CAR_Public/060810.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 158

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MARKETING: Court Approves $6M Stock Suit Settlement
BMO NESBITT: Faces $1M Lawsuit Over Retirement Savings Plans
BROADWING INC: Sept. Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
CANADA: 1992 Suit Against Montreal Over Ragweed Problem Ongoing
CAPITOL BANCORP: Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed

CHAPARRAL RESOURCES: Answer to Suit Over LUKOIL Merger Due Aug.
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Options
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Khanna Suit
GRAPHITE SUPPLIERS: N.J. Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Case
GUANGDONG KELON: Chinese Firm May Face Suit Over Restatement

HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Hanrahan" Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
INDONESIA: Group Files Suit Over Exxon Mobil Mining Contract
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Discrimination Ruled Out in Pension Suit
KEYSPAN CORP: Faces N.Y. Investor Suit Over National Grid Merger
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Tenn. Securities Suit for $38M

MENTHOLATUM COMPANY: Recalls WellPatch Soothing Vapor Pads
MOBILE OPERATORS: Israeli Firms Face Suit Over Air Time Pricing
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Conn.
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Affirms Dismissal of Ariz. Fraud Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Faces Insurance Lawsuit in Ohio State Court

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Md. Complaint
NESTLE PREPARED: Recalls Meatloaf Due to Consumer Complaints
NISOURCE INC: Discovery Stayed in N.Y. Royalties Lawsuit
NORBOURG ASSET: Former Chief Hires Gilles Thibault as Attorney
NORTH FORK: Paying $20M to Settle Suit Over Capital One Merger

NTL INC: Oct. 23 Hearing Set for N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement
PREMCOR REFINING: Plaintiffs Oppose Individual Claims Settlement
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: "Azar" Plaintiff Loses Bid to Amend Suit
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Ohio Appeals Court Affirms $11.7M Award
SEALED AIR: N.J. Court Nixes Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit

SHELTER LIFE: Policy Owners File Breach of Policy Suit in Mo.
SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Suit in Del. Over Minera Mexico Merger
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Cigarette Makers Seek Court Reconsideration


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
JOS A BANK: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing in Md.
RAMBUS INC: Brower Piven Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
SEA CONTAINERS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ZALE CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.

  
                            *********


ADVANCED MARKETING: Court Approves $6M Stock Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted preliminary approval to
proposed settlements of purported securities class actions that
were filed against the company and certain former officers in
early 2004.  The suits were consolidated as, "In Re Advanced
Marketing Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-
00121 RTB."

In May, Advanced Marketing Services agreed to settle for $6
million a class action filed by shareholders over alleged fraud
and accounting irregularities by the company and its executives
(Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2006).

Meanwhile, the company said it plans to file a stipulation of
settlement with the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to seek court approval of a settlement of
the purported stockholder derivative actions that were filed
against the company and certain current and former officers and
directors in early 2004 and consolidated as, "In Re Advanced
Marketing Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation (Lead Case No.
GIC 824845)."

In connection with the settlement of the state court derivative
action, the purported stockholder derivative action that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain former officers and
directors in early 2004, "Dubbert v. Bartlett et al. (Case No.
05-CV-706 RTB (AJB)," has been dismissed.

Subject to final court approvals of the settlements of the class
action and the state court derivative action, the settlements
and the dismissal will resolve all of the civil litigation that
were filed against the company and certain current and former
officers and directors following the company's public
announcement, on Jan. 14, 2004, of the restatement of the
company's financial statements.

The $6 million settlement, subject to completion of the claims
process and final court approval, will be paid with insurance
proceeds.

The state court derivative action, subject to court approval,
will be settled by the payment of $300,000 in cash and the
issuance of 75,000 shares of the company's common stock to the
attorneys for the plaintiffs in the state court derivative
action and the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the federal court
derivative action.

The cash portion of the settlement will be paid with insurance
proceeds.  As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to
implement and maintain certain corporate governance policies and
procedures.

The company's stockholders will be notified in writing, by
third-party administrators, of the details of the litigation and
the claims process in connection with the class-action
settlement and the details of the litigation and the settlements
of the state court derivative action and the federal court
derivative action.  The company requests that stockholders
address questions concerning the settlements to the third-party
administrators after stockholders receive the written
notifications.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Diego, accuses the book
publishing wholesaler and distributor of engaging in fraudulent
accounting practices and its key executives of misrepresenting
the company's financial status between 1999 and 2003.  Three of
its former company executives have already pled guilty for
withholding to retail clients the credit due to them for
advertising and promotion services.

A copy of the judge's order is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f13

The suit is "In Re Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00121 RTB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California under
Judge Roger T. Benitez with referral to Magistrate Judge Anthony
J. Battaglia.

Representing the plaintiffs are Michael David Braun of the Braun
Law Group, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA
90025, Phone: (310) 442-7755; and Kirk B Hulett of Hulett Harper
Stewart, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: (619) 338-1133.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Seth Alben Aronson of O'Melveny and Myers, 400 South
         Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899, Phone:
         (213) 430-6000;

     (2) Michael A Attanasio of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate
         Mall, San Diego, CA 92121-9109, Phone: (858) 550-6000;

     (3) Robert S Brewer, Jr of McKenna Long and Aldridge, 750 B
         Street, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101-3540, Phone:
         (619) 595-5400; and

     (4) Yuri Mikulka of Howrey Simon Arnold and White, 2020
         Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone:
         (949) 721-6900.


BMO NESBITT: Faces $1M Lawsuit Over Retirement Savings Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
James R. MacDonald, on behalf of a class of individuals,
initiated a class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., BMO
Trust Co. and BMO Bank of Montreal in respect of foreign
exchange transactions in Registered Retirement Savings Plans,
Registered Retirement Income Funds or Registered Education
Savings Plans accounts.  

The proposed class includes all present and former clients of
the defendants who held or hold RRSP(s), RRIF(s) or RESP(s) and
who, since June 14, 2001, have incurred foreign currency
conversion charges in these accounts.

The statement of claim alleges that the defendants have
systematically converted foreign currency in these accounts to
Canadian currency without instructions from the customers, and
without there being any need to do so, based upon revisions to
the Income Tax Act that came into effect on June 14, 2001.

In effecting all currency conversions, the defendants levy an
undisclosed conversion fee in addition to the amount that they
actually pay to buy or sell currency.

The statement of claim alleges that the defendants failed to
change their operational practices after the change to the
Income Tax Act, which allows RRSPs, RRIFs and RESPs to hold
foreign currency as an investment.  It further alleges that the
reason for the defendants' failure to effect a change was so
that they could continue to earn profits from the foreign
exchange fees, at the expense of the class members.

It seeks damages for all the fees charged in association with
the unauthorized conversion of foreign currency to Canadian
funds since the change to the Income Tax Act became effective.  
It also seeks repayment of all the hidden foreign exchange fees
levied by the defendants on transactions where the customer did
authorize a conversion of funds from Canadian to a foreign
currency; but had no notice and did not agree to payment of the
hidden fee.

Each time a foreign exchange fee is charged by the defendants it
depletes the funds in the customer's retirement or education
fund, the plaintiff said.

This proposed class action is proceeding on a contingency fee
basis.  

A copy of Mr. MacDonald's Claim is available for free at:
  
           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f3c

Representing the plaintiffs are Margaret Waddell or Odette
Soriano both of Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, 250
University Avenue, Suite 501, Toronto ON, M5H 3E5, Phone: 1-888-
569-4526, E-mail: info@rrspclassaction.com, Website:
http://www.rrspclassaction.com.


BROADWING INC: Sept. Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 6, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. for the
proposed $36 million settlement in the matter, "In Re Broadwing
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-1-02-795."

The court will hold the hearing at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Federal
Building, Room 909, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402.

Deadline for submission of claims is Nov. 30, 2006.  Any
objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Aug. 25, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons that purchased or otherwise
acquired for consideration publicly traded securities of
Broadwing Inc. between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 21, 2002.

Founded in 1873, Cincinnati Bell Inc. has been a provider of
regional and local telephone services in Ohio, Kentucky and
Indiana for over a century.  

