CAR_Public/060803.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 3, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 153

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over Reimbursements
21ST CENTURY: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Medical-Review Scheme
21ST CENTURY: Still Faces Suit Over "Biased" Appraisal Software
ALABAMA: Judge Dismisses Tax Lawsuit on Jurisdictional Issues
AMERICAN HOME: SC Mulls Suspension of Lawyers in Fen-Phen Suit

ARIZONA: Court Approves Settlement of Suit Over Racial Profiling
AUTO OWNERS: Ill. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss PPO Lawsuit
BIJOU-MARKET: May Conduct Rule 2004 Examination on Minami Lew
BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED: ERISA, LRMA Lawsuit in Ind. Dismissed
CARRIER ACCESS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

CHINA: Rights Group Demands Release of Forced Abortion Activist
COCA-COLA CO: Discovery Continues in Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit
GEORGIA: Court Certifies Class in Suit Against Sex Offender Law
GEORGIA: Columbia County Enjoined from Enforcing Bus Stop Law
GLOBAL CROSSING: $99M Settlement Reached in N.Y. Securities Suit

GUAM: Aug. 9 Hearing Set in Suit Over COLA Payments to Retirees
INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiff Explains Comment on $8B Settlement Offer
JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated MDL-1586 Lawsuit in Md.
LIFECELL CORP: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Unsanctioned Tissue Removal
MERCK & CO: Firm Urges Vioxx Users to File Claims Before Sept.

NEWMONT MINING: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Complaint
NIGERIA: Oct. 6 Hearing Set in Suit Over Bakassi Land Transfer
PAN PACIFIC: Faces Calif. Stockholders' Suit Over Kimco Merger
RAYTHEON CO: Reaches $5.5M Settlement in Mass. ERISA Breach Suit
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: SEC Deal Distinct From N.Y. Stock Suit

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Still Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Unlicensed Acts
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Some Claims
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Sept. 21 Fairness Hearing Slated for "Miller"
UNITED STATES: Groups File Suit Over U.S. Citizenship Delays


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTENE CORP: The Paskowitz Law Firm Files Mo. Securities Suit
CENTENE CORP: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Cotchett, Pitre Files Calif. Stock Suit
INFOSONICS CORP: Aug. 14 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff
SAFENET INC: Bernstein Litowitz Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Continues to Face Calif. Suit Over Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group remains a defendant in a purported
class action, "Silvia Quintana, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 21st Century Insurance,"
filed in the San Diego Superior Court.  

Filed on Nov. 16, 2005, the suit raises four causes of action:

     -- violation of B&P Section 17200,
     -- conversion,
     -- unjust enrichment, and
     -- declaratory relief

Silvia Quintana alleges that the company's demand for
reimbursement of the medical payments it made to her pursuant to
her insurance contract violates the made-whole rule.  

The company anticipates that if the matter survives the initial
pleading stage, it will be consolidated, for discovery and pre-
trial motions, with actions alleging similar facts against other
insurers.  

This matter is in the initial stages of pleading.

21st Century Insurance Group (NYSE:TW) -- http://www.21st.com--  
is an insurance holding company, which is a direct-to-consumer
provider of personal auto insurance.  Its private passenger auto
insurance contract generally covers bodily injury liability,
property damage, medical payments, personal injury protection,
uninsured and underinsured motorist, rental reimbursement,
uninsured motorist property damage, towing, comprehensive and
collision.


21ST CENTURY: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Medical-Review Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group remains a defendant in the
purported class action, "Thomas Theis v. 21st Century
Insurance," which was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in
California.

Filed on June 17, 2002, the suit seeks California class-action
certification, injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and
punitive damages.  

The complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the company used a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area.  

Plaintiff alleges that the adjusted amount is "predetermined"
and "biased," creating an unfair pretext for reducing claims
costs.  This case is consolidated with similar actions against
other insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.

Depositions were recently taken, and the matter is in the
discovery stage of litigation.

21st Century Insurance Group (NYSE:TW) -- http://www.21st.com--  
is an insurance holding company, which is a direct-to-consumer
provider of personal auto insurance.  Its private passenger auto
insurance contract generally covers bodily injury liability,
property damage, medical payments, personal injury protection,
uninsured and underinsured motorist, rental reimbursement,
uninsured motorist property damage, towing, comprehensive and
collision.


21ST CENTURY: Still Faces Suit Over "Biased" Appraisal Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Co., 21st Century Casualty Co. and 21st
Century Insurance Group remain defendants in a purported class
action filed in California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles over the use of allegedly "biased" software in
calculating the value of total-loss automobiles.

The suit, "Bryan Speck v. 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st
Century Casualty Company, and 21st Century Insurance Group," was
filed on June 20, 2002 and seeks California class-action
certification, injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and
punitive damages.  

The complaint contends that the company uses "biased" software
to determine the value of total-loss automobiles.  It alleges
that database providers use improper methodology to establish
comparable auto values and populate their databases with biased
figures and that the company and other carriers allegedly
subscribe to the programs to unfairly reduce claims costs.  This
case is consolidated with similar actions against other insurers
for discovery and pre-trial motions.

A court-ordered appraisal of Mr. Speck's vehicle was favorable
to the company and Ramona Goldenberg was substituted as a
plaintiff, replacing Mr. Speck.  The matter is in the pleading
stage of litigation.

21st Century Insurance Group (NYSE:TW) -- http://www.21st.com--  
is an insurance holding company, which is a direct-to-consumer
provider of personal auto insurance.  Its private passenger auto
insurance contract generally covers bodily injury liability,
property damage, medical payments, personal injury protection,
uninsured and underinsured motorist, rental reimbursement,
uninsured motorist property damage, towing, comprehensive and
collision.


ALABAMA: Judge Dismisses Tax Lawsuit on Jurisdictional Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama dismissed a lawsuit over a state
law that requires delinquent taxpayers to pay additional
interest to reclaim properties sold at tax auctions, the Alabama
Press Register reports.  

The suit stems from the way Baldwin County administers the
selling of properties whose owners owe back taxes.

In a 10-page ruling, the judge ruled that the federal courts do
not have jurisdiction in the matter, citing the Anti-Tax
Injunction Act, a law passed decades ago by Congress,
prohibiting federal courts from interfering in the collection of
any tax under state law when a remedy for the complaint exists
in state court.

Danny Evans, who represents Stephen Deshazo, argued that the
federal statute does not apply because the lawsuit did not
contest the state's right to collect property taxes and
interest.

The objection, Mr. Evans stated in written arguments to the
court, was over the interest charged on the overbid, which has
nothing to do with the taxes owed.

But the judge's order states that the excess bid provision of
the property tax auctions is "inexorably tied" to the tax
itself.  Striking down that provision would interfere with the
county's collection of taxes by removing an incentive for
landowners to settle their tax debts before their land is sold
at auction and by eliminating an incentive for potential
purchasers to bid on the properties.

According to the judge, Congress prohibited intervention by
federal courts in tax disputes whenever plaintiffs had an option
in state courts.  In this case, he stated, plaintiffs can take
their case to state court under the Alabama Declaratory Judgment
Act.

Mr. Evans said they do not agree with the judge's rationale and
is still undecided whether to appeal the judge's ruling or file
the complaint in Baldwin County Circuit Court.

The suit was filed by Georgia native Mr. Deshazo in March
against:

     -- Baldwin County, and  
     -- Revenue Commissioner Phil Nix.   

It could award damages to all similarly affected property owners
over the last 13 years (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).  

According to a report from Alabama's al.com, under Alabama law,
the county tax office sends warnings to property owners who fail
to pay their taxes before auctioning off properties in a tax
sale.  The original owner then has three years to buy back the
property.  Should he decide to do so, he is required to pay
taxes, interest and administrative fees and additional interest
on the amount of money over the taxes that the investor paid to
win the auction.  The interest is 12% annually.  

