CAR_Public/060815.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 161

                            Headlines

ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of "Dunbar"
ALEX: Injury Report Prompts Recall of Children's Cooking Sets
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Faces CA$49B Suit Over Pollution in Canada
AMERICAN HONDA: Gold Wing Motorcycle Owner Files Suit in Calif.
ARKANSAS: Rogers City Settles Tax Exaction Lawsuit for $370,000

AVISTA CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
BSQUARE CORP: Underwriters Object to $1B Settlement of IPO Suit
BUCA INC: Asks Court to Dismiss Minn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BUCA INC: Settles Hourly Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif.
CANADA: Health Authority Sued Over Breast Cancer Test Results

CERUS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Facing Antitrust Suits Filed by Banana Buyers
ELECTRONIC DATA: Attorney's Fees in $137M Settlement Challenged
ELECTRONIC DATA: Court Refuses to Approve ERISA Suit Settlement
ELI LILLY: Settles Zyprexa Liability Lawsuits in E.D. N.Y.

ENTERGY NEW: Court Okays City Council's Move to Quash Deposition
EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Enters $70M Settlement in Price-Fixing Suit
GTI PROPERTIES: May Pay $100T to Settle South End Tenants' Suit
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 18 Hearing Set for $7.025M Deal

MICROSOFT CORP: Vermont Schools to Get $462,000 in Settlement
MORTON INDUSTRIAL: Settles Ga. Lawsuit Over MMC Merger Agreement
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
ONEOK INC: "Breckenridge" Plaintiffs Refuse Nev. Venue for Suit
OWENS CORNING: Seeking Approval for Mira Vista Suits Settlement

PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion
TELEPHONE COS: 17 Suits Consolidated as MDL-1791 in Calif. Court
TORO COMPANY: Expands Recall of Snowthrowers Posing Fire Hazard
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Duval County in Fla. Sues Online Travel Agents
TRIPOS INC: $3M Mo. Stock Suit Settlement Gets Judge's Approval

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Proceeds in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
SAFENET INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
SUNTERRA CORP: Schatz & Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of "Dunbar"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice James J. Marchiano of the First District Court of Appeal
rejected a motion filed by plaintiffs in the suit, "Dunbar v.
Albertson's, Inc.," appealing the refusal of the Superior Court
of California for Alameda County to grant class certification to
the case, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

Maurice Dunbar, a grocery manager filed the suit, seeking
recovery including overtime pay based upon plaintiff's
allegation that he and other grocery managers were improperly
classified as exempt under California law (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

In June, Judge Ronald M. Sabraw, denied to certify the class on
the ground that the difficulty in resolving issues applicable to
individual managers outweigh the benefits of a class action.  

Plaintiffs appealed the decision.  Mr. Dunbar argued that common
issues of classification predominated over individual issues of
liability and damages, according to the report.  The
classification of grocery managers as "executive positions"
reflected a single corporate policy decision, he maintained, the
grocery managers should be able to contest it in a single
action.

To support Mr. Dunbar's claims, 92 managers submitted
declarations stating that the great majority of their work time
was devoted to non-managerial tasks, such as checking inventory,
stocking shelves, and cashiering.

Albertson's argued that most of the work performed was allegedly
executive.  The company further, contended that the issue of job
duties varied too greatly among individual managers to compel
class certification.

Judge Sabraw found that individual issues were predominant, as
deposition testimony suggested the work of many grocery managers
varied significantly from store to store and week to week.  In
conclusion, he said the company's common classification policy
was insufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement for
class certification.


ALEX: Injury Report Prompts Recall of Children's Cooking Sets
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling ALEX Super Cooking Sets because the
glass pot lids can break, posing a laceration hazard to
children, the Consumer Affairs reports.

The company has received a report of a 2 1/2-year-old girl who
cut her foot from the broken glass from one of the lids, which
required stitches.

This recall involves children's Super Cooking Sets, a 12-piece
stainless steel set with miniature pots that have clear glass
lids.  Each set comes with a pasta pot with glass lid, stockpot
with glass lid, frying pan, two potholders and utensils.

The cooking sets were sold in a white box with a clear plastic
window.  "ALEX" and "Super Cooking Set" are printed on the box.  
A red sticker labeled "unbreakable glass" is affixed to the pot
lids.

Cooking sets manufactured after April 1, 2006 have stainless
steel lids and are not included in this recall.

The sets were sold at discount department and specialty toy
stores nationwide from September 2005 through April 2006 for
about $20.

Consumers are advised to take the glass lids away from children
immediately and contact ALEX to receive a free replacement lid
set.

For more information, call ALEX at (800) 666-2539 from 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or E-mail:
recall@alextoys.com.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Faces CA$49B Suit Over Pollution in Canada  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Electric Power Co., Inc. and 19 non-affiliated
utilities remain as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Superior
Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.

The company has not been served with the lawsuit.  The time
limit for serving the defendants expired, but the case has not
been dismissed.

The defendants are alleged to own or operate coal-fired electric
generating stations in various states that, through negligence
in design, management, maintenance and operation, emitted sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that harmed the
residents of Ontario.

The suit was filed June 2005.  It seeks class action designation
and damages of approximately CA$49 billion, with continuing
damages of $4 billion annually.  It also seeks CDN$1 billion in
punitive damages.

Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co., Inc. (NYSE:
AEP) -- http://www.aep.com/-- is a public utility holding  
company that owns, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its public utility subsidiaries and
varying percentages of other subsidiaries.  

The public utility subsidiaries of AEP are American Electric
Power Co., Inc., AEP Generating Co., AEP Texas Central Co., AEP
Texas North Co., Appalachian Power Co., Columbus Southern Power
Co., Indiana Michigan Power Co., Kentucky Power Co., Ohio Power
Co., Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern
Electric Power Company.  The service areas of AEP's public
utility subsidiaries cover portions of the states of Arkansas,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


AMERICAN HONDA: Gold Wing Motorcycle Owner Files Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Honda Gold Wing motorcycle owner has filed a proposed
nationwide class action on behalf of thousands of owners,
claiming that the popular motorcycle has a flawed design which
puts riders at risk of crashing.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleges
that Honda Motor Co.'s popular Gold Wing GL1800 motorcycle has
design defects that cause the vehicle to wobble at specific
speeds, and that while the company is aware of the problem, it
has failed to warn riders or fix the problem.

Honda's Gold Wing motorcycle debuted in 1975, and introduced the
GL1800 in 2001.  According to the complaint, the design defect
exists in every model year of GL1800 production.

According to the complaint, riders report that the GL motorcycle
can begin to sway and oscillate at speeds between 25 and 40 mph.  
In those occurrences, the motorcycle becomes more difficult to
control, which can lead to accidents.

When at least one consumer complained to Honda, the company
responded that "the wobble is not a defect but a characteristic
of the Honda 1800," according to the complaint.

Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
the Seattle-based law firm representing the proposed class, said
their research has shown that while many GL1800 owners are
experiencing the problem, many are unaware it is widespread.

"We know that many GL1800 owners across the country are spending
money unnecessarily buying new tires, shocks and other parts in
an effort to solve what they see as a very serious safety
issue," Mr. Berman said.  "Honda has an iron-clad responsibility
to alert the motorcycling public of the issue, and then solve
the problem."

Mr. Berman added that consumers have long questioned Honda
dealers and the parent company about widespread occurrence of
the oscillation, but the company has steadfastly refused to
accept responsibility for the alleged defect.

Rather than fix the flaw when consumers began to express
widespread complaints about the GL1800's tendency to wobble at
low speeds, the complaint states that Honda concealed the defect
and refused to pay for needed repairs, passing the cost of
replacing or repairing the defective product along to the
owners.

According to Dennis Gribbins, the named plaintiff, his
motorcycle developed a wobble when driving at speeds between 35
to 45 mph, after just 5,978 miles.  Over the next four years,
Mr. Gribbins took his motorcycle to numerous dealers and repair
shops, but none could fix the problem.  Honda refuses to pay Mr.
Gribbins for the hundreds of dollars spent on repairs.