In November 1999, Cincinnati Bell acquired IXC Communications,
Inc., an Austin, Texas based provider of broadband services, in
a transaction valued at $3.2 billion.

The new company was named Broadwing Inc.  Broadwing returned to
its original corporate name, Cincinnati Bell, in May 2003.

A consolidated amended class action complaint filed against the
company on Dec. 1, 2003 alleges, among other things, that during
the class period from Jan. 17, 2001 to May 21, 2002, defendants
issued press releases, filed quarterly, annual and other reports
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and made other
public statements regarding Broadwing's financial condition that
were materially false and misleading.

The complaint further alleges that lead plaintiffs and other
class members purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Broadwing during the class period at prices
artificially inflated as a result of the defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Broadwing Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden
         City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box #9084,
         Dublin, OH 43017-0984, Phone: 1(866) 881-7506, Web
         site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/index.html;

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

     (3) Brad N. Friedman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300 or 800-320-5081, Fax: 212-
         273-4376, E-mail: bfriedman@milbergweiss.com.


CANADA: 1992 Suit Against Montreal Over Ragweed Problem Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $2 billion class action filed against the city of Montreal and
22 other island municipalities over their alleged failure to
eradicate ragweed is ongoing, it emerged from a report by The
Chronicle.

Francoise Nadon launched the suit in 1992.  An earlier Class
Action Reporter story stated that opposing attorneys started
arguments in the suit in Quebec Superior Court in September
2005.

The suit alleges that city authorities did not do enough to
eradicate ragweed, especially on municipal land.  It is seeking
up to $2,000 for each of an estimated 200,000 allergy sufferers
for every summer they lived on the island from 1991 to 1995
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2005).  Ragweed releases pollen
in late summer that triggers fits of sneezing, nasal congestion,
watery eyes and allergic asthma in some people.  

According to a recent report by the Chronicle, each year $50
million is spent in Quebec on consultations, treatment, and
medication related to hay fever caused by ragweed.  


CAPITOL BANCORP: Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Capitol Bancorp Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a securities
fraud class action, filed against the company in 2005.

The court ruled that the complaint failed to satisfy the
particular requirements of the U.S. Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Further, the court ruled that the shareholders failed to satisfy
the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA.

The district court dismissed all federal securities claims
against Capitol Bancorp but granted the shareholders the
opportunity to amend their complaint.

In November, 2005, shareholders of Capitol Bancorp sued the
company for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5, and of the Securities
Act of 1933 Section 11.

Capitol purchased shares of Napa Community Bank from
shareholders of Napa in a tender offer.  Minority shareholders
who sold their Napa shares to Capitol alleged that Capitol
engaged in fraud by offering them lower values for the stock.

The shareholders claimed that Capitol intentionally deflated the
book value of Napa stock prior to the exchange.  Capitol moved
to dismiss the case.

To plead Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations, a shareholder
must allege that the defendant made a fraudulent
misrepresentation or omission in connection with the sale or
purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the plaintiff
relied, causing the plaintiff's economic loss.

In order to make a claim against an individual defendant as a
control person for securities fraud under Section 20(a),
plaintiffs must sufficiently allege an underlying wrongdoing
pursuant to Section 10(b).

Capitol Bancorp Ltd. (NYSE:CBC) --http://www.capitolbancorp.com
-- is a publicly-traded, multi-billion dollar company composed
of a network of community banks located in towns and cities from
coast to coast.

The suit is "Rubke et al. v. Capitol Bancorp, Ltd. et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-04800-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robert Bader, 101 California Street, Suite 1850, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-733-6055, E-mail:
         rbader@goodwinprocter.com; and

     (2) Bruce A. Ericson of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
         LLP, 50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880, San
         Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone: (415) 983-1000, Fax:
         (415) 983-1200, E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John F. Friedemann, Esq. of Friedemann Goldberg LLP,
         420 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 201, Santa Rosa, CA
         95403, Phone: 707-543-4900, Fax: 707-543-4910, E-mail:
         Jfriedemann@frigolaw.com;

     (2) George S. Trevor of the Law Offices of George S.
         Trevor, 300 Tamal Plaza, Suite 180, Corte Madera, CA
         94925, Phone: (415) 924-7147, E-mail:
         gtrevor@trevorlaw.com; and

     (3) James V. Weixel, Jr. of Weixel Law Office, 2370 Market,
         Street, No. 133, San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone: 415-
         682-9785, Fax: 866-640-3918, E-mail:
         appeals@jimweixel.com.


CHAPARRAL RESOURCES: Answer to Suit Over LUKOIL Merger Due Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the New York case filed against Chaparral Resources,
Inc. over the company's proposed merger with LUKOIL Overseas
Holding Ltd. agreed that defendants have until Aug. 31, 2006 to
respond to that suit.

Chaparral Resources, Inc. is defendant in both a consolidated
class action in the Court of Chancery in the state of Delaware
in and for New Castle County, and a purported class action in
the Supreme Court of the state of New York over the proposed
merger (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2006).

On March 13, 2006 the company announced that it had entered into
an agreement to effect a merger into a wholly owned subsidiary
of LUKOIL.  On the effective date of this merger, all issued and
outstanding common stock of the company will be exchanged for
$5.80 per share in cash.

Following the issuance of the press release announcing the
execution of the merger agreement, the first of three separate
complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Shortly thereafter, an additional complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, to commence class
actions lawsuits on behalf of the company's stockholders against
LUKOIL, the company and its board of directors.  

The complaints in these actions, which purport to be brought on
behalf of all stockholders, generally alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by Chaparral, its board of directors and LUKOIL.  
It also claim the merger consideration offered by LUKOIL is
inadequate.  

These suits generally seek to enjoin the merger or, in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in
the event a merger occurred pursuant to the merger agreement.

On March 31, 2006 the three lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery were consolidated into one.  

In recent developments, the company said at its update on
operations and proposed merger that defendants in the Delaware
case have agreed to keep the plaintiffs apprised of the expected
date of mailing of the definitive proxy statement and to give
plaintiffs notice at least 14 calendar days prior to the mailing
of the definitive proxy statement, to supply plaintiffs with the
text of the definitive proxy statement at the soonest
practicable date, and not to schedule the vote on the merger
transaction less than 30 calendar days after the mailing of the
definitive proxy statement.

Meanwhile, parties to the New York case have agreed that
defendants have until Aug. 31, 2006 to respond to that suit.

Chaparral Resources, Inc. -- http://www.chaparralresources.com/
-- is an oil and gas development and production company.  The
company's only operating asset is its participation in the
development of the Karakuduk Field, in the Republic of
Kazakhstan, through KKM, which is the operating company.  The
company has directly and indirectly a 60% ownership interest in
KKM with the other 40% ownership interest being held by Caspian
Investments Resources Limited.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Stock Options
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder
lawsuit against certain members of the board of directors and
certain executive officers of Computer Sciences Corp.

The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers
and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director
stock option grants a.k.a. back-dated stock options.

The law firm is also investigating whether fiduciaries of the
Computer Sciences Corp. Matched Asset Plan, a 401(k) retirement
plan, may have violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by failing to disclose improper acts and practices
relating to the company's executive stock option grants and by
offering Computer Sciences stock as an investment option under
the Computer Sciences Corp. Matched Asset Plan when it was not
prudent to do so.

For more information, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. of Stull,
Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(800) 337-4983, Fax: (212) 490-2022, Website:
http://www.ssbny.com.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Khanna Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle
County dismissed certain claims in the purported class action
filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s current and
former directors by the company's former general counsel and
secretary Druv Khanna.

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
company's general counsel and secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary
duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.

Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna
filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against
the company's current and former directors.  

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two
additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this
action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company
from the individual defendants for their purported breach of
fiduciary duty.  

Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of
directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the
company's proxy statements were misleading.

On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr.
Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives.

On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to the
company's proxy statements.  The court also determined that Mr.
Khanna could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter.