The suit is "Deshazo v. Baldwin County, AL, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00174-WS-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama under Judge William H. Steele, with
referral to Judge William E. Cassady.  Representing the
plaintiffs is George Daniel Evans, 1736 Oxmoor Rd., Suite 101,
Birmingham, AL 35209, Phone: 205-870-1970, E-mail:
gdevans@evanslawpc.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bart Gregory Harmon of Webb & Eley, P. C., P. O. Box
         240909, 7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive, Montgomery, AL
         36124, Phone: 3342621850, Fax: 3342621889, E-mail:
         bharmon@webbeley.com;

     (2) C. Britton Bonner and Matthew J. Landreau both of
         Bonner Landreau Kingrea LLC, 350 North Alston Street,
         Foley, AL 36535, Phone: 251-943-5727, Fax: 251-934-
         5738, E-mail: bbonner@blklawyers.com or
         mlandreau@blklawyers.com; and

     (3) Judy A. Newcomb of the Office of the District Attorney,
         28th Judicial Circuit, P. O. Box 1269, Bay Minette, AL
         36507, Phone: 251-937-0274, E-mail:
         jnewcomb@co.baldwin.al.us.


AMERICAN HOME: SC Mulls Suspension of Lawyers in Fen-Phen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Kentucky Bar Association commission is seeking for the
temporary suspension of licenses of three Lexington lawyers
accused of breaching their fiduciary duty when they diverted
more than $20 million in the settlement of Kentucky's fen-phen
lawsuits, the Herald-Leader reports.

According to Frankfort lawyer William E. Johnson, who represents
the three lawyers, the bar's Inquiry Commission has asked for
their suspension pending a disciplinary investigation.

The bar's chief counsel, Linda Grosner, said Supreme Court rules
prohibit her from commenting on or confirming disciplinary
investigations.

In 2001, fen-phen maker American Home Products settled a
national class action for $200 million over alleged physical
injuries caused by taking the diet drug (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 22, 2002).

In 2004, former fen-phen plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against
their former lawyers, asking for a full accounting of settlement
funds.  The three lawyers and their consultants received more
money, collectively $106 million, or roughly $20 million each,
than the $74 million divided among their 431 clients.

According to the lawyers they used case law governing excess
funds in class suits that allow for lawyers to receive
additional fees and also allows for creation of a non-profit
from those fees.

Mr. Johnson noted that Boone Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger
approved the additional payments and the creation of the fund,
which resulted to a public reprimand by the Judicial Conduct
Commission in February for violating a host of judicial canons.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 17
to consider suspending Melbourne Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr.
and William Gallion, according to the report.


ARIZONA: Court Approves Settlement of Suit Over Racial Profiling
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson approved on July 28 a
settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Arizona Department of Public Safety to prevent racial profiling
by patrol officers along Arizona's highways and streets.

Flagstaff attorney Lee Phillips, who is the lead counsel in this
case, welcomed the ruling that would "stop using skin color as a
basis to stop and search Black and Latino motorists along"
highways.

The agreement resolves a 2001 class action brought on behalf of
11 motorists by the ACLU, which charged that law enforcement
officials engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of race-
based traffic stops, detentions and searches of non-white
motorists throughout Arizona.

Under the settlement, the Department of Public Safety agreed to
collect and review statistical data relating to traffic stops
and vehicle searches statewide.  The data will be analyzed by
external consultants on an annual basis to determine why, how
and where motorists are stopped, detained and searched.  The
ACLU said that the information will help identify possible
racial profiling by patrol officers.

Governor Janet Napolitano also agreed to create a nine-member
citizens' advisory board to review the Department of Public
Safety's practices and policies relating to racial profiling and
traffic stop data and to make recommendations based on that
review.  Appointments to the board will be made by the governor,
with input from the ACLU of Arizona, and will include members of
the governor's African-American and Latino advisory committees.

The terms of the settlement also address:

     -- amending agency policies to prohibit officers from
        pulling over motorists on the basis of race or skin
        color;

     -- training officers to comply with anti-racial profiling
        policies;

     -- working toward the goal of having vehicle-based video
        systems in all department vehicles throughout the state
        to tape all traffic stops, detentions and searches; and

     -- requiring patrol officers to use a bi-lingual written
        consent form whenever a search is requested during a
        traffic stop.

The agreement will be enforced by the ACLU who will monitor the
data collection program and report on the Department's
compliance with the agreement.


The state will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the volunteer
attorneys and the ACLU for the work leading up to the settlement
in the case.

The order approving the settlement is available for free at:

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

The suit is CIV 01-01463 PCT-JAT, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, and appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 03-15915).


AUTO OWNERS: Ill. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss PPO Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber refused to dismiss a
class action alleging violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act by Auto Owners Casualty and
Surety Co.

The suit was filed by chiropractor Frank Bemis in February 2005.  
It accuses Auto Owners of improperly taking a Preferred Provider
Organization discount without providing any channeling,
steerage, or referral of patients to him in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Auto Owners motioned to dismiss the suit saying it is governed
by an express contract which allows them to take a PPO discount;
and under an Avery ruling, a breach of contract suit is not
permissible as basis of an ICFA complaint even if fraud is
alleged.

"This court is of the opinion that the existence of a valid
contract between the parties and of the implied duty to refer
patients is a question of fact at this stage of the proceedings
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss," Judge Weber wrote.  
A dismissal motion based on the Avery ruling also failed at this
stage of the proceedings, the judge said.

On the basis of a ruling in "Zinser v. State Farm" which allows
doctors or medical organizations to sue whenever consumer
protections are implicated, Judge Weber ruled that Mr. Bemis
does have a standing to bring his suit.

Judge Weber gave Mr. Bemis 30 days to stand on the current
amended complaint or to file a different amended complaint
consistent with his ruling.

The court also indicated it will address in the future the
challenges of Auto Owners.  The company argues, among others,
that:

      -- the suit should be decided by the Illinois Workmen's
         Compensation Commission not by Judge Weber since Mr.
         Bemis treated a patient that was injured on the job;
         and

     -- an arbitrator is in the best position to argue the
        rights and liabilities of the parties.

Auto Owners is represented by Robert Shultz at Heyl Royster,
Suite 100, Mark Twain Plaza II, 103 West Vandalia Street, P.O.
Box 467, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-
656-4646, Telecopier: 618-656-7940, Web site:
http://www.hrva.com

Mr. Bemis is represented by Jeffrey Millar of The Lakin Law Firm
in Wood River, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River,
Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127,
Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


BIJOU-MARKET: May Conduct Rule 2004 Examination on Minami Lew
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Thomas E. Carlson of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of California in San Francisco authorized
Bijou-Market, LLC, to examine William Kwong, Esq., and the most
knowledgeable person employed by Minami, Lew & Tanaki, LLP,
pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedures (Troubled Company Reporter, July 27, 2006 Vol. 10,
No. 177).

The Minami Firm purports to litigate a class action, "Roe 1 et
al. v. Bijou-Market, et al.," against Bijou-Market.

Although the State Court Litigation has been pending for three
years, no order certifying the State Court Litigation as a class
action was sought or obtained and the discovery phase had only
just begun, the defendants have already expended more than
$225,000 in attorneys' fees.

Moreover, Bijou-Market believed, based on the experience of
similarly situated defendants, that the claims that might
ultimately be submitted by the members of the purported class
were the plaintiffs to prevail would be modest in the aggregate
and materially less than the likely costs of defense.

Bijou-Market sought to use the chapter 11 process to determine
the universe of claims against it, including the claims of the
underlying class members, in the expectation that it could
propose a confirmable Plan that would put the State Court
Litigation to rest.