When Mr. Gribbins wrote to Honda regarding the wobble on his
GL1800, he received a response back from the company advising
him to "keep both hands on the handlebars, two handle bars --
use two hands."

Allegations against Honda include violations of unfair
competition law, untrue and misleading advertising, violations
of consumers legal remedies act, and breach of express and
implied warranties.

The proposed class action includes all persons residing in the
U.S., who purchased a GL1800 Gold Wing motorcycle manufactured
by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. since Jan. 1, 2001.

For additional information, visit http://www.hbsslaw.com.

The suit is "Dennis Gribbins v. American Honda Motor Company
Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-04601-JFW-MAN" filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under judge John F.
Walter with referral to Judge Margaret A. Nagle.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com; and Elaine T.
Byszewski and Lee M Gordon at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, 700
South Flower Street, Suite 2940, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4101,
Phone: 213-330-7150.

Representing the defendants are Roy M. Brisbois at Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 221 N Figueroa St, Ste 1200, Los
Angeles, CA 90012-2601, Phone: 213-250-1800; and Gary M. Lape at
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 650 Town Ctr Dr, Ste 1400,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925, Phone: 714-545-9200, Fax: 714-850-
1030.


ARKANSAS: Rogers City Settles Tax Exaction Lawsuit for $370,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayers in Rogers received $114,617 in the settlement of an
illegal tax exaction suit filed against the city, The Morning
News reports.  The deadline for taxpayers to cash refund checks
was the end of July, according to Duane Neal, special master
assigned to administer the settlement.

Total settlement in the case amounted to $370,000.  Part of it -
- $135,393 -- went back to the city, while the remaining was
spent on lawyers' fees and administration of the settlement.  

Attorneys Dale Evans and Kent Hirsch filed the suit in 1997,
claiming that local school districts and governments violated
Arkansas Amendment 59, which limits the increase in property tax
revenue from reappraisals to 10 percent per year for each taxing
entity.  The defendants allegedly did this by overcollecting
property taxes for several years in the 1990s.

According to Mr. Neal, most of the refunds were in the range of
$10, and more than half the taxpayers weren't eligible for a
refund because they were due only $1 or less.  He wasn't sure
how much was the total amount given to plaintiffs Clarence and
Demaris Worth of Bella Vista, the Benton County taxpayers, who
filed the lawsuit, but he said it was the "the same
consideration" given to any other taxpayer.


AVISTA CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action filed
against Avista Corp.

Several class action complaints were filed in September through
November 2002 in the same court against the company, Thomas M.
Matthews, former chairman of the board, president and chief
executive officer; Gary G. Ely, current chairman of the board
and chief executive officer; and Jon E. Eliassen, former senior
vice president and chief financial officer.

In February 2003, the court issued an order, which consolidated
the complaints and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

On June 13, 2005, the company filed a motion for reconsideration
of its earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part,
on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with respect to the
pleading requirements surrounding a sufficient showing of loss
causation.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss this complaint.  The order to dismiss was issued without
prejudice, which allowed the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

The amended complaint filed on Nov. 10, 2005 alleges
approximately $2.6 billion in damages due to the decrease in the
total market value of the company's common stock during the
class period.  

These alleged losses stemmed from violations of federal
securities laws through alleged misstatements and omissions of
material facts with respect to the company's energy trading
practices in western power markets.

Plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions
regarding these matters were made in the company's filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other
information made publicly available by the company, including
press releases.

The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 23, 1999 and
Aug. 13, 2002.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss an
amended class action complaint -- filed on Nov. 10, 2005 --
asserting deficiencies in it, including that the plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege loss causation.

On June 2, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The District Court's
order denying the company's motion to dismiss is not a decision
on the merits of the lawsuit and the matter will proceed in the
normal course of litigation, according to the company.

The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al v. Avista Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington, under Judge Robert
H. Whaley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randi D. Bandman and Michael Reese, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - CA(SF), 100 Pine Street,
         Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111;  

     (2) Karl P Barth, Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP, 1420 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (425)
         452-9800, Fax: (425) 452-9801, E-mail:
         kbarth@lmbllp.com; and  

     (3) Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 12066230594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Curt Roy Hineline, David M. Jacobson and Evan L.
         Schwab, Dorsey & Whitney LLP - SEA, U S Bank Center,
         1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
         206-903-8800, Fax: 206-903-8820, E-mail:
         jacobson.david@dorsey.com and schwab.evan@dorsey.com;
         and

    (ii) Donald Gene Stone of Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke &
         Miller - SPO, 717 W Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200,
         Spokane, WA 99201-3503, Phone: 509-455-6000, Fax:
         15098380007, E-mail: don.stone@painehamblen.com.  


BSQUARE CORP: Underwriters Object to $1B Settlement of IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
BSQUARE Corp.

In 2001, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering.

The suits purport to be class actions filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from
Oct. 19, 1999 to Dec. 6, 2000.

The complaints against the company have been consolidated into a
single action and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was
filed on April 19, 2002 and is now the operative complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the Individual Defendants.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants
from the case without prejudice based upon stipulations of
dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the company.  On Oct. 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.

The Underwriter Defendants sought leave to appeal this decision
and the Second Circuit has accepted the appeal.  Plaintiffs have
not yet moved to certify a class in the company's case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the company, the individual defendants, the plaintiff class and
the vast majority of the other approximately 300-issuer
defendants.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.

The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the company may have against its
underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.

However, if it is finally approved, then the maximum amount that
the issuers' insurers will be potentially liable for is $575
million.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the
difference.  

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been
made.

On March 20, 2006, the Underwriter Defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the Court.  The court held a
hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, but it has not yet
issued a ruling, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended June 30, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


BUCA INC: Asks Court to Dismiss Minn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BUCA, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action filed against it and three of its former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Between Aug. 7, 2005 and Sept. 7, 2005, three identical civil
actions were commenced against the company.  The three actions
were later consolidated.  

On Jan. 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a
consolidated amended complaint.  The complaint is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock in the market during the time period from
Feb. 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.  

The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued during the
class period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about the company's income, revenues, and internal
controls, which allegedly had the result of artificially
inflating the market price for the company's stock.

They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.

On March 13, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim and that
it fails to plead fraud with the particularity required under
the law.  The motion was scheduled for hearing on Aug. 4, 2006.

The suit is "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v.
Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan
W. Frank with referral under Judge Arthur Boylan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bryan L. Crawford, Muria J. Kruger and Stacey L. Mills
         of Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550,
         Mpls., MN 55402, Phone: 612-338-4605, Fax: 612-338-
         4692, E-mail: bcrawford@heinsmills.com,
         mkruger@heinsmills.com and smills@heinsmills.com;

     (2) Jay W. Eng and Michael J. Pucillo of Berman DeValerio
         Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste.
         900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400,
         Fax: 561-835-0322, E-mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and
         mpucillo@bermanesq.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein
         Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC - DC, 1100 New York Ave., NW Ste.
         500, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4609 and
         202-408-4646, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com and
         stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are Michael M. Krauss and Wendy J.
Wildung of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone: 612-766-8514, Fax: 612-766-
1600, E-mail: mkrauss@faegre.com; and wwildung@faegre.com.


BUCA INC: Settles Hourly Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court, State of California, approved a
settlement for the purported class action filed by two former
hourly employees of BUCA Inc. against the company.

The employees filed the suit in March 2004 in the Orange County
Superior Court, State of California.  The action was later
transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court, State of
California, where it is currently pending.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
wages/overtime, meal breaks, rest breaks, or pay reporting time
pay, violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, and certain statutory damages and penalties.

Mediation occurred in February 2005, at which time the parties
reached a tentative settlement.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement on Sept. 21, 2005 and the court entered
its order approving the settlement on Jan. 25, 2006.

