 37 brokers.  It
was slated for a haring last December, but was rescheduled
because of scheduling conflicts.

                       Case Background

Fourteen businesses were named in the insurance brokerage
antitrust lawsuit concerning allegations of rigging bids, fixing
prices, and steering business to insurers that paid fees hidden
from clients (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 28, 2006).

These cases alleged that defendants violated federal and various
state antitrust laws, as well as federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act, various state deceptive and unfair
practice laws and certain state laws governing fiduciary duties.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
consolidating most of these cases and transferring them to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Multidistrict litigation
filed a First Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
Complaint (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2006).

The complaint detailed a massive scheme by the defendants "to
manipulate the market for commercial insurance."

The complaint rehashes many of the allegations brought by New
York state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in his October 2004
lawsuit against Marsh Inc., which resulted in an $850 million
settlement.

It alleged, among other things, that the company inflated its
earnings by engaging in unsustainable business practices based
on contingent commissions.

The consolidated complaint further alleged, among other things,
that defendants deceived the investing public regarding the
company's business, operations, management, and the intrinsic
value of the company's stock, and caused the plaintiffs and
other members of the purported class to purchase the company's
securities at artificially inflated prices.

Insurer defendants include:

     -- American International Group Inc.;
     -- Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.; and
     -- Ace Ltd.

Broker defendants include:

     -- Marsh & McLennan cos. Inc.;
     -- Aon Corp.;
     -- Willis Group Holdings Ltd.; and
     -- Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

The suit is "QLM Associates, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.
et. al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05184-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith
S. Hochberg, with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrew T. Berry of McCarter & English LLP, Four Gateway
         Center, 100 Mulberry Street, PO BOX 652, Newark, NJ
         07101-0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
         aberry@mccarter.com;

     (2) Steven Paul del Mauro of Mcelroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
         Carpenter, LLP, 1300 Mount Kemble Ave., PO BOX 2075,
         Morristown, NJ 07962-2075, Phone: (973) 993-8100, Fax:
         (973) 425-0161, E-mail: sdelmauro@mdmc-law.com;

     (3) William P. Deni, Jr. of Gibbons, del Deo, Dolan,
         Griffinger, Vecchione, PC, One Riverfront Plaza,
         Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 596-4500, E-mail:
         wdeni@gibbonslaw.com; and

     (4) Melissa E. Flax of Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, 5
         Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 994-
         1700, E-mail: mflax@carellabyrne.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Lynne Calkins of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1600, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
         mcalkins@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Bryan L. Clobes of Miller, Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One
         Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Sts., Suite 1700,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 864-2800, E-mail:
         bclobes@millerfaucher.com.


MONTANA: Court Reverses Ruling in Homeowners Blackfeet Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal
of a 2002 civil suit filed against the Blackfeet Indian
Reservation, but agreed with the dismissal of a suit against the
federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, according
to Associated Press.

The class actions were filed in 2002 by eight Blackfeet tribal
members over allegations that substandard homes built for them
some 30 years ago made residents ill (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 6, 2004).

Plaintiffs Martin Marceau, Candice LaMott, Julie and Joseph
Rattler Jr., John Edwards Jr., Deana Mountain Chief and Gary and
Mary Grant filed the suit on behalf of owners of 153 Housing and
Urban Development homes that were built with wooden foundations
on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the late 1970s and early
1980s.

The residents said the unstable foundations caused structural
damage and water leaks, which in some instances have prompted
the explosive growth of mildew and toxic molds.  Wood used for
the foundations was also treated with a highly-toxic
preservative, chromated copper arsenate, a substance the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has since decided should be
removed from commercial sale because of health concerns.

The plaintiffs argue that Housing and Urban Development and
Blackfeet Housing officials built and arranged the mortgaging of
the homes under Housing and Urban Development's Mutual Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program while knowing that the
foundations were inferior and potentially harmful.  

In January 2004, Judge Sam Haddon of U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana ruled that the Housing and Urban Development
couldn't be sued under the various laws that apply to the
housing projects and that the Blackfeet Housing Authority had
"sovereign immunity."  But the appellate court said on July 21
that the housing authority had forfeited its immunity when it
was first established by the Blackfeet Tribe as a separate
entity in 1977.

The ruling remands the case against the housing authority to the
Montana district court.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified monetary damages and for the
homes to be repaired or replaced -- an undertaking that was
estimated to cost $30 million in 2004.