Bijou-Market submits that the Minami Firm has relevant
information about the quality of the process for creditors as a
key issue in this bankruptcy case in at least three respects:

   -- First, information about the number of inquiries made by
      potential claimants to Mr. Kwong or Minami Lew,
      information about Claimant Meetings conducted by Minami
      Lew or of which the Firm is aware, and information about
      mailings made by the Firm to non-clients or prospective
      clients would all constitute relevant information about
      the quality of the process that claimants have enjoyed in
      this case.

      Bijou-Market does not intend to attempt to invade an
      attorney-client privilege and will not inquire about the
      substance of any communication between Minami Lew and any
      claimant client.  Bijou-Market submits that the existence
      of communication, however, is not privileged;

   -- Second, potential claimants responding to Bijou-Market's
      notice may have advised representatives of Minami Lew that
      they:

      * declined to retain the Firm,

      * did not wish to participate in the class action,

      * preferred to file claims in the bankruptcy case by
        themselves, or

      * preferred that the class action not go forward.

      Bijou-Market submits that communications Opposing the
      Class Process are relevant, non-privileged and
      appropriately Discoverable;

   -- Third, Minami Lew had indicated that it intended to file a
      Class Proof of Claim prior to the Claims Bar Date, which
      was scheduled on July 3.  If it did so, it would be
      appropriate to permit the Debtor to inquire of Minami Lew
      regarding it.

Bijou-Market, LLC -- http://www.msclive.com/-- operates an  
adult entertainment facility on Market Street in San Francisco.  
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 28, 2006
(Bankr. N.D. Calif. Case No. 06-30118).  Michael St. James,
Esq., at St. James Law, P.C., represents the Debtor in its
restructuring efforts.  No Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors has been appointed in this case to date.  When the
Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed assets
totaling $620,458 and debts totaling $66,308,352.


BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED: ERISA, LRMA Lawsuit in Ind. Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Products Inc., a subsidiary
of BorgWarner, Inc., said that a class action pending against it
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
was dismissed with prejudice.

The suit was filed originally on Feb. 27, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan as Case No.
2:06-cv-10861-PDB-MKM by four retirees who are alleging
violations of the Labor-Management Relations Act and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The named plaintiffs are Bob L. Bertram, Eugene J. Winningham,
James L. Kelley and Willard L. Sloan.  They purported to bring
the case on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
former employees and surviving spouses of former employees who
retired from the company after Oct. 26, 1989 and who were
represented by the United Auto Workers in collective bargaining.

Motions concerning the appropriate venue for these cases were
heard in the second quarter and the court ordered the case to be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.  It has since been dismissed without prejudice.  

The suit is "Sloan, et al. v. BorgWarner Diversified
Transmission Products, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00957-LJM-VSS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Indiana
under Judge Larry J. McKinney with referral to Judge V. Sue
Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs is Roger J. McClow Klimist, McKnight
of 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 117, Southfield, MI 48034-
2161, Phone: 248-354-9650, E-mail: rmcclow@kmsmc.com.

Representing the defendant is Daniel P. Colling of Miller,
Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500,
Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone: 313-496-7646, E-mail:
colling@millercanfield.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied
Carrier Access Corp.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.  

Beginning on Jun. 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the company and certain company
officials.  The cases were:

      -- "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1011-LTB,"

      -- "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and

      -- "Sved v. Carrier Access Corp., et al, Case No.
         05-cv-1280-EWN."

On Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Oct.
21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing
in connection with the company's announcement of the company's
intention to restate previously issued financial statements for
the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004 and certain interim
periods in each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004.

On Mar. 17, 2006, the company moved to dismiss on numerous
grounds, including:

     * failure to state a claim;

     * failure to adequately plead a claim based upon purported
       failure to disclose "saturation" and product development
       delays;

     * failure to plead specific facts giving rise to a strong
       inference that defendants knew or were reckless in not
       knowing that the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports on Form 10-
       K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q contained materially
       false financial statements; and

     * failure to plead motive for defendants to commit fraud
       and failure to plead a violation of Section 20A of the
       Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Section 78t-1(a)).

On July 18, 2006, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  No trial date has been set
for this matter.

The consolidated suit is "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01011-LTB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T. Babcock.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kip Brian Shuman, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
         KShuman@DyerShuman.com;

     (2) Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone, P.C., 1600 Stout
         Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-534-
         4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com; and

     (3) Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and Charles Walter Lilley,
         Lilley & Garcia, LLP, 1600 Stout Street #1100, Denver,
         CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-298-
         8975, E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com or
         clilley@lilleygarcia.com.

Representing the company is Karen Thomas Stefano of Wilson,
Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1050, U.S.A., Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-
mail: kstefano@wsgr.com.


CHINA: Rights Group Demands Release of Forced Abortion Activist
---------------------------------------------------------------
International advocacy group Human Rights Watch is demanding
that Chinese authorities immediately release Chen Guangcheng, a
blind lawyer, who planned to bring a class action to challenge
the government's use of such coercive measures to enforce its
one-child-per-family policy.

Since his arbitrary detention in August 2005, Mr. Chen has been
reportedly subject to physical abuse by police, and local
officials have repeatedly interfered with attempts by his legal
team to interview witnesses and gather evidence.  Mr. Chen is
due to be tried on July 20 for intent to damage public property
and inciting others to join him to disrupt traffic.

Chinese officials though postponed that criminal trial, as Mr.
Chen's supporters gathered in large numbers to protest what they
say is a politically motivated prosecution.

Court officials, who had issued a written notice of the July 20
trial date, decided at the last minute to postpone the trial.
But they issued no written notice of their decision and did not
set a new date, according to Mr. Chen's lead attorney, Li
Jinsong.  

The officials told Mr. Li that prosecutors in the case had
requested extra time to prepare evidence in the case.  Mr. Li
hopes that the postponement was a sign that prosecutors were
dissatisfied with the evidence gathered against Mr. Chen, which
his lawyers have called flimsy.  

Before he was detained, Mr. Chen had recorded testimony from men
and women in communities in and around Linyi, China, who have
experienced forced abortions and sterilizations, as well as had
family members captured and tortured after they tried to hide or
run from authorities (Class Action Reporter September 1, 2005).

After gathering testimony in March 2005, Mr. Chen planned to
bring a class action to challenge the government's use of such
coercive measures to enforce its one-child-per-family policy.

In June 2005, Mr. Chen filed the class action, and then traveled
to Beijing to discuss the case with legal scholars, lawyers and
foreign journalists.  Soon after, the lawsuit was rejected.

"When Chen tried to make proper use of China's legal system, the
response wasn't due process," according to Sophie Richardson,
deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch.  "It
was house arrest, physical abuse, and then 'disappearance' by
local authorities.  His case is a textbook example of how little
the rule of law really means in China."  

On August 12, 2005, local officials imprisoned Mr. Chen and his
immediate family in their home without access to communication.  
Mr. Chen escaped in September, but was apprehended in Beijing
and returned to Linyi.  When he tried again to escape in
October, local authorities failed to protect him against
beatings by civilians.

On March 11, 2006, Yinan county police officers "disappeared"
Mr. Chen for three months.  It was not until June 11, 2006, that
officials acknowledged he had been formally detained in the
Yinan County Detention Center.  On June 21, the Yinan County
People's Procuratorate approved Mr. Chen's arrest.  

Ms. Richardson pointed out, "[Mr.] Chen's story - his
disappearance, letting unknown assailants beat him and his legal
team, and holding him for months without any judicial process -
spotlights the failings of the Chinese judiciary." She further
said, "China should free [Mr.] Chen and welcome his exposure of
official abuses, instead of continuing to persecute him."

For more details, visit http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e11.


COCA-COLA CO: Discovery Continues in Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against The Coca-Cola Co.

On Oct. 27, 2000, a class action, "Carpenters Health & Welfare
Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Company, et
al.," was filed against the company, alleging that the company,
M. Douglas Ivester, Jack L. Stahl and James E. Chestnut violated
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations or material omissions relating to the
company's financial condition and prospects in late 1999 and
early 2000.