The company expects that the total payments under the approved
settlement will be between $1.5 and $2.0 million.  The actual
amount will be dependent on how many members of the putative
class file timely claims.

Based on estimates received from external legal counsel, the
company recorded an estimated settlement expense of $1.8 million
in fiscal 2004 associated with this legal action.

BUCA, Inc. (NASDAQ: BUCA) -- http://www.bucadibeppo.com/-- owns  
and operates 104 full-service restaurants under the names Buca
di Beppo and Vinny T's of Boston.  The majority of its revenues
are generated from the sale of food and beverages.


CANADA: Health Authority Sued Over Breast Cancer Test Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority in
Newfoundland, Canada is facing a class action for allegedly
wrongly diagnosing several women that they have breast cancer.

The suit was filed by Verna Doucette in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland on behalf of a group of women who feel they
suffered as a result of testing problems in the pathology
department, according to CBC News.

St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie said women involved in the suit
are:

     -- those who say they suffered mental stress after learning
        their tissue samples were being retested;

     -- those whose say their estrogen and progesterone receptor
        tests were changed from negative to positive and they
        were unnecessarily treated with chemotherapy; and

     -- those who were allegedly misdiagnosed with breast
        cancer.

Mr. Crosbie estimates that as many as 1,000 women may be
involved.  The suit did not specify the amount of damages being
sought.

Ms. Doucette said in its statement of claim that Eastern Health
noticed in 2005 that some patients diagnosed with breast cancer
since 1997 were not responding as expected to treatment.  On re-
testing by the Mount Laboratory in Toronto of tissue samples
from approximately 1,000 patients of Eastern Health, results
showed an error rate of at least 10 to 20 per cent when testing
for estrogen and progesterone receptors.

For more information, contact Mr. Crosbie, Phone: 1-888-579-3262
(Toll Free), 579-4000, E-mail: ccb@chescrosbie.nf.net; On the
Net: http://www.chescrosbie.com/  


CERUS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on Cerus Corp.'s motion to dismiss the third
amended consolidated securities class action filed against it
and certain of its current and former directors alleging
violations of federal securities laws, 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 Dec. 8, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements regarding
the compound used in the company's red blood cell system.  

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during the
period from Oct. 25, 2000 through Sept. 3, 2003.  

As is typical in this type of litigation, several other
purported securities class actions containing substantially
similar allegations have since been filed against the
defendants.

On May 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint abandons the allegations raised in
the original complaints.

Instead, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants issued false
and misleading predictions regarding the initiation and
completion of clinical trials, submission of regulatory filings,
receipt of regulatory approval and other milestones in the
development of the INTERCEPT Blood Systems for platelets, plasma
and red blood cells.  The consolidated complaint retains the
same class period alleged in the original complaints.

On June 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint substantially similar to the previous consolidated
complaint with additional allegations attributed to a
confidential witness.  

On July 20, 2004, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Jan. 20, 2005, the court dismissed
the complaint with leave to amend within 60 days.  

On March 21, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, and on May 24, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a third amended consolidated complaint.  

The allegations of both the second and third amended
consolidated complaints were similar to those contained in the
previous amended consolidated complaint.  On July 8, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss this third amended consolidated
complaint.

The suit is "In re Cerus Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:03-cv-05517-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and William
S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine
Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-
4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com or
billl@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants are Terri Garland and Raymond M.
Hasu of Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415-268-7000, E-mail: rhasu@mofo.com or
tgarland@mofo.com.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Facing Antitrust Suits Filed by Banana Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and three competitors face
several class actions filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by direct and indirect purchasers
of bananas over allegations that defendants conspired to
artificially raise or maintain prices and control or restrict
output of bananas.

The six direct-purchaser cases have been consolidated into one
case, and one of the indirect-purchaser cases has been
dismissed.  Accordingly, there are now two pending cases.

In May 2006, the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct-
purchaser cases was denied.  In that same period, the company
and the other defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the
indirect-purchaser case.

Cincinnati, Ohio- based Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
(NYSE: CQB) -- http://www.chiquita.com/-- operates as an  
international marketer and distributor of bananas and other
fresh produce sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in
over 60 countries.  It also distributes and markets fresh-cut
fruit and other branded, value-added fruit products.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Attorney's Fees in $137M Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two notices of appeal were filed in regard to the approval by
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas of the
$137.5 million settlement in the consolidated securities fraud
class action, "Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) Securities
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512 + Lead Case 6:03-CV-110,"
which was filed against Electronic Data Systems, Inc.

The company and certain of its former officers are defendants in
numerous shareholder class actions filed from September through
December 2002 in response to its Sept. 18, 2002 earnings pre-
announcement, publicity about certain equity hedging
transactions that it had entered into, and the drop in the price
of EDS common stock.

The cases allege violations of various federal securities laws
and common law fraud based upon purported misstatements or
omissions of material facts regarding the company's financial
condition.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action filed a consolidated class action complaint.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its former
officers made false and misleading statements about the
financial condition of EDS, particularly with respect to the
Navy Marine Corps Intranet contract and the accounting for that
contract.

On Nov. 1, 2005, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff and class representative
to settle the consolidated securities action, subject to final
approval of the settlement by the District Court.  The District
Court approved that settlement on March 7, 2006.

The terms of the settlement provide for a cash payment of $137.5
million, substantially all of which was paid during the first
quarter of 2006.  

The amount paid by the company aggregated $77.5 million, with
the remainder paid by its insurers, in addition to amounts paid
by such insurers in respect of legal fees related to this
action.  The company's cost of the settlement was recognized in
its financial statements in prior periods.

Two notices of appeal have been filed with respect to the
District Court's approval of this settlement, one of which
notices challenges only the amount of attorneys fees awarded to
the counsel for plaintiffs.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Corporation Securities
         Litigation c/o Poorman-Douglas Corporation, Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 3560, Portland, OR 97208-3560,
         Phone: 888-230-9850, Fax: 503-350-5890, E-mail:
         edssecuritieslitigation@poorman-douglas.com, Web site:
         http://www.edssecuritieslitigation.com;

     (2) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 12481 High
         Bluff Drive, Third Floor, San Diego, CA 92130, Web
         site: http://www.blbglaw.com;and  

     (3) Lowenstein Sandler P.C., 65 Livingston Avenue,
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Web site:
         http://www.lowenstein.com.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Court Refuses to Approve ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
denied parties' motions to approve the settlement in the class
action, "In re Electronic Data Systems Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case Mo. 6:03-MD-1512,"

Initially, five class actions were filed on behalf of
participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the company, certain
of its current and former officers and, in some cases, its
directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
made misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of EDS
shares.  All of the foregoing cases have been centralized in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA
action each filed a consolidated class action complaint.  The
consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation of
fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.

The defendants in the ERISA claims are EDS, certain current and
former officers of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits
Committee of its Board of Directors, and certain current and
former members of the two committees responsible for
administering the plan.

On Nov. 8, 2004, the District Court certified a class in the
ERISA action on certain of the allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty, of all participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan and
their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose
accounts the plan made or maintained investments in EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999 and Oct. 9,
2002.

Also on that date the court certified a class in the ERISA
action on the allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of
the U.S. Securities Act of all participants in the Plan and
their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose
accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund
between Oct. 20, 2001 and Nov. 18, 2002.

On Dec. 29, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the
company's petition to appeal the class certification order from
the District Court, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal
on April 5, 2005.

On May 5, 2005, the company reached an agreement with the class
representatives in the ERISA action to settle that action,
subject to final approval of the settlement by an independent
fiduciary and the District Court and receipt of certain
assurances from the Department of Labor.

Under the terms of the settlement, $16.5 million would have been
paid entirely by one of the company's insurers.  In addition,
the company would have agreed to continue to make a matching
contribution under the 401(k) Plan through 2006 and to make
certain changes to the Plan.