The suit is "Marceau, et al. v. Blackfeet Housing, et al., Case
No. 4:02-cv-00073-SHE."  Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Timothy J. Cavan at the Office Of The U.S. Attorney
         P.O. Box 1478, Billings, MT 59103-1478, Phone: 406-657-
         6101, Fax: 657-6058, E-mail: Tim.Cavan@usdoj.gov; and

     (2) Patrick L. Smith at Smith & Doherty, PC, 815 E Front
         Suite 3, Missoula, MT 59802, Phone: 406-721-1070.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Towe at Towe Ball Enright Mackey &
         Sommerfeld, 2525 Sixth Avenue North, P.O. Box 30457
         Billings, MT 59107-0457, Phone: 406-248-7337, Fax: 248-
         2647, E-mail: towe@tbems.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey A. Simkovic, Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 1077
         Billings, MT 59103, Phone: 406-248-7000.


NEW CENTURY: Settlement in Del. Shareholder Suit Deemed Final  
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Equity Holdings Corp. said that the Delaware
Chancery Court's order approving the settlement agreement with
all of the parties to the shareholder lawsuit filed by Craig
Davis became final and non-appealable as of July 25, 2006.  The
time for appeal of the court's order expired on July 24, 2006.

The company also announced that its board of directors set July
28, 2006 as the record date for determining which shareholders
will be entitled to participate in a distribution of the
settlement fund, after payment of certain legal fees and
expenses.

Company shareholders of record as of July 28 will receive the
distribution.  The payment date and per share amount of the
distribution will be finalized following the actual funding of
the settlement fund.  Payment of the distribution is expected to
be made on Aug. 11, 2006 or a date as soon thereafter as
practicable.

New Century Equity Holdings Corp. (OTC: NCEH), formerly Billing
Concepts, -- http://www.newcenturyequity.com-- is based in  
Dallas, Texas and is an investor in technology companies.


NEW JERSEY: Discovery Ongoing in Lawsuit Over Burlington Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery period in a consolidated class action filed by
flood victims along Rancocas Creek is set to end in September,
the Medford Central Record reports citing one of the attorneys
representing a group of property owner plaintiffs.

Attorney Edward Petkevis of Roebling said a monthly status
hearing is scheduled Aug. 4, 2006 before retired Superior Court
Judge Harold B. Wells III, who was assigned by current Superior
Court Assignment Judge John A. Sweeney to oversee the case.  
Judge Wells has set a target date of next summer for the case to
be completed, Mr. Petkevis said.

If a settlement is not reached a trial is expected next year,
the report said.

Superior Court Appellate Judge Harold Wells consolidated three
flood lawsuits into one class action last year (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).  Two of the suits were filed on
behalf of residents seeking compensation for damages sustained
during the floods in Burlington County.  A third "companion"
lawsuit names utility companies as defendants, including Public
Service Electric & Gas, Verizon, South Jersey Gas and Jersey
Central Power and Light, Mr. Petkevis said.

Plaintiffs allege dam failures or water spilling over dams
caused flood damage on July 12 to 13, 2004, when up to 13 inches
of rain fell in less than 24 hours.  It accused defendants of
not properly maintaining the dams.

The judge ruled then that more property owners may file for
damages if they live in the Rancocas Creek watershed, including
the northern and two southern branches of the creek.  Judge
Wells also appointed three plaintiff lawyers: Ed Petkevis, Carlo
Scaramella and Ron Heksch.

Mr. Petkevis said about 200 plaintiffs are included and the
overall class is estimated at as many as 800 property owners.  
Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of funds that were paid out
under the National Flood Insurance program, according to Mr.
Petkevis.  Total damages are estimated at between $10 million
and $250 million.

Previously, municipal government lawyers argued that not all
properties were affected by both rain and dam water.  
  
Among the defendants are:

     -- Medford,
     -- Evesham and Medford Lakes,
     -- Medford Lakes Colony Club,
     -- YMCA Camp Ockanickon,
     -- Girl Scouts of Camden County,
     -- Evesham Municipal Utility Authority,
     -- Medford Board of Education, and
     -- several homeowners associations

Also representing the plaintiffs are attorney Carlo Scaramella
and the firm Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla of Red Bank, N.J.  On
the Net: http://www.ghclaw.com/


PACIFIC COAST: Settles Roof Shingles Litigation in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached regarding the PABCO HO-25/HZ-25 Roof
Shingle Litigation, filed against Pacific Coast Building
Products, Inc., d/b/a PABCO Roofing Products (PABCO), according
to Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC.

On May 5, 2006, the Superior Court for the State of Washington
preliminarily approved a settlement of a class action affecting
current or former owners of homes or other structures on which
PABCO HO-25 or HZ-25 Roof Shingles have been installed.

The lawsuit, which the settlement resolves, claimed that PABCO
HO-25 and HZ-25 Roof Shingles installed and incorporated on
structures are defective and will exhibit fissures or crazing
(surface cracking in random directions), or otherwise
deteriorate or fail, and may cause leaks and/or property damage
to roofs and structures.  PABCO vigorously denies that it has
done anything wrong and disputes each of plaintiffs' claims.