A second, largely identical lawsuit, "Gaetan LaValla v. The
Coca-Cola Co., et al.," was also filed in the same court on Nov.
9, 2000.

The complaints, which was brought seeking an unspecified amount
of damages, allege that the company and the individual named
officers:

      -- forced certain Coca-Cola system bottlers to accept
         "excessive, unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate
         during the third and fourth quarters of 1999, thus
         creating a misleading sense of improvement in the
         company's performance in those quarters;

      -- failed to write down the value of impaired assets in
         Russia, Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again
         resulting in the presentation of misleading interim
         financial results in the third and fourth quarters of
         1999; and

      -- misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure
         from the company and then misleadingly reassured the
         financial community that there would be no changes in
         the company's core business strategy or financial
         outlook following that departure.

On Jan. 8, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia entered an order consolidating the two cases
for all purposes as, "Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of
Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al."  The
court also ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

On July 25, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which largely repeated the allegations made in the
original complaints and added Douglas N. Daft as an additional
defendant.

On Sept. 25, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On Aug. 20, 2002,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
the complaint.  On Sept. 4, 2002, the defendants filed a motion
for partial reconsideration of the court's Aug. 20, 2002 ruling.  
The court denied the motion on April 15, 2003.

On June 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on June 30, 2003.

On March 31, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  In its
order, the court dismissed a number of the plaintiffs'
allegations, including the claim that the company made knowingly
false statements to financial analysts.  The court permitted the
remainder of the allegations to proceed to discovery.  

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to further
amend and re-plead their complaint.  Discovery commenced on May
14, 2004, and is ongoing.  The discovery cutoff is Feb. 15,
2007.

The suit is "Carpenters Health &, et al. v. Coca-Cola Co, et
al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02838-WBH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Willis B.
Hunt, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Andrew Bain of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com;
         and

     (2) Mary K. Blasy of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA
         92101-4297, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         maryb@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company:

     (i) Robert L. Dell Angelo of Munger Tolles & Olson, 355
         South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90071, Phone: 213-683-9100; and

    (ii) Jeffrey S. Cashdan of King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree
         Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404-572-
         4600, E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com.


GEORGIA: Court Certifies Class in Suit Against Sex Offender Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia certified as a class action a
challenge to the state's new sex offender law.

On June 20, 2006, The Southern Center for Human Rights and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed this action
challenging discrete portions of Georgia's new sex offender
residency law, Act. No. 571, Georgia. Laws 2006 (HB 1059),
codified at Ga. Code Ann. Section 42-1-15.

House Bill 1059, which took effect on July 1, broadens the law
governing where registered sex offenders may reside by
prohibiting them from living or working within 1,000 feet of any
child care facility, church, school or "area where minors
congregate," including parks and recreation facilities,
playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums,
swimming pools and bus stops.

Plaintiffs contend the Act violates:

     -- the U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 10, prohibiting ex
        post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws that
        impair the obligation of contracts;

     -- the procedural component of the due process clause;

     -- the substantive component of the due process clause and
        the right to family privacy;

     -- the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
        Act;

     -- the free exercise clause and the right to freedom of
        association;

     -- the Takings Clause;

     -- the right to interstate and intrastate travel; and

     -- the Eighth Amendment.

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

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

On a July 28 ruling, the court finds that this matter may
properly proceed as a class action and hereby certified a class
consisting of all persons who are registered, are required to
register, or in the future will be required to register as sex
offenders pursuant to Section 42-1-12.1

Defendants in the case are:

     -- Gov. Sonny Perdue,
     -- Georgia Attorney,
     -- General Thurbert E. Baker,
     -- Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown, and
     -- Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks  

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

Plaintiffs are seeking the court to:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this action;

     -- determine by Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure that this action be maintained
        as a class action;

     -- enter a preliminary and thereafter a permanent
        injunction enjoining the portions of the Act that
        violate the rights of plaintiffs and the class they
        represent;

     -- declare that the portion of the Act prohibiting
        residence within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop is
        vague and overbroad;

     -- declare that the Act violates:

        * the Ex Post Facto Clause,
        * the procedural component of the Due Process Clause,
        * the substantive component of the Due Process Clause
          and the right to family privacy,
        * the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
          Act,
        * the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of
          association,
        * the Takings Clause,
        * the right to interstate and intrastate travel, and
        * the Eighth Amendment.

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs;

     -- award Plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and
        reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to The Public Health
        and Welfare Code of 1988; and

     -- order such other and further relief as this court may
        deem just and proper.

A copy of the certification order is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ed1

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:
         404-688-1202;

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

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


GEORGIA: Columbia County Enjoined from Enforcing Bus Stop Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia County Sheriff Clay N. Whittle, under an ordered issued
July 28, was enjoined from enforcing the portion of Georgia Code
Ann. Section 42-1-15(a) that prohibits anyone on Georgia's sex
offender registry from living within 1,000 feet of a "school bus
stop."  The consent order was entered at the direction of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome
Division.  

On July 25, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction that challenges the constitutionality of two
provisions of the Georgia Sex Offender Residency Statute enacted
by Act No. 571, Georgia Laws 2006 (HB 1059), codified at
O.C.G.A. section 42-1-15.

Plaintiffs asked the court to preliminarily enjoin the portions
of the Act that would prohibit registered sex offenders from
living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop or a church.  On
June 27, 2006, the court entered an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as to the school bus stop
provision, and on July 11, 2006, the court extended the
Temporary Restraining Order for an additional 10 days so that
the court could hear evidence and argument from both parties and
rule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

After oral arguments made by both parties at a preliminary
injunction hearing held on July 11-12, 2006, and having reviewed
and applied the relevant legal principles, the court considered
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as premature
because the court finds no evidence in the record to indicate
that any local school board of education has designated school
bus stops pursuant to the Act.

On July 28, Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia certified as a class action a
challenge to the state's new sex offender law.

The Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Georgia filed this action on June 20, 2006,
challenging discrete portions of Georgia's new sex offender
residency law, Act. No. 571, Ga. Laws 2006 (HB 1059), codified
at Ga. Code Ann. Section 42-1-15.

House Bill 1059, which took effect on July 1, broadens the law
governing where registered sex offenders may reside by
prohibiting them from living or working within 1,000 feet of any
child care facility, church, school or "area where minors
congregate," including parks and recreation facilities,
playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums,
swimming pools and bus stops.

Plaintiffs contend the Act violates:

     -- the U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 10, prohibiting ex
        post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws that
        impair the obligation of contracts;

     -- the procedural component of the due process clause;

     -- the substantive component of the due process clause and
        the right to family privacy;

     -- the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
        Act;

     -- the free exercise clause and the right to freedom of
        association;

     -- the Takings Clause;

     -- the right to interstate and intrastate travel; and

     -- the Eighth Amendment.

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

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

Defendants in the case are:

     -- Gov. Sonny Perdue,
     -- Georgia Attorney,
     -- General Thurbert E. Baker,
     -- Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown, and
     -- Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks

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

Plaintiffs are seeking the court to:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this action;

     -- determine by Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure that this action be maintained
        as a class action;

     -- enter a preliminary and thereafter a permanent
        injunction enjoining the portions of the Act that
        violate the rights of plaintiffs and the class they
        represent;

     -- declare that the portion of the Act prohibiting
        residence within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop is
        vague and overbroad;

     -- declare that the Act violates:

        * the Ex Post Facto Clause,
        * the procedural component of the Due Process Clause,
        * the substantive component of the Due Process Clause
          and the right to family privacy,
        * the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
          Act,
        * the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of
          association,
        * the Takings Clause,
        * the right to interstate and intrastate travel, and
        * the Eighth Amendment.

