CAR_Public/060801.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 151

                            Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Asks for Death Certificate of Plaintiff
AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles to Repair Mounting
AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case
BANK WEST: Mich. High Court Sends Fee Lawsuit to Kent County
BISSELL APARTMENTS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Molds Suit

CHALLENGER FINANCIAL: Aussie Advisers Plan Suit Over Collapse
CINCINNATI BELL: Pays $36M to Settle Broadwing Securities Suit
DEERE & CO: Recalls Utility Tractors with Faulty Seat Bracket
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Order to Disclose Victims' Names Remains
GATEWAY INC: Denies Claims in Calif. Suit Over Faulty Plasma TVs

GENERAC POWER: Recalls Plastic Fuel Tanks Due to Risk of Fire
HILLTOP STEAK: $2.5M Payout in Tips Lawsuit Likely, Report Says
HOSPITAL CORP: Kans. Consumer Suit Over Nurse Staffing Dismissed
INDIAN TRUST: OST Officers Accused of Giving Special Treatment
KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11

MEDIA COMPANIES: Faces California Labor Violations Lawsuit
NORBORD INC: Continues to Face OSB Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
OHIO: Youngstown Renews Bid to Intervene in Mahoning Jail Suit
PHILIP SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Nauseating Odor From Ga. Plant
SONY MUSIC: N.Y. Lawsuit Over Music Royalties to Cover Ringtones

SUNNY LAKE: Recalls Dried Potatoes with Undeclared Sulfites
UNITED STATES: Pre-1949 China Bondholders to Sue Rating Agencies
VISY INDUSTRIES: Trial on Price Fixing Suit to Start in 2007
YAHOO INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over Ads in Spyware, Inferior Sites


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HOME SOLUTIONS: Aug. 21 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Fraud Suit
SUNTERRA CORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Nev.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Announces Stock Suit Filing

ZALE CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Asks for Death Certificate of Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has ordered
plaintiffs' attorney in a class action against American Family
Insurance to send the company a death certificate of his client,
according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

Judge Stack gave the order at a July 26 case management
conference to hear the company's motion to overrule objections
to questions the company posed about the knowledge of the
plaintiff's attorney regarding the previously undisclosed death
of his client.

The company discovered several months ago that Manuel Hernandez
of Granite City, whom the judge certified last year as a
representative in a class action filed against the insurer, has
already been dead since January 2004.  The company's attorney
attached a copy of Mr. Hernandez's death certificate in a filing
in March.

Attorney Jeffrey Millar of the Lakin Law firm confirmed the
death of Mr. Hernandez, but has not answered questions that
American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it.  
Mr. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Judge Stack
that American Family Insurance should submit them not to Mr.
Hernandez's attorney but to Mr. Hernandez himself.

At the hearing, Judge Stack overruled the motion to compel Mr.
Millar to answer the questions, but he did order Mr. Millar to
send the death certificate.  

Mr. Millar notified Judge Stack that he would withdraw the
amended complaint submitted on May 19, and file a new one -- for
the fifth time -- with Helen Nemeth as class representative.  
Ms. Nemeth's claim arose from an auto accident in 2004,
according to Mr. Millar.

Mr. Millar has 21 days to file a proposed amended complaint.  A
hearing is set for Oct. 3, 2003 to decide if the Judge will
accept the complaint.

Mr. Millar told Judge Stack that he plans to make Mr.
Hernandez's estate a plaintiff in the case along with the Ohio
resident.

Mr. Hernandez filed a suit against American Family Insurance in
2000, claiming the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a
medical claim resulting from an auto accident.  He was certified
in 2002 by Judge Stack as class representative of everyone who
received improper payouts in the 17 states where American Family
Insurance did business back to 1990.  After the company filed
motions to decertify him, he was certified as plaintiffs'
representative in 12 states only in July 2005.

Representing the defendant are Anthony Martin and Timothy
Sansone at Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, 23 South 1st Street,
Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-397-2721;
800-225-5529, Web site: http://www.spvg.com.

Representing the plaintiff is Mr. Millar, associate at The Lakin
Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River,
Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127,
Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles to Repair Mounting
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Suzuki Motor Corp., of Brea, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 300 all-terrain vehicles.

The company said the mounting brackets used to secure the left-
front suspension arm to the ATV frame may not have been welded
completely and could break off during riding.  If this occurs
the rider could lose control of the ATV and crash, posing a risk
of serious injury or death.  No injuries were reported.

Only Suzuki 2006 model year LT-A400K6, LT-A400FK6 and LT-F400FK6
model ATVs with certain vehicle identification numbers are
included in this recall.  Refer to the vehicle identification
number (VIN) at http://www.suzukicycles.com.

The VIN is located on the left rear side of the ATV frame.  
Eiger, printed in white letters, and QuadRunner and Suzuki are
written on the side of the ATV.  These ATVs were sold in red,
black and green.

These all-terrain vehicles were manufactured in the U.S. and are
sold at Suzuki ATV dealers nationwide from May 2006 through July
2006 for about $4,500 for the LT-A400K6, $5,300 for the LT-
A400FK6 and $5,200 for the LT-F400FK6.

Pictures of the recalled vehicles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06566a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06566b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06566c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles immediately
and contact their local Suzuki ATV dealer to schedule an
appointment for a free repair.  Consumers with the recalled ATVs
are being sent direct notices from Suzuki.

For more information, contact Suzuki at (800) 444-5077 between
8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.suzukicycles.com.


AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
AT&T Litigation, Case No. 02-6801."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before July 12, 2006.  Deadline for submission of a
proof of claim is on Sept. 12, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased AT&T
Corp. common stock between Nov. 29, 1999 and Oct. 25, 2000,
inclusive, and/or AT&T Wireless Tracking and/or common stock
between May 2, 2000 and June 14, 2002.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=204.


BANK WEST: Mich. High Court Sends Fee Lawsuit to Kent County
------------------------------------------------------------
In a 4-3 decision, The Michigan Supreme Court sent a 1998 class
action against Bank West -- now known as Chemical Bank -- over
certain fees it levied, back to Kent County Circuit Court, The
Grand Rapids Press reports.

The decision comes after eight years of appeals and legal
wrangling over the statute of limitations to determine which
plaintiffs are eligible and what claims are appropriate in the
suit.
  
In 1998, attorney John Anding of Drew, Cooper & Anding, filed
the lawsuit on behalf of a Lowell homeowner who was charged a
$250 "document preparation fee" when she received a mortgage
from Bank West.

The lawsuit, now representing 556 people, alleges the fee
encompasses more than document preparation and therefore should
have been disclosed under the federal Truth in Lending Act.

Mr. Anding argued that if it's really a loan-processing fee, it
has to be in the finance charges, thus it should be included in
the interest rate quoted to customers.