A copy of the settlement notice is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?e8e

Class Members include anyone who owns or has owned a home or
other structure on which PABCO HO-25, or Horizon, asphalt
roofing shingles are or have been installed since Oct. 1, 1984.

Class members have until Aug. 31, 2006 to request exclusion from
the settlement class.

A hearing will be held on Sept. 15, 2006 before the Honorable
Suzanne Barnett at the King County Courthouse, 516 3rd Avenue,
Room W905, Seattle, WA 98104 to consider whether to grant final
approval to the proposed Settlement and class counsel's request
for attorneys' fees and costs, totaling $2,275,000.

On Nov. 10, 2003, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC filed a class
action against PABCO, a manufacturer of roofing shingles
composed of fiberglass and asphalt.  PABCO manufactured the
shingles from 1984 through 1996.  PABCO offered a 25-year
limited warranty guaranteeing that the Shingles "are free from
actual manufacturing defects."

The class action, filed on behalf of thousands of PABCO roofing
shingles consumers in Western States, alleges that the Shingles
crack, discolor, and otherwise fail well before the warranty
period.

The suit alleges actual or pending property damage resulting
from the premature break down of the company's Pabco HO-25, also
known as HZ-25 and Horizon, roofing shingles.

It sought monetary damages for class members for costs related
to PABCO HO-25 AND HZ-25 roof shingles.

For more details, contact:

     (1) PABCO HO-25/HZ-25 Roof Shingle Settlement, Independent
         Administrator, P.O. Box 91124, Seattle, WA 98111-9224,
         Phone: 1-800-385-0133, Web site:
         http://www.HO25Settlement.com;and

     (2) Max E. Jacobs, Esq., of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC,
         1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200, Seattle, Washington
         98101, Phone: 206-682-5600, Fax: 206-682-2992.


PARMALAT S.P.A.: Could Face Shareholders' Lawsuit in S.D. N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parmalat S.p.A., the Italian dairy and foods group that
collapsed in 2003 as a result of financial fraud, may face a
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York after a judge granted a motion to
extend the case to the re-launched company, known as "New
Parmalat," according to The Financial Times.

The decision by Judge Lewis Kaplan was handed down last week.  
It essentially granted a motion by plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that broadens the list of defendants to include "New
Parmalat."

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Parmalat securities between Jan. 5, 1999 and Dec. 18,
2003.  

The class alleges that, for over a decade, corporate insiders,
as well as outside accountants, banks and counsel, misled
investors in one of the largest and most egregious corporate
financial frauds ever.

The company and its auditors, including Grant Thornton and
Deloitte Touche, investment banks Citigroup, CSFB -- now called
Credit Suisse -- and Bank of America, as well as numerous
company executives were named as defendants in the case.

Parmalat has several weeks to respond.  However, it could take
months before the court decides whether to grant an order of
class certification.

The primary plaintiff is the pension fund Hermes Focus Asset
Management.  However, European asset management funds and U.S.
individual investors are also listed as plaintiffs.

If approved, the class action would encompass institutional
investors and individuals worldwide.  It is being led by law
firms Grant Eisenhofer and Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
PLLC.

Stuart Grant, a managing partner at Grant Eisenhofer recently
told The Financial Times that since the complaint was a pre-
bankruptcy claim, and thus targets the company's previous
ownership, this means any other Parmalat creditor would treat
any damages awarded like a claim.

Following its sudden financial collapse, Parmalat announced that
its audited financial statements had been understated by nearly
$10 billion and that shareholder equity had been overstated by
$16.4 billion.

The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:04-md-01653-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) 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, Web site: jdevore@cmht.com; and

     (2) 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: sgrant@gelaw.com.


RAMAR FOODS: Recalls Hot Dogs for Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Ramar Foods Corp. of Pittsburg, California, in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 5.25 pounds of
hot dogs that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The hotdogs are in 12-ounce packages of "Orientex Manila Style
Hot Dogs."  Each package bears the establishment number "Est.
17480" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as the
product code, "065000717."

The hot dogs were produced on July 17, 2006 and were distributed
to a retail outlet in San Leandro, California.

The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological testing.
FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of this product.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.  
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  However,
listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as
infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or
undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Quality Control Manager Edith Mendoza at (925)
432-4267.  


ROYAL AHOLD: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Appeal Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Drs. W.C.M. Oud voluntarily withdrew with prejudice his appeal
against the final order and judgment by Judge Catherine C. Blake
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,
approving Royal Ahold N.V.'s agreement with the lead plaintiffs
to settle the securities class action, "In re Royal Ahold N.V.
Securities & ERISA Litigation."

