CAR_Public/060807.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 155

                            Headlines

AAIPHARMA INC: August Hearing Set for ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
ADELPHIA COMM: Nov. Hearing Set for $460M MDL-1529 Settlement
BELLSOUTH CORP: Investors Opposed to AT&T Merger Dismiss Lawsuit
BELLSOUTH CORP: Court Okays Writ of Certiorari for "Twombly"
BELLSOUTH CORP: Settles Ga. Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit

BELLSOUTH CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ga.
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Facing Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
CARREKER CORP: Tex. Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Aug. 16
CHEMICAL COS: Kentucky Plants Face Lawsuit Over Air Pollution
CNA FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Approves Labor Suit Settlement

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: W.Va. Court Sets 2007 Trial for "Adams"
DENTSPLY INT'L: Court Grants Class Status to Cavitron Lawsuit
DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Advance(R) Cement
IMMUCOR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct.

LOUISIANA: Reaches $2.5M Settlement in Ferriday Water Lawsuit
MEMBERS MORTGAGE: Sept. Hearing Set for Mass. Suit Settlement
NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL: Suit Over Mortgage Loan Discount Junked
OHIO UNIVERSITY: Asks Dismissal of Suit Over Student Data Thief
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set in Poultry Owners Lawsuit

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs in Discrimination Suit Dismissed
PPG INDUSTRIES: Discovery Ongoing in Automotive Refinishing Suit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Colo. Court OKs $33M ERISA Suit Settlement
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final Approval of $400M Settlement
RAMBUS INC: Roy Jacobs Plans to Amend Calif. Securities Lawsuit

SUPERVALU INC: To Make Payments in Suit Over Albertson's Sale
T. ROWE: High Court Ruling Could Affect "Parthasarathy" Appeal
WESTERN WORLD: Enters $2M Deal with Adult Family Home Operators
WORLDCOM INC: Asks Approval of Louisiana Right of Way Settlement
VERIZON NEW: SC OKs Non-Switched Analog Circuits Suit Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Spector Roseman Announces Stock Suit Filing
KLA-TENCOR: Kohn, Swift, Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in Utah
SCOTTISH RE: Kahn Gauthier Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AAIPHARMA INC: August Hearing Set for ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 30, 2006, at 10:00
a.m. for the proposed $1,050,000 settlement in the matter,
"William R. Martin v. Aaipharma, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:04-cv-
00078" in relation to "In Re Aaipharma Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 7:04-CV-27-D."

The hearing will be held before Judge James C. Dever, III, in
Courtroom 1 of the Seventh Floor of the Terry Sanford Building
and Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27601.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by Aug. 15, 2006.

The settlement affects all persons who were participants or
beneficiaries in the Aaipharma, Inc. retirement and savings plan
from April 24, 2002 to June 15, 2004.

Filed on Feb. 12, 2004, the suit alleges that defendants
violated fiduciary duties to the company employees and retirees
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In an amended complaint, plaintiff asserted various causes of
action for the monetary losses suffered by the plan as the
result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
defendants.

Portions of the accounts of participants in the plan were
invested in Aaipharma stock, as the result of the company's
decision to match plan participants' contribution with employer
securities.

The suit alleges that the company and some of its individual
directors, officers, and employees had an obligation to sell the
plan's holdings of Aaipharma stock.  

It also alleges that defendants continued to make matching
contributions in Aaipharma stock and failed to divest the
company's shares already held by the plan when such investments
and their continued holdings allegedly became imprudent.  

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants did not comply with their
alleged duties to review, evaluate and monitor the suitability
of the plan's investment in Aaipharma stock and failed to
provide accurate material information to plan participants.  

For more details, contact Nicole M. Zeiss of Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone:  (212)
907-0642, Fax: (212) 818-0477, E-mail: nzeiss@labaton.com, Web
site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?ddf.


ADELPHIA COMM: Nov. Hearing Set for $460M MDL-1529 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 10, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. for
the proposed $460,000,000 settlement in "In Re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation, Case
No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) or MDL-1529."

The court will hold a fairness hearing in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 15D, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is March 10, 2007.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired securities issued by Adelphia Communications
Corp. or its subsidiaries between Aug. 16, 1999, and June 10,
2002.  It consists of two separate settlements:

       -- the $210,000,000 Deloitte & Touche Settlement; and

       -- the $250,000,000 Banks Settlement.

The banks included in this settlement are:

      -- ABN AMRO Inc.,
      -- ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
      -- Banc of America Securities, LLC,
      -- Bank of America, N.A. (successor by merger to Fleet
         National Bank),
      -- Bank of Montreal,
      -- Barclays Capital, Inc.,
      -- Barclays Bank, PLC,
      -- BNY Capital Markets, Inc.,
      -- The Bank of New York Company, Inc.,
      -- The Bank of New York,
      -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,
      -- CIBC, Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a SSB
         Inc.),
      -- Citibank, N.A.,
      -- Citicorp U.S.A., Inc.,
      -- Calyon Securities (USA) Inc. (f/k/a Credit Lyonnais
         Securities (USA) Inc.),
      -- Calyon New York Branch (successor by operation of law
         to Credit Lyonnais, New York Branch),
      -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a Credit
         Suisse First Boston LLC),
      -- Credit Suisse, New York Branch (f/k/a Credit Suisse
         First Boston, New York Branch),
      -- Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (f/k/a Deutsche Bank
         Alex. Brown Inc.),
      -- Deutsche Bank AG,
      -- Fleet Securities Inc.,
      -- Harris Nesbitt Corp. (f/k/a BMO Nesbitt Burns Corp.),
      -- JPMorgan Securities, Inc.,
      -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
      -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
      -- PNC Capital Markets, Inc.,
      -- PNC Bank Corp.,
      -- PNC Bank, National Association,
      -- Scotia Capital (USA), Inc.,
      -- The Bank of Nova Scotia,
      -- SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
      -- Societe Generale,
      -- SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc. (f/k/a SunTrust
         Equitable Securities),
      -- SunTrust Bank,
      -- TD Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a TD Securities (USA)
         Inc.),
      -- Toronto Dominion (Texas) LLC (f/k/a Toronto Dominion
         (Texas) Inc.),
      -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a Wachovia
         Securities, Inc.), and
      -- Wachovia Bank, National Association.

Beginning in April 2002, more than 30 individual and class
actions were filed by purchasers of Adelphia debt and equity
securities against Adelphia, its officers and directors, its
outside counsel, Adelphia's auditors Deloitte & Touche, and/or
various of Adelphia's underwriters and lenders, the banks.

Most of those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were assigned to Judge
Herbert Hutton.  Among the cases filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania were approximately 30 class actions asserting
claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and/or the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition to the class actions, public pension funds and/or
fund managers seeking to recoup losses on behalf of their funds
commenced several individual actions.  

On April 30, 2002, Judge Hutton entered an order consolidating
the then pending actions filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania as, "In re Adelphia Communications Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 02 CV 1781," and providing for the
consolidation of all later-filed actions.

On or about June 25, 2002, Adelphia and its subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The Chapter 11 cases were assigned to
Hon. Robert E. Gerber and are being jointly administered in the
case, "In re Adelphia Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 02-
41729 (REG)."  

Thereafter, by Order dated July 23, 2003, the class actions as
well as certain individual actions against the same defendants
were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to the Southern District of New York and are
currently pending before Judge McKenna as, "In re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities & Derivative Litigation, 03 MD
1529 (LMM)."

On Dec. 5, 2003, Eminence Capital, LLC, Argent Classic
Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P., Argent Classic Convertible
Arbitrage Fund (Bermuda) L.P., Argent Lowlev Convertible
Arbitrage Fund Ltd., UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global Equity
Arbitrage Master Ltd. and UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global
Convertible Portfolio were appointed as lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated class actions and Abbey Gardy, LLP, (n/k/a Abbey
Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP) and Kirby McInerney & Squire
were appointed as co-lead counsel in accordance with the federal
securities laws.

On Dec. 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint, which
alleges claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k, 77l(a)(2) and
77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. Section
77jjj, 77mmm, 77ooo and 77www et seq. and state law against
various defendants including Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.

After filing the complaint, on March 8, 2004, the Settling
Defendants, along with other defendants, moved to dismiss the
complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on several of the issues
raised by the defendants' motions, but has partially granted and
partially denied some of the motions.

On or about June 30, 2005, at the suggestion of Judge McKenna,
various parties to the class action agreed to participate in
mediation to resolve the pending litigation.  The various
parties selected Judge Daniel Weinstein, a retired judge, to
serve as the mediator.  