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs;

     -- award Plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and
        reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to The Public Health
        and Welfare Code of 1988; and

     -- order such other and further relief as this Court may
        deem just and proper.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:
         404-688-1202;

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

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


GLOBAL CROSSING: $99M Settlement Reached in N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Underwriter Defendants and CIBC Defendants' in the matter, "In
Re Global Crossing Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ.
910 (GEL)" reached a $99 million settlement with plaintiffs on
July 24, 2006.  The suit is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Underwriter Defendants settled for $82.5 million.  It was
reached with 26 underwriter defendants, and includes these six
top payments:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.         $42 million
Merrill Lynch                    $19 million
JP MOrgan                        $3.78 million
CSFB-DLJ                         $6.68 million
Morgan Stanley                   $2.9 million
Bear Stearns                     $3 million

The CIBC Defendants settlement is $16.5 million.  Settling
defendants are CIBC WM, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, CIBC
Capital Partners and CIBC Capital Partners (Cayman).

The defendants did not admit strengths or weaknesses of any
claims or defenses in the suit.

The settlement covers the class period Feb. 1, 1999 through Dec.
8, 2003, inclusive.

Lead counsel in the suit is the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A.  Lead plaintiff is the Public Employees' Retirement System
of Ohio and the State Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio,
Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan, and Roman foltyn, as
class representatives.

Claims filing deadline is Dec. 31, 2006.  Deadline to object and
to be excluded from the settlement is Oct. 6, 2006.  A fairness
hearing is set Oct. 27, 2006.

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

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ec9

For more information, visit
http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.comor contact:

Underwriter Defendants:   Peter L. Simmons and Israel David
                          Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
                          Jacobson LLP, One New York Plaza, New
                          York, N.Y. 10004, Phone: (212) 859-
                          8000; Fax: (212)-859-4000: E-mail:
                          peter.simmons@frieddrank.com;
                          israel.david@friedfrank.com

CIBC Defendants:          T. Mark McLaughlin, Daniel L. Ring at
                          Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 71 S.
                          Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60606-4637,
                          Phone: (312) 782-0600; Fax: (312) 701-
                          7711, E-mail:
                          mmclaughlin@mayerbrownrowe.com; or
                          dring@mayerbrownrowe.com.

Lead plaintiffs:          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
                          Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
                          Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A. Chase
                          Manhattan Center, 1201 North Market
                          Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE
                          19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax:
                          (302) 622-7100, E-mail:  
                          jeisenhofer@gelaw.com, or
                          slieesman@gelaw.com  


GUAM: Aug. 9 Hearing Set in Suit Over COLA Payments to Retirees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas has given attorneys in a
class action over cost-of-living allowances owed to retirees one
week to decide what calculation to use to determine the payout,
Kuam News reports.  A hearing is set for Aug. 9, 2006 at 9:00
a.m. to determine whether parties in the suit were able to reach
a compromise or if the attorneys need to present arguments to
the court, according to the report.

The lawsuit concerns the COLA payouts based on inflation that
the government was unable to pay to more than 4,000 retirees
under a law that was in effect between 1988 and 1995.

In March, Superior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas ordered
the governor to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees,
and provide that information by May 31.  But instead of
complying, Guam filed a challenge to the order.  

Lawyers of both parties were in disagreement over the base year
for the computation of payments.  The government's legal
adviser, which drafted a proposed order for the award, said it
is 1990.  On the other hand, the retirees' attorney said it
should be 1988 as ordered by the court.

Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula
for most of the payout will be based on the consumer price index
of 1988.  The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that
was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.

Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and
$100 million, a previous report say.

Representing the government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP,
Suite 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive,
Tamuning 96913, Guam, Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223,
Web site: http://www.guamlawoffice.com. Representing the  
retirees is Mike Philips.


INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiff Explains Comment on $8B Settlement Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elouise Pepion Cobell denied earlier reports that quoted her as
allegedly saying that an $8 billion settlement offer by certain
members of the U.S. Congress to resolve the resolve the 10-year-
old class action, "Cobell v. Kempthorne," formerly "Cobell v.
Norton" is "equitable."

In the web site, http://www.indiantrust.com,Ms. Cobell said  
that she made no such statement.  She said, "That is not what I
believe.  What I know is that Indian people have been abused and
cheated out of our trust income, and continue to be cheated, by
government officials who are in an egregious breach of trust."

She adds, "Nonetheless, it would be foolish to ignore political
realities while our people continue to go without the basic
staples of life."

Ms. Cobell further states, "That is why I and the other
representative plaintiffs -- in consultation with class members
-- are considering this settlement offer.  We have not come to
any conclusions whether to support this or not.  Our
deliberations are on-going."

Previously, it was reported that American Indians in the
protracted class action, claims that the government mismanaged
billions of dollars in federal trust funds are contemplating an
offer by certain members of the U.S. Congress to resolve their
case for $8 billion (Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2006).

Though the offer is much lower than the $27.5 billion amount
that plaintiffs offered to settle for back in 2005, the Native
Americans now say that they are seriously considering the 10-
digit figure (Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2006).

In an interview with The Associated Press, Ms. Cobell a
Blackfeet Indian who is the lead plaintiff in the case said that
that amount is something she wished was higher, but she was
happy that they (Congress) brought forward something that was
equitable.  Ms. Cobell was quoted as saying in that interview,
"Can we ever get near the total fair amount that should be given
to individual Indians? I don't think so.  I think individual
Indian account holders would support $8 billion."

                         Case Background

Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, filed
the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.  It seeks 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 1887.

Specifically, 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.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest
form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to
surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

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

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

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

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.


JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated MDL-1586 Lawsuit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group Inc. and certain affiliates were named as
defendants in a consolidated lawsuit, "In re: Alger, Columbia,
Janus, MFS, One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, Case Number MDL
No. 1586, 04-MD-15863," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, according to the company's July 27, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit comes in the wake of a market timing investigations by
both the New York Attorney General and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated
proceedings, including:

     (1) claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
         asserting claims on behalf of the investor class;

     (2) derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
         ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds;

     (3) claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
         plan;

     (4) claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus on a
         derivative basis against Janus' board of directors; and

     (5) claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders
         asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders.

On Aug. 25, 2005, the court entered orders dismissing most of
the claims asserted against the company and its affiliates by
fund investors -- actions (1) and (2) -- except certain claims
under Section 10(b) of U.S. the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The complaint in the 401(k) plan class action -- action (3) --
was voluntarily dismissed, but was refiled using a new named
plaintiff, "Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., 05
CV-02711, D. Maryland," and asserting claims similar to the
initial complaint.  

On June 2, 2006, the plaintiffs asserting claims on behalf of
Janus corporate shareholders -- action (5) -- filed an amended
complaint, which asserts similar claims to the initial
complaint.

As a result of the above events, the company, Janus Capital
Management, LLC, the Advisory Committee of the Janus 401(k)
plan, and the current or former directors of the company are the
remaining defendants, in some capacity, in one or more of the
actions described above.

The suit is "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group,
Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, case no. 1:04-md-15863-JFM," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, under
Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher S. Hinton of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New
York, NY 10016, Phone: 12125454663, Fax: 12125454653.  

Representing the company is Andrew Santo Tulumello, Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300, Washington,
DC 20036-5306, Phone: 12029558657, Fax: 12024670539, E-mail:
atulumello@gibsondunn.com.


LIFECELL CORP: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Unsanctioned Tissue Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecell Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
over its alleged involvement in unauthorized removal of a
donor's tissue by a New Jersey-based company.

In September 2005, the company recalled products containing
human tissue because the facility, which recovered the tissue,
Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. of New Jersey, did not follow
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for donor
screening to determine if risk factors for communicable diseases
existed.  The company promptly notified FDA and all relevant
hospitals and medical professionals (Class Action Reporter, Amy
18, 2006).