However, on June 30, 2005, the District Court denied the motions
of the company and the class representatives to approve the
settlement.

The suit is "In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Leonard
Davis.  

Represented the are plaintiffs is Barry C. Barnett of Susman
Godfrey LLP, 901 Main Street, Suite 4100, Dalass Texas 75202-
3775, Phone: 214-754-1900, Fax: 214-754-1933.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David J. Bailey and Michael McConnell of Jones Day -
         Atlanta, 1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800 Atlanta, GA
         30309-3053 Phone: 214/969-3700, Fax: 12149695100, E-
         mail: djbailey@jonesday.com or mmcconnell@jonesday.com;

     (2) Richard P. Keeton, Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell &
         Flack, 600 Travis Suite 7500, Houston, Tx 77002, Phone:
         713/571-9191, Fax: 713/571-9652, E-mail:
         rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com; and

     (3) Robert H Klonoff, Jones Day-Kansas City MO, 500 East
         52nd St, Kansas City, MO 64110, E-mail:
         rhklonoff@jonesday.com.


ELI LILLY: Settles Zyprexa Liability Lawsuits in E.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. is settling claims filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging a
variety of injuries caused by the use of its antipsychotic drug
Zyprexa, the Indianapolis Star reports.

More than 8,000 Zyprexa users will be sent award notices within
weeks or months by checks from a $700 million fund Lilly has set
up to settle claims.  The payouts ranges from a minimum fixed
amount of $5,000 to well over $100,000 per person.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Chris Seeger, the settlement
covered about 75 percent of the known Zyprexa claims against
Lilly.  But hundreds more have flooded into federal and state
courts.

The settlement was part of an effort to prevent a mass class-
action against it by trial lawyers around the U.S. who signed on
thousands of clients alleging they gained weight from Zyprexa or
acquired blood-sugar problems, according to the report.  

The company was named as a defendant in approximately 230
product liability cases in the U.S. involving approximately 375
claimants (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The cases alleged that the product caused or contributed to
diabetes or high blood-glucose levels.  The lawsuits seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages and typically
accuse the company of inadequately testing for and warning about
side effects of Zyprexa.

The company has set aside another $300 million to cover
potential liability from the unsettled cases, which it has said
it will fight in court.  The first trial from the unsettled
claims could happen next year.

The suit is "In re: Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-md-01596-JBW-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein,
with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann.

Representing the defendants are Samuel J. Abate, Jr. of McCarter
& English, LLP, 245 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10167, Phone: 212-
609-6800, Fax: 212-609-6921, E-mail: sabate@mccarter.com; and
Jon Berkelhammer of Smith Moore LLP, 300 North Greene Street,
Suite 1400, Post Office Box 21927 (27420), Greensboro, NC 27401,
Phone: (336) 378-5200.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss, LLP, One William
         Street, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-584-0700, Fax:
         212-584-0799, E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com;

     (2) David H. Abney, II of The Morgan Law Firm, 175 East
         Main Street, Suite 300, Lexington, KY 40507, Phone:
         859-255-1866, Fax: 859-255-4530;

     (3) Rachel Beth Abram of Hersh and Hersh, 601 Van Ness,
         Avenue, Suite 2080, San Francisco, CA 94102-6396,
         Phone: (415) 441-5544, Fax: (415) 441-7586, E-mail:
         RABRAMS@HERSHLAW.COM; and

     (4) John G. Allelo of McGlynn, Glisson & Koch, 340 Florida
         Street, P.O. Box 1909, Baton Rouge, 70821, Phone: 225-
         344-3555, Fax: 225-344-3666.


ENTERGY NEW: Court Okays City Council's Move to Quash Deposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jerry A. Brown of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana approved the request of the
Council of the City of New Orleans to:

   (1) quash the deposition notice -- served by The Reverend
       C.S.  Gordon, Jr., et al., and Thomas P. Lowenburg, et
       al., seeking its deposition in connection with the
       Council's opposition to the certification of their proofs
       and adversary proceeding as a class action -- and order
       that the deposition not take place; or in the alternative

   (2) enter a protective order directing the Plaintiffs'
       counsel, Steffes Vingiello, under the penalty of the
       Court's contempt, not to inquire during their deposition
       into any communication or information that is privileged
       under:

        -- the Council's legislative privilege,
        -- the deliberative-process privilege,
        -- the attorney-client privilege, and
        -- the work-product doctrine.

Previously, the plaintiffs sought the court to dismiss the City
Council's request to quash the Deposition Notice.  The
plaintiffs assert that they are representatives of a class of
all New Orleans ratepayers who are customers of Entergy New
Orleans Inc., and who were unlawfully and wrongfully overcharged
for electric services by the Debtor.  Various parties, including
the City Council, have opposed the Plaintiffs' request for
class-action certification in regard to their claims.

                 City Council Defends Request

Gayle P. Ehrlich, Esq., at Sullivan & Worcester LLP, in Boston,
Massachusetts, notes that the Lowenburg and Gordon Plaintiffs
failed to address the Council of the City of New Orleans'
grounds to quash the deposition notice.

Rather, the Plaintiffs assert a single position -- the Council's
processes in connection with their claims were not legislative,
but were judicial.

Mr. Ehrlich notes that the Plaintiffs failed to inform the court
that:

   (1) the Lowenburg Plaintiffs took the opposite position in
       the proceedings before the City Council, asserting that
       the proceedings were legislative; and

   (2) the Gordon Plaintiffs have asserted, on appeal, before
       the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of the State of
       Louisiana, that the Council's proceedings are judicial.

As provided it its brief on appeal, the City Council maintains
that its actions in regard to the Plaintiffs were legislative.  
Because this issue as regards to the Gordon Plaintiffs is
pending before the appropriate appeals court, the Bankruptcy
Court should refrain from considering the argument, Ms. Ehrlich
asserts.

Even if the Bankruptcy Court considers its actions as judicial,
the Council's reasoning for its actions are not subject to
discovery, Ms. Ehrlich maintains.  She notes that the
deliberative-process privileged protects the Council from the
inquiry requested in the deposition.

To allow depositions, the Fifth Circuit requires exceptional
circumstances before a party may delve in the mental process of
government officials, Ms. Ehrlich notes, citing In re Office of
Inspector General, Railroad Retirement Board, 933 F.2d 276, 278
(5th Cir. 1991).

The plaintiffs have not shown any exceptional circumstances that
will allow the involuntary depositions of Council members
regarding their reasons for taking official actions, Ms. Ehrlich
points out.

                     About Entergy New Orleans

Headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans
Inc. -- http://www.entergy-neworleans.com/-- is a wholly owned  
subsidiary of Entergy Corporation.  Entergy New Orleans provides
electric and natural gas service to approximately 190,000
electric and 147,000 gas customers within the city of New
Orleans.  Entergy New Orleans is the smallest of Entergy
Corporation's five utility companies and represents about 7% of
the consolidated revenues and 3% of its consolidated earnings in
2004.  Neither Entergy Corp. nor any of Entergy's other utility
and non-utility subsidiaries were included in Entergy New
Orleans' bankruptcy filing.  

Entergy New Orleans filed for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 23,
2005 (Bankr. E.D. La. Case No. 05-17697).  Elizabeth J. Futrell,
Esq., and R. Partick Vance, Esq., at Jones, Walker, Waechter,
Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P., represent the Debtor in
its restructuring efforts.  (Entergy New Orleans Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 20; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
215/945-7000)


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for
"failure to prosecute" a shareholder securities class action
filed against it.  

On Jan. 27, 2005, a securities class action was filed on behalf
of persons who purchased the company's common stock between July
10, 2003 and Jan. 14, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24,
2005).  

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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.  

After this initial complaint was filed, other similar actions
were filed against the company and the same officers in the same
court.  One of these later-filed complaints purports to be
brought on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between March 18, 2002 and Jan. 14, 2005.