Pursuant to the court's directives, lead plaintiffs' counsel and
counsel for Deloitte & Touche and the Banks entered into
extensive negotiations under the supervision of Judge Weinstein.

As a result of such discussions and their involvement in the
extensive negotiation process, lead plaintiffs agreed to the
settlements with Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Adelphia Claims c/o Valley Forge Administrative
         Services, One Aldwyn Center, P.O. Box 220, Villanova,
         PA 19085-0220, Phone: 877-965-3300, E-mail:
         info@adelphiasettlement.com, Web site:
         http://www.adelphiasettlement.com;

     (2) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 1-888-529-4787;
         and

     (3) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Phone: 1-800-
         889-3701.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Investors Opposed to AT&T Merger Dismiss Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action filed against
BellSouth Corp. in relation to the company's merger agreement
with AT&T, Inc. have voluntarily dismissed their suit.

On Mar. 4, 2006, the company agreed to merge with AT&T in a
transaction in which each share of BellSouth common stock will
be exchanged for 1.325 shares of AT&T common stock.  The stock
consideration in the transaction is expected to be tax-free to
its shareowners.  The acquisition, which is subject to approval
by its shareowners and regulatory authorities, and other
customary closing conditions, is currently expected to close by
the end of 2006.

On Mar. 9, 2006, two putative class actions, "Williams v.
BellSouth Corp., et al., Case No. 2006CV113858," and "Jannett v.
BellSouth Corp., et al., Case No. 2006CV113861," were filed
against the company and its directors in the Superior Court of
Georgia, Fulton County.

The complaints, as subsequently amended and consolidated,
purported to be brought on behalf of all BellSouth shareholders,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.  Plaintiffs alleged
that BellSouth's directors violated their fiduciary obligations
to BellSouth's shareholders in approving the merger agreement,
and by failing to provide material information or by providing
materially misleading information in connection with the
preliminary proxy statement filed by BellSouth and AT&T with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commmission on March 31, 2006.

The consolidated complaint sought various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief to prevent the completion of the
merger, unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees
and expenses.  In July 2006, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the suit.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Court Okays Writ of Certiorari for "Twombly"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of
certiorari by BellSouth Corp. and certain other defendants for
the consumer class action, "William Twombly, et al. v. Bell
Atlantic Corp., et al."

The suit was filed on December 2002 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging antitrust
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against:

      -- BellSouth Corp.;
      -- Verizon;
      -- AT&T, formerly known as SBC; and
      -- Qwest Corp.  

It specifically alleged that defendants conspired to restrain
competition by agreeing not to compete with one another and to
impede competition with others.  Plaintiffs are seeking an
unspecified amount of treble damages and injunctive relief, as
well as attorneys' fees and expenses.

In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  In October 2005, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants'
petition for writ of certiorari.

The suit is "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
10220-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.
  
Representing the plaintiffs is J. Douglas Richards of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 946-9390, Fax: (212) 244-5423, e-
mail: drichards@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Hector Gonzalez and Lily Fu Swenson of Mayer, Brown,
         Rowe & Maw, LLP (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, e-
         mail: hgonzalez@mayerbrownrowe.com;  

     (2) Colin Ryle Kass of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Washington),
         655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: (202) 879-5172, Fax: (202) 879-5200, e-
         mail: ckass@kirkland.com; and

     (3) Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), 1615 M.
         Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-326-7902, Fax: 202-326-7999, e-mail:
         mkellogg@khhte.com.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Settles Ga. Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. reached a settlement in the consolidated class
action, "In re BellSouth Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
1:02-CV-2440-JOF," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, according to the company's
Aug. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is filed against the company, its directors, three of
its senior officers, and other individuals, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

In September and October 2002, three substantially identical
class actions were filed.  The cases have since been
consolidated and on April 21, 2003, a consolidated complaint was
filed.  

Plaintiffs allege in the consolidated complaint that the company
and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA, by among other things:

     -- failing to provide accurate information to BellSouth's
        401(k) plans participants and beneficiaries;

     -- failing to ensure that the plans' assets were invested
        properly;

     -- failing to monitor the plans' fiduciaries;

     -- failing to disregard plan directives that the
        defendants knew or should have known were imprudent and

     -- failing to avoid conflicts of interest by hiring
        independent fiduciaries to make investment decisions.

In October 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied.  Plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  

Certain underlying factual allegations regarding the company's
advertising, publishing subsidiary and its former Latin American
operation are substantially similar to the allegations in the
putative securities class action captioned, "In re BellSouth
Securities Litigation."

Subject to approval of the court, the parties have reached a
settlement of the ERISA lawsuits.  The settlement is on behalf
of the plans participants and certain participants who brought
claims individually and on behalf of the plans participant
pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(2).

The principal terms of the settlement increase the minimum
levels below which company-matching contributions may not fall
for a three-year period.  The settlement does not require any
other un-reimbursed cash payments by the company.

The suit is "In re BellSouth Corporation ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. 1:02-CV-2440-JOF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge J. Owen
Forrester.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott L. Adkins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, Suite 200, 197 South Federal Highway, Boca
         Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000; and

     (2) Lynn Lincoln Sarko of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third
         Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-
         1900, e-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Howard Douglas Hinson, Patrick Connors DiCarlo, Leslie
         Maddox Bassett and Peter Marshall Varney of Alston &
         Bird, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center,
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, 404-881-
         4512 and 404-881-7856, Fax: 404-253-8466 and 404-881-
         7777, e-mail: dhinson@alston.com, pdicarlo@alston.com,
         leslie.bassett@alston.com and peter.varney@alston.com;
         and

     (2) Ashley B. Watson of BellSouth Corporation, 1155
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30309-
         3610, Phone: 404-249-2720, e-mail:
         ashley.watson@bellsouth.com.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. and certain of its senior officers remain
defendants in a consolidated securities class action, "In re
BellSouth Securities Litigation," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according
to the company's Aug. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

From August through October 2002, several individual
shareholders filed substantially identical class actions against
the company and three of its senior officers alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.  Pursuant to the provisions of
the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the
court has appointed a lead plaintiff.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended class action
complaint in July 2003 on behalf of two putative classes:

     -- purchasers of BellSouth stock during the period Nov. 7,
        2000 through Feb. 19, 2003 for alleged violations of
        Sections 10(b), and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934; and

     -- participants in BellSouth's Direct Investment Plan
        during the class period for alleged violations of
        Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

Four outside directors were named as additional defendants.  The
consolidated and amended class action complaint alleged that
during the class period the company:

     * overstated the unbilled receivables balance of its
       Advertising and Publishing subsidiary;

     * failed to properly implement Staff Accounting Bulletin
       No. 101 -- which provides guidance on revenue recognition
       -- with regard to its recognition of Advertising and
       Publishing revenues;

     * improperly billed competitive local exchange carriers
       (CLEC) to inflate revenues;

     * failed to take a reserve for refunds that ultimately
       came due following litigation over late payment
       charges; and

     * failed to properly write down goodwill of its Latin
       American operations.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the district court dismissed the Exchange
Act claims, except for those relating to the write down of Latin
American goodwill.  On that date, the district court also
dismissed the Securities Act claims, except for those relating
to the write down of Latin American goodwill, the allegations
relating to unbilled receivables of the company's Advertising
and Publishing subsidiary, the implementation of SAB 101
regarding recognition of Advertising and Publishing revenues and
alleged improper billing of CLECs.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified amount of damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

In February 2003, a similar complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia on behalf of participants in
BellSouth's Direct Investment Plan.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act.  Defendants
removed this action to federal court pursuant to the provisions
of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

In July 2003, the federal court issued a ruling that the case
should be remanded to Fulton County Superior Court.  The Fulton
County Superior Court has stayed the case pending resolution of
the federal case.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amount of damages, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The consolidated suit is "In re BellSouth Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-02142-WSD" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey,
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph D. Ament of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
         Rubenstein, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800,
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-521-2000;

     (2) 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

     (3) Aaron L. Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230.

Representing the defendants are Peter Quirk Bassett and Teresa
Thebaut Bonder of Alston & Bird, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One
Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, e-
mail: pbassett@alston.com and tbonder@alston.com.


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Facing Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks Automation, Inc. and its former executives were named
defendants in two purported securities fraud class actions filed
in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts.  The
suits are:

      -- "Charles E. G. Leech Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et
         al."; and

      -- "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al."