When asked if the fee is still charged to mortgage customers,
David B. Ramaker, president of Midland-based Chemical Bank, said
no.  He explains that it always been the bank's contention that
it never did.

According to Mr. Anding, if his clients prevail in court, the
statute states they will be entitled to a minimum payment of
$500,000 divided among them, plus interest.

For more details, contact John E. Anding of Drew, Cooper &
Anding, Ledyard Building, Suite 300, 125 Ottawa Avenue, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503-2898, (Kent Co.), Phone: 616-454-
8300, Fax: 616-454-0036, Web site: http://www.dcadvocate.com/.


BISSELL APARTMENTS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Molds Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian of Madison County, Illinois denied
a motion to dismiss a suit filed over molds at Bissell
Apartments in Venice, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.  At
a July 7 hearing, plaintiff lawyer Lanny Lar proposed to certify
property owner Kesha Manning as representative of the proposed
class.

Ms. Manning sued BA-2003 Limited Partnership and Independent
Management Services, the owners of The Bissel Apartments, in
April 2005 on behalf of herself and her two minor children and
Claude Taylor.  The suit was brought by Mr. Darr of the Alton
law firm of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

It specifically alleges that the apartments had mold and fungal
growth penicillium and cladosporiumo on surfaces and structures
of the building that make up the complex located at 1400 Klein
Ave.  According to the complaint, the defendants breached a duty
under Illinois law to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance
of the Bissel complex.

The defense moved to dismiss the case twice, first on argument
that Ms. Manning failed to attach a lease to her complaint, then
on failure of plaintiff to prosecute.  Each time, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

In February 2006, Mr. Darr filed another amended complaint.  
Defense attorney Troy Bozarth responded -- as in the second
motion to dismiss -- that plaintiffs refused to disclose the
property they claimed was damaged.

On April 7, 2006, Judge Matoesian ordered her to make a list of
personal property that mold damaged, but instead, Mr. Darr again
moved to amend his complaint so he could add a new party.  The
judge granted that motion.

In Ms. Manning's third amended complaint, she sued not only BA-
2003 and Independent Management Services, but also Bissell
Apartments Limited.  Mr. Darr wrote that BA-2003 bought the
property from Bissell Apartments Limited in 2004.

For more details, contact Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr,
L.T.D., Suite 415, 307 Henry Street, Alton, IL 62002-6326,
Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-2318, Web site:
http://sbkdlaw.com/;or defense attorney Matthew Jacober of  
Jenkins & Kling, P.C., 10 South Brentwood, Suite 200, St. Louis,
Missouri 63105 (Independent City), Phone: 314-721-2525,
Telecopier: 314-721-5525.


CHALLENGER FINANCIAL: Aussie Advisers Plan Suit Over Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several financial planning groups in Australia are to proceed
with a class action against Challenger Financial Services Group
over the collapse of its Challenger Howard Property Trust --
Penrith Homemaker Center, according to Money Management.

Led by the Association of Independently Owned Financial Planners
(AIOFP), the decision to launch the class action follows a final
payout to fund investors of 35 cents in the dollar.

AIOFP chief executive Peter Johnston told Money Management the
organization is "facilitating and coordinating the action on
behalf of about 12 to 15 planning groups, both AIOFP members and
non-members, and their clients."

A Challenger spokesperson confirmed the 35-cent payout.  She
emphasized, however that the "overall payout to investors over
the life of the fund is actually closer to 50 cents in the
dollar."

According to the spokesperson, the company would also make a
"further smaller final distribution" to investors sometime
before September this year, as there was still some money left
in the fund.

Mr. Johnston also told Money Management that the action would
proceed, on the basis of legal advice that suggests the company
did not fulfill the original Product Disclosure Statement (PDS),
and has a case to answer for negligence.

In calling on other non-AIOFP members to join the proposed
action, he also told Money Management that the planners would be
seeking "legal redress for fund investors by way of full
damages, including interest, for these shortcomings in the PDS."

AIOFP on the Net: http://www.aiofp.net.au/


CINCINNATI BELL: Pays $36M to Settle Broadwing Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Walter H. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio gave preliminary approval to the settlement of
the consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of the company's wholly owned
subsidiary, BRCOM Inc. (f/k/a Broadwing Communications, Inc.)
between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive, the
Associated Press reports.

Cincinnati Bell and certain of its insurance carriers entered
into an agreement to pay a total of $36 million to settle the
claims in this matter and obtain in exchange a release of all
claims from the class members in June (Class Action Reporter,
June 12, 2006).

"We decided to settle the case on these terms because we think
it's a fair settlement to the investors who lost money during
this period," said Richard Wayne, counsel for the shareholders.

The court gave preliminary approval late in July.  It has slated
a Sept. 6 final hearing on the matter.

                         Case Background

Between October and December 2002, five virtually identical
class actions were filed against Broadwing Inc. and two of its
former chief executive officers in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

These complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of
Broadwing's securities between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002,
inclusive.  They alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, inter alia:  

      -- improperly recognizing revenue associated with  
         Indefeasible Right of Use agreements; and  

      -- failing to write-down goodwill associated with the  
         company's 1999 acquisition of IXC Communications, Inc.  

The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages,
attorney's fees, and expert expenses.  

On Dec. 30, 2002, the "Local 144 Group" filed a motion seeking
consolidation of the complaints and appointment as lead
plaintiff.  By order dated Oct. 29, 2003, Local 144 Nursing Home  
Pension Fund, Paul J. Brunner and Joseph Lask were named lead
plaintiffs in a putative consolidated class action.  

On Dec. 1, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of Broadwing's
securities between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive.
This amended complaint contained a number of new allegations.  

Cincinnati Bell Inc. was added as defendant in this amended
filing.  The company's motion to dismiss was filed on Feb. 6,
2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 2, 2004, and
the company filed its reply on May 17, 2004.  

On Sept. 24, 2004, Judge Walter Rice issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss.  The
order indicated that a more detailed opinion would follow, which
would provide further information regarding the portions of the
case dismissed.  

On April 28, 2006, the company and plaintiffs entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, which sets forth an agreement in
principle to settle this matter.  

Under the MOU, the company and certain of its insurance carriers
will contribute a total of $36 million to settle the claims in
this matter and obtain in exchange a release of all claims from
the class members.  

The suit is "In re Broadwing, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-00795-WHR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H Rice.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) William Kendall Flynn and Richard Stuart Wayne, Strauss  
         & Troy - 1, The Federal Reserve Building, 150 E Fourth  
         Street, 4th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone:  
         513-621-2120, Fax: 513-621-2120, E-mail:  
         wkflynn@strausstroy.com or rswayne@strausstroy.com; and

     (2) Paul David Young, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach  
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,  
         Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:  
         pyoung@milberg.com.