Based in San Jose, California, Covad Communications Group, Inc.
-- http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data  
communications products and services to consumers and businesses
throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan
areas in 44 states.  The company's products and services include
high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access
connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and
a variety of related services.  It primarily uses digital
subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also referred to as T-1,
technologies to deliver its services.


GRAPHITE SUPPLIERS: N.J. Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified
a class in the consolidated lawsuit, "In re: Bulk [Extruded]
Graphite Products Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-
06030 (WHW)."

Initially, purchasers of bulk extruded graphite products filed
several class actions against certain companies.  Those named as
defendants are:

      -- UCAR Carbon Company and GrafTech International,
         Ltd. (collectively "GTI"),
      -- SGL Carbon Corp.,
      -- SGL Carbon, LLC,
      -- SGL Carbon AG,
      -- SGL Carbon GmbH
      -- Robert J. Koehler,
      -- Robert P. Krass, and
      -- Robert J. Hart.

The lawsuits were later consolidated before the court.  In the
consolidated suit, plaintiffs allege that defendants entered
into a combination, conspiracy or agreement to fix, maintain,
raise or stabilize the prices of bulk extruded graphite products
sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal antitrust laws
during the period from Jan. 1, 1993 to Dec. 31, 1998.

Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of the conspiracy,
they and other members of the class have been injured by paying
more for bulk extruded graphite products than they would have
paid in the absence of the illegal conduct, and seek recovery of
treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an
award of attorneys' fees.

"Bulk extruded graphite products" are defined as "extruded
graphite products sold as both non-machined and semi-machined
products."  They do not include fully machined extruded graphite
products, nor do they include isomolded (isostatic) or molded
graphite products.

"Bulk Extruded Graphite" means:

      -- a medium-grained product with good mechanical,
         electrical and thermal properties with a preferential
         grain orientation and low ash content;

      -- which is produced through extrusion (as opposed to
         through uniform (isostatic) pressure molding or
         unidirectional pressure molding); and

      -- has lower resistance and higher thermal conductivity
         than isomolded products.

Previously, plaintiffs and settlement classes have settled their
claims against GTI, Robert P. Krass and Robert J. Hart.  Thus,
the lawsuit is continuing only against SGL Carbon, LLC, SGL
Carbon AG, SGL Carbon GmbH and Robert J. Koehler.

The case covers all persons and entities that purchased extruded
graphite products in the U.S. during the period Jan. 1, 1993 to
Dec. 31, 1998.

The suit is "In re: Bulk [Extruded] Graphite Products Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-06030 (WHW)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
William H. Walls with referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel D. Heins of Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., 3550
         Ids Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN
         55402, Phone: 612 338-4605, E-mail:
         heins@heinsmills.com; and

     (2) Howard J. Sedran of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, 510
         Walnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106,
         Phone: 215-592-1500, Fax: 215-592-4663.

Representing the defendants is Brian J. McMahon of Gibbons, Del
Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC, One Riverfront Plaza,
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 596-4500, E-mail:
bmcmahon@gibbonslaw.com.


GUANGDONG KELON: Chinese Firm May Face Suit Over Restatement
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of China-based manufacturer of air-conditioners and
refrigerators, Guangdong Kelon Electrical Holdings Co. Ltd., are
planning to file a class action against the company over its
restatement of financial results for the past years, reports
say.

According to Forbes, a total of 59 lawyers from 45 domestic law
firms held a meeting in July to discuss a possible $12.5 million
(CNY100 million) class action against the company and its
auditor Deloitte & Touche.

The company has overstated its profits by $48.5 million
(CNY387.2 million) and revenues by $150.4 million (CNY1.22
billion) between 2002 and 2004 without being detected by its
auditor.

Recently, the company said at a statement to the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange that due to "numerous extraordinary events [that]
occurred during the 2005 financial year... the board was unable
to complete the review and approval of the annual report and
other relevant matters in the board meeting on July 28, 2006."

In September last year, the former chairman of Kelon, Gu Chujun,
and six other senior executives were arrested for misusing
company funds and misrepresenting accounts.

In October, the company warned investors it will be loss-making
in 2005.

Established in 1984, Kelon is China's largest manufacturer of
refrigerators with an annual capacity of 13 million units.  The
company also builds residential air conditioners, freezers, and
a variety of small home appliances.  Kelon markets its products
under the brand names Kelon and Ronshen (refrigerators), Kelon
and Huabao (air conditioners), and Kelon freezers.  Hisense
acquired Kelon in 2005; France, Germany, and the U.K. are its
most vital markets outside Asia.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Hanrahan" Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Hewlett-Packard Co.'s motion to dismiss a securities
fraud class action filed in relation to Compaq Corp.'s
acquisition.

The court ruled that the defendant company was not oblige to
disclose an opposition to a merger during a board meeting, where
the board technically approved the merger unanimously.

In 2005, Hewlett-Packard and its former chairman and chief
executive officer Carleton Fiornia were named defendants in a
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13,
2005).

The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
sold common stock of the company during the period from Sept. 4,
2001 through Nov. 5, 2001.  

It alleged that the company and Ms. Fiornia violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 by making statements during this period which were
misleading in failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would
oppose the proposed acquisition of Compaq by the company prior
to Mr. Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed
transaction.   

Specifically, the shareholders claimed that Hewlett-Packard
fraudulently failed to disclose that one of its board members
opposed a merger with Compaq Corp. during a board meeting to
discuss the merger.  During the board meeting, Walter Hewlett
opposed the merger.

However, Hewlett ultimately voted in favor of the merger, and
Hewlett-Packard announced the merger had been unanimously
approved by both Hewlett-Packard and Compaq's boards of
directors.

After the merger announcement, Hewlett-Packard stock declined in
value.

When the public learned that Hewlett opposed the merger,
Hewlett-Packard stock rose again, as investors believed the
opposition made the merger less likely to occur.

However, the merger occurred.  Hewlett-Packard moved to dismiss
the shareholders' suit.

In recent developments, the court dismissed the suit finding
that Hewlett-Packard announced an accurate fact that all
Hewlett-Packard board members approved the merger by a unanimous
vote.

To plead Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations, a shareholder
must allege that the defendant made a fraudulent
misrepresentation or omission in connection with the sale or
purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the plaintiff
relied, causing the plaintiffs' economic loss.

The suit is "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-02047-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiff is Edward F. Haber of Shapiro Haber &
Urmy, LLP, 53 State St., 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-439-3939, E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas G. Rohback of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103,  
         Phone: 860-293-3500, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail:  
         trohback@llgm.com; and

     (2) Steven M. Schatz of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:  
         650/493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
         sschatz@wsgr.com.


INDONESIA: Group Files Suit Over Exxon Mobil Mining Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
An alliance of politicians and activists filed a class action
against the government of Indonesia for allowing a U.S. multi-
national to operate Cepu oil and gas field in Central Java,
according to The Jakarta Post.

A group of lawyers for The Popular Movement for Salvaging of the
Cepu Block filed the suit at the Central Jakarta District Court.

The group is composed of 109 politicians, including former
People's Consultative Asembly speaker Amien Rais, former Finance
Minister Fuad Bawazier, environmental activists, retired
servicemen and former government officials.  

The suit targets an agreement entered by the government this
year awarding Exxon Mobil a contract to mine Cepu oil and gas
field.  The mine is estimated to have recoverable reserves of as
much as 600 million barrels of high quality reserves and two
billion barrels of lesser-quality reserves.  The field is also
estimated to hold 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas,
according to a report by Switzerland's International Relations
and Security Network.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Discrimination Ruled Out in Pension Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
judgment of the district court in "Cooper, Kathi v. IBM Pension
Plan, Case No. 05-3588," which is a class action that alleges
discrimination by International Business Machines Corp. against
older workers through its adoption of a cash-balance pension
plan.  The court remanded the suit with directions to enter
judgment in IBM's favor.

Plaintiffs in the class action had contended that IBM's plan
violates a subsection of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act that prohibits age discrimination.  The suit relates to
amendments the company made to switch a traditional plan to a
cash-balance plan, which is generally thought to benefit younger
workers.  Several age-discrimination lawsuits were filed
nationwide, causing the Internal Revenue Service to stop
approving them in 1999.