Filed on June 19, 2006, "Leech" names as defendants:

      * the company;
      * former chief executive Robert J. Therrien;
      * Ellen Richstone, former chief financial officer;
      * Roger D. Emerick, former director;
      * Amin J. Khoury, former director;
      * Robert W. Woodbury, Jr., chief financial officer; and
      * Edward C. Grady, director, president and chief
        executive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the company and the
individual defendants; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the individual defendants; Section 11 of the Securities Act
against the company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury
and Therrien; Section 12 of the Securities Act against the
company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and
Therrien; and Section 15 of the Securities Act against Messrs.
Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien.  

The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest,
and plaintiff's costs.

"Shaw" was also filed on July 19, 2006 and names as defendants:

      * the company,
      * Mr. Therrien,
      * Ms. Richstone,
      * Mr. Emerick,
      * Mr. Khoury,
      * Mr. Woodbury, and
      * Mr. Grady.

According to the company's July 30, 2006 Form 10-K/A Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
September 2006, the company has not been served with the
complaint.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Peter A. Pease of Berman DeValerio Pease
         Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor,
         Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-
         1194, E-mail: ppease@bermanesq.com;

     (2) [Defendant] Michael Thomas Marcucci of Ropes & Gray,
         One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-
         951-7243, Fax: 617-951-7050, E-mail:
         mmarcucci@ropesgray.com; and

     (3) Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom, LLP, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
         dougherty@skadden.com.


CARREKER CORP: Tex. Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Aug. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 16, 2006 for the proposed
$5,250,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Carreker Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-CV-0250-B."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle at
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100
Commerce St., Dallas, Texas 75242.

Objections and exclusions deadlines were Aug. 2, 2006 and July
17, 2006, respectively.  Claim forms are due before Oct. 2,
2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Carreker Corp. from July 30, 1999 to Dec. 10, 2002.

It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the company, John D.
Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori and Terry L. Gage, except Ernst &
Young LLP; violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants; and violations of Section 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act against defendants John D.
Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori (Class Action Reporter, June
15, 2006).

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Carreker Corp.
Securities Litigation, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., P.O.
Box 270, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0270, Phone: 1-800-252-5745, E-
mail: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/carr/.


CHEMICAL COS: Kentucky Plants Face Lawsuit Over Air Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three chemical plants in Louisville Kentucky are facing a class
action filed by local residents complaining of air pollution,
The Courier-Journal reports.

Zeon Chemicals, OxyVinyls and American Synthetic Rubber Co. are
being sued for causing pollution that residents say deprives
them of "full use and enjoyment of their properties."

Matthew White, a Louisville attorney working on the case, said
the purpose of the suit is to get the companies to operate in a
clean manner, and to compensate people for the nuisance and loss
of their property.

Mr. White is member of Gray & White, 1200 PNC Plaza, 500 West
Jefferson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (Jefferson Co.),
Phone: 502-585-2060, Toll Free: 866-585-2060, Fax: 502-581-1933.


CNA FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Approves Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A California state court approved the settlement of purported
class actions filed on behalf of present and former employees of
CNA Financial Corp. over allegations of labor law violations by
the company.

The employees claim they worked hours for which they should have
been compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their base
hourly wage over a four-year period.

The suits are:

      -- "Ernestine Samora, et al. v. CCC, Case No. BC 242487,"
         filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
         Los Angeles, California; and

      -- "Brian Wenzel v. Galway Insurance Company, Case No.
         BC01CC08868," filed in the Superior Court of
         California, County of Orange.

Plaintiffs seek "overtime compensation," "penalty wages," and
"other statutory penalties" without specifying any particular
amounts.  

The company has entered into a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs, which was approved by the court in July 2006.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: W.Va. Court Sets 2007 Trial for "Adams"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, scheduled a
tentative July 2007 trial for the class action filed against
Continental Casualty Co. and other insurers.

Initially, Continental Casualty was named in the case "Adams v.
Aetna, Inc., et al.," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia on Jun. 28, 2002.  The case is a
purported class action alleging that the defendants violated
West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPTA) in handling
and resolving asbestos claims against five specifically named
asbestos defendants.

A planned motion for an amended complaint by the plaintiffs that
reflected two June 2004 decisions of the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals stayed the Adams litigation.

In June 2005, the court presiding over Adams and three similar
putative class actions against other insurers, on its own
motion, directed plaintiffs to file any amended complaints by
Jun. 13, 2005 and directed the parties to agree upon a case
management order that would supposedly result in trial being
commenced by July 2006.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint greatly expanded the scope of the
action against the insurers, including Continental Casualty.  
Under the Amended complaint, the defendant insurers, including
Continental Casualty, were now being sued for alleged violations
of the UTPA in connection with handling and resolving asbestos
personal injury and wrongful death claims in West Virginia
courts against all their insureds if those claims were resolved
before Jun. 30, 2001.

Continental Casualty, along with other insurer defendants
removed the Adams case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia under the caption, "Adams v.
Ins. Co. of North America (INA), et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-0527."  
A motion by plaintiffs to remand the case to state court was
granted on Mar. 30, 2006.

Following remand to state court, Continental Casualty's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint was denied as to living
plaintiffs, but granted as to claims brought by two estates, and
the company subsequently answered the amended complaint, as it
had been narrowed by the plaintiffs in the interim.

As narrowed, the amended complaint continues to seek
compensatory damages for the alleged delay in resolving
plaintiffs' underlying asbestos claims and for aggravation
allegedly caused by that delay and punitive damages, but no
longer seeks damages for the difference between the amount
plaintiffs received in their underlying asbestos settlement and
what they claim they should have received, damages for increased
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and damages for loss by
spouses of consortium.  

The trial court stated that it intends for trial in the case to
commence in July 2007.

Numerous factual and legal issues remain to be resolved that are
critical to the final result in Adams, the outcome of which
cannot be predicted with any reliability.

These issues include:

      -- the legal sufficiency and factual validity of the novel
         statutory claims pled by the claimants;

      -- the applicability of claimants' legal theories to
         insurers who issued excess policies and/or neither
         defended nor controlled the defense of certain
         policyholders;

      -- the possibility that certain of the claims are barred
         by various Statutes of Limitation;

      -- the fact that the imposition of duties would interfere
         with the attorney-client privilege and the contractual
         rights and responsibilities of the parties to CNA's
         insurance policies;

      -- whether plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in
         part by injunctions that have been issued by bankruptcy
         courts that are overseeing, or that have overseen, the
         bankruptcies of various insureds;

      -- whether some or all of the named plaintiffs or members
         of the plaintiff class have released Continental
         Casualty from the claims alleged in the Amended
         complaint when they resolved their underlying asbestos
         claims;

      -- the appropriateness of the case for class action
         treatment; and

      -- the potential and relative magnitude of liabilities of
         co-defendants.

The federal suit is "Adams, et al. v. Insurance Co. of North
America, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00527," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) J. David Cecil of James F. Humphreys & Associates,
         United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street, East
         Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/347-5050, Fax: 347-
         5055;

     (2) W. Stuart Calwell of The Calwell Practice, P.O. Box
         113, Charleston, WV 25321-0113, Phone: 304/343-4323,
         Fax: 344-3864; and

     (3) David P. Chervenick of Goldberg Persky & White, Third
         Floor, 1030 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295,
         Phone: 412/471-3980, Fax: 471-8308.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) John D. Aldock, Frederick C. Schafrick and Mark S.
         Raffman of Goodwin & Procter, 901 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202/346-4000, Fax: 346-
         4444; and

    (ii) Robert B. Allen of Allen Guthrie Mchugh & Thomas, P.O.
         Box 3394, Charleston, WV 25333-3394, Phone: 304/345-
         7250, Fax: 345-9941, E-mail: rballen@agmtlaw.com.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Court Grants Class Status to Cavitron Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California Court certified as a class action a lawsuit
alleging that Dentsply International, Inc. misrepresented its
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers as suitable for use in oral
surgical procedures.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S. filed a class action in San Francisco County, California.  
The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.

The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006
with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business
practices claims.  

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients.
The company is presently preparing to file a motion for
decertification


DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Advance(R) Cement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California over Advance(R) cement failures, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On March 27, 2002, a complaint was filed in Alameda County,
California (which has been transferred to Los Angeles County) by
Bruce Glover, D.D.S. alleging, inter alia, breach of express and
implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent
misrepresentation in the company's manufacture and sale of
Advance cement.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for costs
incurred in repairing dental work in which the Advance(R)
product allegedly failed.  

The judge entered an order granting class certification, as an
opt-in class on the claims of breach of warranty and fraud.  
This means that after notice of the class action is sent to
possible class members, a party will have to determine if they
meet the class definition and take affirmative action in order
to join the class.