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

                        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 settlement of the suit 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.  

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.


ROYAL DUTCH: Allots $500M to Settle Reserves Misstatement Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Dutch Shell plc has set aside $500 million to settle
outstanding class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New York over its misstatement of reserves in
2004.

A Shell spokesman told Dow Jones Newswires the suits were two
separate actions filed in the U.S. on behalf of foreign and U.S.
shareholders.

     * One was brought by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP and 25
       other Dutch public pension funds in January; and

     * the other is a separate consolidated class action
       filed in 2004 and led by Pennsylvania State retirement
       funds.

Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer denied that the accounting
provision indicated that Shell was close to securing a deal with
shareholders over the scandal, according to The Telegraph.

                Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel       


On June 30, 2004, Chief Judge John W. Bissell of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP clients:

     * the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, and
     * the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement
       System (collectively, the PA Funds),

as lead plaintiffs in the Royal Dutch/Shell Transport securities
fraud class action.  

Judge Bissell based his ruling on a combination of factors,
including the amount of losses that the PA Funds sustained as a
result of their Royal Dutch and Shell Transport Investments, the
characterization of their claims as "typical" of those of other
class members, and their ability to "vigorously" litigate the
case on behalf of the class.

The court also granted the PA Funds' motion to appoint Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP as sole Lead Counsel for the class of
Royal Dutch/Shell Transport securities holders.  

The Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, which is a
public pension fund system organized for the benefit of the
current and retired public employees of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, has total assets of approximately $25 billion.  
The Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System,
which is a public pension fund system organized for the benefit
of the current and retired public school employees of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has an investment portfolio of
approximately $52 billion, and a membership of more than 248,000
active school employees and 150,000 retirees.

              Amended Class Action Names PwC, KPMG

Bernstein Liebhard filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on Sept. 13, 2004, against the Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., the "Shell" Transport and Trading Co., plc, several current
and former senior executives of the Cos., and the Cos.' outside
auditors, which include, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and KPMG
Accountants N.V.

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased Royal Dutch ordinary shares and Shell
Transport ordinary shares and American Depository Receipts
during the class period April 8, 1999 through and including
March 18, 2004.

Royal Dutch and Shell Transport are the parent companies of the
Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies, a group of energy
companies with operations in approximately 145 countries.  Royal
Dutch has a 60% interest in the Group and Shell Transport has a
40% interest in the Group.  Shares in the parent companies are
traded on stock exchanges in Europe and the U.S. Beginning on
Jan. 9, 2004, the group made a series of announcements
concerning the restatement of approximately 4.47 billion barrels
of oil equivalent (boe) of proved hydrocarbon reserves, or 23%
of its proved reserves for 2002.  In November, 2004, the Group
announced that it expected to reduce its 2003 proved reserves by
an additional 900 boe.

The lead plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the
defendants overstated the group's proved reserves by billions of
boe, overstated the group's reserves replacement ratio, and
overstated the Group's future cash flows by over $100 billion.  
As a consequence of the foregoing, defendants made materially
false and misleading statements to the investing public that
caused the price of the companies' securities to be artificially
inflated.  When the truth was fully disclosed in March 2004, the
companies lost billions of dollars in market value.

The consolidated, amended complaint is In re: Royal Dutch/Shell
Transport Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-374 (JWB)
filed before Judge John W. Bissell.

For more information, contact Stanley D. Bernstein, Keith M.
Fleischman, Jeffrey M. Haber, U. Seth Ottensoser, Mark T.
Millkey at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St.
New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414.


T-MOBILE USA: Mich. Court Denies Arbitration Motion in "Wong"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
denied a motion to compel arbitration in the purported class
action against T-Mobile USA, Inc., which is accused of
overcharging customers due to a billing system error that has
yet to be resolved, The Legal Intelligencer reports.

The suit, filed on Oct. 12, 2005 by Chimicles & Tikellis, names
only one plaintiff as of the moment, Chun Wing Wong.  It has
yet-to-be certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges:

      -- violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act;

      -- breach of contract/express warranty;

      -- fraud;

      -- unjust enrichment/restitution/disgorgement; and

      -- for injunctive and declatory relief including
         reformations of contract and for an accounting.

The case is based upon one T-Mobile customer's problem with
excess charges made by the company even though he paid an
additional $4.99 a month for a plan that should have covered
those charges for Web and e-mail use, according to court
documents.

Court documents revealed that the company filed the motion
because it had an arbitration provision in its contract, and
within that provision, it added a class action waiver that would
not allow class actions at arbitration.

Steven A. Schwartz of Chimicles & Tikellis and E. Powell Miller
of Miller Shea, another attorney for the plaintiff, argued
against moving the case to arbitration.