In 2003, the district court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, and
proceedings continued as the parties debated how much IBM owes,
and how it must change its plan in future years, as a remedy.

IBM reached a partial settlement in the case in 2004, agreeing
to pay up to $1.4 billion if its appeal failed.

In the recent court ruling, the appeals court said: "Like a
defined contribution plan, a cash-balance plan removes the
backloading of the pension formula; older workers (accurately)
perceive that they are worse off under a cash-balance approach
than under a traditional years-of-service-times final-salary
plan.  But removing a feature that gave extra benefits to the
old differs from discriminating against them."

"Replacing a plan that discriminates against the young with one
that is age-neutral does not discriminate against the old."

The suit was filed by Kathi Cooper against IBM Personal Pension
Plan and IBM Corp.

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

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f31

The suit is "Cooper, Kathi v. IBM Pension Plan, Case No. 99-829-
GPM" on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy.

Representing the plaintiff is William K. Carr at Law Offices of
William K. Carr, 2222 East Tennessee Avenue, Denver, CO 80209,
Phone: 303-296-6383; and John H. Evans at Hill & Robbins, 1441
18th Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-296-8100,
E-mail: johnevans@hillandrobbins.com.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey G. Huvelle and David H.
Remes at Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-662-6000, E-
mail: jhuvelle@cov.com or dremes@cov.com.


KEYSPAN CORP: Faces N.Y. Investor Suit Over National Grid Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
KeySpan Corp. settled a purported class action in New York State
Supreme Court for the County of Kings, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty over the National Grid, PLC merger.

Filed on Mar. 20, 2006 against the company and certain of its
directors, the suit relates to the execution of the merger
agreement with National Grid.  

The suit alleges that the merger consideration, which the
company's stockholders will receive in connection with the
proposed merger transaction, is inadequate and unfair, since the
transaction value of $42.00 for each share of the company's
common stock does not provide its stockholders with a meaningful
premium over the market price of the common stock.  

On April 19, 2006, the company moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted.  

On May 26, 2006, the plaintiff served an amended complaint
adding National Grid as a defendant.  The amended complaint
alleged that National Grid aided and abetted the alleged breach
of fiduciary duties and added claims of inadequate disclosure
with respect to KeySpan's preliminary proxy materials.  

On or about June 16, 2006, the parties agreed in principle to
settle the case.  The agreement is subject to negotiating and
executing definitive settlement documentation, confirmatory
discovery of the fairness of the settlement, and court approval
of the settlement following notice to shareholders.

New York-based KeySpan Corp. -- http://www.keyspanenergy.com/--  
operates in the gas distribution, electric services, energy
services and energy investments segments.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Tenn. Securities Suit for $38M
------------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals Inc. entered a $38 million agreement to
settle a consolidated amended securities class action filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, MarketWatch reports.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the company said the settlement addresses the consolidated
class-action complaint, but does not resolve the SEC's
investigation into the matter.

Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class action complaints
were filed by securities holders against the company, certain of
its directors, former directors, its executive officers, former
executive officers, a subsidiary, and a former director of the
subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2006).

The suits alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with
the underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid and other
governmental pricing programs, and certain transactions between
the company and the Benevolent Fund.

The 22 complaints were later consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On Aug. 12, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss.
The court dismissed all claims as to Jones Pharma Inc., a
predecessor to one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries,
King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc., and as to
defendants Dennis Jones and Henry Richards.  

The court also dismissed certain claims as to five other
individual defendants.  The court denied the motions to dismiss
in all other respects.

Following the court's ruling, on Sept. 20, 2004, the company and
the other remaining defendants filed answers to plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.  Discovery in this action has
commenced.  The court has set a trial date of April 10, 2007.

The suit is "Juenger v. King Pharmaceuticals, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00077," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas W. Phillips with
referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) K. Kidwell King, Jr. of King & King, 125 South Main
         Street, Greeneville, TN 37743, Phone: 423-639-6881, E-
         mail: kking2@aol.com; and

     (2) John C. Browne of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10019-6028, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-
         554-1441, E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrew L. Colocotronis of Baker, Donelson, Bearman &
         Caldwell, P.O. Box 1792, Knoxville, TN 37901-1792,
         Phone: 865-549-7000, E-mail:
         acolocotronis@bakerdonelson.com; and

     (2) Scott Dodson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 1050
         Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036-5303,
         Phone: 202-887-3772, Fax: 202-530-9654, E-mail:
         sdodson@gibsondunn.com.


MENTHOLATUM COMPANY: Recalls WellPatch Soothing Vapor Pads
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mentholatum Co., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drugs
Administration, is conducting a nationwide voluntary recall of
WellPatch Cough & Cold Soothing Vapor Pads due to potential
serious adverse health effects that could result if a child
removing the patch and chewing on it ingests the product.

The company is taking this precautionary action to ensure the
safety of the consumers who use this product.  To date, there
have been no serious adverse events reported.

The company is initiating the recall due to the possibility of
adverse events associated with use of the product.

WellPatch Cough & Cold Soothing Vapor Pads contain camphor,
eucalyptus oil, and menthol.  Possible adverse events associated
with chewing or ingesting products containing camphor or
eucalyptus oils can vary from minor symptoms, such as burning
sensation in the mouth, headache, nausea and vomiting, to more
severe reactions, such as seizures.

WellPatch Cough & Cold Soothing Vapor Pads are labeled for use
by children two years of age and older.  The directions on the
label indicate the patch is to be applied to the throat or chest
to allow the vapors to reach the nose and mouth.  Once applied,
the patch would be within close reach for a child to remove and
place in his/her mouth.  The Vapor Pad is a topical cough
product applied externally and not intended for oral
consumption.

The product is sold nationwide over-the-counter at pharmacies
and retail stores.  This recall affects only the Cough & Cold
Soothing Vapor Pads.

Consumers are advised to immediately discontinue use of this
product and return it to their point of purchase for a full
refund or discard it.

Consumers requiring more information about this recall can
contact The Mentholatum Co. Customer Service Department at 1-
877-636-2677 or visit http://www.wellpatch.com.


MOBILE OPERATORS: Israeli Firms Face Suit Over Air Time Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three mobile phone operators in Israel are facing what is
potentially a $22.98 million (NIS100 million) lawsuit in a Tel
Aviv District Court, Haaretz.com reports.

The suit alleges that Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom and
Partner are charging for more air time than customers actually
use in calls from cellular phones to Israel Telecommunications
Corp. Ltd. (Bezeq) lines.

Specifically, the suit claims the cell phone companies charge
for air time until the cell phone user hangs up, even if the
Bezeq user has hung up previously, instead of considering the
call over as soon as either party hangs up.

This, it argued, violates the terms of the companies' licenses,
which state explicitly that they must stop charging for air time
as soon as either party hangs up.

Normally, the extra air time is only a second or two.  But it
can be much longer if the caller uses call waiting, the suit
noted, since the cell phone user cannot hang up until both calls
have ended, even if one call actually finished long before.

The suit asks the court to grant it class status.  The companies
have yet to respond to the suit.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and its Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. subsidiary are seeking for the dismissal of the
fifth amended complaint in a purported class action filed
against them in the U.S. District for the District of
Connecticut.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named as defendants in the
lawsuit, "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Co."

Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed March
21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified retirement
plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended, that purchased variable annuities from NLIC.

Plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their
variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA
fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from
certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs' request
for certification of the alleged class.  On April 20, 2006, NLIC
and NFS filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth amended
complaint, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill with
referral to Judge William I. Garfinkel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard A. Bieder of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.,
         350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604, 203-336-4421,
         Fax: 203-368-3244, E-mail: rbieder@koskoff.com;

     (2) Gregory G. Jones, 603 S. Main, Suite 200, Grapevine, TX
         76051, Phone: 871-424-9001, Fax: 817-424-1665, E-mail:
         greg@gjoneslaw.com; and

     (3) Roger L. Mandel of Stanley, Mandel & Iola, 3100
         Monticello Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone:
         214-443-4300, Fax: 214-443-0358, E-mail:
         rmandel@smi-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Jessica A. Ballou of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
         Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103,
         Phone: 860-293-3535, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail:
         jballou@llgm.com; and

    (ii) Sam Broderick-Sokol of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
         Dorr-LLP-DC, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
         20006, Phone: 202-663-6000, Fax: 202-663-6363, E-mail:
         sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Affirms Dismissal of Ariz. Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona against Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.