Representing the company are:  

     (i) Peter J Beshar of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 200 Park  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-351-4084, E-
         mail: pbeshar@gibsondunn.com; and  

    (ii) Grant Spencer Cowan, Frost Brown Todd LLC - 1, 2200 PNC  
         Center, 201 E 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182,  
         Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745, E-mail:  
         gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


DEERE & CO: Recalls Utility Tractors with Faulty Seat Bracket
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Co. of Moline, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,800
units of John Deere 3000 Twenty Series and 4000 Twenty Series
Open Station compact utility tractors.

The company said the seat bracket to which the seat belt is
attached could have been positioned incorrectly during the
manufacturing process resulting in a poor weld.  In a tractor
roll over, the weight of the operator could cause the bracket to
break off of the seat's pivot plate.  No injuries were reported.

These vehicles are small agricultural tractors that are green
with yellow seats and wheels.  These model and serial numbers
can be found on the serial number plate on the tractor's frame:

Model    Serial Numbers

3120     LV3120H210126 through 210552

3320     LV3320E138296 & 245001 through 245250
         LV3320F139038 & 250001 through 250015
         LV3320H230163 through 231295
         LV3320P240043 through 240199

3520     LV3520E270019 through 270240
         LV3520F275002 through 275029
         LV3520H258079 & 258205 through 258988
         LV3520P266001 through 266169

3720     LV3720E290014 through 290325
         LV3720H280020 through 280669

4120     LV4120H310005 through 310220
         LV4120P317068 through 317435

4320     LV4320E338001 through 338011
         LV4320F339002 through 339008
         LV4320H320037 through 320562
         LV4320P330037 through 330286

4520     LV4520E358001 through 358223
         LV4520F360006 through 360052
         LV4520H250391 & 340043 through 340385
         LV4520P255680 & 347024 through 347334

4720     LV4720H370053 through 370771

These compact utility tractors were manufactured in the U.S. and
are being sold at authorized John Deere dealers nationwide from
October 2005 through March 2006 for between $17,000 and $28,300.

Picture of the recalled compact utility tractor:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06567.jpg

The company is directly notifying those consumers who purchased
an affected tractor.  Consumers should contact a John Deere
dealer for a free repair.

For more information, contact John Deere's Customer Contact
Center at (800) 537-8233 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday and 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Saturday, or go to
John Deere's Web site: http://www.deere.com


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Order to Disclose Victims' Names Remains
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge John Potter has kept his order that the names of
sexual abuse victims involved in a $85 million settlement with
the Covington Diocese be turned over to prosecutors, according
to The Cincinnati.com.

In that order, Judge Potter pointed out that under Kentucky law
sex-abuse allegations must be forwarded to police.  The judge
reasoned that he wants the prosecutors to know the type of
abuse, when it occurred and the name of the suspected abuser.  

Though the order requires the information be kept confidential
except as necessary to investigate, it was stipulation of
turning over victims' names that sparked a recent court battle
in Boone County Circuit Court.

Stan Chesley, lead attorney for the victims in the class action,
argued against the order.  Dr. Rena Kay, a psychiatrist treating
many of the victims abused by Covington diocesan employees,
testified on the hearing.

In court filings, Dr. Kay wrote that victims placed a lot of
faith in the legal system in order to help right the wrong that
was done to them.  She adds that based on her experience in
treating such victims, the Court's order -- in her opinion --
will be viewed by most them as a final betrayal of their trust
by the legal system.

According to Mr. Chesley, plaintiffs in the class were promised
confidentiality and the releasing their names would cause them
psychiatric harm.  

Mr. Chesley argues that the law requiring all child sex-abuse
cases be reported to authorities does not apply in this case,
pointing out that it does not apply to adults who come forward
reporting that they were abused as a child.  He also reiterates
that the case is a civil one and not a criminal prosecution.

He also pointed out that 141 newspaper, 213 television and 523
radio advertisements seeking victims all promised anonymity to
the abused.

                         Case Background

Mr. Chesley filed the class action in Boone County Circuit Court
back in 2003, claiming 21 priests and some other workers abused
more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades
while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct,
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2003).

According to court filings, from about 1956, information on the
sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed
from the public, including parents of children in schools and
parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well
as from family members of employees of the diocese.  

Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese of a 50-year cover-up
of sexual abuse by priests and others.

On Jan. 31, Special Judge John Potter approved an $85 million
settlement between sexual abuse victims and the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Covington, Kentucky (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2,
2006).  The settlement covers 361 victims.  The settlement was
initially approved in July 2005.

For more info, visit: http://www.covingtonkydioceseabuse.com/.


GATEWAY INC: Denies Claims in Calif. Suit Over Faulty Plasma TVs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gateway, Inc. denied allegations in the amended complaint in a
consumer class action over its faulty plasma TVs, captioned,
"Koch v. Gateway."

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia E.N.E. will continue to
hear the matter on Aug. 1, 2006, at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

The amended complaint charges the company of:

     (1) violations of California's consumer legal remedies act
         (CLRA);

     (2) unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices;

     (3) false and misleading advertising;

     (4) breach of express warranty;

     (5) breach of implied warranty; and

     (6) violations of the Song-Beverly consumer warranty act,  
         which provides that under implied warranty of
         merchantability, consumer goods "must conform to the
         promises or affirmations of fact made on the container
         or label" and must "pass without objection in the trade
         under the contract description."

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs are seeking:

     (1) an order certifying that the action may be maintained
         as a class action;

     (2) compensatory damages, general damages and punitive
         damages as permitted under the CLRA in an amount to be
         proven at trial, including any damages as may be
         provided for by statute;

     (3) a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order
         providing for equitable and injunctive relief;

     (4) an order enjoining defendant from pursuing the
         policies, acts and practices complained;

     (5) an order requiring disgorgement of the defendant's ill-
         gotten gains and to pay restitution to plaintiffs and
         all class members and to restore to the public all
         funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared
         by the court to be unlawful, fraudulent or unfair
         business act or practice, a violation of laws, statutes  
         or regulations, or constituting unfair competition or
         false, untrue or misleading advertising; and

     (6) remuneration for attorney's fees, cost of suit and pre
         and post judgment interest.

                         Case Background

In December, 2005, a nationwide class action was initiated
against Gateway, Inc. by a group of consumers in the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of California, alleging the
computer giant violated the California Consumer's Legal Remedies
Act as well as the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act through
its manufacturing, distribution and sales of GTW Series Plasma
Television sets (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2005).

Gateway, which introduced its line of plasma televisions in
2002, claimed they had "exceptional value and brilliant picture
quality."  The complaint alleges, however, that consumers
experienced a total failure of their television sets within a
short time after purchase.

It is believed that Gateway's plasma televisions contain
defective parts caused by a design or manufacture defect, which
renders the television sets completely inoperable.  Consumers
complained that the televisions emitted "popping sounds" and
produced a "burning odor."