Though there were a number of precedents backing up both
parties, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds found that the proposed class in
this case would lose the ability to vindicate its statutory
rights under the state's Consumer Protection Act if the case
went to arbitration.  Thus, judge denied motion citing that the
contract prohibits class-wide arbitration.  

In the ruling, the judge pointed out that the company, in
writing, admitted to the plaintiff that it had an internal
system error that caused the continued excess billing.

Mr. Wong's total complaint is for less than $20, but Mr.
Schwartz told The Legal Intelligencer that given the company's
written admittance that it had an internal problem, there are
probably several other people in Mr. Wong's situation.

The complaint can be viewed free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e84

The suit is "Wong v. T-Mobile USA, Incorporated, Case No. 2:05-
cv-73922-NGE-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven A. Schwartz of Chimicles & Tikellis, 361 W.
         Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, PA 19041, US, Phone: 610-
         642-8500, Fax: 610-649-3633, E-mail:
         steveschwartz@chimicles.com; and

     (2) E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, 950 W.
         University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307-1887,
         Phone: 248-841-2200, E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com.  

Representing the defendants is Andrew J. McGuinness of Dykema
Gossett, 2723 S. State Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, MI 48104,
Phone: 734-214-7660, E-mail: amcguinness@dykema.com.


UNTIED STATES: Securities Fraud Suits Down in H1, Research Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The annualized number of "traditional" securities fraud class
actions filed from January through June 2006 decreased 31
percent compared to 2005 levels, according to a new, mid-year
report released by the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research.  
The actual number fell from 179 filings to an annualized
estimate of only 123, based on 61 filings through June 30, 2006.

According to the report, the number of filings in the first half
of 2006 is at the lowest level for any six month period since
1996, and on an annualized basis is 36 percent below the 1996-
2005 historical average of 194.  The study also compared the
number of filings over the first six months of 2006 to the
average number of filings over all semi-annual periods beginning
in January 1997.  A t-test indicates that the number of filings
over the first six months of 2006 is lower than the average
during 1997 to 2005 and the difference is statistically
significant at a 5% confidence level.

The mid-year study also finds a large decline in market
capitalization losses related to all securities fraud class
actions filed so far in 2006.  The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL)
decreased 55 percent on an annualized basis from $100 billion in
2005 to $22 billion ($45 billion on an annualized basis) in the
first half of 2006.  The maximum dollar loss (MDL) decreased 44
percent on an annualized basis from $456 billion in 2005 to $127
billion ($255 billion on an annualized basis) in the first half
of 2006.

The Clearinghouse's DDL Index is the running sum of "disclosure
dollar losses" for all class actions filed year-to-date.  The
MDL Index is the running sum of "maximum dollar losses" for all
class actions filed year-to-date.

The decreases in total DDL and MDL are reflective of the lower
number of filings and lower market capitalization losses
associated with the average/median filing.

"We're halfway through 2006 and already we're witnessing
evidence consistent with a slowdown in the volume of federal
class action litigation activity," said Stanford Law School
Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse and former Commissioner of the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

"While we lack the data necessary to determine the precise cause
of the slowdown, the most intriguing hypothesis is that
extensive and expensive corporate efforts to improve governance
and accounting have reduced plaintiffs' ability to allege
fraud."

Dr. John Gould, vice president of Cornerstone Research and major
contributor to the study, suggests caution in interpreting the
recent slowdown in filings: "Although there is no doubt that
there has been a considerably lower level of filing activity
over the last year, it is still too early to tell whether this
represents a permanent shift."

Despite the recent wave of public attention surrounding the
alleged backdating of options at more than sixty publicly traded
companies, the impact of the scandal has not been as large as
some might expect.

In fact, only eight federal class actions had been identified
alleging illegal backdating behavior by June 30, 2006: Comverse
Technology, Inc.; Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation;
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.; American Tower Corporation; Brooks
Automation, Inc.; KLA-Tencor Corporation; Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc.; and Mercury Interactive Corporation.

Since the close of the report's sample period, two more issuers
have been named in backdating class actions: Juniper Networks,
Inc. and Rambus, Inc. bringing the total number of backdating
related class actions to 10.

Professor Grundfest notes several reasons why class action
complaints in backdating situations are not more common:

     -- many disclosures relating to allegations of backdating
        are not accompanied by statistically significant stock
        price declines;

     -- the alleged options backdating activities occurred so
        long ago that the statute of limitations defense may be
        effective;

     -- in some situations, the uncertainties associated with
        the application of appropriate accounting principles may
        cause potential plaintiffs to recognize that they will
        have difficulty alleging that there was an intention to
        commit fraud; and

     -- most of the litigation is being filed in state court
        through derivative actions because these actions do not,
        as a practical matter, require significant stock drops
        as a predicate to filing, and it may be easier to allege
        a violation of a fiduciary duty in many of these cases
        than to demonstrate a willful fraud.