The suit, "Robert Helman, et al. v. Nationwide Life Insurance
Company, et al.," challenges the sale of deferred annuity
products for use as investments in tax-deferred contributory
retirement plans.

On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased an individual
variable deferred annuity contract or a certificate to a group
variable annuity contract issued by the company or Nationwide
Life Annuity and Insurance Co. (NLAIC) which were allegedly used
to fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.  The amended
class-action complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

The company and NLAIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
May 24, 2004.  On July 27, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 7, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal order by the District Court, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Helman v. Nationwide Life Ins, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-02138-FJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge Frederick J. Martone.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
         Balint, PC, 2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix,
         AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-776-5903, Fax: 602-274-1199,
         E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com; and

     (2) Brian C. Kerr, Janine L. Pollack, Michael C. Spencer
         and Lee A. Weiss, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: (202) 783-6091.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Arlo Devlin-Brown, Charles C. Platt, Susan Schroeder,
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, 399 Park
         Ave., 31st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-
         8800; and

    (ii) Teresita Angela Tan Mercado and Donald A. Wall, Squire
         Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 2 Renaissance Sq., 40 N. Central
         Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4441, Phone: 602-528-4000, Fax:
         602-253-8129, E-mail: tmercado@ssd.com and
         dwall@ssd.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Faces Insurance Lawsuit in Ohio State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc., remains a defendant in the class
action, "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," filed
in Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 11, 2005, seeks recovery for breach
of contract, fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.  

It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of
all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum annual premium
and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.  

The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the
U.S. who, during the class period from Feb. 10, 1995 through
Feb. 2, 2006, purchased life insurance policies from the company
that provided for guaranteed maximum premiums and who paid
premiums on a modal basis to the company.

Excluded from the class are the company; any parent, subsidiary
or affiliate of the company; all employees, officers and
directors of the company; and any justice, judge or magistrate
judge of the state of Ohio who may hear the case.  The case was
slated for an April 10, 2006 trial.  

Based in Columbus, Ohio, Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/nw/-- is the holding company for  
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. (NLIC) and other companies that
comprise the domestic life insurance and retirement savings
operations of the Nationwide group of companies. The company, a
provider of long-term savings and retirement products in the
U.S., develops and sells a diverse range of products, including
individual annuities, private and public group retirement plans,
other investment products sold to institutions, life insurance
and advisory services.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Md. Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of their complaint in a
class action pending in U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland against Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in a class action, "Woodbury
v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," which was filed in Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.  NLIC
removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.

On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held -- through their
ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product -- units of
any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-
accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement,
failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection
with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or
units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found
with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have:

     * made any untrue statement,
     * failed to disclose any material fact, or
     * used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or
       contrivance,

then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain
exceptions, of all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue
statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held (through
their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units
of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and
seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or
class member, including all compensatory damages and costs.

On June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  On June 30, 2006, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, case no.
1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N
         Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 1-
         602-776-5903, Fax: 1-602-274-1199, E-mail:
         fbalint@bffb.com or afriedman@bffb.com;  

     (2) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery
         701 Market St., Ste. 300, St. Louis, MO 63108, Phone:
         1-314-241-4844, Fax: 1-314-241-3525, E-mail:
         ebarash@koreintillery.com or gzelcs@koreintillery.com;
         and  

     (3) Timothy G Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B. St., Ste. 1700, San Diego, CA
         92101-3311, Phone: 1-619-231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423.

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Shoshana Leah Gillers, Eric John Mogilnicki, Charles
         Collier Platt of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
         LLP, 399 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-
         230-8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888, E-mail:
         shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com,
         eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com,
         charles.platt@wilmerhale.com;  

    (ii) Larry E. Hepler, W. Jason Rankin, Burroughs Hepler, 103
         W Vandalia St., Ste. 300, PO Box 510 Edwardsville, IL
         62025-0510, Phone: 1-618-656-0184; and

   (iii) Gordon Pearson, Andrew R. Varcoe, Wilmer Cutler, 2445 M
         St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-663-6000,
         Fax: 1-202-663-6363.


NESTLE PREPARED: Recalls Meatloaf Due to Consumer Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Prepared Foods Co. of Gaffney, South Carolina, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 48,588 pounds of frozen meat loaf entrees that may
contain pieces of plastic.

The 9 7/8-ounce packages of "Stouffer's Meatloaf, ketchup-glazed
meatloaf in gravy with mashed potatoes, Made With Real Potatoes"
are subject to the recall.  Each package bears the establishment
number "EST. 7991" inside the USDA seal of inspection.  Each
package also bears the package code "6123595510" followed by a
letter Q through Y, and "Best Before March 2007."

The frozen entrees were produced on May 3, and were distributed
to retail establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the company received consumer
complaints.  FSIS has received no reports of injury from
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an injury
from consumption of the products should contact a physician.

Media with questions about the recall may contact company
Marketing Communications Manager Roz O'Hearn at (440) 264-5170.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact the Nestl,
Consumer Services Department at (800) 227-6188.


NISOURCE INC: Discovery Stayed in N.Y. Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently stayed in a purported class action
pending in Chautauqua County Court, New York against some
subsidiaries of NiSource, Inc.

The suit, "Vivian K. Kershaw et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc., et al.," names as defendants:

     -- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.,
     -- Columbia Energy Group,
     -- Columbia Energy Resources, Inc., and
     -- Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., a former subsidiary

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs own an interest in oil and
gas leases in New York and that the defendants have underpaid
royalties on those leases by, among other things, failing to
base royalties on the price at which natural gas is sold to the
end-user and by improperly deducting post-production costs.

Plaintiffs seek the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive
damages.  They also seek class action status on behalf of all
royalty owners in oil and gas leases owned by the defendants.

Discovery is currently stayed while the parties seek to
determine if the matter can be settled, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.


NORBOURG ASSET: Former Chief Hires Gilles Thibault as Attorney
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Lacroix, the former chief executive of defunct Norbourg
Asset Management Inc., has qualified for legal aid from the
state in defending himself against fraud claims by clients of
the mutual fund group, according to The Gazette.  Mr. Lacroix,
who declared bankruptcy in May, has hired Gilles Thibault, a
South Shore lawyer.

Quebec Superior Court began hearing on June 5 arguments from a
group of Norbourg Asset investors seeking to launch a class
action against the mutual fund group and Mr. Lacroix, cbc.ca
reports (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2006).  Mr. Lacroix is
accused of misappropriating an estimated $84 million, including
$18 million for his personal benefit, from investors.

Also named in the suit are Quebec's financial services regulator
Autorite des archers financiers, and some Norbourg managers.  
The AMF is recommending fines of $20,000 to $5 million and up to
five years imprisonment for each count upon which Mr. Lacroix is
convicted.  Mr. Lacroix and Mr. Thibault are scheduled to return
to court Sept. 5 before a fraud trial date is set.

AMF is repeating efforts to have all requests for class actions
against Norbourg lumped into one case, claiming that such a move
would save time and money in helping about 9,200 Norbourg
clients recover the estimated $60 million they claim they were
defrauded of by Mr. Lacroix.

The financial regulator is accused of not acting early enough to
protect investors, according to investors' lawyer Jacques
Larochelle.  It discovered a $130 million dollar discrepancy in
the company's results only last summer.

The securities regulator has filed 51 security act charges of
fraud, manipulation of mutual fund values and falsified
documents against Mr. Lacroix.

On June 6, a Quebec Superior Court allowed Pierre Laporte of
trustee Ernst & Young to return $32 million of the $75 million
recovered last year from Norbourg, Evolution and Perfolio funds.  
The balance will be held in reserve until the court decides on
how the funds will be distributed to creditors.  