In general, the class is defined as California dentists who
purchased and used Advance(R) cement and were required, because
of failures of the cement, to repair or reperform dental
procedures for which they were not paid.

The notice of the class action was sent on Feb. 23, 2005 to the
approximately 29,000 dentists licensed to practice in California
during the relevant period and a total of 166 dentists have
opted into the class action.

The plaintiffs have appealed to the Appellate Court to convert
the claim to an opt-out claim from its current status as an opt-
in claim.  

The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000
and total sales in the U.S. during that period were
approximately $5.2 million.  


IMMUCOR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on litigants' motions in the consolidated securities
class action against Immucor, Inc.

Between Aug. 31 and Oct. 19, 2005, a series of 10 class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers alleging violations of the
securities laws.

The court has consolidated these cases for disposition as, "In
re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276-
WSD," designated lead plaintiffs, permitted the filing of an
amended consolidated complaint, and established a schedule for
briefing the company's motion to dismiss the claims.

The consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between
Aug. 16, 2004 and Aug. 29, 2005, alleges that company stock
prices during that period were inflated as a result of material
misrepresentations or omissions in the company's financial
statements and other public announcements regarding its
business.

On March 7, 2006, the company timely moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  The motion to dismiss was fully briefed
and is awaiting court disposition.  Discovery has not yet begun,
according to the company's Aug. 1, 2006 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
May 31, 2006.

The court made no determination whether any of the plaintiffs'
claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class
action.

The suit is "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No.
1:05-CV-2276-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, e-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;

     (2) Michael Ira Fistel, Jr. of Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 1117
         Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338,
         Phone: 770-392-0090, e-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com;

     (3) Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco, 1360 West 9th
         Street, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: 216-522-
         9000, e-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Emmet J. Bondurant, II and
Jeffrey O. Bramlett of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West
Peachtree Street, N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA
30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4126 and 404-881-4100, E-mail:
bondurant@bmelaw.com and bramlett@bmelaw.com.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will fold a fairness hearing on Oct. 13, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. for
the proposed $8 million settlement in the matter, "Ligand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-
01620-DMS-CAB."

The hearing will be held before Judge Dana M. Sabraw at the U.S.
Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San Diego, California.

Deadline for filing proof of claim is on or before Oct. 20,
2006.  Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement
must be filed by Sept. 10, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased Ligand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock, Ligand notes or Ligand call
options, or who sold Ligand put options between March 19, 2001
and May 20, 2005.  It resolves all claims by the parties,
including those asserted against the company and the individual
defendants in these cases.  

As summarized by the company's Form 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, several purported class
actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs appointed in the
suit.  

The original complaint charges Ligand Pharmaceuticals and
certain of its directors and officers with violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

      -- that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that inventory de-stocking, at the wholesale level, was
         occurring because the company was unloading Avinza
         inventory, which was set to expire, onto wholesalers in
         order to show strong demand for Avinza and to meet
         sales expectations that they had set;

      -- that overall demand of the Company's products,
         including Avinza, was down because of inventory de-
         stocking by wholesalers;

      -- that Medicaid prescriptions were increasing and thereby
         causing the Company to pay excessive amounts of rebates
         to Medicaid;

      -- that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that increases in Medicaid rebates were not a one-
         time occurrence but were a trend that was going to
         continue to have a negative effect on the overall sales
         of Avinza; and

      -- that as a result of the above, the Company's positive
         statements concerning its financial outlook was lacking
         in any reasonable basis when made.

On Aug. 3, 2004, company made two separate and shocking
announcements, that its second-quarter loss widened, missing
analysts' expectations by a huge margin, and that its
independent auditor resigned after a four-year relationship.

News of this shocked the market.  Shares of Ligand plunged
almost 40 percent, or $5.405 per share, to close at $8.175 per
share on unusually high trading volume on Aug. 3, 2004.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
         The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O.
         Box #6419, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 581-
         3274, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;

     (2) Andrew Zivitz and Kay E. Sickles Schiffrin & Barroway,
         LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087,
         Phone: (610) 667-7706;

     (3) Ramzi Abadou of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and
         Robbins, 655 West Braodway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058; and

     (4) Peter Arthur Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160.


LOUISIANA: Reaches $2.5M Settlement in Ferriday Water Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferriday Mayor Gene Allen said the city has reached a $2,537,500
settlement in a 1999 Ferriday drinking water class action,
according to The Natchez Democrat.

The suit, "Gloria Martello v. the City of Ferriday and  
Owen and White, Inc.," was filed by the owner of Brocato's
restaurant after the city issued a 124-day boil water notice
prompted by a breakdown in Ferriday's water treatment plant.

Ms. Mortello sought damages against the Ferriday and the firm
that built the plant, citing losses incurred as a result of the
breakdown.

The class includes:

     -- residents of the town of Ferriday between Aug. 20 and
        Dec. 22, 1999 whose water source is the town of
        Ferriday;

     -- owners and operators of a business in the town of
        Ferriday between Aug. 20 and Dec. 22, 1999, whose
        business' water source is the town of Ferriday;

     -- owner or leasee of either residential and or commercial
        property in the town of Ferriday between Aug. 20 to Dec.
        22, 1999 whose property's water source is the town
        of Ferriday;

     -- workers at a business in the Town of Ferriday between  
        Aug. 20, 1999 and Dec. 22, 1999 whose business'
        water source is the town of Ferriday;

     -- student or a patient in a health care facility in the
        town of Ferriday between Aug. 20 and Dec. 22, whose
        school or health care facility got its water from the
        town of Ferriday Water Plant.

The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on June
23, 2006.  Deadline to file a claim is Aug. 11, 2006.  The
official notice is posted in the Concordia Parish Clerk of
Courts office in the courthouse, according to the report.

The class counsel is asking for the court to approve an
incentive award for each of the five class representatives.
Attorney fees and court costs will also be paid with the money.

Representing the plaintiffs are Linda Suzanna Harang of the Law
Offices of Linda S. Harang, LLC, 5817 Citrus Blvd., Suite H,
Jefferson, LA, 70123, Phone: (504) 734-2486 and Charles Shelby
Norris, Jr., Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 400, Vidalia, LA, 71373,
Phone: (318) 336-1999.


MEMBERS MORTGAGE: Sept. Hearing Set for Mass. Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2006, 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3.375 million settlement in the matter: "Rodrigues, et
al. v. Members Mortgage Co., Inc. and Plymouth Savings Bank,
Case No. 1:03-cv-11301-PBS."

The hearing is before The Honorable Patti Saris at the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph
Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts
02210.

Exclusions and objections to and from the settlement must be
submitted on or before Aug. 14, 2006.  Claim forms must be
submitted on or before Oct. 2, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who obtained a
loan from Members Mortgage Co. or Plymouth Savings Bank and who
signed at closing a Confirmation of Non-Exercise of Right to
Cancel in connection with a mortgage loan secured by property in
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island from July 11,
2000 to Dec. 31, 2001, or in Massachusetts from July 11, 1999 to
Dec. 31, 2001.

Plaintiffs Raul and Jo-Ann Rodrigues and Michael and Lisa
Phillips allege that defendants violated the Truth In Lending
Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act
either by providing borrowers with a form at the closing that
did not technically comply with those statutes or by asking
borrowers to sign a form at the closing that should have been
signed three days after the closing.  The lawsuit seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit from defendants.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen Combs and Heather Kolbus of
         Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 S.
         LaSalle St., 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
         (312) 739-4200, Fax: (312) 419-0379, Web site:
         http://www.edcombs.com;and

     (2) Christopher M. Lefebvre, P.O. Box 479, Pawtucket, RI
         02862, Phone: 401-728-6060, Fax: 401-728-6534, E-mail:
         lefeblaw@aol.com.


NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL: Suit Over Mortgage Loan Discount Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox dismissed a purported
class action filed against Nationscredit Financial Services by
Gary Treadway over a mortgage loan made by his mother, according
to The Madison St. Clair Record.

Mr. Treadway, as special representative of the estate of his
mother, Juanita Treadway, filed the suit last year.  He claimed
his mother paid a discount fee in order to reduce the interest
on a mortgage, but did not receive the privilege from
Nationscredit.  

The company removed the suit to the U.S. District Court in East
St. Louis, arguing that a plaintiff must bring a claim based on
the charging of interest in federal court under the National
Banking Act.  But the district court found that the National
Banking Act did not apply, and so remanded the suit.  

Nationscredit attorney Joe Whyte of Edwardsville moved last
October for the dismissal of the suit, which the court heard on
April 27.  On July 10, Judge Maddox said Mr. Treadway did not
allege that Nationscredit made fraudulent representations to his
mother.