The full text of the 2006 mid-year report can be found on the
Clearinghouse site, http://securities.stanford.edu.


WORLDCOM INC: SEC Issues Judgments Against Former Executives
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil fraud action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Mark P. Abide, the former director
of Property Accounting for WorldCom, Inc., for his role in the
WorldCom Inc. fraud and for illegally selling WorldCom stock in
January and February 2002 based on information he possessed
about the fraud and the company's true financial condition.

Mr. Abide has agreed to settle the matter by consenting, without
admitting or denying the allegations in the commission's
complaint (http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?e83)to the entry of  
a final judgment enjoining him from violating the anti-fraud and
other provisions of the federal securities laws, requiring him
to pay $57,947 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest of $12,912
and an insider trading civil money penalty of $57,947.

Mr. Abide also has agreed to be suspended from practicing before
the commission as an accountant with the right to request his
reinstatement after five years.

The commission's action against Mr. Abide is its seventh civil
action related to the WorldCom fraud.  The complaint filed
alleges from the first quarter of 2001 through the first quarter
of 2002, that Mr. Abide made, and directed others to make,
improper accounting entries into WorldCom's depreciable asset
accounts in order to conceal improperly capitalized expenses.

In January and February 2002, while the fraud was being carried
out by Mr. Abide and others, Mr. Abide sold 6,728 shares of
WorldCom stock -- 99% of the WorldCom stock he owned -- avoiding
losses of nearly $58,000.

If the settlement is approved by the court, Mr. Abide would be
enjoined from future violations of the antifraud, reporting,
books and records and internal controls provisions of the
federal securities laws-Section 17(a) of the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2) and 13(b)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1,
13a-13, and 13b2-1 thereunder.

The commission also announced that it filed consents and
proposed final judgments as to monetary relief in the
commission's civil actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against former WorldCom Chief
Financial Officer Scott Sullivan and former WorldCom accountants
Buford Yates, Jr., Betty Vinson and Troy Normand.

Mr. Sullivan consented to the entry of a final judgment holding
him liable for $10 million in disgorgement, representing a
retention bonus Mr. Sullivan received in 2000, and $3,591,889 in
prejudgment interest.  If approved by the court, the proposed
Final Judgment as to Monetary Relief, however, would waive
payment of the disgorgement and prejudgment interest and would
not impose a civil penalty based on Mr. Sullivan's demonstrated
inability to pay.  

In 2005, Mr. Sullivan settled the WorldCom Securities Class
Action Litigation by, among other things, surrendering the
proceeds from the sale of his Boca Raton, Florida home, and his
WorldCom 401(k) account.  In "U.S. v. Scott D. Sullivan, 02 Cr
1144 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y.)," a parallel criminal action filed by the
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Sullivan
received a five-year prison sentence, but was not ordered to pay
restitution or a fine.

Previously, the court issued judgments of permanent injunction
against Sullivan, imposing the full injunctive relief sought by
the commission and prohibiting him from acting as an officer or
director of any public company (Litigation Release No. 18605).

Mr. Sullivan consented to the entry of the initial judgment as
well, without admitting or denying any of the allegations of the
Commission's complaint against him.  In addition, in separate
administrative proceedings, Mr. Sullivan agreed to be suspended
from practicing before the Commission as an accountant (In the
Matter of Scott D. Sullivan, Rel. 33-8402, AAE Rel. 1977, File
No. 3-11435).

Mr. Yates consented to the entry of a final judgment holding him
liable for $263,809 in disgorgement, representing a retention
bonus and other payments Yates received in 2000, and $94,757 in
prejudgment interest.  If approved by the court, the proposed
Final Judgment as to Monetary Relief, however, would waive
payment of the disgorgement and prejudgment interest and would
not impose a civil penalty based on Mr. Yates' demonstrated
inability to pay.

The proposed Final Judgments as to Monetary Relief against Betty
Vinson and Troy Normand, if approved by the court, would not
find Mr. Vinson or Ms. Normand liable for disgorgement since
neither defendant received ill-gotten gains from their
participation in the fraud.  In addition, the proposed Final
Judgments would not impose civil money penalties against Ms.
Vinson or Mr. Normand based on their demonstrated inability to
pay.