The suit has been before Judge Richard Mongeon since January.

Norbourg investors are being represented by Jacques Larochelle,
75 Rue St Jean, Quebec, PQ G1R 1N4, Canada, Phone: (418) 529-
5881.


NORTH FORK: Paying $20M to Settle Suit Over Capital One Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. agreed in principle to settle a
previously disclosed purported North Fork stockholder class
action challenging the proposed merger between Capital One
Financial Corp.and North Fork.

In the settlement, North Fork will agree:

     -- to establish a settlement fund in an aggregate amount of
        $20 million, out of which the plaintiffs' attorneys'
        fees will be paid, with the remaining balance of the
        settlement fund to be allocated among North Fork
        stockholders who are members of the class as of the
        completion of the merger (other than those stockholders
        who perfect appraisal rights or opt out of the
        settlement);

     -- to waive any right to realize total profit in excess of
        $630 million under the North Fork stock option agreement
        granted to Capital One in connection with the merger;
        and

     -- to publicly announce additional information relating to
        the merger and certain other matters in a Form 8-K filed
        with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the terms of the settlement, all claims relating to the
merger agreement and the proposed merger will be dismissed and
released on behalf of the settlement class.

The settlement is subject to approval by the court in which the
action is pending.  Upon approval of the proposed settlement by
the court, plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to apply for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which will be paid from
the settlement fund.

On Mar. 12, 2006, the company announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger with Capital One Financial Corp.
pursuant to which the company would merge with and into Capital
One, with Capital One continuing as the surviving corporation
(Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006).

On Mar. 15, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company
and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York, New
York County.  The suit is "Lasker v. Kanas et al., Index No.
06/103557."

On Mar. 16, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company
and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York,
Nassau County.  The suit is "Showers v. Kanas et al., Index No.
06-004624."  

Two further putative class actions on behalf of the public
shareholders of North Fork were subsequently filed:

     -- "New Jersey Building Laborers Pension & Annuity Fund v.  
        Kanas et al., Index No. 06-004786," filed in the Supreme  
        Court of New York, Nassau County on Mar. 21, 2006; and

     -- "Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 06105091," filed in  
        the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on Apr.  
        12, 2006.

These complaints allege, among other things that the directors
of the company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in the transaction.   

For more information, contact Daniel M. Healy of North Fork
Bancorporation, Inc., Phone: 631-531-2058.


NTL INC: Oct. 23 Hearing Set for N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 23, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed $9 million settlement in the matter, "In Re NTL,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-3013 (LAK)(AJP)."

The court will hold a the hearing at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007.

Deadline for submission of a claim form and any exclusion from
the settlement is on Sept. 22, 2006.  Any objections to the
settlement must be made by Sept. 29, 2006.

The case covers all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of NTL, Inc.
on the open market during the period between Aug. 10, 2000 and
Nov. 29, 2001.

During the class period, NTL was a New York-based corporation
providing telephone, cable television, Internet, and broadband
communications services in the U.K., Ireland, and parts of
continental Europe.

Commencing in April of 2002, several securities class actions
were instituted on behalf of purchasers of NTL securities during
the period from Aug. 3, 2000 and continuing through and
including Nov. 29, 2001, alleging violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws.  These lawsuits were consolidated for all
purposes by a court Order on July 31, 2002.

By order of the court dated July 31, 2002, Cheyne Fund LP and
Fleck T.I.M.E. Fund L.P. were designated lead plaintiffs and
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (formerly known as Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP) and Bernstein Liebhard &
Lifshitz, LLP were appointed as co-lead counsel for the class.

The consolidated amended class action complaint dated Oct. 30,
2002 filed in the action alleges, among other things, that NTL
and the individual defendants, who were officers and/or
directors of NTL, made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions in NTL's public reports and statements
disseminated to the investing public thereby artificially
inflating the price of the securities of NTL and damaging
members of the class.

In particular, the complaint alleges, inter alia, that during
the class period, one or more defendants materially
misrepresented the company's ability to integrate acquired
businesses, the size of its subscriber base and its ability to
service its debts in public reports and statements disseminated
to the investing public.

The company's financial and other public statements are alleged
to have made been in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of defendants'
materially false and misleading statements, the price of NTL
securities was artificially inflated during the class period,
thereby causing damage to members of the class who purchased or
otherwise acquired NTL securities during that period.

NTL filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 8, 2002.
On Sept. 5, 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court permitted the action
to proceed post-reorganization against the parties other than
the corporate debtor and against the corporate debtor to the
extent of its available insurance coverage.  NTL Europe, Inc.
replaced the corporate entity in the action.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 6,
2002.  By Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 12, 2004, the court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2005, defendants answered the complaint, denying
that they violated any laws or did anything wrong.  They believe
that their actions were proper under the federal securities
laws, and they assert several affirmative defenses.

On Sept. 7, 2005, lead plaintiffs made a motion to certify the
class.  By Order dated March 9, 2006, the court certified the
class as described above and Cheyne Fund LP and Fleck T.I.M.E.
Fund L.P. as class representatives.

The lawsuit seeks money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws.  The defendants deny
all allegations of misconduct contained in the complaint, and
deny having engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq., Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016,
         Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212)-779-3218, E-mail:
         haber@bernlieb.com;

     (2) George A. Bauer III, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
         York 10119-0165, Phone (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9310,
         Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail: gbauer@milberg.com; and

     (3) The Claims Administrator, In re NTL, Inc. Securities
         Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6456, Merrick, NY 11566-
         9000, Phone: 1-888-366-5350, Web site:
         http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/index.html.


PREMCOR REFINING: Plaintiffs Oppose Individual Claims Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff attorneys in a class action against Premcor Refining
have filed an injunction against a settlement reached by rival
attorneys who filed individual claims for compensation over
underground pollution allegedly caused by the company in
Hartford, Illinois, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Seven Missouri attorneys filed the suit against Premcor Refining
Group Inc., Shell Oil and other oil companies in 2003, alleging
that the company's refinery created an underground pool of
gasoline whose vapors are causing damage to Hartford residents'
homes.  They proposed and obtained a positive ruling to make
Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff in the suit.

In 2004, the Edwardsville firm of Goldenberg Heller Antognoli
Rowland Short & Gori in Illinois sued most of the same companies
for individual damages on behalf of 65 plaintiffs.  The number
has now increased to 120.

The Goldenberg Heller clients did not became part of the
"Sparks" class.  Apex Oil and Sinclair moved for
reconsideration, and Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack
granted it.  He did not decertify Ms. Sparks as class
representative in the Missouri suit.  Afterwards, Goldenberg
Heller negotiated with Premcor and Shell Oil on a settlement
that would apply throughout Hartford.  The parties reached a
settlement.

The Missouri attorneys learned about the proposed settlement in
July and moved for an injunction and a restraining order.

Attorney Teresa Woody of Kansas City, Missouri wrote: "If
Defendants are permitted to stipulate to a 'settlement class'
outside of the certification process, plaintiffs are irreparably
injured because they are denied the protections of that
process."

The counsel list on her motion included Kansas City attorney
Norman Siegel and St. Louis attorneys Kevin Davidson, David
Helfrey, Philip Graham, Allison Price-Appel, and Christopher
Dysart.

Ann Barron of Bryan Cave, in St. Louis, wrote that the motion
ignored the fact that no class had been certified.  According to
her, they asked to amend their complaint against Apex Oil and
Sinclair.

Goldenberg Heller has moved to intervene in the suit.  Attorney
Stan Faulkner wrote that his plaintiffs were more injured than
the "Sparks" plaintiffs.  Premcor and Shell Oil had opposed the
motion of the "Sparks" plaintiffs for an injunction.

For more information, contact Teresa Woody at Stueve Siegel
Hanson Woody LLP, 330 West 47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City,
Missouri 64112 (Cass, Clay, Jackson & Platte Cos.), Phone: 816-
714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: "Azar" Plaintiff Loses Bid to Amend Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff's motion seeking to amend an order by the District
Court of Valencia County, New Mexico in a purported national
class action, "Azar, et al. v. Prudential Insurance," which was
filed against The Prudential Insurance Company of America, was
denied, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2006.