Local television repair shops notified complaining consumers
that their only recourse would be to request repairs from
Gateway.  Despite attempts by consumers to work with Gateway,
replacements parts were unavailable and the televisions could
not be repaired.  The televisions varied in price from $3,000 to
$7,000.

A copy of the amended complaint and Gateway's response to it is
available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?e96

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?e94

The suit is "Koch v. Gateway, Case No. 05-CV-2229," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
under Judge Thomas J. Whelan, with referral to Magistrate Judge
Anthony J. Battaglia.

Representing the plaintiffs are Anton N. Handal and Pamela C.
Chalk both of Handal and Associates, 1200 Third Avenue, Civic
Center Plaza Suite 1321, San Diego, CA 92101-4109, Phone: (619)
696-0323 or (619) 544-6400.

Representing the defendants is Micha Danzig of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, 4445 Eastgate Mall, Suite 200, San
Diego, CA 92121-1979, Phone: (858) 812-3336 or (858) 812-3107.


GENERAC POWER: Recalls Plastic Fuel Tanks Due to Risk of Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Generac Power Systems Inc. of Waukesha, Wisconsin, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 700 units of Generac GTH410 and GTH220 engines
with plastic fuel tanks.

The company said the plastic fuel tanks can leak.  If an
ignition source is present, a fire or explosion can occur.

Generac Power has received 33 reports of fuel tank leaks with
these engines.  Generac has not received any reports of injuries
or property damage.

These industrial power equipment products, manufactured by the
original equipment manufacturers listed below are included in
this recall:

Power Equipment Type          OEM/Equipment Seller

Pressure Washer               Cleaning Systems Specialists, Inc.
                              Phone: (619) 448-8111

Air Compressors               Ingersoll-Rand
                              Phone: (800) 820-0308

Pressure Washers              Silver Eagle
                              Phone: (936) 264-2215

Saw Mill                      Wood Mizer
                              Phone: (317) 808-0717

The recalled Generac GTH410 and GTH220 engines were manufactured
from July 2001 to July 2005.  

GTH410 Engines model numbers with defective fuel tanks are:

     -- 0041930EHF,         -- 0043290EHF,
     -- 0043291,            -- 0045050EHF,
     -- 0045281,            -- 0045283,
     -- 0046100EHF,         -- 0046150EHF,
     -- 0046910EHF,         -- 0046911

GTH220 Engines model numbers with defective fuel tanks are:

     -- 0040990EHC,     -- 0043930EHC,
     -- 0045300EHC,     -- 0046090EHC,
     -- 0046370EHC,     -- 0046380EHC,
     -- 0046390EHC,     -- 0046820EHC,
     -- 0047640EHC,     -- 0048820,
     -- 0050650,        -- 0051170

The engine model number is located on the side of the motor and
contained on a small sticker above the Generac nameplate.  The
top number on the small sticker is the model number (e.g., 220
or 410).  The larger Generac nameplate contains the Engine
Identification Number and Serial Number.

These Generac engines were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at independent and national dealers sold the power
equipment with the recalled engines from July 2001 through July
2005.

Pictures of the Generac engines with plastic fuel tanks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06569a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06569b.jpg

Consumers who purchased power equipment with the recalled engine
are advised to stop using it immediately and contact the
equipment manufacturer to schedule a free tank replacement.

For more information, call Generac Power Systems at (800) 320-
1143 anytime, or log on to Generac's Web site:
http://www.generac.com. Consumers can also contact the  
OEM/Equipment Seller directly at the phone numbers listed above.

Consumers can also call Stephanie Borowski Generac's Media
Contact at (262) 544-4811.


HILLTOP STEAK: $2.5M Payout in Tips Lawsuit Likely, Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Essex Superior Court may require Hilltop Steak House in
Saugus, Massachusetts to pay more than $2.5 million in damages
to wait staff in connection with a lawsuit over tips, the Boston
Globe reports.

An Essex County jury has found that the restaurant wrongfully
and illegally maneuvered tip money to managers.  The jury also
found that the Hilltop wrongly fired four waitresses who
complained about losing a percentage of their tips.  They are
identified in court papers as:

     -- Janet Calcagno;
     -- Joan Rossi, 51, of Saugus;
     -- Sunok Gatchell of Revere; and
     -- Chong O'Connell, 45, of Everett.

The jury awarded $125,000 to each of three plaintiffs, and
$75,000 to a fourth.  It also found that the harm suffered by
the waitresses as a result of the restaurant's violation of the
tip law and its decision to fire them merited tripling of
$610,000 in damages.  Of that, 42 members of a class certified
by the court will share $160,000.

The case was the first of 19 "tip cases" to go to trial in the
state after the Legislature amended Massachusetts law in 2002 to
say that waitresses, waiters and bartenders aren't legally
required to share tips with kitchen staff or managers.

According to plaintiff lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, these
waitresses made $3.60 per hour plus a gratuity, but the managers
who were getting their money were making several hundred dollars
per week.  She said that, in some cases, the waitresses received
14 percent of the 18 percent gratuity, with the remainder going
to managers.

The Massachusetts tip law requires that all proceeds from tips,
gratuities, and service charges that are added to bills after
customers are served must be distributed to wait staff,
according to the report.  It further bars restaurant owners from
distributing the money to other employees, including managers,
even if they also serve food and beverages.

Representing the plaintiffs is Shannon E. Liss-Riordan of Pyle,
Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont
Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax:
617-367-4820.

Hilltop is represented by John Coyne of Law Office of John
Coyne, 558 Pleasant St., New Bedford, MA 02740-6246, Phone:  
(508) 990-3738, Web site: http://coynelaw.comor  
http://www.massachusettscollectionslaw.com.


HOSPITAL CORP: Kans. Consumer Suit Over Nurse Staffing Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed a
consumer class action against Hospital Corporation of America
over allegations it operates under unsafe levels of nurse
staffing, The Wichita Eagle reports.  The hospital owns Wesley
Medical Center in Wichita and 181 others.

The suit had contended that the hospital chain defrauded
patients by directing its affiliated hospitals to staff its
nursing units below generally accepted levels.

Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled the case involves medical
malpractice that needs to be examined on an individual basis and
not in a consumer class action.  He also ruled that the company
as a corporation could not be held liable for cases at each of
its hospitals.

The judge specifically wrote in his ruling, that plaintiffs'
claims are in reality medical malpractice claims, and therefore
not appropriately advanced as claims for consumer protection or
unjust enrichment.

Commenting on the decision, plaintiffs' attorney Lawrence
Williamson said that while they respected the judge's ruling,
they would still seek for its review by the 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals in Denver.

                         Case Background

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the
company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit in
the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas in March.  She
claimed that her husband died because the hospital did not have
enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized
in 2004 (Class Action Reporter May 24, 2006).

The lawsuit asked the company to repay no less than $12.5
billion to millions of patients who have been treated at its
hospitals.