OHIO UNIVERSITY: Asks Dismissal of Suit Over Student Data Thief
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Ohio University filed a motion in Ohio Court of
Claims asking it to grant summary judgment or dismiss a suit
filed in June against the school by two alumni over personal
data loss, The Athens News reports.

Donald J. Kulpa and Kenneth D. Neben filed the suit on June 23
alleging their right to privacy was violated when hackers stole
their Social Security numbers from a university computer (Class
Action Reporter, June 28, 2006).

The plaintiffs sought to have the school pay millions of dollars
in credit-monitoring services for about 173,000 people whose
personal data was stolen.

The filing asks Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. to order Ohio
University to secure its digital data and pay for fraud losses
from any identity thefts linked to piracy against the
university's computers.

The suit also seeks class-action status to represent all
affected students, alumni, employees and others.

Attorney Marc Mezibov, the men's legal representative, accuses
the university of negligence in failing to adequately protect
personal information stolen in five hacking incidents disclosed
since mid-April.

In a motion filed July 28, Ohio Assistant Attorney General
Randall W. Knutti said the estimated 173,000 people affected by
the computer security breaches "could never constitute a class"
for purposes of a legal action because the only thing they have
in common is the fact that their Social Security numbers were
all on the university computers.

Mr. Knutti also said the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because
they failed to point out any concrete damages they've suffered
as a result of the data loss.  Further, he said that the
plaintiffs "do not allege -- nor could they ever prove -- that
the university intentionally gave their Social Security numbers
to outsiders" to prove an act of invasion of privacy.  Also, he
said the court of claims lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit,
which makes a federal constitutional claim.

The motion included some 150 pages of supporting documentation,
including affidavits from university employees.

Previously, Ohio University officials said they have ended
hacker access to computers and plan to spend as much as $4
million during the coming year to upgrade security.

For more details, contact Marc D. Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins,
LLP, 401 East Court Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
(Hamilton Co.), Phone: (513) 723-1699, Fax: 513-723-1620, Web
site: http://www.mezibovjenkins.com.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set in Poultry Owners Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. remains a defendant in the class action
"Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

The complaint, filed on behalf of a class of chicken growers,
initially alleged that the company violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers.  

Plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers and
Stockyards Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach of
fiduciary duties and breach of contract.

On March 14, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of fraud prior to the
entering of the order by the court.

On Sept. 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join
Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant.  Two additional former
chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit.
The amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's
filing, also results in a virtual re-writing of the allegations.  

Now plaintiffs contend that the company and Tyson are involved
in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs'
initial allegations, although still contained in the amended
lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the court entered an order severing plaintiffs'
Packers and Stockyards Act and antitrust claims.  The court
ordered that plaintiffs: Cody Wheeler, Don Davis and Davey
Williams might proceed with their Packers and Stockyards Act
claims as set forth in plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.

The court also ordered that plaintiffs, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Davis,
Mr. Williams, Richard Grounds and Jerry Ward might proceed with
their respective antitrust claims asserted against the company
and Tyson in a separate cause of action.

On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in the original lawsuit.  On June 2, 2006 the
court entered an order withdrawing plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and prohibiting the plaintiffs from filing any
additional class-action claims against the company in the
Packers and Stockyard Act lawsuit.

Additionally, the two former growers that joined the lawsuit on
Sept. 30, 2005 withdrew from the case.  The Packers and
Stockyard Act lawsuit is currently proceeding against the
company with individual claims by the three original individual
plaintiffs.

An action "Cody Wheeler, et al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et
al." relating to the severed antitrust claims was filed against
the company and Tyson on Jan. 3, 2006 by the three original
plaintiffs and a former grower, both in their individual
capacities and on behalf of a putative class of chicken growers.

The court has entered a Docket Control Order and a class
certification hearing is currently scheduled for Jan. 24, 2007.  

The proceedings are currently in the early stages of discovery.

The suit is "Wheeler et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv-00004-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, under Judge David
Folsom.  

Representing the plaintiffs is C. Paul Rogers, III of Locke
Liddell & Sapp, 2200 Ross Ave, Suite 2200, Dallas, TX 75201-
6776, Phone: 214/740-8477, Fax: 214-740-8800, E-mail:
cprogers@lockeliddell.com.  

Representing the company is Jennifer Parker Ainsworth, Wilson
Sheehy Knowles Robertson & Cornelius PC, 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite
400, P.O. Box 7339, Tyler, TX 75711-7339, Phone: 903/509-5000,
Fax: 9035095091, E-mail: jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs in Discrimination Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Inc. continues to face a racial and age
discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint, "Angela Goodwin, Gloria Willis, Johnny Gill,
Greg Hamilton, Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat Curry, Persons
Similarly Situated v. ConAgra Poultry Company and Pilgrim's
Pride, Inc."  

The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the
facilities the company acquired from ConAgra.  Two of the named
plaintiffs, Greg Hamilton and Gloria Willis, were voluntarily
dismissed from this action.
      
The suit is "Goodwin, et al. v. Conagra Poultry Co., et al.,
case no. 1:03-cv-01187-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge Harry F.
Barnes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon &
         Galchus, P.C., 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200,
         Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: (501) 371-9999, Fax:
         (501) 371-0035, E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com;  

     (2) Rickey H. Hicks, Hicks Law Firm, Attorney at Law
         523 South Louisiana, Suite M100, Little Rock, AR 72201,
         Phone: 501-372-1310, Fax: 501-372-1477, E-mail:
         hickslawoffice@yahoo.com;

     (3) Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Morgan E. Welch, Welch and
         Kitchens, LLC, One Riverfront Place, Suite 413, Little
         Rock, AR 72901, Phone: (501) 978-3030, Fax: (501) 978-
         3050, E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com or
         mwelch@welchandkitchens.com;  

     (4) Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421,
         Phone: (781) 862-1955;

     (5) Allen P. Roberts, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 280,
         Camden, AR 71701, Phone: (870) 836-5310, Fax: (870)
         836-9662, E-mail: allenroberts@cablelynx.com; and   

     (6) John W. Walker, John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway
         Little Rock, AR 72206, Phone: 501-374-3758, Fax: 501-
         374-4187, E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com.  

Representing the company are Adam T. Dougherty, Kimberly F. Rich
and Mark D. Taylor, Baker & McKenzie 2001 Ross Avenue, 2300
Trammell Crow Center, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 978-3000,
Fax: (214) 978-3099, E-mail: adam.t.dougherty@bakernet.com,
kimberly.f.rich@bakernet.com and mark.d.taylor@bakernet.com.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Discovery Ongoing in Automotive Refinishing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated antitrust class
action, "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1426," filed against PPG Industries, Inc. and
other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry were initially filed in various
state and federal jurisdictions.  The suits charged the company
and the other defendants with conspiring to fix prices and
allocate markets in the automotive refinish industry.  

The approximately 55 federal cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish
case have settled.  This case is still at an early stage and
discovery is continuing with the remaining defendants.  

Except for a case in California and a recently filed case in
Vermont, the state automotive refinish cases have either been
stayed pending resolution of the federal proceedings or have
been dismissed.  The plaintiffs in these various antitrust cases
are seeking economic and treble damages as well as injunctive
relief.

According to PPG Industries, neither the company's investigation
conducted through its counsel of the allegations in these cases
nor the discovery conducted to date has identified a basis for
the plaintiffs' allegations that the company participated in a
price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S. automotive refinish
industry.  The company's management continues to believe that
there was no wrongdoing on the part of the company and also
believes it has meritorious defenses in these automotive
refinish antitrust cases.  

As discovery in the federal class action antitrust case is
ongoing, the company said it will continue to evaluate any
additional information that becomes available in developing a
conclusion on the outcome of this contingent liability.  
According to the company, while currently not expected, if
future developments in the case are adverse, it would consider a
settlement of the automotive refinish antitrust case.  The
company though has no present intention of settling any of the
automotive refinish antitrust cases.

The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1426," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Richard Barclay
Surrick.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Colo. Court OKs $33M ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave
preliminary approval to the settlement of a consolidated class
action filed Qwest Communications International, Inc., on behalf
of all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans.

Seven putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and
Investment Plan and predecessor plans from Mar. 7, 1999 until
Jan. 12, 2004 have been consolidated into a single action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Other defendants in this action include current and former
directors of Qwest, former officers and employees of Qwest and
Deutsche Bank.  These suits also purport to seek relief on
behalf of the Plan.