Since these actions were filed, various plaintiffs have filed
motions to consolidate the related actions, and to appoint a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On Sept. 27, 2005, the District Court consolidated these
motions.  On Jan. 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the company's motion to
dismiss for "failure to prosecute" the previously disclosed
shareholder class action against the company.

The dismissal was issued without prejudice after a hearing,
which dismissal does not prevent another suit to be brought
based on the same claims

The suit is "Yorston v. Epix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-10166-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com;

     (2) Douglas M. Brooks of Martland & Brooks, LLP, Stonehill
         Corporate Center, Suite 500, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA
         01906, Phone: 617-742-9720, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:
         dmbrooks@gilmanpastor.com; and


     (3) Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         26th Floor, One Main Street, 4th Floor, Cambridge, MA
         02142, Phone 617-482-3700, Fax: 617-482-3003, E-mail:
         Tom@hbsslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Adam L. Sisitsky of Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC, One Financial Center, Boston,
MA 02111, Phone: 617-348-1689, Fax: 617-542-2241, E-mail:
asisitsky@mintz.com.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Enters $70M Settlement in Price-Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc will pay $70 million in a nationwide class
action settlement to cancer patients and health plans who were
overcharged for vital medications Kytril and Zofran.  Kytril and
Zofran are drugs commonly used to ease the side effects
associated with cancer treatments.

The settlement will provide reimbursement to both patients and
third-party payers, such as union benefit funds and health
plans, who pay for drugs on behalf of their members.  In the
proposed settlement agreement, 30 percent of the $70 million
settlement will go to consumers who incurred co-payments based
on Average Wholesale Price for a list of specific Medicare Part
B covered drugs manufactured by Glaxo.  The remaining 70 percent
will go to third-party payers including health plans, Health
Maintenance Organizations and other organizations who purchased
certain Glaxo drugs.

The proposed settlement will refund class members for drug
amounts paid in excess, and will guarantee a minimum payment of
$100.00.

Five states -- including Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Connecticut
and New York -- will split $2.5 million for their role in
leading the litigation efforts.

The GlaxoSmithKline settlement is part of a larger AWP case
currently before the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.  In a
trial set for November 2006, Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, who is lead counsel in the Glaxo case, will be leading
the plaintiffs' case against four other major drug manufacturer
defendants: Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca
and Schering-Plough.

AWP is a system by which drug companies set prices for almost
all prescription drug sales in the U.S.  There has been a
growing consensus that the AWP is a fictitious price that has no
direct relation to the actual average price charged for
prescription drugs.  It is calculated that the manipulation of
AWP costs consumers hundreds of millions of dollars every year
in unnecessary drug costs, according to a statement by The
Prescription Access Litigation Project.

The system, which has come under scrutiny in recent years, is
being eliminated from use in nearly all federal programs that
pay for prescription drugs.  In 2005, the federal government
stopped using this system to determine drug prices as part of
the legislation that created the Medicare drug plan.  Similarly,
in 2007, Medicaid is set to do away with AWP as the
reimbursement benchmark.  Currently, private sector health
insurance companies are the primary users of AWP.

"While the settlement does release GSK from any further claims
in this case, there are still many drug companies who have not
answered for their actions," Mr. Berman said. "We intend to
carry on with the fight on behalf of consumers and third-party
payers."

According to Mr. Berman, there are more than a dozen remaining
defendants.  The suit is a consolidated class-action complaint
against 23 pharmaceutical companies.

Charles Hannaford, administrator of the Pipefitters Local 537
Trust Funds, and member of Prescription Access Litigation
Project is lead plaintiff in this case.  

In December of 2001, members of PAL and others filed the
lawsuit, which contends that there is an industry-wide scheme to
defraud consumers by charging inflated prices for critical
medications.  There are 19 groups of pharmaceutical companies
named as defendants in the suit, representing most of the major
players in the American drug industry.  GlaxoSmithKline was one
of the named defendants.  

Currently, the case focuses on Medicare beneficiaries and third-
party payers who paid for certain drugs that treat serious
conditions such as cancer, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and
emphysema.


GTI PROPERTIES: May Pay $100T to Settle South End Tenants' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against real estate firm GTI Properties is
expected to cost the South End, Boston Massachusetts developer
more than $100,000, according to The Boston Herald Business.

About 850 former South End tenants of GTI Properties will share
$105,714 under the terms of the settlement, according to Matthew
Tuccillo, an attorney at Shapiro Haber & Urmy, which represented
the tenants.  The settlement is expected to be ratified next
month in court.

The suit, brought by a former tenant, charges that GTI did not
refund interest earned on last-month rent from 1998 to 2005.  It
will compensate former GTI renters in nearly 30 buildings, with
several Washington Street and Columbus Avenue addresses.

Mr. Tuccillo is associate at Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617-
439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134.


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 18 Hearing Set for $7.025M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 18, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $7,025,000 settlement in the matter, "Primavera
Investors, et al. v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23-EAJ."

The court will hold a settlement fairness hearing at the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on Dec. 18, 2006.  
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Oct. 11, 2006.

The case was filed on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between May
21, 2002 and May 13, 2004, including those who purchased shares
pursuant or traceable to the company's registration statement
and prospectus for its May 21, 2002 IPO of 5,000,000 shares at
$15.00 per share.

The consolidated amended class action complaint dated Jan. 12,
2005 filed in this case generally alleges that:

      -- defendants issued a materially false and misleading
         registration statement and prospectus in connection
         with the initial public offering on May 21, 2002 of
         5,000,000 shares of Liquidmetal common stock at a price
         of $15.00 per share, thereby violating Section 11 of
         the U.S. Securities Act of 1933;

      -- individual defendants as control persons are liable
         under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933;
  
      -- defendants Liquidmetal and John Kang violated Section
         10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
         Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and
         misleading press releases and other statements
         regarding Liquidmetal's financial condition during the
         Class Period - May 21, 2002 through and including May
         13, 2004 - in a scheme to artificially inflate the
         value of Liquidmetal's common stock; and

      -- Individual defendant John Kang as a control person is
         liable under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit sought money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) Liquidmetal Technologies Securities Litigation c/o
         Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8040,
         San Rafael, CA 94912-8040, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web
         site: http://www.gilardi.com.

     (2) Maya Saxena, Esq., Saxena White P.A., 5200 Town Center
         Circle, Suite 600, Boca Raton, Florida 33486, Phone:
         (800) 361-5096; and

     (3) Jack Reise, Esq., Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca
         Raton, Florida 33432, Phone: (561) 750-3000.


MICROSOFT CORP: Vermont Schools to Get $462,000 in Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Windham County schools will receive $462,000 from class action
settlement between Vermont consumers and Microsoft Corp.,
according to Reformer.com.  

In 2004, Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado approved a $1.1
billion settlement that would enable schools to avail of
vouchers to buy technology products.  Under the terms of the
settlement, consumers and businesses that purchased certain
Microsoft products both directly and indirectly between March
31, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2002, could apply for a reimbursement
voucher to buy computer hardware and software and other
technology from any manufacturer.  In turn, the company agreed
to pay as much as $9.7 million in vouchers to consumers and
schools.  

A schools' eligibility for the vouchers is determined through
its having at least 40 percent of their students qualify for
free or reduced-priced lunches.

The education department will consider applications on a
quarterly basis, according to the report.

Schools will receive allocations within 30 days of the quarterly
deadlines for applying for the money.

The final deadline for applying for the money is March 15, 2009.

A copy of the Notice of Settlement is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d97

The suit is "Elkins et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Docket No. 165-4-
01," filed in Windham County Superior Court, Newfane, Vermont
under Judge Karen R. Carroll.