Previously, the court issued judgments of permanent injunction
against Mr. Yates, Ms. Vinson and Mr. Normand, imposing the full
injunctive relief sought by the commission and, with respect to
Yates, prohibiting him from acting as an officer or director of
any public company (Litigation Release Nos. 17842 and 17883).  
The three defendants consented to the entry of the initial
judgments as well, without admitting or denying any of the
allegations of the commission's complaints against them.  In
addition, in separate administrative proceedings, Mr. Yates and
Ms. Vinson agreed to be suspended from practicing before the
Commission as accountants (In the Matter of Buford Yates, Jr.,
Rel. 33-8156, AAE Rel. 1684, File No. 3-10964; and In the Matter
of Betty Vinson, CPA, Rel. 33-8158, AAE Rel. 1686, File No. 3-
10963).

On July 26, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Judgment as to Monetary
Relief in the Commission's civil action against David F. Myers,
former controller of WorldCom, Inc., in which the court found
Myers liable for approximately $1 million in disgorgement,
representing bonuses Myers received during the pendency of the
fraud.  The court, however, waived payment of the disgorgement
due to Mr. Myers's demonstrated inability to pay, and did not
impose a civil penalty.  Mr. Myers consented to the entry of the
judgment against him.

The court issued a judgment of permanent injunction against Mr.
Myers on Nov. 14, 2002, imposing the full injunctive relief
sought by the commission and prohibiting Mr. Myers from acting
as an officer or director of any public company.  Mr. Myers
consented to the entry of this initial judgment as well, without
admitting or denying any of the allegations of the commission's
complaint (Litigation Release No. 17842).  In addition, in a
separate administrative proceeding filed in November 2002, Mr.
Myers agreed to be suspended from practicing before the
Commission as an accountant (In the Matter of David F. Myers,
Rel. 33-8157, AAE Rel. 1685, File No. 3-10965).

The commission's complaints filed against Mr. Abide, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Myers, Mr. Yates, Ms. Vinson, Mr. Normand and
former WorldCom chief executive officer, Bernard J. Ebbers
(Litigation Release No. 19301), allege that the seven former
WorldCom officers and accountants caused numerous fraudulent
adjustments and entries in WorldCom's books and records, often
in the hundreds of millions of dollars, in furtherance of a
scheme to make the company's publicly reported financial results
appear to meet Wall Street's expectations.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The commission's investigation into matters related to the
WorldCom financial fraud is continuing.

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Cotchett, Pitre Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of FoxHollow Technologies,
Inc. between May 13, 2005 and Jan. 26, 2006.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that FoxHollow, and certain of its
officers and directors, violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

FoxHollow engages in the manufacture and sale of a medical
device, called the SilverHawk, used to treat artery disease.

Plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented or concealed adverse facts, including that
FoxHollow's chairman had directed management to acquire another
private company, called Lumend, for his own benefit and
ultimately caused the company to terminate certain senior
management based on their refusal to go along with the
acquisition.

When FoxHollow announced that members of its senior management,
including the chief executive and, chief operations officer and
vice president of sales were being replaced, in December 2005
and January 2006, the price of FoxHollow's stock dropped nearly
50% on extremely heavy volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of FoxHollow common stock during the class period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Cotchett Pitre, which has extensive
experience prosecuting class actions and representing investors
in matters relating to alleged securities fraud.

Interested parties may move no later Oct. 28, 2006, for
appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, 840
Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010, Phone:
650-697-6000, Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com.  


HCA INC: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, filed a securities class action in
Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, on behalf of
owners of the common stock of HCA Inc.

The complaint alleges that HCA and Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co., and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity executed
a definitive merger agreement under which affiliates of the
private equity sponsors and HCA Founder Dr. Thomas F. Frist, Jr.
will acquire HCA in a transaction valued at approximately $33
billion, including the assumption or repayment of approximately
$11.7 billion of debt.

The complaint further alleges that the price of $51.00 per share
offered to the class members is unconscionable, unfair and
grossly inadequate consideration and has been the object of
manipulation because, among other things:

      -- the intrinsic value of the stock of HCA is materially
         in excess of $51.00 per share, giving due consideration
         to the possibilities of growth and profitability of HCA
         in light of its business, earnings and earnings power,
         present and future;

      -- the $51.00 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public stockholders of HCA;
         and

      -- the $51.00 per share price is not the result of arm's
         length negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by HCA to
         "cap" the market price of HCA stock, as part of a plan
         for defendants to obtain complete ownership of HCA
         assets and business at the lowest possible price.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP, Phone: (212) 213-6222, Fax: (212) 213-9405, E-
mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html.  


JOS A BANK: Schatz & Nobel Announces Filing of Md. Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (JOSB) between Jan. 5, 2006 and
June 7, 2006.