The first of these actions was filed in March 2002.  Plaintiffs
assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against the company and
others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended, alleging, among other things, various
improprieties in managing holdings of the company's stock in the
Plan.  Plaintiffs sought damages, equitable and declaratory
relief, along with attorneys' fees and costs and restitution.  
Counsel for plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would
seek billions of dollars of damages.

On Apr. 26, 2006, the company, the other defendants, and the
putative class representatives entered into a stipulation of
settlement for the consolidated ERISA action.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the company would pay a
total of $33 million in cash no later than 90 days after
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement by the federal
district court in Colorado.  

Deutsche Bank would pay a total of $4.5 million in cash to
settle the claims against it.  No parties admitted any
wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement.

Under the agreement, the company will receive certain insurance
proceeds as a contribution by individual defendants to this
settlement, which will offset $10 million of the company's $33
million payment.

In addition to the $33 million cash settlement, the company also
agreed to pay, subject to certain contingencies, the amount, if
any, by which the Plan's recovery from the settlement of the
consolidated securities action is less than $20 million.

The proposed settlement will settle and release the claims of
the class against the company and all defendants in the
consolidated ERISA action.  It is subject to review on appeal if
the district court were finally to approve it.

On July 25, 2006, the court issued an order:

      -- preliminarily approving the proposed settlement;

      -- setting a hearing for Oct. 27, 2006 to consider
         final approval of the proposed settlement;, and

      -- certifying a settlement class on behalf of participants
         in and beneficiaries of the Plan who owned, bought,
         sold or held shares or units of the Qwest Shares Fund,
         U.S. WEST Shares Fund or Qwest common stock in their
         Plan accounts from March 7, 1999 until Jan. 12,
         2004.

The suit is "Stuhr v. Qwest Comm Intl Inc, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-02120-REB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Robert E. Blackburn.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Josiah Oakes Hatch, III of
Ducker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, P.C., 1560 Broadway #1400,
Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-2828, Fax: 303-861-
4017, E-mail: jhatch@duckerlaw.com.

Representing the company are William T. Hankinson and William
Albert Wright of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- 17th Street Denver
CO, U.S. District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth Street, #3000,
Denver, CO 80202 U.S.A., Phone: 303-299-8468 and 303-299-8086,
Fax: 303-298-0940, E-mail: bhankinson@sah.com or
wwright@sah.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final Approval of $400M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
give final approval to the $400 million settlement of the
consolidated securities class action against Qwest
Communications International, Inc.  

Twelve putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities between
May 24, 1999 and Feb. 14, 2002 have been consolidated into a
consolidated securities action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.  The first of these actions
was filed on July 27, 2001.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants issued
false and misleading financial results and made false statements
about the company's business and investments, including making
materially false statements in certain of the company's
registration statements.  

The most recent complaint in this matter seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  However, counsel for
plaintiffs indicated that the putative class would seek damages
in the tens of billions of dollars.  

On Nov. 23, 2005, the company and certain other defendants, and
the putative class representatives entered into and filed with
the court a Stipulation of Partial Settlement to settle the
consolidated securities action against the company and certain
other defendants.

On Jan. 5, 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and certifying a settlement
class on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002.  

The hearing to consider final approval of the proposed
settlement was held on May 19, 2006, and the matter remains
pending before the court, according to the company's Aug. 1,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Under the proposed settlement, the company would pay a total of
$400 million in cash, $100 million of which was deposited in an
escrow account 30 days after preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement by the court, $100 million of which would be
so deposited 30 days after final approval of the settlement by
the court, and $200 million of which would be so deposited on
Jan. 15, 2007, plus interest at 3.75% per annum on the $200
million between the date of final approval by the court and the
date of payment.

The proposed settlement agreement is subject to a number of
conditions and future contingencies, among them:

      -- final court approval;

      -- a right by the company to terminate the
         settlement if it does not receive adequate protections
         for claims relating to substantive liabilities of non-
         settling defendants; and
     
      -- a review on appeal even if the district court
         were finally to approve it.

The suit is "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm. Int'l.
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Robert  
E. Blackburn.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,  
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;  

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite  
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,  
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net;  
  
     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,  
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San  
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:  
         support@milberg.com; and

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP-SD
         CA, 655 West Broadway, #1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
         U.S.A, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web
         site: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


RAMBUS INC: Roy Jacobs Plans to Amend Calif. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates will amend its class action previously
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of Rambus Inc. to expand the class period.  The
proposed expanded class period is Oct. 6, 2003 to July 18, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the court by Sept. 18, 2006.

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


SUPERVALU INC: To Make Payments in Suit Over Albertson's Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. agreed to pay certain fees and expenses in the
settlement of a purported class action pending in Fourth
Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the County of
Ada over a definitive agreement to sell Albertson's, Inc.

On Jan. 22, 2006, Albertson's entered into a series of
agreements providing for the sale of Albertson's to the company,
CVS Corp. and a consortium of investors including Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P., Kimco Realty Corp., Lubert-Adler
Management, Inc., Klaff Realty, L.P. and Schottenstein Stores
Corp. (the Cerberus Group).  

As a result of a series of transactions provided for under the
agreements, Albertson's stockholders stand to ultimately be
entitled to receive $20.35 in cash and 0.182 shares of Supervalu
common stock for each share of Albertson's common stock that
they held before the transactions.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for
the County of Ada, naming Albertson's Inc. and its directors as
defendants.

The action, "Christopher Carmona v. Henry Bryant et al., No. CV-
OC-0601251," which was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho and subsequently remanded to Idaho state
court, challenges the process leading up to agreements entered
into in connection with the transactions pursuant to which
Albertsons' was sold to a consortium of buyers including the
Supervalu, Inc.

Specifically, the complaint alleges in essence that Albertson's
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
sell Albertson's at too low a price and by ignoring conflicts of
interest.

Among other things, the complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the completion of the
transactions.

On May 18, 2006, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding for a full settlement with the plaintiff and a
class of shareholders that is subject to court approval.

In connection with executing the memorandum of understanding,
which remains subject to definitive documentation and the
approval of the court, the company filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in which it made disclosure
of additional details of the circumstances and events leading up
to its entry into the sale and related transactions that are the
subject of the legal action.  

In addition, Albertson's agreed to pay certain fees and expenses
of plaintiff's counsel.  Subsequent to the settlement an
individual shareholder has filed a motion to intervene in the
lawsuit in order to allege claims against the defendants
including certain former officers of Albertson's, and the
company.

The company believes the claims are included in the settlement
that is subject to court approval.  Although this lawsuit is
subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process,
based on the information presently available to the company,
management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this
lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


T. ROWE: High Court Ruling Could Affect "Parthasarathy" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said that the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in the Dabit case could apply to a suit against the
company that is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

In September 2003, a purported class action, "T.K.
Parthasarathy, et al., including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, against
T. Rowe Price International and the T. Rowe Price International
Funds with respect to the T. Rowe Price International Stock
Fund.

The basic allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price
defendants did not make appropriate price adjustments to the
foreign securities owned by the T. Rowe Price International
Stock Fund prior to calculating the Fund's daily share prices,
thereby allegedly enabling market timing traders to trade the
Fund's shares in such a way as to disadvantage long-term
investors.  The plaintiffs sought monetary damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, which dismissed the case in May 2005.  The
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which stayed the appeal pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's certiorari decision in a similar case, "Kircher," from
the Seventh Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a significant and
favorable ruling in the appeal of an identical issue, "Dabit,"
from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 precludes
holders of securities from bringing covered securities fraud
class action claims under state law.

The Seventh Circuit asked for, and on April 4, 2006, the company
provided, a briefing on the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling
in "Dabit" on the case against the T. Rowe Price defendants.

On June 15, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in "Kircher" that
an order of remand by a federal judge to a state court is not
appealable.  

Because the T. Rowe Price defendants did not appeal the remand
order, it is not clear whether the U.S. Supreme court's ruling
in "Kircher" will affect the May 2005 dismissal of the case
against the T. Rowe Price defendants or the plaintiffs' pending
appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court.  

The Supreme Court's favorable order in "Dabit" should apply to
the case if it is remanded to the state court.