FDA subsequently determined that patients who received tissue
implants prepared from Biomedical Tissue donors might be at a
heightened risk of communicable disease transmission, and
recommended those patients receive appropriate testing.  The
company has worked closely with FDA to execute a product recall
and set up a LifeCell-sponsored testing program.  The company
has not received any donor tissue from BTS after September 2005.

Filed on March 7, 2006, the suit seeks compensatory damages from
Biomedical Tissue and all defendants, including the company,
which received and used Biomedical Tissue-originated tissue.  
Plaintiffs are the next-of-kin of the donors who did not
authorize Biomedical Tissue to remove the tissue at issue.  
Presently, plaintiffs are objecting to the transfer to MDL
litigation in New Jersey.

The suit is "Kennedy-McInnis et al v. Biomedical Tissue
Services, Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-06140-DGL-MWP," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
under Judge David G. Larimer with referral to Judge Marian W.
Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs is Van Henri White of The Law Office
of Van White, 18 Grove Place, Rochester, NY 14605, Phone: 585-
271-6780, Fax: 585-271-6130, E-mail:
van.white@thelegalbrief.com.  


MERCK & CO: Firm Urges Vioxx Users to File Claims Before Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston, Texas attorneys, John and Jennifer Kahn of the Kahn Law
Firm encourages potential Vioxx plaintiffs to file claims
against Merck & Co., before a Sept. 30, 2006 deadline.

Sept. 30 is the two-year anniversary of the date when the
company, the manufacturer of Vioxx, removed the drug from the
market after research indicated that the arthritis pain-killer
increased the risk of heart attack and stroke among users.

In many states, including Texas, the statute of limitations for
filing a lawsuit ends two years after a drug is withdrawn.  The
Kahn's worry that despite the fact that over 16,000 lawsuits
have already been filed against the company, many more potential
plaintiffs around the nation may be unaware of the critical
date.

"It's important for people to understand and exercise their
legal rights regardless of where they live," according to John
Kahn Jr., a graduate from Loyola University in New Orleans, LA
and the South Texas College of Law.  "If someone was using Vioxx
they or their loved ones should seek qualified legal advice as
soon as possible.  There is still time for potential cases to be
reviewed and filed but with each passing day, the window of
opportunity closes just a bit."

"After Sept. 30, the options for Vioxx users in many states will
be severely curtailed," adds Jennifer Hodges Kahn, a 1998
graduate of Texas A&M University and 2001 graduate of the South
Texas College of Law.  "We want everyone to understand that it's
not too late to take action but they must not wait.  Each case
is unique so acting promptly will give your legal counsel more
opportunity to review your particular situation."

For more information, contact The Kahn Law Firm, 1314 Texas
Avenue, Suite 1012, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 1-877-226-9940,
Website: http://www.thekahnlawfirm.com.


NEWMONT MINING: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado against Newmont Mining Corp.  

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 & Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action against the company
and Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and Bruce D. Hansen.  Zoe
Myerson filed similar purported class actions in the same court
on June 15, 2005; John S. Chapman filed his on June 20, 2005.  

Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the
company and the individual defendants violated certain antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
alleged operating deficiencies.  The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  

In October 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in
April 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.  The
suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005.

The consolidated suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers
Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01046-MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger with referral
to Judge Boyd N. Boland.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Darby K. Kennedy and Kip Brian
Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO
80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-
mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com and KShuman@DyerShuman.com.

Representing the defendants are, Pamela Robillard Mackey and Lee
David Foreman of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
Foreman, PC, 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-831-7364, Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail:
pmackey@hmflaw.com and lforeman@hmflaw.com.


NIGERIA: Oct. 6 Hearing Set in Suit Over Bakassi Land Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------  
A federal court in Abuja has adjourned further hearing in a
class action filed by some residents in Bakassi Local Government
Area in Cross River State until Oct. 6, 2006, according to The
Vanguard.

The residents filed the suit in June challenging the legality of
the Treaty ceding Bakassi Peninsular to Cameroon (Class Action
Reporter, July 21, 2006).  A treaty to transfer the land was
signed in June by Nigeria President Olusegun Obasanjo and
Cameroon President Paul Biya in New York.

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

The suit is asking the court to determine whether:

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiff is attorney Femi Falana of Lagos.


PAN PACIFIC: Faces Calif. Stockholders' Suit Over Kimco Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc. is a defendant in two
purported class action filed in the Superior Court for San Diego
County, California over a merger agreement Kimco Realty Corp.

On July 9, 2006, the company and certain of its subsidiaries
entered into a merger agreement with Kimco under which Kimco
will acquire all of the company's outstanding shares for $70 in
cash per each share of common stock, subject to a number of
conditions, including approval of the company's stockholders.

On July 11 and July 12, 2006, two class actions were filed on
behalf of the company's public stockholders.  The complaints are
substantially similar, and both allege, among other things, that
the members of the company's board breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the purported class by entering into a merger
agreement that favors the interests of certain members of the
Board but is detrimental to the company's public stockholders.

The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the
completion of the merger unless and until the company implement
a procedure to obtain the highest price for the company.

Under the merger agreement, Kimco may elect to issue up to $10
of the per share merger consideration in the form of Kimco
common stock.  Kimco has the right to make this stock election
any time prior to the date, which is 15 days prior to the date
of the company's stockholders' meeting.  Kimco may revoke its
stock election at any time if the revocation would not delay the
stockholders' meeting by more than 10 business days.

Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc. (NYSE: PNP) --
http://www.pprp.com/-- is a self-administered and self-managed  
real estate investment trust that owns, leases and manages
neighborhood and community shopping centers.


RAYTHEON CO: Reaches $5.5M Settlement in Mass. ERISA Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated class action against Raytheon Co.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, reached a tentative settlement in the matter, which is
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In May 2003 two purported class actions were filed on behalf of
participants in the company's savings and investment plans that
invested in the company's stock between Aug. 19, 1999 and May
27, 2003.  This action were:

      -- "Benjamin Wall v. Raytheon Company et al. (Civil Action
         No. 03-10940-RGS)," and

      -- "Joseph I. Duggan, III v. Raytheon Company et al.
         (Civil Action No. 03-10995-RGS)."

The two class actions were brought pursuant to ERISA.  Both are
substantially similar and have been consolidated into a single
action as, "Wall v. Raytheon CO. et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-10940-
RGS."

In April 2004, a second consolidated amended complaint was filed
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the company's
savings and investment plans that invested in company common
stock since Oct. 7, 1998.

The Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint alleges that the
company, its Pension and Investment Group, and its Investment
Committee breached ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to:

      -- prudently and loyally manage plan assets;

      -- monitor the Pension and Investment Group and the
         Investment Committee and provide them with accurate
         information;

      -- provide complete and accurate information to plan
         participants and beneficiaries; and

      -- avoid conflicts of interest.

In October 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint.  In September 2005,
the court heard the motion to dismiss, but declined to decide
the motion subject to a trial on a statue of limitations issue,
which was scheduled for June 2006.

In mediation with a federal magistrate in May 2006, the parties
reached a tentative settlement.  On June 23, 2006, a proposed
settlement agreement was presented to the court for approval.

If approved by the court, the settlement agreement would require
the company to pay $5.5 million, with part of that amount
payable directly to the company's savings and investment plans,
part payable directly to certain participants and beneficiaries
and part payable for expenses.

The company would also pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in an
amount to be determined by a federal magistrate within a range
of $1.0 million and $2.5 million as prescribed by the settlement
agreement.

Under the proposed settlement, the class for purposes of
settlement would consist of any person who was a participant or
beneficiary at any time between Oct. 7, 1998, and April 30,
2006, and whose plan accounts included investments in the
Raytheon Common Stock Fund.  The court has stayed any
proceedings in light of the proposed settlement.