The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corporation of America, Case No.
2:06-cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. and
Uzo L. Ohaebosim of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N.
Main, 1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400,
Fax: 316-261-5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) John H. Gibson of Gilliland & Hayes, P.A.- Wichita, 301
         N. Main, Suite 1300, Wichita, KS 67202-4801, Phone:
         316-264-7321, Fax: 316-264-8614, E-mail:
         jgibson@gh-wichita.com;

     (2) Carlos Mattioli of Shannon, Martin, Finkelstein, &
         Sayre, P.C., 909 Fannin St.-Ste. 2400, Houston, TX
         77010-1001, Phone: 713-646-5555, Fax: 713-752-0337, E-
         mail: cmattioli@smfs.com;

     (3) Charles H. Moody, Jr. of Rodolf & Todd, 401 S. Boston
         Ave., Ste. 2000, Tulsa, OK 74103-5026, Phone: 918-295-
         2100, Fax: 918-295-7800, E-mail: cmoody@rodolftodd.com.


INDIAN TRUST: OST Officers Accused of Giving Special Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation by the federal government found that officials
of the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST)
based in Albuquerque, an agency overseeing American Indian trust
assets, had an improper social relationship with an accounting
firm and pressured subordinates to give the firm preferential
treatment, according to The Associated Press.

The Interior Department's inspector general, senior managers in
the trustee's office -- created in 1994 to improve
accountability and management of Indian funds held in trust by
the government -- reportedly golfed, drank and partied with the
executives of the New Mexico accounting firm Chavarria, Dunne &
Lamey, which won $6.6 million in contract work over eight years.

First reported by U.S. News & World Report, the investigation
found that employees felt pressured by these senior officials to
continue to award work to the firm and that they feared
retaliation for speaking out.

In a letter accompanying the report dated May 16, Inspector
General Earl Devaney wrote to department officials that the
relationship with the firm "created an appearance of
preferential treatment," thus violating ethics standards and an
internal memo directing employees to avoid close contact with
contractors.

In a statement regarding the report, Special Trustee Ross
Swimmer revealed that he had directed his managers to take new
ethics training as a result of those findings.

According to Mr. Swimmer, "Any appearance of an ethics violation
at any level within OST is a great concern, and I believe that
the additional ethics training will allow everyone to be fully
informed of the rules."

In their own press statement regarding the report, Chavarria
Dunne executives said that they believe their contracts were
awarded under the appropriate guidelines, citing that the report
does not allege they did anything wrong.  They did however,
point out that the Inspector General's concern of "an appearance
of preferential treatment" for the firm is subjective and
unsubstantiated.

The report outlines how the firm's executives and trustee
managers exchanged gifts of meals and drinks, took out-of-town
trips to a major golf event and played golf together almost
weekly.

Through an eight-page chart, the report details the dates of
golf trips and meals, which often happens just days before
contracts were awarded.  The report found that the office
awarded, extended and expanded the contract without competition.

However, Donna Erwin, principal deputy special trustee, defended
the socializing referred to in the report, saying that it
involved only refreshments and meals, which may have given the
appearance of preferential treatment.  She vehemently maintains
that no preferential treatment was ever given.

According to the inspector general, the findings are of
particular concern to the Interior Department since they go
"close to the heart" of the 10-year-old class-action, "Cobell v.
Kempthorne," formerly known as Cobell v. Norton.

The class action was filed on June 10, 1996, in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia to force the federal
government to account for billions of dollars belonging to
approximately 500,000 American Indians and their heirs, and held
in trust since the late 19th century.  

The case involves royalties for farming, grazing, mining,
logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  It 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.

At present, 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 1887.

Mr. Devaney wrote that the "seriousness of this conduct on the
part of the OST senior management is exacerbated by the nature
of the contract, the sensitivity of the work involved, the level
of the OST officials' positions and the mission of OST."

For more details, contact:

     (1) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

     (2) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and
   
     (3) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Emilie H. Elias of the Los Angeles Superior Court will
hold a fairness hearing on the proposed $717,031 settlement of
the class action "In re Kava Kava Litigation" on Aug. 11, 2006,
9:00 a.m.  

The trial will be at Department 308 of the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, 600 South Commonwealth
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.   

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection was July 14, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons in California who purchased
products containing the herb Kava Kava between March 14, 1998,
and Dec. 31, 2005.  

Under the settlement, the court shall enter a permanent
injunction requiring each settling defendant to provide specific
product warnings on all Kava Products that the respective
settling defendant makes available for sale in the State of
California or makes available for sale to any third party whom
settling defendants know will offer Kava Products for sale in
the State of California.  In summary, the warnings pertain to
the alleged risk of liver problems associated with Kava Product
use, among other warnings.

The settling defendants have also agreed to make settlement
payments totaling $717,031, from which two charitable
contributions, together totaling at least $100,000, will be made
to two organizations agreed upon by the settling parties and
approved by the Court.  

The class counsel will apply for attorneys' fees and expenses
not to exceed $520,531.  This amount will not fully reimburse
Class Counsel for their fees and costs.  

In addition, class counsel will ask the court to award each of
the representative plaintiffs $500 in recognition of the
services provided for the class in this lawsuit.   The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on April 27, 2006.  

In 2002, cases were filed against certain entities that
allegedly manufactured, distributed and/or sold products
containing "kava kava" or "piper methysticum" without adequately
warning consumers of alleged risks of liver damage.  

These actions were subsequently consolidated by the Los Angeles
Superior Court into: "In re Kava Kava Litigation, Case No. BC
269717."

For more information, contact:

     (1) defendants' notice counsel, Amy P. Lally, Sidley Austin
         LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA
         90013; or

     (2) co-lead class counsel Christopher M. Burke of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West
         Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058); or

     (3) David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler III Scott+Scott,
         LLC, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone:
         619-233-4565.


MEDIA COMPANIES: Faces California Labor Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Twelve reality-TV writers, assisted by the Writers Guild of
America, west, filed a class action in the Superior Court of
California on July 7, charging eight television networks and
production companies with gross violations of California's labor
laws governing payment of overtime, wages, and meal periods.

"These violations of California law are no mere accounting
errors," said WGAw president Daniel Petrie Jr.  "They are
deliberately designed to deny these writers the basic rights and
legal protections of fair wages, overtime, and a meal break.  
Unfortunately, those cases are not unique.  It is but one
example of the pervasive conditions we have found in reality
television productions-and it underscores why so many reality
writers and editors have come to the Writers Guild seeking union
representation."

The writers who brought the suit worked on such reality shows as
The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Are You Hot?, The Two Timer, The
Will, The Starlet, and The Real Gilligan's Island.  They were
given such various job titles as Assistant Story Editor, Story
Assistant, Story Editor, Story Producer, Segment Producer,
Supervising Story Producer, Producer, and Senior Producer.