The suit is "Parthasarathy, et al. v. T Rowe Price International
Funds Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00302-DRH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under
Judge David R. Herndon.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Klint L. Bruno, Ellison, Nielsen et al., Generally
         Admitted, 100 West Monroe Street, 18th Floor, Chicago,
         IL 60603, Phone: 312-855-8391;

     (2) Robert L. King, Swedlow & King - Chicago, 70 West
         Madison Street, Suite 660, Three First National Plaza,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 314-621-4002, Fax: 314-621-
         2586, E-mail: robertlking@charter.net;

     (3) Stephen M. Tillery, Korein Tillery - Swansea, 10
         Executive Woods Court, Swansea, IL 62226-2030, Phone:
         618-277-1180, E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com;

     (4) George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery - Chicago, 70 West
         Madison Street, Suite 660, 3 First National Plaza,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-641-9750, Fax: 312-641-
         9751, E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com;  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Glenn E. Davis, Frank N. Gundlach and Lisa M. Wood of
         Armstrong Teasdale - St. Louis, One Metropolitan
         Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO
         63102-2740, by Phone: 314-621-5070 or by E-mail:
         gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com,
         fgundlach@armstrongteasdale.com and
         lwood@armstrongteasdale.com; and

    (ii) Martin I. Kaminsky, Edward T. Mcdermott, Daniel A.
         Pollack and Anthony Zaccaria of Pollack & Kaminsky, 114
         West 47th Street, Suite 1900, New York, NY 10036-8295,
         Phone: 212-575-4700, E-mail:
         mikaminsky@pollacklawfirm.com,
         etmcdermott@pollacklawfirm.com,
         dapollack@pollacklawfirm.com and
         azaccaria@pollacklawfirm.com.   


WESTERN WORLD: Enters $2M Deal with Adult Family Home Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $2 million settlement has been reached in a lawsuit accusing
Western World Insurance of discriminating against four adult
family home operators when the company cancelled their property
or liability insurance, The News Tribune reports.

The suit was filed in May 2004.  Plaintiffs are owners and/or
operators of adult family homes and two fair housing
organizations, the Fair Housing Center of South Puget Sound and
the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.

The suit alleges that Western World violated the Fair Housing
Act by intentionally canceling and/or refusing to renew
insurance for certain adult family homes on the ground that they
were occupied by people with mental illnesses and/or licensed
for occupancy by people with mental illnesses.

In December 2004, Judge Thomas Zilly denied Western World's
motion to dismiss, holding that the Fair Housing Act is
applicable to both property and liability insurance covering
group homes.

The parties reached a settlement recently.  The agreement will
benefit all other adult family home operators in Washington and
Oregon who received a Notice of Cancellation/Non-Renewal of
insurance coverage from Western World between Jan. 1, 2002, and
May 7, 2004 that made reference to mental illness or a mental
illness designation associated with the insured's adult
residential care facility license.

Adult family homes are single-family residential facilities that
provide personal and medical care for elderly adults and adults
with disabilities.

The suit is "Nevels, et al. v. Western World Insurance Co., Inc.
C.A. No. 04-1024Z," filed in the U.S. District Court, W.D.
Washington.


WORLDCOM INC: Asks Approval of Louisiana Right of Way Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
WorldCom Inc. and its debtor-affiliates together with claimants
XCL, Ltd., LM Holding Assoc. LP, David Odom, Katherine McClellan
Sibille, the Sibille Co., Inc., Sylvia Weil Marcuse, H.M.
Kimball Jr. and Elizabeth Kimball Lewis sought the certification
of a settlement class and the approval of a Louisiana Right of
Way Settlement from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of New York.

                       Procedural Fairness

The court notes that the claimants' counsel are skilled
attorneys practicing in a range of fields related to the
Louisiana actions.  Similarly, the debtors' counsel are
experienced litigators and reorganization attorneys who have
ably guided the Debtors through the bankruptcy process.

The Honorable Arthur Gonzalez acknowledges that the parties
engaged in a lengthy discovery process in the Louisiana Actions
regarding class certification and the substantive factual and
legal issues involved at trial.  The court opines that the
Settlement and the Implementation Agreement were the result of
arm's-length bargaining between the parties.

Accordingly, Judge Gonzalez finds that the procedural
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are
satisfied and that the negotiation process was procedurally
fair.

              Analysis on Class Members' Objections

Two groups of proposed class members, the McCormick Objectors
and the Alexander Objectors, have filed briefs and appeared
before the court in opposition to the settlement.

The Objectors noted that the significant time and expense
involved in traveling to the court from Louisiana and argued
that the court's exercise of jurisdiction effectively deprives
class members of the right to appear before the court and
testify regarding the settlement.

Judge Gonzalez notes that the Objectors cite no statutory
authority or case law in support of their position.  "It is
sufficient to resolve [the] objection to note that the Objectors
have not suffered any real prejudice or deprivation."

The Objectors also suggested that the court is unable to
reconcile what they characterize as competing obligations under
Civil Rule 23 to safeguard the interests of absent class
members, and under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 to safeguard a debtor's
estates.

The court contends that the argument is without merit.  The
Objectors cite no law in support of their position, nor do they
suggest what legal grounds the court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction.

The court recognizes that upon review of the relevant legal
standards and the facts present, the settlement may be found to
be fair to one party yet not meet the applicable standard with
respect to the other.  It is also possible that the Settlement
will fall within the appropriate range of reasonableness or
fairness as is required for each party and, thus warrants
approval under both Civil Rule 23 and Bankruptcy Rule 9019,
Judge Gonzalez says.

The court asserts that those considerations do not signify that
it cannot adequately perform its duties.  Rather, the court must
only be aware of the possible conflict between the interests it
must protect and take care to perform distinct analyses to each
party, Judge Gonzalez says.

The court concludes that the Objectors have failed to establish
that it cannot or should not exercise jurisdiction over the
Settlement Motion and the Rule 23 determination.

                              Notice

The court acknowledges that individual notices of settlement
were mailed to more than 7,000 class members and were published
in major newspapers throughout the state.

The court finds that the Notice satisfies the applicable
standards of Civil Rules 23(e)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(B):

   -- The Notice clearly explains the procedural history of the
      Louisiana Actions and the subsequent severing of the
      actions as a  result of the Reorganized Debtors'
      bankruptcy;

   -- The Notice concisely explains the nature of the action,
      the definition of the class and the class claims;

   -- The Notice provides instructions for objecting to the
      Settlement or otherwise appearing before the court; and

   -- The Notice clearly explains the consequences of a class
      judgment.

                       Class Certification

The court finds that the requirements of Civil Rules 23(a)(1) to
(4) regarding certification of the class are satisfied:

   -- More than 7,000 class members have been identified and
      noticed and joinder of that many parties is clearly
      impractical;

   -- The claimants' trespass claims against the Reorganized
      Debtors present a number of common questions of law;

   -- All class members' claims arise from the installation of
      fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way and all assert
      the same legal theory, namely, that the Reorganized  
      Debtors did not have the authority to so install that
      cable; and

   -- All class members share the same interest in maximizing
      recovery.

Civil Rule 23(b)(3) requires that "question of law or fact
common to the members of the class predominate over any question
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy."

Individual factual issues are minor in comparison to the many
unresolved legal issues that will in large part determine the
viability of class members' claims, Judge Gonzalez notes.  
Accordingly, the Court concludes that common issues predominate
issues affecting only individual class members.

The court holds that a class action is superior to other forms
of adjudication.  There is a substantial probability that many
class members would hold negative-value claims if forced to
litigate their claims individually, Judge Gonzalez opines.  "It
is probable, due to the Reorganized Debtors' bankruptcy, that
class members will only receive compensation through a class
action."

                       Substantive Fairness

In assessing substantive fairness, Judge Gonzalez considered
certain factors identified by the Second Circuit in City of
Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974),
abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res.,
Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000):

A. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation

   The court is persuaded by the testimony of Professor Randy
   Trahan that the litigation presents a large number of
   unresolved issues in Louisiana property law.

   The court anticipates that the debtors would press each of
   those unresolved issues, requiring an additional investment
   of time and expenses on behalf of the claimants.

   Accordingly, Judge Gonzalez holds that the complexity,
   expense, and duration of any trial on the merits strongly
   militate in favor of the Settlement.

B. The Reaction of the Class to the Settlement

   Excluding the Hurricane-Affected Parishes, the court notes
   that the parties mailed notices to 7,275 landowners
   registered on the state tax assessment rolls and published
   notices in local newspapers throughout the state.

   The court notes that the Settlement received a favorable
   response and this reaction reflects very favorably on the
   fairness of the settlement.

C. The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery
   Completed

   It is clear that the parties have conducted sufficient
   discovery to have an accurate understanding of the various
   legal and factual issues affecting the probability of
   recovery, Judge Gonzalez says.

D. The Risks of Establishing Liability

   Pursuant to Mr. Trahan's testimony, the court recognizes the
   difficulty the claimants would face in securing class
   certification for purposes of trial.