Plaintiffs' counsel are:

      (1) Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box  
          2305 South Burlington, Vermont  05403, Phone 802-862-
          0030 or (Toll Free) 888-276-5446, Fax: 802-862-0060,  
          Website: http://www.jpclasslaw.com/contact.html;and    
  
      (2) Potter Stewart, Jr. Law Offices, P.C., The Merchants  
          Bank Building, 205 Main Street, Suite 8, Brattleboro,  
          VT 05301, Phone: 802-257-7244, E-mail:  
          khamilton@potterstewartlaw.com, Website:  
          http://www.potterstewartlaw.com/contact.html


MORTON INDUSTRIAL: Settles Ga. Lawsuit Over MMC Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morton Industrial Group, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement
with the named plaintiff of a purported class suit that opposed
the company's planned merger with an affiliate of Brazos Private
Equity Partners, LLC.

Pursuant to the settlement, the termination fee payable by the
company in the event, among other things, the merger is not
approved by the company's shareholders and the company enters
into certain alternative transactions has been reduced from $2.6
million to $1.7 million.

In addition, the shares of common stock held by two officers of
the company will be excluded from the vote of the non-rollover
shareholders required to approve the merger.

Finally, pursuant to the settlement, the voting agreement
between William D. Morton and Fred W. Broling, the sole member
of the special committee that reviewed the proposed merger and
provided a recommendation to the company's full board of
directors, has been terminated.

In connection with the settlement, the company, MMC Precision
Holdings Corp. and MMC Precision Merger Corp. have executed an
amendment to the original agreement and plan of merger, to
incorporate the terms of the proposed settlement.  The company
has commenced the circulation to its shareholders of a
supplement to the company's July 10, 2006 proxy statement.

The proposed settlement is conditioned upon the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and court approval.

On March 23, 2006, the company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger under which Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary
of MMC Precision Holdings Corp., will merge with and into the
company with the company being the surviving corporation and a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of MMC Precision (Class Action
Reporter, June 9, 2006).  

On March 27, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of Fulton County, Georgia, against the company, the members of
the its board of directors, MMC Precision, Merger Sub and Brazos
Private Equity Partners, LLC.  

The company and directors have denied the allegations against
them and have filed joinders in the Notice of Removal filed by
Brazos and the MMC Entities in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  

The complaint alleges, among others that:

     -- the consideration offered shareholders pursuant to the  
        merger of the company and Merger Sub announced on March  
        23, 2006 is inadequate and not entirely fair to all of  
        the company's shareholders;

     -- that the company's disclosures regarding the merger are  
        false and misleading; and

     -- that members of the board of directors have breached  
        their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed  
        transaction, and that Brazos and the MMC Entities aided  
        and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  

The complaint, which purports to be filed by a shareholder of
the company, includes a request for declaration that the action
be maintained as a class action.  It seeks, among others,
damages and injunctive relief prohibiting the company from
concluding the proposed merger.  

The company's special meeting of shareholders to vote upon the
merger will be held on Aug. 25, 2006.

The suit is "Kahn v. Morton Industrial Group, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01008-CAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Charles A. Pannell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230  
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;
  
     (2) James S. Notis of Gardy & Notis, LLP, Suite 110, 440  
         Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, Phone: 201-
         567-7377, Fax: 201-567-7337; and

     (3) Harold B. Obstfeld of Harold B. Obstfeld, P.C., 20th  
         Floor, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-
         696-1212, Fax: 212-696-1398.

Representing the defendants are, Nickolas P.T. Chilivis and John  
D. Dalbey of Chilivis Cochran Larkins & Bever, 3127 Maple Drive,  
N.E., Atlanta, GA 30305, Phone: 404-233-4171, Fax: 404-261-2842,  
E-mail: npc@cclblaw.com and jdd@cclblaw.com.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class suit brought on behalf of investors who
acquired securities of Northwest Airlines between April 21, 2005
and Sept. 14, 2005, inclusive, has been voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

The suit, filed on Dec. 20, 2005, was brought under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was pending before the
Honorable Richard J. Holwell in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In the lawsuit, shareholders were seeking compensation for
losses suffered when the carrier filed for bankruptcy.

They alleged that Northwest insiders had sold their stock
knowing the airline's plan to file for bankruptcy.

A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is available free of
charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f91

The suit is "Gesenhues v. Checchi et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
10653-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs are Steven G. Schulman and Peter
Edward Seidman both of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
(NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-
946-9356 or (212) 613-5625, Fax: 212-273-4406 or (212) 868-1229,
E-mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com or pseidman@milberg.com.


ONEOK INC: "Breckenridge" Plaintiffs Refuse Nev. Venue for Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the transfer of their class
action, "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. ONEOK,
Inc., ONEOK Energy Marketing and Trading Co., L.P., et al.," to
the MDL-1566 matter pending in Nevada in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

This is a class action energy trading case that was filed on May
19, 2006 in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado.  The
company, two of its subsidiaries, ONEOK Energy Services Co.,
L.P. and Kansas Gas Marketing Co., and 19 other companies are
named as defendants.

The putative class is all direct purchasers of natural gas in
Colorado during the period from Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31,
2002.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants falsely reported natural gas
prices and manipulated the natural gas price indices.  They also
claim that defendants violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of
1992 and fraudulently concealed their activities.

Thus, plaintiffs seek to recover the "full refund damage remedy"
under the Colorado Antitrust Act and their costs of bringing
suit, including attorneys' fees.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado (Case No. 06-CV-01110) on June 12, 2006.  On June
13, 2006, a Notice of Tag-Along Case was filed with the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.

On June 27, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order to the MDL-1566
matter currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.  

On July 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the
Conditional Transfer Order with the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation.  A determination on the plaintiffs'
motion is pending.

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC et al. v.
Oneok Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01110-REB-MEH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge
Robert E. Blackburn with referral to Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Representing the plaintiffs are John Preston Baker and Philip
Wayne Bledsoe of Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 1050 17th
Street, #2300, Denver, CO 80265, U.S.A, Phone: 303-572-9300,
Fax: 303-572-7883, E-mail: jbaker@stklaw.com and
pbledsoe@stklaw.com.

Representing the company is David Simon Steefel of Holme,
Roberts & Owen, LLP, U.S. District Court Box 07
1700 Lincoln Street, #4100, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone: 303-
866-0348, Fax: 303-866-0200, E-mail: david.steefel@hro.com.


OWENS CORNING: Seeking Approval for Mira Vista Suits Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware further
extended the exclusive periods within which Owens Corning and
its debtor-affiliates retain the exclusive right to file a plan
of reorganization and solicit acceptances of that plan through
and including Oct. 31, 2006 (Troubled Company Reporter, Vol. 10,
No. 187).

The Debtors need adequate time to complete the necessary
procedures to gain approval of the Disclosure Statement
accompanying their Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization, solicit
votes on the plan and, assuming the court confirms the Plan,
bring the Plan to effectivity.