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

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- the company had overinvested in inventories of fall
         clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock
         inventories of seasonal merchandise that carried over
         into the first quarter of 2006;

      -- that the company resorted to very aggressive
         promotional pricing in February and March 2006 which
         deeply discounted the prices of the merchandise in
         order to move the merchandise and make room for new
         seasonal merchandise; and

      -- the company's gross profit margins were substantially
         reduced in February and March 2006 by reason of the
         inventory and pricing actions taken by defendants which
         caused the company's profit margins and profits in
         February and March 2006 to shrink dramatically even as
         sales revenues increased, which represented an extreme
         departure from Jos. A. Bank's historical pattern.

On June 8, 2006, defendants announced that net income for the
first quarter of 2006 had fallen 13% even as sales revenues
increased 18%.  On this news, the company's common stock fell
29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per share on June 8,
2006.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 25, 2006, to request
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Aug. Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has set a deadline of Aug. 16, 2006 for investors to file
applications to serve as lead plaintiff in the consolidated
class action against Northfield Laboratories, Inc. and certain
of its officers and directors.

According to one law firm involved in the case, investors who
purchased common stock and/or options of the company during the
period between Dec. 22, 2003 and Feb. 21, 2006, have until Aug.
16, 2006 to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the
consolidated class action pending against the company.

The complaint charges the company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by virtue of the company's issuance of a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the safety
and clinical history of the company's blood substitute PolyHeme
during the class period.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose that a significant portion of patients taking PolyHeme
in a clinical study suffered heart attacks and two patients
died, within seven days of taking PolyHeme -- as compared to
zero heart attacks from patients receiving real blood in the
same study.

The suit is "Topaz Realty Corp. et al v. Northfield Laboratories
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01493," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge George
M. Marovich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom of Pomerantz Haudek Block
         Grossman & Gross, LLP, One North LaSalle Street, Suite
         2225, Chicago, IL 60602-3908, Phone: (312) 377-1181, E-
         mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com; and

     (2) Anthony F. Fata of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
         North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602,
         Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail: afata@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendants are Ronald L. Marmer, James Kevin
McCall and Suzanne Jean Prysak of Jenner & Block, LLP, One IBM
Plaza, 330 North Wabash, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-
9350, E-mail: rmarmer@jenner.com, jmccall@jenner.com and
sprysak@jenner.com.


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector, Roseman Notes Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., announces that
a securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc. between April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission during the class period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements that misrepresented these adverse facts:

      -- that Par was materially overstating its financial
         performance by failing to properly reserve for customer
         credits and uncollectible accounts. During the Class
         Period, Par overstated its income by at least $55
         million;

      -- that Par was failing to timely write-down the value of
         impaired inventory. During the Class Period, Par
         overstated the worth of its inventory by at least $15
         million; and

      -- based on the foregoing, Par's Class Period financial
         statements were materially false and misleading and not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The complaint further alleges that, on July 5, 2006, Par
admitted that its previously issued financial results and
financial statements materially overstated the company's
financial performance and that the company's financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP.

On that date, Par issued a press release announcing that it
would be restating its financial statements for fiscal years
2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006 to correct for "an
understatement of accounts receivable reserves which resulted
primarily from delays in recognizing customer credits and
uncollectible customer deductions."

The company reported that the effect of the restatement over
reported periods will be $55 million, that the company would
also write down $15 million in inventory and that its prior
financial statements "should not be relied upon."

In response to the announcement of the restatement, the price of
Par stock dropped from $18.25 per share to $13.47 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may, no later than Sept. 15, 2006 move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman, Phone: 888-844-
5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-
law.com.


RAMBUS INC: Federman Sherwood & Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwoof announces that a class action filed on July
17, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Rambus, Inc. was amended on July 21, 2006.

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 pursuant to the amended complaint is from Dec. 12, 2001
through July 18, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 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:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


SUNTERRA CORP: Zwerling, Schachter Notes Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Sunterra Corp. from April 15, 2003 to June 22,
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 materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period which caused
Sunterra's common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices.

These statements were allegedly materially false and misleading
when made because defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- the company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

      -- 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 earnings; and

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

On May 3, 2006, Sunterra announced that the company underpaid
withholding taxes in Spain on wages paid to employees of
Sunterra Europe. Sunterra made a payment of $3.1 million to
Spanish tax authorities.  

The company also admitted that Sunterra's audited financial
results for the fiscal years and related interim periods from
Dec. 31, 2002 through Dec. 31, 2005 and related financial
information in the company's periodic filings with the SEC would
be restated and should no longer be relied upon by investors.

On June 22, 2006, after the markets closed, Sunterra announced a
series of changes to the Company's senior management. On June
23, 2006, Sunterra's stock price closed at $7.17 a share, down
$1.50 a share, from the previous day's close.

The deadline to move the Court seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff is Sept. 11, 2006.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn,
Phone: 1-800-721-3900, E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com and
jnykolyn@zsz.com, Web site: http://www.zsz.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  * * *