Their complaint charges production companies, and networks:

     -- Next Entertainment,
     -- Telepictures Productions,
     -- Syndicated Productions, Inc., and
     -- Dawn Syndicated Productions, and

     -- American Broadcasting Co.,
     -- CBS Broadcasting,
     -- WB Broadcasting Network, and
     -- Turner Broadcasting System

with failure to pay overtime, willful falsification of or
failure to maintain payroll records, and the chronic failure to
afford meal periods required by law.  

The suit also seeks class-action status on behalf of the
plaintiffs and others employed on these programs.  

According to the suit, The Bachelor and the other shows
established a flat weekly rate for an 84-hour work week.  
Regardless of the number of hours employees worked, they
allegedly received only the flat weekly rate, even when the law
requires that they receive time-and-a-half after 40 hours and
double-time after 80 hours.  In California, employers are
required to calculate an employee's hourly rate by dividing 40
hours into the weekly rate.

The suit alleges that once they were hired, the 12 writers were
required to falsify their time cards, either by simply writing
the term "Worked" across the card or by entering predetermined
start and end times for each day of the week.  In fact, the suit
notes, the employees worked far in excess of 40 hours per week
during virtually every week of their employment but never
received any premium overtime pay.

"The entertainment industry established basic decent working
conditions and compensation standards decades ago," Mr. Petrie
noted.  "What is happening here harkens back to the conditions
experienced in the early 20th century.  The companies falsified
the hour rates on their pay stubs to reflect that overtime had
been paid when it hadn't.  To add insult to injury, they refused
to give meal periods to writers when they were working 10-, 12-,
and 20-hour days, six or seven days a week.

"These are major production companies and networks with
financial and creative control who should be ashamed to have
talented writers with a de facto hourly pay of less than $10 per
hour, with no overtime, no meal periods, no pension and health,
and no residuals.  It's time to put an end to these conditions."

The Writers Guild of America, west represents writers in the
motion picture, broadcast, cable, and new media industries in
both entertainment and news.  The union conducts numerous
programs, seminars, and events throughout the world on issues of
interest to, and on behalf of, writers.

The suit is filed in Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ea8

Plaintiffs in the suit are Harmon T. Sharp, III, Troy Devolld,
Sarah Levine, Michel M. Gara, Eduardo Penna, Emily Sinclair, J.,
Ryan Stradal, Kevin Thomas, Thomas L. Hietter, Nicole L.
Hedlund, Christian T. Huber, and Brian Gibson.

Representing them are Anthony R. Segall and Emma Leheny at
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone, 510 South Marengo Ave. Pasadena,
California 91101-3115, Phone: (626) 796-7555, Fax: (626) 577-
0124.


NORBORD INC: Continues to Face OSB Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Norbord Inc. and seven other North American oriented strand
board producers remained defendants in several lawsuits filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Each of the lawsuits alleges that seven North
American OSB producers violated U.S. antitrust laws by allegedly
agreeing to fix prices and reduce the supply of OSB from June 1,
2002 through the present.

Sawbell Lumber Co., Norwood Sash & Door Manufacturing Co.,
Columbare Inc., West Lumber Co., and Frontier Lumber Co. Inc.
are plaintiffs in five lawsuits (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2006).  

The plaintiffs seek to have the cases certified as class
actions.  One group of plaintiffs seeks to certify a class of
persons and entities that purchased OSB in the U.S. directly
from any of the named North American OSB producers between June
1, 2002 and the present.  Other plaintiffs seek to certify one
or more classes of persons and entities that purchased OSB in
various states and the District of Columbia indirectly between
June 1, 2002 and the present.

Two of the suits are:

     (1) "New Deal Lumber & Millwork Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-
         Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00971-PD"

     (2) "Frontier Lumber Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-pacific
         corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00920-PD"

Contact information: Robin Lampard, Vice President, Treasurer:
Phone: (416) 643-8843, E-mail: robin.lampard@norbord.com or
Roberta D. Liebenberg of Fine, Kaplan And Black, 1835 Walnut
Street, 28th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-567-6565,
Fax: 215-568-5872, E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com.


OHIO: Youngstown Renews Bid to Intervene in Mahoning Jail Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Youngstown re-filed its intervention in a class action over
operations at Mahoning County jail on July 27, according to
Vindy.com.  

In March 2005, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. found that the lockup was
overcrowded and unsafe.  To avoid jail overcrowding, Judge Dowd,
Judge Dan A. Polster and U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
Alice M. Batchelder set plans to issue orders concerning
possible inmate releases.

However, the City of Youngstown opposed any existing or future
prisoner release orders and subsequently filed an earlier motion
to intervene in the case.  Federal judges rejected the attempt
on the city's failure to file a legal motion setting forth a
claim or defense for which intervention is sought.

The second intervention recently filed included a resolution
allowing the city law department to oppose release of prisoners
that judges have ordered held in the jail.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed on Nov. 14, 2003 against the County of
Mahoning, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Randall A. Wellington, and
Vicki Allen Sherlock.  Named as plaintiffs are James Joseph
Mancini, Joshua Baird, Kevin Whitacker, Leland Scott, Maurice
Barnes, Mike Hamad, Nathaniel Roberts, and Rodney Gray

The suit is "Roberts, et al. v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, A  
Local Government Entity, et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-02329-DDD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio under Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas  
Kelley of Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker, Ste. 720, 159  
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-434-2113, Fax:  
330-434-2158, E-mail: robattarm@aol.com and tkelley1@neo.rr.com.    

Representing the defendants is Sharon K. Hackett, Office of the  
Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County, 120 Market Street,  
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-740-2330, Fax: 330-740-2366.  

Representing the Intervenor is Anthony J. Farris, City of  
Youngstown, Department of Law, 26 South Phelps Street,  
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-742-8874, Fax: 330-742-8867, E-
mail: ajf@cityofyoungstownoh.com.   


PHILIP SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Nauseating Odor From Ga. Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 75 people filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in
Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia over a nauseating odor
coming from an industrial waste plant owned by the Philip
Services Corp., The Associated Press reports.

Residents, represented by attorney Scott Zahler, claimed in the
suit that they have suffered migraine headaches, nosebleeds,
rashes, nausea, sore throats, diarrhea, eye irritation,
dizziness and respiratory problems over the odor.

Residents first complained about the odor a month ago, saying
the smell was like strong onions or garlic.  Just last week, Dr.
Steven Katkowsky, district health officer for the county
declared a critical health incident after more than 200 people
said the odor from plant sickened them.

Meanwhile, commissioners in both Fulton and Fayette counties are
trying to get the plant shut down until the situation is
resolved.

According to Morris Azose, the company's vice president of
environmental affairs, in late June the company received four
trucks carrying a chemical which is used to give an offensive
smell to otherwise odorless chemicals.  