The Debtors asserted that they have made substantial progress
towards their reorganization.  In addition to the agreements the
Debtors have reached with their major creditor groups, these
major steps have been taken towards confirmation:

   * The Debtors completed the process leading to the final
     decision on whether the plan should contain substantive
     consolidation and, as a result, the Sixth Amended Plan
     addresses the distributable values of the Debtors
     considered on a non-substantively consolidated basis;

   * The Debtors completed the process leading to a decision
     estimating Owens Corning's aggregate present and future
     asbestos liabilities;

   * The Debtors have analyzed and objected to the validity of
     numerous claims resulting in the disallowance or withdrawal
     of claims totaling $5.9 billion and the reduction of the
     Currently Disputed Claims by $1.8 billion, as of March 31,
     2006;

   * Through the end of November 2005, the Debtors had rejected
     approximately 75 nonresidential real property leases,
     assumed 12 nonresidential real property leases, and assumed
     and assigned nine nonresidential real property leases;

   * The Debtors obtained a case management order relating to
     asbestos property damage claims and have resolved all but a
     handful of the hundreds of property damage cases originally
     filed for a fraction of the amounts originally claimed;

   * The Debtors sought approval of a settlement in principal of
     two purported nationwide class actions on behalf of
     purchasers of its Mira Vista roofing tile products.  The
     aggregate amount of the claims was $275 million -- although
     the claimants have asserted in pleadings filed with the
     Court that their claims total $80 million;

   * The Debtors reached settlements with FM Insurance Co., AIG
     Companies, Allianz and Royal Indemnity Company resolving
     insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos "non-
     property" claims and filed motions seeking Court approval
     of the settlements;

   * The Debtors have resolved the vast majority of their
     prepetition mutual obligations with creditors that are
     subject to set-off;

   * The Debtors have sought and obtained approval to sell
     certain assets;

   * The Debtors have obtained approval under Section 363 of the
     Bankruptcy Code for various special business transactions
     and ventures, including:

        -- the restructuring of two of Owens Corning's joint
           ventures in China (OC Shanghai and OC Guangzhou);

        -- the restructuring of Owens Corning's Indian joint
           venture, Owens-Corning (India) Limited;

        -- the purchase of assets from Wolverine Fabricating,
           Inc.;

        -- authorization for Owens Corning to consummate the
           terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement with Vitro, S.A.
           de C. V., and

        -- the acquisition of the composites business of the
           Asahi Fiber Glass Co., Ltd. in Japan; and

   * The Debtors have obtained approval to implement a foreign
     fund repatriation program for tax purposes, plan of
     reorganization and post-confirmation tax planning.

Owens Corning (OTC: OWENQ.OB) -- http://www.owenscorning.com/--  
manufactures fiberglass insulation, roofing materials, vinyl
windows and siding, patio doors, rain gutters and downspouts.  
Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, the Company filed for chapter 11
protection on Oct. 5, 2000 (Bankr. Del. Case. No. 00-03837).
Norman L. Pernick, Esq., at Saul Ewing LLP, represents the
Debtors.  Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale,
Chartered, represents the Official Committee of Asbestos
Creditors.  James J. McMonagle serves as the Legal
Representative for Future Claimants and is represented by Edmund
M. Emrich, Esq., at Kaye Scholer LLP.  (Owens Corning Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
215/945-7000)


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a dismissal motion filed in the consolidated
securities class action against Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and certain of its officers.

In December 2004 and January 2005, the company, its former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Gefter; president
and former Chief Operating Officer Kevin F. McLaughlin; Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer Edward C. English; and former
President and Chief Operating Officer William K. Heiden, were
named as defendants in three purported class action securities
lawsuits filed in the District of Massachusetts.

The purported class actions are:  

     (1) "Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm Gefter,
         Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden,
         Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed Dec. 9,
         2004),"

     (2) "Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm
         Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K.
         Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed Dec.
         27, 2004)," and  

     (3) "Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm L.
          Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English
          and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO
          (filed Jan. 21, 2005)."  

On Feb. 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the Katz,
Schwartz and Bassin actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel.  

On Feb. 18, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to
challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of
the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class
certification proceedings, if any.

On April 13, 2005, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the three actions -- as well
as each case that relates to the same subject matter that may be
subsequently filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts -- appoint lead plaintiffs and
approve such plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel.  

The consolidated actions are now captioned, "in Re Praecis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
04-12581-GAO."

On Aug. 1, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Lead plaintiffs generally allege securities fraud
during the period from Nov. 25, 2003 through Dec. 6, 2004.  

The consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
alleges that the company and the individually named defendants
made materially false and misleading public statements
concerning the company's business and financial results,
particularly relating to statements regarding the
commercialization of Plenaxis(R), thereby allegedly causing
plaintiffs to purchase the company's securities at artificially
inflated prices.  Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of
damages they are seeking in the actions.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety.  On Oct. 24, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an
Opposition to the company's motion to dismiss and the defendants
filed a reply on Nov. 14, 2005.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss and took the matter under advisement.

The suit is "In Re: Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-12581-GAO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
George A. O'Toole, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc L. Godino of Glancy, Binkow & Goldbert, LLP, Suite
         311, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150;

     (2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and

     (3) Lawrence D. McCabe and Jacqueline Sailer of Murray,
         Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         jsailer@murrayfrank.com.


TELEPHONE COS: 17 Suits Consolidated as MDL-1791 in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judicial panel of multidistrict litigation chaired by Wm.
Terrell Hodges ordered the transfer of 17 purported class
actions filed against several telecommunication companies to the
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker for
coordinated or consolidated trial proceedings.

The suits are:

     -- Greg Conner, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., C.A. No.
        1:06-632 filed in Eastern District of California;

     -- Tash Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al. C.A. No. 3:06-
        672 filed in Northern District of California;

     -- Shelly D. Souder v. AT&T Corp. et al., C.A. No. 3:06-
        1058 filed in Southern District of California;

     -- Steven Schwarz et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al. C.A. No.
        1:06-2680, andStuds Terkel, et al. v. AT&T Inc., C.A.
        No. 1:06-2837 both filed in Northern District of
        Illinois;

     -- Tina Herron et al. v. Verizon Global Networks, Inc., et
        al. C.A. No. 2:06-2491 filed in Eastern District of
        Louisiana;

     -- Rhea Fuller v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al. C.A.
        No. 9:06-77, Steve Dolberg v. AT&T Corp. et al., C.A.
        No. 9:06-78 both filed in the District of Montana;

     -- Edward Marck et al. v. Verizon Communciations, Inc.,
        C.a. No. 2:06-2455 filed in Eastern District of New
        York;

     -- Carl J. Mayer, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et
        al., C.A. No. 1:06-3650 filed in the Southern District
        of New York;

     -- Darryl Hines v. Verizon Northwest, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-
        694 filed in District of Oregon;

     -- Charles F. Bissit, et al., v. Verizon Communications,
        Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-220, Pamela A. Mahoney v.
        AT&T Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 1:06-223, and Pamela  
        A. Mahoney v. Verizon Communications, Inc., C.A. No.
        1:06-224 all filed in District of Rhode Island;

     -- Kathryn Potter v. BellSouth Corp., C.A. No. 3:06-468
        filed in Middle District of Tennessee;

     -- Mary J. Trevino, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., C.A. No.
        2:06-209 filed in Southern District of Texas; and

     -- James C. Harrington, et al. v. AT&T Inc., C.A. No. 1:06-
        374 filed in Western District of Texas.

The case is consolidated as: "In re National Security Agency
Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL-1791."

Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. and two of its affiliates
moved the panel, pursuant to section 1407 of the U.S. Judicial
Code, for an order centralizing the MDL-1791 actions in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  

In the filed responses to the motion, the plaintiffs in four
actions opposed inclusion of their actions in any Section 1407
centralization, and plaintiffs in a potential tag-along action
favored separate centralization of what they identified as two
distinct subsets of actions encompassed in the motion before the
Panel and in the list of various actions that have been
identified as potential tag-along actions.  All other
respondents supported transfer, differing among themselves only
with respect to selection of the transferee district.

Defendants AT&T Corp., BellSouth Corp. and two of its
affiliates, and the U.S. joined the movants in supporting
selection of the District of Columbia as transferee district.  

The panel concluded that the Northern District of California is
an appropriate transferre forum because the district is where
the first filed and significantly more advanced action is
pending before a judge already well versed in issues presented
by the litigation.

A copy of the Transfer Order is available for free at:
     
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f9e


TORO COMPANY: Expands Recall of Snowthrowers Posing Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Co. of Bloomington, Minnesota, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
84,000 units of Toro Snow Commander and CCR Single Stage
Snowthrowers, an expansion of a March 2003 recall.

The company said the plastic fuel tank of the Snowthrowers can
crack and leak gasoline, posing a risk of fire and injury.

Toro has received 882 additional reports of fuel tanks leaking.
No fires or injuries have been reported.

This recall now involves 2001 and 2002 Toro Snow Commander and
CCR model snowthrowers listed below.  The model and serial
numbers are located on the rear of the axle plate between the
wheels.