   Thus, the court determines that the risks of establishing
   liability weigh heavily in favor of the settlement.

E. The Risk of Establishing Damages

   The Claimants' challenges in establishing liability on their
   claims clearly affects the risk of establishing damages, the
   court opines.

   There also is a clear risk that the claimants would be
   entitled to only minimal damages even if they successfully
   established liability, the Court notes.

   Thus, the court holds that the risk of establishing damages
   weighs in favor of the Settlement.

F. The Risks of Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial

   The court is doubtful in light of overwhelming precedent that
   a class would be certified for trial.  This factor weighs
   heavily in favor of the settlement, Judge Gonzalez contends.

G. The Ability of Defendants to Withstand a Greater Judgment

   The court has considered and has concluded that the ability
   of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment neither
   favors nor disfavors the settlement.

H. Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement Fund in Light of
   the Best Possible Recovery, and to a Possible Recovery in
   Light of All the Attendant Risks Of Litigation

   Given the overwhelming precedent denying class certification
   for trial in similar class actions and the discharge of the
   debtors' prepetition debts by their bankruptcy proceeding,  
   the Court doubts that the claimants could obtain any
   significant recovery outside the settlement.

   Moreover, the court predicts that the debtors would offer a
   number of defenses and counterarguments at trial, which would
   come at a substantial cost in legal fees and time to the
   claimants, necessarily reducing any award they might obtain.

After considering the relevant facts and legal issues, the court
opines that the debtors probably do not possess the right to
install fiber optic cable on the class members' property under
current Louisiana law.  The court, however, does not consider
that judgment inevitable if the parties proceeded to trial.

Accordingly, the court holds that the settlement is fair and
reasonable as to both class members and the estate's creditors
under Civil Rule 23 and Bankruptcy Rule 9019.


VERIZON NEW: SC OKs Non-Switched Analog Circuits Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alexander P. Waugh, Jr. of the Superior Court of New
Jersey approved a settlement in a class action against Verizon
New Jersey, Inc.  

Under the settlement, all New Jersey customers billed for non-
switched analog circuits will be notified by Verizon.  Customers
can request that their circuits be disconnected and, if they
believe that Verizon took the circuit out of service, have the
right to request that Verizon technicians conduct an on-site
inspection of the wiring.

Following this inspection, if it is determined that the circuit
is unusable, the customer will receive a refund of two years'
worth of charges.  Customers whose circuits are usable or that
were destroyed may request that charges cease immediately.

"Telephone bills have become so complex that many customers are
unable to determine what they are being charged for and why,"
said Steven Skalet of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.  "This settlement provides customers with the
information they need to make informed service choices and puts
money back in the pockets of customers who were charged for
circuits that did not actually exist."

The settlement will be implemented and customers will receive
benefits shortly.  Verizon denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

In a complaint filed in 2003, plaintiffs Junto Investments and
James Cogan alleged that Verizon continued to charge them for
non-switched analog circuits even though the circuits had been
destroyed or otherwise ceased to function.

Non-switched analog circuits are non-dialtone phone lines that
are routinely used for burglar alarm services, monitoring,
telemetry, and other similar services.  These circuits may
become non-operational due to a variety of causes, such as the
customer's discontinuance of burglar alarm service or the
destruction of the wiring during remodeling.  Junto and Cogan
alleged that Verizon continued to bill customers for these
circuits.

The suit is "Junto v. Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Docket No. MID-
L-000297-03," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, under Judge Alexander P. Waugh, Jr.

Plaintiffs are represented by Steven A. Skalet of Mehri &
Skalet, PLLC, 1300 19th St NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C.
20036, Phone: (202) 822-5100, Fax: (202) 822-4997, E-mail:
info@findjustice.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Spector Roseman Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that
a securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Herley Industries, Inc.
between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Herley and its top officers defrauded
persons investing in Herley securities, violating the federal
securities laws.  

On June 6, 2006, Herley revealed that the company and its
Chairman, Lee N. Blatt, had been indicted on multiple charges,
in connection with excessive profits improperly "earned" by
Herley on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that its operations in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago,
Illinois, and a subsidiary in Farmingdale, New York had been
suspended from receiving new contract awards from the U.S.
Government.  Government contracts had historically accounted for
approximately 25% of Herley's business.

In response to these disclosures, Herley stock plunged on very
high volume, from $19.38 on June 2, 2006 to $9.21 on June 14,
2006.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action.

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


KLA-TENCOR: Kohn, Swift, Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. announces that a class
action shareholder lawsuit has been commenced against KLA-Tencor
Corp.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased KLA
securities between June 30, 2001 and May 22, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that KLA and certain current and prior
officers and directors manipulated the prices of stock option
grants and made materially false and misleading statements
and/or omitted material facts necessary to make those statements
not misleading.

The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b), 78n(a), and 78t(a) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and 240.14a-9.

When the truth about the company's stock options backdating
first emerged publicly on May 22, 2006, KLA's stock price fell
as a result, from a close of $45.24 per share on May 19, 2006 to
a close of $39.07 per share on May 23, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 28, 2006, request the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Denis F. Sheils, Esq. or William E.
Hoese, Esq. of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Phone: (215) 238-1700,
Fax: (215) 238-1968, e-mail: dsheils@kohnswift.com or
whoese@kohnswift.com, Web site: http://www.kohnswift.com.  


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a class action against NPS
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and certain officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

The action is on behalf of NPS securities purchasers during the
period March 30, 2004, and May 2, 2006, for violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

NPS develops certain drugs, including PREOS, an investigational
drug proposed to treat osteoporosis as an alternative to such
drugs as Forteo and Fosamax.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the safety profile of PREOS.  As a result,
the price of the Company's securities was inflated during the
Class Period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements during the Class Period, regarding the results of the
company's PREOS Phase III clinical studies.

Defendants repeatedly insisted that PREOS had an excellent
safety profile, while failing to reveal the serious adverse
effects observed in PREOS-treated patients across the company's
Phase III clinical studies.

Absent these false and misleading assertions, the Company would
have been unable to market PREOS as an alternative therapy to
FDA-approved treatments such as Forteo and Fosamax.

The complaint states that on May 2, 2006, the company finally
disclosed to investors that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had determined that PREOS lacked an acceptable
safety profile for the proposed indications.  

Worse, the company reported that the FDA proposed that the
company perform a new clinical trial to address the FDA's
concerns.  

As a result of this shocking news, the price of NPS
Pharmaceuticals stock plunged more than 39%, falling from $8.21
per share on May 2, 2006, to close at $4.99 per share on May 3,
2006, on volume of 10.6 million shares, more than ten times
average trading volume.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Sept. 11,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: 800/404-
7770 and 860/537-5537, e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


SCOTTISH RE: Kahn Gauthier Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that a class action has been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock and other securities of
Scottish Re Group, Ltd., between Dec. 16, 2005 and July 28,
2006.

The action against Scottish Re and certain of the company's
executive officers charges violations of federal securities
laws.  

On July 28, 2006, the company's Chief Executive resigned in the
face of a shocking second quarter loss of $130 million.  
Scottish Re now states that it has suspended its dividends and
hired investment bankers to track down additional capital.

On this news, share prices have declined from $16.00 to $6.50 --
erasing millions of dollars in shareholder value.  These
revelations were also in stark contrast to statements made by
Scottish Re in February 2006, that the company was operating at
or above plan, and to statements made in early-May 2006, when
the company reported reduced earnings for the first quarter of
2006, yet failed to make any adjustments to its earnings or
revenue forecasts.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.  


SCOTTISH RE: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Scottish Re Group, Ltd.

The complaint alleges that Scottish Re and of its certain
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
Scottish Re's financial health and business prospects, and
covered up serious operational and financial problems.

In February 2006, the company reported robust earnings for the
fourth quarter of 2005, announcing that this positive momentum
would continue going forward.

In early May 2006 the company announced that it had refinanced,
at favorable rates, all of its regulatory reserves for the
business acquired in its acquisition of ING Re's reinsurance
business.

While the company also reported reduced earnings for the first
quarter of 2006, this was dismissed as temporary, and not a
cause for concern.

Then on July 28, 2006, the defendants shocked the market by
announcing that CEO Scott Willkomm had resigned, and that for
the second quarter, the Company would report a huge loss of $130
million, and that results for the remainder of the year would be
negatively affected.

On this news the Company's share prices declined an astounding
75%, from $16.00 to $3.99, wiping out millions in shareholder
value.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by 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.  


                            *********


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  * * *