The chemical pvropyl mercaptan is added to warn people of the
presence of a dangerous substance.  The smell was so strong that
the trucks were sent away, but not before one was unloaded,
releasing the chemical into the air.

Environmental Protection Division spokesman Kevin Chambers said
that the summer heat and lack of rain have kept the odor in the
air -- with reports of the smell as far as 15 miles away.

Also named in the suit is propyl mercaptan maker AMVAC Chemical
Corp., based in Axis, Alabama.  AMVAC reportedly transported
multiple shipments of MOCAP pesticide wash water to the Philip
Services facility.  Georgia Environmental Protection Division
had originally indicated that the propyl mercaptan wash water
came from a Bayer Corp. plant in Alabama.

For more details, contact Scott Zahler of Goetz, Pierce &
Zahler, Overlook III, Suite 1740, 2859 Paces Ferry Road,
Atlanta, Georgia 30339, (DeKalb & Fulton Cos.), Phone: 770-431-
1107, Fax: 770-431-1101, Web site: http://goetzallenzahler.com.


SONY MUSIC: N.Y. Lawsuit Over Music Royalties to Cover Ringtones
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rock bands The Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick has amended
their lawsuit against Sony Music over royalties for downloaded
music, the Billboard Radio Monitor reports.

The new complaint expands the types of downloaded tunes referred
to in the suit to include services like mobile phone ringtones.

In April, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Probstein & Weiner
sued Sony Music, alleging the company is not paying its
recording artists 50% of the net licensing revenue it received
in connection with the master recordings licensed to Apple and
other third-party providers of digital downloads as it is
contractually obligated to do (Class Action Reporter, April 30,
2006).

Instead of paying its recording artists the approximate 30 cents
of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads, after
deducting payments to music publishers, the suit alleges that
Sony Music:  

     -- wrongfully treats each download as a sale of a physical  
        phonorecord (i.e. a CD or cassette tape);  

     -- only pays on 85% of such "sales" (allegedly because of
        product breakage);  

     -- deducts a 20% fee for container/packaging charges
        associated with the digital downloads although there are
        none; and  

     -- reduces its payments by a further 50% "audiofile"
        deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music
        recording artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per
        digital download.  

According to the complaint, The Allman Brothers Band, Cheap
Trick and other members of the class action were damaged in the
amount of millions of dollars through the loss of royalty
payments, which Sony Music retained for its own benefit in
breach of the applicable contractual record royalty provisions.

The suit is "Allman et al v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03252-GBD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge George B.
Daniels.  

Representing the defendant is Jonathan M. Sperling of Covington
& Burling LLP, 1330 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: 212.841.1153, E-mail: jsperling@cov.com.

Representing the defendants are Brian D. Caplan and Conor R.
Crowley both of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 907-0700 or (212) 907-0883,
Fax: (212) 818-0477 or (212) 883-7083, E-mail:
bcaplan@labaton.com or ccrowley@labaton.com.


SUNNY LAKE: Recalls Dried Potatoes with Undeclared Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Lake Trading, Inc. of Lexington Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York, is recalling Dried Potato because it may contain
undeclared sulfites.

The company said people who have severe sensitivity to sulfites
run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled Dried Potato, sold in six-ounce, clear, uncoded
plastic bags, was sold in the Brooklyn, New York area.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of Dried Potato
that did not have sulfites declared on the label.

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

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

Consumers who have purchased Dried Potato should return it to
the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 718-453-3838.


UNITED STATES: Pre-1949 China Bondholders to Sue Rating Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Florida-based bondholders are planning to launch a class
action against credit rating agencies Standard & Poor's, Moody's
and Fitch over their ratings of bonds issued by the People's
Republic of China's Nationalist government between 1912 and
1942, according to EuroWeek.

A group of 25 bondholders, led by an unnamed charitable
foundation, claims the rating agencies failed to recognize that
the country had defaulted on the bonds.  According to them, by
failing to change China's rating from A2/A-/A to Ba or Ca/SD/DDD
or 'RD proposed,' and ignoring these defaults, the agencies
misled investors.

The security in question for the planned class action is the
estimated $46.56 million (GBP25 million) Chinese Government Five
Percent Reorganization Gold Loan that was issued in 1913 and
linked to the prevailing market value of gold.

According to the president of an Arizona-based financial
advisory firm that is helping the bondholders, they believe that
China's total defaulted obligations to U.S. bondholders are now
worth $175 billion.

Kevin O'Brien, president of Sovereign Advisers, pointed out that
investors in sovereign PRC bonds, issued after 1949 should pay
particular attention to the case.  Since, according to him, the
credit rating does not disclose the risk of litigation and the
seizure of interest payments.

Mr. O'Brien said that once the case gains class-action status
bondholders would invite investors in Nationalist-era bonds from
other countries to join it as co-plaintiffs.  They plan to file
the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

He also pointed out that like the investors, the rating agencies
should take particular interest in this matter, since they
realize by now that the Chinese government rejects the successor
government doctrine of settled international law.
  
Previously, Sovereign Advisers argued that China's Communist
government has a responsibility to honor debts raised by Chiang
Kai-Shek's Kuomintang government.

The firm cites that that the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics settled the claims of British holders of defaulted
pre-1917 bonds in 1986.  It also cites that even the PRC itself
settled pre-1949 claims with British bondholders in 1987.  In
2005, Sovereign informed EuroWeek that the PRC was negotiating
the claims of French bondholders of pre-1949 paper.

The Nationalist government that issued these debts in question
took refuge in Taiwan when the Communists gained control of
Mainland China in 1949.  

However, proving that the bonds are Taiwan's responsibility
poses quite a challenge for the PRC, since it regards the island
as a renegade province of China rather than a sovereign nation
that could have sovereign obligations, according to the report.

Mr. O'Brien told EuroWeek that the Florida bondholders had
several objectives in filing the case, which are:

      -- to stop the publication of China's phony credit rating;
      -- to recover payment of defaulted debt; and
      -- damages from the egregious acts of the ratings
         agencies.

In addition, Mr. O'Brien also said that the class action, which
will be filed sometime in October, would charge the agencies of:

      -- "foreknowledge of falsity";
      -- "a reckless standard of care;
      -- "aiding and abetting circumvention of payment"; and
      -- "aiding and abetting the discriminatory payment of
         other creditors."

Mr. O'Brien added that since the agencies were previously
notified and given the ample opportunity to change their ratings
for China they risked prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act.  RICO is a U.S. federal law, which
provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as
part of an ongoing criminal organization.


VISY INDUSTRIES: Trial on Price Fixing Suit to Start in 2007
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Peter Jopling of the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission said he hopes to bring the lawsuit brought
by the commission against Visy Industries to trial "in the early
part of the second half of next year," the Australian Associated
Press reports.