                 Snow Commander Units:

Model  Serial          Snowthrower             Year       Retail
       Range                                              Price
38600  220000001 to   24-inch Single Stage     2002       $860
       220004072

38602  220000001 to   24-inch Electric Start   2002       $960
       220005931

                         CCR UNITS:
Model  Serial          Snowthrower             Year       Retail
       Range                                              Price

38413 210010001 to     20-inch Single Stage    2001       $590
      210020990
38419 210010001 to     20-inch Electric Start  2001       $690
      210014725
38440 210010001 to     20-inch Single Stage    2001       $660
      210015656
38445 210012082 to     20-inch Electric Start  2001       $760
      210021964
38515 220000001 to     20-inch Single Stage    2002       $590
      220013743
38516 220000001 to     20-inch Electric Start  2002       $690
      220008930
38517 220000001 to     20-inch Single Stage    2002       $660
      220010910
38518 220000210 to     20-inch Electric Start  2002       $760
      220015932

These snowthrowers were manufactured in the U.S. and are being
sold at Toro dealers and Home Depot stores nationwide from
September 2000 through March 2006.

Picture of the recalled snowthrower:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06224.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact their local Toro Authorized
Service Dealer to find out if their snowthrower is included in
the recall.  If necessary, the dealer will schedule a time and
install a free replacement fuel tank.

For more information contact Toro at (800) 689-8671 between 7:30
a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Saturday.  Consumers also can visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.toro.com- the Toro Company has notified registered  
owners directly.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Duval County in Fla. Sues Online Travel Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duval County in Florida initiated a lawsuit in Duval County
Circuit Court against online travel Web sites, alleging that the
firms are underpaying taxes to Florida counties for brokering
hotel rooms, The Associated Press reports.

The suit claims the companies paid taxes on wholesale room rates
instead of the higher retail rates consumers are required to
pay.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Hotwire,
     -- Travelocity, and
     -- Orbitz.

Leon County in Miami, Florida initiated a similar lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
online travel Web sites, alleging that the firms buy room
rentals from hotels at a discounted rate, mark them up for
resale to customers, who pays the tax for the full rental price
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2006).

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including
California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter,
April 4, 2006).


TRIPOS INC: $3M Mo. Stock Suit Settlement Gets Judge's Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri approved the $3.15 million
settlement of a securities class action filed against Tripos
Inc., the Kansas City Daily Record reports.

The proposed settlement creates a $3.15 million settlement fund
for the benefit of the investors who bought or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Tripos between Feb. 9, 2000 and
July 1, 2002, inclusive.

The company vigorously denied and continues to deny that they
have committed any violation of the federal securities laws or
other laws, and have vigorously denied and continue to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever with respect
to each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by the
lead plaintiffs in the litigation.

By settling, both parties can avoid further litigation-related
expenses.

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f8e

                         Case Background

On or about July 24, 2003, Tripos and two of its executive
officers, Dr. John P. McAlister and Mr. B. James Rubin, were
sued in federal district court in St. Louis on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the first half
of 2002.   

The consolidated class action complaint alleged that statements
made by the company in press releases and other public
disclosures contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws.

On or about May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 9, 2000 and July 1, 2002.

The second amended complaint generally alleges that, during the
class period, defendants made false or misleading statements of
material fact about the company's prospects and failed to follow
generally accepted accounting principles in violation of the
federal securities laws.

The second amended complaint also named Ernst & Young LLP, the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
as a co-defendant.   

In August 2004, the company and the individual defendants and
Ernst & Young filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.   

On Sept. 30, 2005, the company was informed that its motion to
dismiss was denied, however, the motion to dismiss filed by
Ernst & Young was granted.

On March 21, 2006, the parties reached a verbal agreement to
settle the class action litigation.  The total amount of the
settlement is $3,150,000 which is to be paid by the company's
insurers.

The suit is "Montalvo, et al. v. Tripos, Inc., et al., Case No.
03-CV-00995," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:  

     (1) Marcus N. Bozeman of Cauley and Bowman, 1101 Executive
         Center Drive, Suite 200, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock,  
         AR 72211, Phone: 501-312-8500, Fax: 501-312-8505, E-
         mail: mbozeman@cauleybowman.com;
  
     (2) Don R. Lolli of Dysart and Taylor, 4420 Madison Avenue,
         Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64111, Phone: 816-931-2700,  
         Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com; and
  
     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 212-594-
         5300 or 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:  
         info@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are, Steven M. Schatz, Diane M.  
Walters and Lloyd Winawer of Wilson and Sonsini, 650 Page Mill  
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-
565-5100, E-mail: sschatz@wsgr.com, dwalters@wsgr.com and  
lwinawer@wsgr.com.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Proceeds in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Veeco Instruments Inc. and certain of its
officers.

The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's
financial statements for the quarterly periods and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2004 as a result of the company's discovery of
certain improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc
business unit.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and
assert claims against all defendants for violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims
against the individual defendants for violations of Section
20(b) of the Exchange Act.  

In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit at the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff
class for the lawsuit consisting of all persons who acquired the
company's securities from Apr. 26, 2004 through Feb. 10, 2005.  
The parties are currently involved in the discovery process.

The suit is "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Colleen McMahon.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Phyllis Maza Parker of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622
         Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, US, Phone:
         (215) 875-4647, Fax: (215) 875-4674, E-mail:
         pparker@bm.net;

     (2) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; and

     (3) Sherrie Raiken Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston),
         3704 Travis Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (215)
         875-3071, Fax: (215)-875-5715.

Representing the company is Robert F. Serio of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY
10166, Phone: 212-351-3917, Fax: 212-351-5246, E-mail:
rserio@gibsondunn.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock 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
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. between April 29, 2004 and
July 5, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant Par 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 move the court no later than Sept. 15, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


SAFENET INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. 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
SafeNet, Inc. between March 31, 2003 and May 18, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  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 Oct. 2, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.  

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


SCOTTISH RE: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Scottish Re Group Ltd.
between Dec. 16, 2005 and July 28, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed
against Scottish Re and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements and made omissions
concerning Scottish Re's financial well being and future
business prospects.  Moreover, it is alleged that the company
also covered up serious operational deficiencies.

On July 28, 2006 Defendants stunned the market by announcing
that CEO Scott Willkomm had resigned, and that for the second
quarter Scottish Re would report a huge loss of $130 million,
and that the results of the remainder of the year would be
negatively impacted.

Shares reacted negatively to the news, falling 75% from $16.00
to $3.99, eradicating $645 million of market capitalization.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Oct. 2, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
(888) 753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com.  


SUNTERRA CORP: Schatz & Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Sunterra Corp. between Aug. 14, 2003 and May 17, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements regarding the company's growth.

Specifically, defendants concealed that:

      -- Sunterra's reported expenses were materially
         understated;

      -- the company's "record" financial results were the
         result of defendants' accounting manipulations;

      -- Sunterra's reported net income was grossly inflated;
         and

      -- as a result, Sunterra's projections for fiscal 2006
         were grossly inflated and Sunterra was in technical
         default on its subordinated note agreement.

On May 3, 2006, Sunterra announced that pursuant to an internal
investigation, the company determined that it had underpaid
withholding taxes in Spain on wages paid to Sunterra Europe
employees and that it had voluntarily made a payment of $3.1
million to Spanish tax authorities.

Then on May 17, 2006, Sunterra announced that it had received a
letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market on May 15, 2006, indicating
that, as a result of the company not timely filing the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
Sunterra was not in compliance with Nasdaq's filing requirement,
and that unless the company requested a hearing, the company's
securities would be delisted from The Nasdaq National Market.

As the above revelations seeped into the market, Sunterra stock
fell 34% from its class period high of $16.72 per share.

Interested parties may request the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff of the class no later than Sept. 11, 2006.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


                            *********


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  * * *