The suit is "Wall v. Raytheon CO. et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
10940-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court fort the District
of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward W. Ciolko and Mark K. Gyandoh of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com; and
         mgyandoh@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) Peter H. LeVan, Jr. of Hangley Aronchick Segal &
         Pudlin, One Logan Square, 27th Floor, Philadephia, PA
         19103-6933, US, Phone: 215-496-7071, Fax: 215-585-0300,
         E-mail: plevan@hangley.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Rebecca Ruby Anzidei and James P. Gillespie of Kirkland
         & Ellis, LLP, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-879-5046 and 202-879-
         5000, Fax: 202-879-5200, E-mail: ranzidei@kirkland.com
         and jgillespie@kirkland.com; and

    (ii) James F. Kavanaugh, Jr. of Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal,
         Peisch & Ford, LLP, Ten Post Office Square Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-482-8200, Fax: 617-482-6444, E-mail:
         jkavanaugh@ckrpf.com.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: SEC Deal Distinct From N.Y. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. disclosed that the settlement it
proposed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with a regulatory investigation relating to the
company's restatement of its financial statements does not
include the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class
action pending against the company and certain of its current
and former officers in New York federal court.

Earlier, the company submitted an offer of settlement to the SEC
in connection with the commission's investigation relating to
the company's restatement of its financial statements for the
years ended Dec. 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Beginning in July 2005, seven putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purchasers of the company's common stock.  On Dec. 19, 2005,
these actions were consolidated under the name, "In re
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-
6764 (WHP)."  District No. 9, I.A. of M. & A.W. Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and Joseph Moss were appointed co-
lead plaintiff, while Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP were appointed co-lead
counsel (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2006).

On Feb. 14, 2006, co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which purports to have been filed on behalf
of all persons who purchased and/or acquired the publicly traded
securities of the company between April 22, 2003 and July 25,
2005.  

The Consolidated Amended Complaint names, in addition to the
company, current and former officers of the company as
defendants.  It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

It alleges that the company and the other named defendants
violated the U.S. federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and failing to state material facts about the
company's business and financial condition in, among other
things, Securities Act filings and public statements.  

The suit, which is at an early stage, seeks compensatory damages
without specifying an amount.  

The suit is "In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road,
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Christopher J. Keller of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow,
         LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: (212) 907-0853, Fax: (212) 883-7053, E-mail:
         ckeller@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants is Steven Robert Paradise of
Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor, New York
10103, Phone: (917) 206-8000, Fax: (917) 849-5338, E-mail:
sparadise@velaw.com.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Still Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Unlicensed Acts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit was filed on January 2006, alleging that the company
infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual
property by presenting performances on company cruise ships
without securing the necessary licenses.  The suit seeks payment
of damages, disgorgement of profits and a permanent injunction
against future infringement.  

The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Howard J. Schwartz Porzio,
Bromberg & Newman, P.C., (NJ), 156 West 56th St., New York, NY
10019-3800, Phone: (212) 265-6888, E-mail:
hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Frank W. Ryan of Nixon Peabody,
LLP, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 940-
3129, Fax: (866) 947-2289, E-mail: fryan@nixonpeabody.com.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Some Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed a trial
court's dismissal of certain claims in a legal proceeding
against The Sherwin-Williams Co. and the other defendants that
sought recovery based on public nuisance liability theories with
regards to lead pigment in paints.

Initiated in March 2000, the named plaintiffs in the suit are
the County of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of
Solano, County of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of
San Francisco, San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco
Unified School District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing
Authority, Oakland Redevelopment Agency and the Oakland Unified
School District.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California except the state and its
agencies.  

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for fraud
and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn,
strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent
breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance and
violations of California's Business and Professions Code.

Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants
through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike.

In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of
limitation grounds.

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision and on March 3,
2006, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reversed in
part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in favor of the
company and the other defendants.  

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa
Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and
reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim
to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks
of low-level exposure to lead.

The Court of Appeal further vacated the summary judgment holding
that statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims, and held that those claims had
not yet accrued because physical injury to the plaintiffs'
property had not been alleged.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most
aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair
business practice claim.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. (NYSE: SHW) -- http://www.sherwin-
williams.com/ -- is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and
sale of paint, coatings and related products to professional,
Industrial, commercial and retail customers primarily in North
and South America.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Sept. 21 Fairness Hearing Slated for "Miller"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 21, 2006 at 9:30
a.m. for proposed settlement in the matter "Miller, et al., v.
Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 449534.  The suit is
consolidated with Actions Nos. 438635, 449535 and 449608.

The hearing will be held before Judge Mark R. Forcum, 400 County
Center, Department B, Redwood City, CA 94063.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Sept.
12, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons who held Siebel Systems, Inc.
Common stock, either of record or beneficially, at any time
between and including Sept. 12, 2005, and Jan. 31, 2006, other
than defendants and their respective affiliates, to the extent
that the held Siebel stock.

"Miller v. Siebel Systems, Inc., Case No. 449534," and "Showers
v. Siebel Systems, Inc., Case No. 449535," both filed on Sept.
12, 2005 and "Corwin v. Siebel Systems, Inc., Case No. 449608,"
filed on Sept. 15, 2005, were all filed in San Mateo Superior
Court.

The company and its directors are named as defendants in all
three actions.  The Miller and Corwin complaints also name
Oracle Corp. as a defendant.

The complaints arise out of the announced purchase of the
company by Oracle and allege in substance that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the transaction
for failure to maximize stockholder value.

In the complaints where it is named, Oracle is alleged to have
aided and abetted the alleged violations.  These complaints seek
injunctive relief and damages together with interest and
reimbursement of costs and expenses of litigation.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the three actions were consolidated, with
Miller v. Siebel Systems, Inc. Case No. 449534 as the lead case.

On Dec. 21, 2005, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement without
seeking to maximize shareholder value, that the termination fee
of $140 million in the merger agreement is excessive and that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing in the
merger agreement not to solicit a higher bid for Siebel Systems.

The complaint also alleges that the earlier versions of the
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger with Oracle
omit material facts relating to Siebel Systems' forecasts or
projections, Oracle's projected earnings, Goldman Sachs'
analysis of the transaction, the negotiations leading to the
transaction, the terms of the consulting agreements to be
entered into between Oracle and Thomas M. Siebel and George
Shaheen and other matters.

Finally, the complaint alleges that the directors breached their
duties in connection with the administration of Siebel Systems'
1996 and 1998 Equity Incentive Plans, which allegedly resulted
in options being granted at a lower exercise price than they
should have been.

The complaint also alleges that, as a result, the recipients of
those options are receiving a greater share of the consideration
being paid by Oracle and the alleged options repricing increased
the expenses to be incurred by Oracle.

According to the complaint, these alleged increased expenses
have purportedly resulted in Oracle offering a lower price per
share to Siebel Systems' shareholders.  It alleges that Oracle
aided and abetted the directors' breaches of duties.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Patricia C. Weiser, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., 121 N.
         Wayne Avenue, Suite 100, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087,
         (Chester & Delaware Cos.), Phone: 610-225-2677, Fax:
         610-225-2678, Web site: http://www.weiserlawfirm.com;

     (2) Henry J. Young of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016,
         (New York Co.), Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax: 212-684-5191,
         Web site: http://www.abbeyspanier.com;and

     (3) Francis A. Bottini, Jr. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
         York 10016, (New York Co.), Phone: 619-239-4599, Fax:
         619-234-4599, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


UNITED STATES: Groups File Suit Over U.S. Citizenship Delays
------------------------------------------------------------
The ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights
Project and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a
class action on behalf of several immigrants against the federal
government over citizenship application delays.

According to ACLU/SC attorney Ranjana Natarajan, the plaintiffs
have meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship.  He argues that
there is no reason why they should wait so long for citizenship
after meeting all the requirements.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against high ranking officials in
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, seeks citizenship for 10 legal
permanent residents who have satisfied all the criteria for
citizenship, but whose applications have not been acted upon for
two years or more.

It also seeks a policy change so that no other residents are
forced to wait for years after meeting all naturalization
requirements.