The ACCC alleges Visy formed a price fixing cartel with its
principal competitor Amcor, Ltd. between 2000 and late 2004
while supplying packaging throughout Australia, according to the
report.

Plaintiffs in a CA$300 million class action filed in April in
federal court in Sydney on behalf of about 1,700 claim to have
been damaged by price fixing and market sharing in the cardboard
box industry between 2000 and 2005 (Class Action Reporter, April
12, 2006).  

Ben Slade at the Maurice Blackburn Cashman law firm estimated
that businesses incurred damages at between $2 million and $3
million as a result of anti-competitive practices in the
industry.

Justice Peter Heerey adjourned the case against Visy for further
directions on Dec. 8.

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

     -- Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd,
     -- Visy Industries Australia Pty Ltd,
     -- Visy Board Pty Ltd., and
     -- Amcor Ltd.

Proceedings were also taken against Visy chairman Richard Pratt,
chief executive Harry Debney and former general manger of the
board Rod Carroll for allegedly being knowingly concerned in or
party to the cartel.

Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted immunity by the
commission in return for information about the practice.  But,
it is facing one of the biggest class actions in Australian
history over its alleged involvement.

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


YAHOO INC: Faces N.J. Suit Over Ads in Spyware, Inferior Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Ben Edelman initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Yahoo,
Inc., accusing it of placing advertisements on spyware-vendor
and "low-quality" sites, the PCWelt reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of Yahoo advertiser Crafts By Veronica
as well as other advertisers, accuses Yahoo and its ad sales
subsidiary Overture Services Inc. of charging higher rates for
ads promised with "premium" placement, but then placing those
ads on spyware-vendor sites and on Web pages with URLs that are
misspellings of popular sites.

The suit claims that Yahoo allowed its paid ads to be displayed
via search queries generated by numerous spyware products.  It
also said that Yahoo uses its relationships with spyware driven
ad-sites to deliberately inflate its revenues towards the end of
each quarter.

The lawsuit further accuses Yahoo of placing ads on sites run by
Intermix Media and Direct Revenue LLC -- two companies
identified in an April lawsuit by New York Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer as distributors of spyware and unwanted pop-up
adware, according to the report.

In addition, Yahoo allegedly places ads on so-called
"typosquatting" Web sites.  Typosquatters register Web sites
that have URLs that are common misspellings of popular Web
brands, and many typosquatting sites that Yahoo placed premium
ads have long lists of advertisements as their only content, the
lawsuit says.

According to Mr. Edelman, the suit seeks to recover the money
advertisers paid to Yahoo for premium, "highly targeted," ad
placement.

Although plaintiffs' lawyers have not released an estimate of
damages, it could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars,
he said.

The suit is "Crafts by Veronica v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-01985-JCL-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge John C. Lifland, with
referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs are Donna Siegel Moffa and Lisa J.
Rodriguez both of Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards LLP, 8 Kings
Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-
mail: donna@trrlaw.com or lisa@trrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Gregory Robert Haworth of Duane
Morris LLP, 744 Road St., Suite 1200, Newark, NJ 07102-1997,
Phone: (973) 424-2000, E-mail: grhaworth@duanemorris.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HOME SOLUTIONS: Aug. 21 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP said that parties interested at
becoming lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit against Home
Solutions Of America, Inc. have until Aug. 21, 2006 to seek for
appointment.  All persons and institutions that purchased
securities of Home Solutions Of America, Inc. between April 11,
2006 and June 6, 2006, can move for lead plaintiff status.

The complaint charges Home Solutions and certain of the
company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Home Solutions' business and prospects
caused the Company's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Home Solutions offers recovery, restoration,
rebuilding/remodeling and specialty interior services to
commercial and residential properties in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
announced that the company had been awarded a contract valued at
up to $20 million to provide infrastructure support for
Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts, including contracts with
Home Depot Inc. and American Renaissance Homes.

Then, on June 6, 2006, a company-issued press release revealed
that Home Solutions actually was lending up to $800,000 to
American Renaissance Homes for "working capital," secured by its
modular homes and land.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' prior representations
concerning the company's financial performance and prospects,
based, among other things, on the American Renaissance Homes'
contract, were false and misleading and concealed from the
investors the company's actual performance and prospects.

As a result of this news, Home Solutions' stock price plummeted
29.1%, or $2.80, to close on June 6, 2006 at $6.80, on extremely
heavy trading volume of 26.2 million shares.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Association
announced that a securities class action was commenced on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Juniper Networks, Inc. (JNPR)
between Sept. 1, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant Juniper Networks and
one or more of its officers and/or directors.  

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail
hoffman@browerpiven.com.  


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. securities
during the period between April 29, 2004, and July 5, 2006.

On July 24, 2006, Par disclosed that the SEC was conducting an
informal investigation regarding its restatement of previous
financial statements.

According to the complaint, on July 5, 2006, Par admitted that
it's 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 must move the Court no later than Sept. 15,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: 866/264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com.


SUNTERRA CORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Nev.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announces that a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Sunterra Corp. between April 15, 2003 and
June 22, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against Sunterra and
certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
results for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31, 2002, to Sept. 30,
2005 and for the first quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005.

On March 27, 2006, the Company announced that it had terminated
Grant Thornton as its independent auditor. On April 10, 2006,
Grant Thornton indicated in a letter to the SEC that it
disagreed with Sunterra's statements regarding its termination.

Specifically, the letter indicated that Grant Thornton had
received an email from a former employee alleging accounting
improprieties in the company's European operations, which was a
reportable event.

On May 3, 2006, Sunterra announced that its financial results
for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31, 2002 to Sept. 30, 2005 and
the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005 contained material
inaccuracies.  

Then on June 22, 2006, the company announced that it had placed
its CEO on administrative leave pending the completion of the
company's investigation into its accounting practices.

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

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


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, announces that a
class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of Vonage
Holdings Corp. common stock pursuant to or traceable to the
company's May 23, 2006 Initial Public Offering.  

This claim is also being brought on behalf of Vonage customers
who purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock through
the Vonage Directed Share Program.  The complaint charges Vonage
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

Vonage is a leading provider of broadband telephone services
with over 1.6 million subscriber lines as of April 1, 2006.  The
complaint alleges that, in connection with the company's IPO,
defendants failed to disclose inter alia, that:

      -- Vonage's technology platform experienced problems
         carrying telephone data over the networks of certain
         internet service providers; and

      -- Vonage's voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology
         did not properly allow facsimile transmissions.

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

Following these concerns, shares of Vonage continued to fall on
news that serious technical and logistical issues plagued the
company's Directed Share Program.  In the seven days after the
IPO, shares of Vonage declined over 30 percent.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than August 1,
2006 to serve as lead plaintiff in the case.

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


ZALE CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 19, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Zale Corp.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 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 Feb. 18, 2005 through May 5, 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.


                            *********


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  * * *