In August 2000, a suit was filed against the company, which is a
subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc., based upon an alleged
failure to adequately disclose the increased costs associated
with payment of life insurance premiums on a "modal" basis,
i.e., more frequently than once a year.  Similar actions were
filed in New Mexico against over a dozen other insurance
companies.  

The complaint asserts claims for breach of the common law duty
to disclose material information, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and fraudulent concealment.  It seeks injunctive
relief, compensatory and punitive damages, both in unspecified
amounts, restitution, treble damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.  

In March 2001, the court entered an order granting partial
summary judgment to plaintiffs as to liability.  In January
2003, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed this finding and
dismissed the claims for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.  

The case was remanded to the trial court and in November 2004,
it held that, as to the named plaintiffs, the non-disclosure was
material.

In July 2005, the court certified a class of New Mexico only
policyholders denying plaintiffs' motion to include purchasers
from 35 additional states.  In September 2005, plaintiffs sought
to amend the court's order on class certification with respect
to eight additional states.  

In March 2006, the court reiterated its denial of a multi-state
class and maintained the certification of a class of New Mexico
resident purchasers of Prudential life insurance.  The court
also indicated it would enter judgment on liability against
Prudential for the New Mexico class.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Ohio Appeals Court Affirms $11.7M Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, affirmed the
award of $11.7 million in compensatory damages against
defendants in the class action, "Burns, et al. v. Prudential
Securities, Inc., et al."  The suit also names as defendant
Jeffrey Pickett, a former Prudential Securities Inc. Financial
Advisor.

The suit, filed in The Marion County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, alleges that Mr. Pickett transferred, without
authorization, his clients' equity mutual funds into fixed
income mutual funds in October 1998.  The claims were based on
theories of conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty and negligent supervision.  

In October 2002, the case was tried and the jury returned a
verdict against Prudential Securities and Mr. Pickett for $11.7
million in compensatory damages and against Prudential
Securities for $250 million in punitive damages.  

In July 2003, the court denied Prudential Securities' motion to
set aside or reduce the jury verdict and sustained the judgment
in the amount of $269 million, including interest and attorneys
fees.

In July 2006, the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District,
affirmed the award of $11.7 million in compensatory damages
against Prudential Securities and Mr. Pickett; and reduced the
award of punitive damages against Prudential Securities from
$250 million to $6.8 million and affirmed the award for pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys fees.

The opinion provides that the plaintiffs may either accept the
reduced amount of punitive damages or have a new trial,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.


SEALED AIR: N.J. Court Nixes Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied
Sealed Air Corp.'s motion to dismiss the securities fraud class
action, "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," which was
filed against the company and several of its officers.

Filed on Sept. 15, 2003, the lawsuit seeks class-action status
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the company from March 27, 2000 through July 30,
2002.  

It names the company and five current and former officers and
directors of the company as defendants.  The company is required
to provide indemnification to the other defendants, and
accordingly, the company's counsel is also defending them.

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his
choice of lead counsel.  

The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations
against the defendants.  The principal allegations are that
during the above period, the defendants materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace & Co.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.  The
company is vigorously defending the lawsuit, since the company
believes that it properly disclosed its contingent liability for
Grace's asbestos claims and properly accounted for its
contingent liability for such claims under U.S. GAAP.

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in "Senn" for
failure to state a claim.

On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court determined that the
complaint failed adequately to allege scienter as to the four
individual defendants other than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and
therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect to these four
individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to Mr.
Dunphy and the company.  

Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the company and was formerly
chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the
company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative and that
the court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.

On April 7, 2006, the court heard oral argument on this motion,
and on July 10, 2006, the court denied the motion on the ground
that issues of fact prevent the court from granting a motion to
dismiss based on the company's arguments other than scienter.

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Olimpio Lee Squitieri of
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202,
Marlton, NJ 08053, Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612,
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Gregory B. Reilly of Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791,
Phone: (973) 597-2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com.


SHELTER LIFE: Policy Owners File Breach of Policy Suit in Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Massey of Bristow, Oklahoma, filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District Court of Missouri,
against Shelter Life Insurance Co., the Missourian reports.

The lawsuit, which could affect 45,000 current and former policy
owners, alleges Shelter increased its cost-of-insurance rates
for life policies, breaching policy terms, in an effort to make
the policies more profitable.  

The policy terms stated that cost-of-insurance rates could only
be increased if there were a change in "mortality" factors such
as sex, age and rate class.

The lawsuit also alleges that Shelter covered up the increase
and failed to disclose the change to policy owners.  Shelter
allegedly made more than $10 million in profits as a result of
the disputed increase.

The suit contends that Shelter raised cost-of-insurance rates of
life insurance policies bought on or before Dec. 31, 1991, and
owned through Jan. 1, 1992.  It is applicable to policy amounts
between $25,000 and $249,000.

According to Joe Moseley, vice president of public affairs for
Shelter, the lawsuit will have no long-term effect on Shelter's
finances.

Plaintiff attorney Robert A. Horn of Kansas City, declined to
comment on the lawsuit until the Aug. 9 deadline to file claims
had passed.

Those who believe they might be eligible for a claim are urged
to contact Mr. Horn or Joseph A. Kronawitter both of Horn,
Aylward & Bandy, LLC at 866-808-3514.

The suit is "Massey v. Shelter Life Insurance Co., Case No.
2:05-cv-04106-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.

Representing the defendant are John James Baroni, Anthony L.
Martin, Keith D. Price and Timothy C. Sansone all of Sandberg,
Phoenix & von Gontard, PC-St. Louis, One City Centre, 515 North
Sixth Street, 15th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63101-1880, Phone: (314)
231-3332, Fax: (314) 241-7604, E-mail: jbaroni@spvg.com or
amartin@spvg.com or kprice@spvg.com or tsansone@spvg.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Greg Hafif of the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, APC,
         269 West Bonita Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-4784,
         Phone: (909) 624-1671;

     (2) Joseph A. Kronawitter of Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC,
         2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 500, Kansas City, MO 64108,
         Phone: 816-421-0700, Fax: 816-421-0899, E-mail:
         jkronawitter@hab-law.com; and

     (3) Larry A. Sackey of 11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 550,
         Los Angeles, CA 90064, Phone: (310) 575-4420, E-mail:
         lsackey@sackeyandassociates.com.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Suit in Del. Over Minera Mexico Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated
class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, Delaware over the acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions
were filed against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three
actions:

     -- "Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 961-N,"

     -- "Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
        Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,"
        and

     -- "James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 978-N"

were consolidated into one action, "In Re Southern Copper
Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
961-N."

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The
consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's
directors and is not entirely fair to the company and its
minority stockholders.  

It seeks, among other things, a preliminarily and permanent
injunction to enjoin the transaction, the award of damages to
the class, the award of damages to the company and such other
relief that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

Southern Copper (NYSE: PCU) -- http://www.southernperu.com/--  
is an integrated producer of copper, molybdenum, zinc and
silver.  All of the company's mining, smelting and refining
facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it conducts
exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Cigarette Makers Seek Court Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco industry petitioned for a rehearing of the Engle
class action under which a $145 billion verdict against five
cigarette makers was recently reversed, the MarketWatch reports.

On Aug. 8, Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA and other major
cigarette makers asked the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider
and clarify parts of its decision to dismiss the punitive-damage
award against the tobacco industry.

In July, the Florida Supreme Court decertified the Engle class
and reversed the state court jury's award because, as a matter
of law, the award was improper and excessive (Class Action
Reporter, July 10, 2006).

Previously, Marty Orlowsky, chairman, president and chief
executive officer of Lorillard Tobacco Co. said that if the
company goes ahead with a request for a rehearing, it would need
to be filed by Aug. 7.  The Florida Supreme Court is not
required to reach a decision within a given time period, Mr.
Orlowsky added.