U.S. immigration law clearly states that legal residents who
have fulfilled all the requirements including passing a
naturalization exam and interview must be granted or denied
citizenship within 120 days of their naturalization
examinations.

According to the lawsuit, despite the fact that plaintiffs have
been waiting for over two years since their naturalization
interviews, defendants have failed to provide any time frames by
which they will adjudicate plaintiffs' naturalization
applications.  Through their callous inaction the defendants
deprived plaintiffs of the rights and benefits of U.S.
citizenship.

The purported reason for the delay is a background check known
as a "name check," for which neither the Criminal Investigation
Service nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation imposes any
deadlines for completion.

Cecillia Wang, senior attorney for the ACLU Immigrants' Rights
Project, said that longtime residents who paid their dues and
are contributing to the country deserve a timely decision as
required by law.  She adds that their clients are among the
hundreds or thousands of longtime residents around the country
who waited patiently for years.

The Southern California residents who are part of the class
action represent dozens of other people throughout the region
who are in similar positions.

Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California
CAIR chapter said that regardless of whether the delay is due to
incompetence or discrimination, the ordeal for law-abiding and
patriotic residents must end.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?ed0

For more details, contact:

     (1) Todd Gallinger, Council of American-Islamic Relations
         (CAIR) - California, 2180 W. Crescent Ave., Suite F,
         Anaheim, California 92801, Phone: (714) 776-1847, Fax:
         (714) 776-8340;   

     (2) Ranjana Natarajan and Mark D. Rosenbaum, ACLU
         Foundation of Southern California, 1616 Beverly blvd.,
         Los Angeles, California 90026, Phone: (213) 997-9500,
         Fax: (213) 250-3919; and

     (3) Lucas Guttentag and Cecillia D. Wang, ACLU Foundation
         Immigrants' Rights Project, 39 Drumm St., San
         Francisco, California 94111, Phone: (415) 343-0775,
         Fax: (415) 395-0950.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CENTENE CORP: The Paskowitz Law Firm Files Mo. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Centene Corp. from June 21,
2006 through July 17, 2006.  Defendants include Centene and
certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Centene and certain officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions assuring the investing
public that Centene had its costs under control, when it did
not.

Centene is a healthcare enterprise which operates health plans
in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and additional states.

During the class period, the company assured investors that its
costs were under control, and that the only market where there
was any concern related to pharmacy costs in Indiana and to a
limited degree Ohio.  The defendants reported that cost trends
were improving in Indiana and Ohio.

In June 2006, defendants reaffirmed that there were no
surprises.  Thereafter in late June 2006, Goldman Sachs
announced that based on its discussions with Centene, its
management had strong confidence in its guidance for the second
quarter of 2006 and for the remainder of 2006, and that cost
trend issues remained manageable.

Then on July 18, 2006 defendants shocked the market by
announcing that 2006 second quarter results would be far below
prior guidance, and results for the remainder of 2006 would not
meet guidance, as well.  The huge shortfall was caused by
additional medical costs incurred in Indiana and Texas.  As a
result, Centene shares dropped from $21.04 to $13.44, wiping out
millions in shareholder value.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the court no later than Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C., Phone:
1-800-705-9529, E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com.


CENTENE CORP: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action on July 28,
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Centene
Corp. from June 21, 2006 through July 17, 2006.  Defendants
include Centene and certain of its top officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Centene and certain officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions assuring the investing
public that Centene had its costs under control, when it did
not.

Centene is a healthcare enterprise, which operates health plans
in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and additional states. During
the Class Period, the Company assured investors that its costs
were under control, and that the only market where there was any
concern related to pharmacy costs in Indiana and to a limited
degree Ohio.

The defendants reported that cost trends were improving in
Indiana and Ohio.  In June 2006, defendants reaffirmed that
there were no surprises.

Thereafter in late June 2006, Goldman Sachs announced that based
on its discussions with Centene, its management had strong
confidence in its guidance for the second quarter of 2006 and
for the remainder of 2006, and that cost trend issues remained
manageable.

Then on July 18, 2006 defendants shocked the market by
announcing that 2006-second quarter results would be far below
prior guidance, and results for the remainder of 2006 would not
meet guidance, as well.

The huge shortfall was caused by additional medical costs
incurred in Indiana and Texas.  As a result, Centene shares
dropped from $21.04 to $13.44, wiping out millions in
shareholder value.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court no later than Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


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 through 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 officer, chief operation 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.

Interested parties may not later than sixty days from July 28,
2006, to move the court 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.  


INFOSONICS CORP: Aug. 14 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, reminds all persons and
institutions who purchased securities of InfoSonics Corp.
between May 8, 2006 and June 12, 2006, may move the court not
later than Aug. 14, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff in a
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against the company.

The complaint charges InfoSonics 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 InfoSonics' financial performance caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

InfoSonics distributes wireless handsets and accessories in the
U.S. and Latin America.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
filed a quarterly report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and made false and misleading statements to the
investing public concerning InfoSonics' financial condition.
Those financial statements were false and misleading because
they improperly classified the Company's previously issued
warrants as derivative liability rather than equity, thereby
artificially inflating InfoSonics' net income by more than 33%.

On June 12, 2006, the company filed with the SEC an amended Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, and announced that its
previously filed Form 10-Q was false and required restatement.
Specifically, the company admitted that it had failed to comply
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133, and Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF 00-19) when it originally classified previously issued
warrants as a liability when they should have been classified as
equity.  That classification, when made and issued, was contrary
to GAAP and thereby false.

As a result of the restatement, the company's first-quarter net
income was reduced to $1.2 million, or $0.15 per share, from its
previously reported $1.7 million, or $0.22 per share.  The
restatement reduced the Company's previous first-quarter net
income by approximately 33%.

The news that InfoSonics had materially misrepresented its
financial condition and would need to issue a restatement caused
the company's stock to plummet, from the previous day's closing
price of $24.22 to $17.05 - a $7.17 drop or nearly 30%.  During
the class period, the stock traded as high as $33.53 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits,
and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. 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.  


SAFENET INC: Bernstein Litowitz Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, announced that a
class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of plaintiff Police &
Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and all similarly
situated purchasers of SafeNet, Inc. common stock between March
31, 2003 to May 18, 2006.  

The case is "Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No., 06-CV-5797," and has
been assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Crotty.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, SafeNet and
the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading proxy statements and periodic
SEC filings.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
defendants manipulated SafeNet's granting of stock options to
provide themselves with unlawful benefits and, during the second
and third quarters of 2005, defendants also engaged in improper
accounting of revenues and costs relating to certain long-term
delivery contracts.

In three separate recent disclosures, SafeNet has announced:

      -- the need to restate financial results for the second
         and third quarters of 2005 arising from improper
         booking of costs and revenues related to its long term
         contracts;

      -- the termination of its chief financial officer; and

      -- pending investigations by the SEC and the Office of the
         United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
         York.

The price of SafeNet stock declined in response to each
disclosure.  On July 26, 2006, SafeNet confirmed that it would
be restating its financial results for the fourth quarter of
2002, that its financial statements for the year ended 2002
should no longer be relied upon, and that it may restate other
periods as well.

The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 14(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder; that defendants SafeNet, Anthony A.
Caputo, Kenneth A. Mueller, Carole D. Argo, Thomas A. Brooks,
Ira A. Hunt, Jr., Bruce R. Thaw and Arthur L. Money violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; that all of the Individual Defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Interested parties seeking to serve as lead plaintiff must move
the dourt no later than 60 days from Aug. 1, 2006.

For more details, contact, Gerald H. Silk or Salvatore J.
Graziano of Bernstein Litowitz, Phone: 212-554-1400, E-mail:
jerry@blbglaw.com or sgraziano@blbglaw.com, Web site:
http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/safenet_securities.html.


                            *********


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  * * *