If the Florida Supreme Court denies the companies' request, the
companies also could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This
makes the timeline for an appeal of the Engle decision hard to
predict, according to Mr. Orlowsky.

                        Case Background

Miami lawyers Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt, purportedly on
behalf of all "addicted" smokers in the U.S. who had suffered
alleged smoking-related injuries, filed the Engle case in 1994.

In 1996, an intermediate state appellate court ruled that the
case could proceed as a class action, but it reduced the breadth
of the class to Florida residents.

In July 1999, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs on a number of these broad questions, such as generic
causation and addiction.  In addition, the jury returned a
verdict for plaintiffs on extremely broad questions dealing with
fraud, breach of warranty and strict liability, among others.
The jury also said that the tobacco companies' conduct rose to
the level that would permit the potential award of punitive
damages.

On April 7, 2000, the jury determined that the companies bore
the majority of responsibility for the plaintiffs' injuries and
that compensatory damages should be awarded.

The trial then entered a punitive damages phase, and on July 14,
2000, the jury awarded plaintiffs $145 billion.  In November,
Judge Robert P. Kaye entered an order of final judgment in that
amount.

On May 21, 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal set
aside a Dade County Circuit Court jury's decision in the Engle
case and ordered the Engle class decertified against Philip
Morris USA and other cigarette makers, overturning the nearly
$145 billion punitive damages award.

On September 22, 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal
rejected all petitions by the Engle class for reconsideration
and other relief.  Attorneys for the class have sought review of
the Third District decision by the Florida Supreme Court and the
parties are awaiting the court's decision.

On May 12, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to consider
the Engle plaintiffs appeal and directed all parties to brief
the issues involved.  All briefing has been completed, and oral
argument before the court occurred on November 3, 2004.

On July 6, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court decertified the Engle
class and reversed the state court jury's award of $145 billion
in punitive damages.  The Florida Supreme Court also concluded
that certain issues decided by the Engle trial jury may be
considered as resolved for any potential future cases filed by
former class members.

A copy of the Florida Supreme Court Engle opinion is available
free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d60.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. between May 13, 2005 and Jan. 26,
2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 26,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


JOS A BANK: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announces that a class action was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Jos. A.
Bank Clothiers, Inc. between Jan. 5, 2006 and June 7, 2006.

The action is pending against defendants Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc. and Robert N. Wildrick, President and Chief Executive
Officer.  Brower Piven is one of the firms that have filed this
lawsuit within the past 60 days.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market during the class period concerning the company's
inventories and their impact on the company's business and
finances.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose that:

      -- the company had over-invested in inventories of fall
         clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock
         inventories of seasonal merchandise, in light of
         demand, that carried over into the first quarter of
         2006;
  
      -- these inventories were at such excessive levels that
         the company resorted to very aggressive promotional
         pricing in February and March 2006 which deeply
         discounted the prices of the merchandise, discounts
         significantly greater than the company's historical
         practice, in order to move the merchandise and make
         room for new season merchandise within the financial
         constraints in which the company operated and financed
         its inventories and new store openings;

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

      -- Defendant Wildrick, while he was touting the current
         and future operational and financial strengths of Jos.
         A. Bank and the 52% appreciation in the company's stock
         price in 2005 on the NASDAQ was selling large blocks of
         his personal stock.

Then, on June 8, 2006, defendants dropped a bombshell announcing
that the company's net income for the first quarter of 2006 had
fallen 13% even as sales revenues increased 18%.  The market was
stunned by defendants' belated disclosures.  The company's
common stock fell 29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per
share on June 8, 2006.

Interested parties have until Sept. 25, 2006 to ask the court
for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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


RAMBUS INC: Brower Piven Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Rambus Inc. between Jan. 14, 2004 and July 18, 2006.

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

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 18,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


SEA CONTAINERS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of all
purchasers or acquirers of the following series of notes of Sea
Containers Ltd. between March 24, 2003 and June 13, 2006, both
dates inclusive: 10.5% Senior Notes due 2012; 12.5% Senior Notes
due 2009; 10.75% Senior Notes due 2006; and the 7.875% Senior
Notes due 2008.

The action, "Tartikoff v. Sea Containers Ltd, et al., Index No.
06 CV 5655 (SWK)," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names as defendants the
company, James Sherwood, former chief executive officer;
president and chair, Ian C. Durant, chief financial officer; and
Daniel J. O'Sullivan, former chief financial officer.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Sea
Containers disseminated press releases and SEC filings that were
materially false and misleading because, among other things:

     -- defendants failed to record, in a timely manner, half a
        billion dollars' worth of impairments to the value of
        certain assets in SCL's ferry and container business
        segments;

     -- SCL overstated its earnings and exaggerated its profit
        from the sale of its equity interest in Orient-Express
        Hotels Ltd., an unconsolidated company of which SCL
        owned 42% as of April 2004, which coincided with the
        registration and issuance of the company's 10.5% Notes;

     -- the company lacked adequate internal controls and was
        therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
        condition; and

      -- as a result, the value of SCL's net income and
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On March 24, 2006, prior to the market's opening, Sea Containers
disclosed it would discontinue its ferry business, record a $500
million impairment of certain assets and restate its 2005
interim financial results.

With respect to the $500 million impairment charge, of which
$415 million related to assets in the ferry operations division,
the company stated that it would recognize the charge during the
fourth quarter of 2005.

As of Sept. 30, 2005, the company reported the value of those
assets as more than $1 billion.  The company further disclosed
that, as a result of the substantial write-down, it violated
debt covenants with certain lenders and would restate its 2005
financial statements.

The company attributed the overstatement to the $10.3 million-
gain from the March 2005 sale of a portion of its equity
investment in OEH, chalking it up to an accounting error in its
foreign currency exchange reserves.

On June 13, 2006, SCL issued a press release announcing that "it
may be in default on its bonds."  The press release emphasized
that the company "was unsure if it would repay a bond due in
October following a default by French auto logistics company GAL
-- the first European default since February 2005."

The rating agencies contemporaneously predicted that "default
rates (would) rise from very low levels."  On June 13, upon
hearing of this news, Sea Containers' stock price dropped $0.60
cents per share.  

The price has continued along a downward slope through the date
of the filing of this action and, as a result of the foregoing,
the Notes have lost millions of dollars in value.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 9, 2006, move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class

For more details, contact Jennifer K. Hirsh, Esq. and Jeffrey M.
Norton, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood LLP, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-
mail: jhirsh@whesq.com and jmn@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.


ZALE CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Zale Corp. from Feb.
18, 2005 to May 5, 2006.

The complaint charges Zale and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

More specifically, the complaint 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 the company improperly timed vendor payments,
         thereby overstating its net cash flows and free
         operating cash flows;

      -- that the company skewed its true operational results by
         improperly accounting for extended service agreements,
         leases, and accrued payroll;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles; and

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On April 10, 2006, before the market opened, Zale shocked
investors when it announced that the company had received notice
that the SEC was conducting a non-public investigation relating
to various accounting and other matters related to the company,
including accounting for extended service agreements, leases,
and accrued payroll.

On this news, shares of Zale's stock dropped $2.64, or 9.5
percent, to close, on April 10, 2006, at $25.16 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

On May 5, 2006, after the market closed, Zale announced that
defendant Mark R. Lenz, the company's chief financial officer,
had been placed on administrative leave.  

The company reported that the decision was made after recent
discussions with the company's outside auditors that concerned
Mr. Lenz's failure to timely disclose in conversations with the
auditors that vendor payments scheduled to be made during the
last two weeks of the company's fiscal year ended July 2005 were
delayed until the first week of August 2005, which was the start
of a new fiscal year.

On this news, shares of Zale's stock shed an additional $0.44,
or 1.8 percent, to close, on May 8, 2006, at $24.18 per share.
Zale's stock continued to fall the next day as investors
absorbed the company's announcement, losing $0.40, or 1.6
percent, to close, on May 9, 2006, at $23.78 per share.

Interested parties have no later than Sept. 18, 2006 to move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  

For more details, Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A. Maniskas,
Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *