CAR_Public/060816.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 162

                            Headlines

ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Tenn.
BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Harmon Clears Barclays in Newby Litigation
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Wins Favorable Ruling in Landlords' Suit
CANADA: Hamilton Transit Workers' Suit Gets Class Certification
CANADA: Distributes Compensation for Woodlands School Victims

DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Enters $12M Settlement in Sex Abuse Suit
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Class Certification Sought for Sex Bias Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: "Finley" Transferred to N.J. Federal Court
DUN & BRADSTREET: Second Circuit Hears Appeal on Conn. Lawsuit

EN POINTE: Sept. Fairness Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
FLORIDA: County Suspends Plan for New Water System After Suit
GNC CORP: Seeks Andro Products Suits' Removal to Federal Courts
GNC CORP: Settles Fraud Suits Concerning Third-Party Products
LEIMEN-SCHLISSEL: Sued Over Kosher Labeling of Tic-Tac Candies

MEDICAL STAFFING: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
MONTANA: Billings Firefighters' Labor Lawsuit Under Mediation
PARMALAT SPA: Court Lets Investors File 3rd Amended Complaint
PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in N.Y. Lawsuit Appealed
PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in Antitrust Suit Appealed

PLAINS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef for E. Coli Contamination
RENT-A-CENTER: Proposed Burdusis Suit Settlement to Cost $4.95M
SHURGARD STORAGE: Enters MOU to Settle Suit Over Planned Merger
SOUTH DAKOTA: County Gets Favorable Ruling in Strip Search Suit
STRATEGIC ENERGY: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Power Supply Deal

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Several Securities Suits in N.J. Over IPO
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Initial Public Offering
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial of WilTel Investors' Suit Set Today
XEROX CORP: Court Hears Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal
XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in N.J. Tellium Lawsuit
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Orthopedic Products Antitrust Lawsuits


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROADCOM CORP: Kahn Gauthier Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
JOS A BANK: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  The suit was filed against it,
and two former company officers, one of whom is now a director
at Medco Health Solutions.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

The putative class representatives seek to represent a class of
individuals and entities that purchased company's stock from
June 16, 2002 to April 7, 2003 and who supposedly suffered
damages from the alleged violations of the securities laws.

The suit is "Ferrari, et al. v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02216-BBD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge Bernice B.
Donald.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Tor Gronborg and Trig R. Smith,
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B St.
Ste. 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Douglas F. Halijan and Jef Feibelman, Burch Porter &
         Johnson, 130 N. Court Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone:
         901-524-5000, Fax: 524-5024; and

     (2) John H. Goselin, Oni A. Holley, and Peter Q. Bassett,
         Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree
         St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000.


BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Harmon Clears Barclays in Newby Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas acquitted Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank
PLC, and Barclays Capital, Inc., in a class action over its role
in Enron Corp.'s bankruptcy (Enron Bankruptcy News Issue Number
177).

Enron's investors, with the University of California as lead
plaintiff, filed the class action, known as the Newby
litigation, against Enron's former lenders for allegedly aiding
Enron in concealing its financial misdeeds that led to the
company's collapse and bankruptcy filing in 2001.

Judge Harmon ruled that the claims against Barclays amount to
aiding and abetting and do not constitute primary violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

Because the Section 10(b) and derivative Section 20(a) claims
are the only ones asserted against Barclays, the District Court
dismisses Barclays from the Newby litigation.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays had an extensive and close
relationship with Enron, provided commercial banking and
investment banking services to Enron, interacted constantly with
Enron's top executives regarding Enron's business during the
class period, and participated in the fraudulent scheme and
furthered Enron's fraudulent course of conduct and business by
participating in over $3,000,000,000 of loans during the Class
Period and helping Enron to raise almost $2,000,000,000 from
investors in the sale of new securities.

The plaintiffs claimed that, in return for enormous profits,
including interest fees, syndication fees, and investment
banking fees, Barclays helped Enron to structure and finance
certain illicit special purpose entities (SPEs) and partnerships
and to participate in illicit transactions that allowed Enron to
falsify its reported financial results.  Judge Harmon notes that
the only one alleged in detail involving Barclays in the
Plaintiffs' suit is Chewco Investments.

Barclays sought partial summary judgment against the plaintiffs'
complaint, asking the District Court to dismiss with prejudice
the plaintiffs' first claims for relief against Barclays for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5.

            Judge Harmon's Opinion and Conclusion

When the previous 3% independent equity owner withdrew from
Chewco, according to the complaint, Barclays provided
$240,000,000 in financing for the SPE at Enron's request, with a
secret guarantee of repayment by Enron.  Barclays also knowingly
provided $11,400,000 to two straw parties without credit
standing and controlled by Enron, to set them up to be sham 3%
equity investors, but protecting itself by requiring the cash
accounts.  

The fraud occurred not in funding an entity that did not qualify
as an SPE for non-consolidation on Enron's balance sheet, it
occurred in the improper accounting by Enron and others that did
not consolidate, Judge Harmon says.

The plaintiffs alleged that Barclays understood that Enron would
use Chewco to circumvent the legal requirements under Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards to qualify as an independent equity
investor and improperly avoid consolidation of the SPE into
Enron's own financial statements, with a purpose of concealing
debt and preventing an unwinding of profits previously reported
by Enron, as well as for future improper transactions and
thereby mislead investors in Enron securities.

However, Judge Harmon notes that it was Enron, its accountants
and its other officers, not Barclays, which purportedly used or
employed the deceptive accounting practices and created the
false appearance of a financially strong Enron, while concealing
the risks that it would be unable to service its debt and
consequently suffer financial collapse.

Regarding the issue of loss causation in scheme liability,
Judge Harmon agrees that the plaintiffs must allege the elements
of a primary violation by each defendant that is allegedly part
of the fraudulent scheme at Enron.  Judge Harmon notes that a
disclosure of the wrongful conducts in an alleged securities
fraud scheme with the same purpose, which is overstating revenue
and concealing debt, committed by some defendants in the alleged
securities fraud scheme that is a substantial cause of
plaintiffs' loss is sufficient to plead loss causation.

But the identity of a particular participant or defendant's
primary need does not have to be revealed if the same type of
primary violations by other defendants with the same purpose,
which is creating a picture of financial success when the
reality was the opposite to defraud investors, is leaked or
disclosed to the market and causes a steep decline in the price
of Enron's stock and injuring plaintiff investors, Judge Harmon
states.

Judge Harmon holds that disclosure of the roles of some primary
violators in a multi-defendant scheme to defraud investors by
creating the appearance of assets or revenue that did not exist
and concealing debt and increasing risks of financial collapse,
reflected in "cooking the books," should be viewed as sufficient
to show loss causation for later-disclosed actions constituting
primary violations of Section 10(b) of other defendants
substantially contributing to that fabrication of Enron assets
and that hiding of debt in the same scheme.

Even if the complaint had stated a primary violation of Section
10(b) against Barclays based on its role in Chewco, the Court
agrees with Barclays that the claim would be time-barred.


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Wins Favorable Ruling in Landlords' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed a San Francisco
Superior Court ruling in favor of the city of Los Angeles in a
class action, "Small Property Owners of San Francisco v. City
and County of San Francisco, A108924."

The Appeals Court found that Judge Richard Kramer was right when
he ruled that the amended San Francisco ordinance requiring
landlords to pay 5 percent interest on security deposits held
for more than one year did not cause not an unconstitutional
taking of property.

The landlords had claimed violations of state and federal
constitutional requirements for compensation when property is
taken for public purposes.  They said that once money market
interest rates dipped below 5 percent, they were "damaged by
having to pay [the] difference from their own funds."

The ordinance has since been amended to require that interest be
paid at the Federal Reserve discount rate instead of a fixed
rate.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Thomas Reardon, sitting on
assignment in the Court of Appeal, said the ordinance did not
create a regulatory taking because there was no "inexorable"
loss to the landlords.  

"[L]andlords would not necessarily have to pay out more interest
than they earned on the security deposits, because the Ordinance
did not compel them to invest the deposits in accounts paying
less than 5 percent interest," he said.


CANADA: Hamilton Transit Workers' Suit Gets Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a suit
against the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board and the
city over pension membership by Hamilton transit workers, The
Hamilton Spectator reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of two Hamilton Street Railway
employees.  It claims that the city failed to enroll transit
staff in the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System,
according to attorney Ari Kaplan.

Transit workers are covered by their own Hamilton Street Railway
Company Pension plan, but "OMERS pension is more generous on the
whole," Mr. Kaplan said.  The exclusion of the transit workers
from the OMERS contradicts the city's previous argument that
transit workers are city employees when it comes to union
bargaining, according to him.

The suit covers about 1,000 employees and could mean costs of
about $25 to $30 million, the report said.


CANADA: Distributes Compensation for Woodlands School Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------  
CA$510 in compensation is being distributed to each victim of
abuse at the Woodlands School in New Westminster, reports say.  

The distribution runs from July 31 and Aug. 31.  Almost 400
former residents are eligible for the payout from the CA$2
million BC Institutional Legacy Trust Fund established by the
government for the victims in 2003.

In March 2005, Madam Justice Nancy Morrison of the British
Columbia Supreme Court certified a class action brought against
the Government of British Columbia on behalf of an estimated
1,500 former residents of Woodlands School, most of whom are
severely handicapped (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2005).  

Poyner Baxter filed the class action in 2002.  Subsequently, the
province's Public Guardian and Trustee commenced a similar suit,
seeking to represent all victims in the class.  The court
eventually awarded "carriage" to Poyner Baxter, designating this
firm to represent all members of the class.

The Supreme Court defined the class as follows: "All persons
resident in British Columbia, who were confined to the
provincial institution more recently known as Woodlands School
and who, while so confined, suffered physical, sexual, emotional
and/or psychological abuse and have suffered injury, loss or
damage as a result thereof."  

Representing the plaintiffs is lawyer Jim Poyner at Poyner
Baxter, LLP, #408 - 145 Chadwick Court, North Vancouver, B.C.
V7M 3K1, Phone: (604) 988-6321, Fax: (604) 988-3632, E-mail:
poyner.baxter@telus.net.  On the Net:
http://www.poynerbaxter.com.


DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Enters $12M Settlement in Sex Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Diocese of Charleston reached a $12 million
settlement in a case filed by four men alleging sexual
molestation by priests, WISTV reports.  

The suit was settled before a mediator.  Under it, the diocese
is to set up a $12 million fund.  It includes a $5 million
amount by a Letter of Credit and an additional $7 million if the
credit amount is drawn down to $1 million, the report said.

The Diocese also agreed to pay a total of $460,000 to the four
plaintiffs.  One of the plaintiffs, Midlands-man John Morris
Morris, who joined the other plaintiffs two years ago, received
$160,000.  The suit was filed as a class action.

Mr. Morris is represented by former Circuit Judge Larry Richter.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated class action against
DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.

Between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2005, eight purported shareholder
class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws
were filed against the company and several of its officers and
directors.

Seven of those lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  The eighth lawsuit,
which was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, has been removed to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California for consolidated proceedings.

After one of the actions was voluntarily dismissed, a lead
plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the remaining actions.

The consolidated class action complaint asserted that the
company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
material misstatements and omissions in certain press releases,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public
statements, including in connection with the company's initial
public offering in October 2004.  It sought to recover damages
on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the
purported class period (Oct. 28, 2004 to July 11, 2005).

The company, along with certain of its officers and directors,
moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, and in
April 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss on
all claims.

The court dismissed the claims relating to alleged material
misstatements and omissions in connection with the company's
initial public offering with prejudice, and dismissed the
remaining claims without prejudice.

On June 12, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily served notice
indicating that they intended to forego filing an amended
complaint on the claims that the court had dismissed without
prejudice.  

On June 27, 2006, the court entered a stipulated order
dismissing the consolidated actions with prejudice.

The suit is "Beverly Pfeffer v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03966-MRP-VBK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Mariana R. Pfaelzer with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and

     (2) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi and Faruqi, 320 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-983-9330.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Francis P. Barron of Cravath Swaine and Moore, 825
         Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, US, Phone: 212-474-
         1506; and

    (ii) Matthew N. Falley of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman
         Machtinger & Kinsella, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st
         Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-4590, Phone: 310-553-3610.


DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Class Certification Sought for Sex Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Wigdor, of the New York law firm Thompson Wigdor &
Gully, plans to seek class certification for a $1.4 billion
lawsuit filed against Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities,
LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Telegraph.co.uk reports.

In January, current and former female employees of the bank
initiated the lawsuit in the U.S. claiming that the company
discriminated against women, preventing advancement and fair
treatment (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

The suit offered a number of statistics to back up their claims,
noting for instance that only four of 258 women in the company's
Capital Markets Division are managing directors, positions held
by 15 percent of men.

The six named plaintiffs in the suit are seeking for an end to
the alleged unlawful denial of promotions, as well as
compensation equal to male employees and equality in other
conditions of employment.

They alleged in their suit that women couldn't advance to senior
levels at the company.  The women also claims that in addition
to barriers to advancement to the highest executive level,
managing director, there also were barriers at the lower levels.

Their claim included references to after-work trips to strip
clubs and allegations of sexual banter in the office.

Judge Deborah Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York recently denied Dresdner's motion to
dismiss the sex discrimination suit.

In her decision, the judge noted that the case was about unequal
pay rather than sex discrimination but allowed the women to
retain allegations of colleagues' behavior in the claim, the
report said.

The judge also allowed plaintiff Katherine Smith, who is
American but now works in Dresdner's London office, to continue
to be part of the case but limited her involvement to claims
relating to work she did in New York.

Dresdner Kleinwort's attempt to exclude what it called
"scandalous and impertinent" allegations from the discrimination
claim brought against the bank by six senior women employees has
also been denied.

Among the details the bank attempted to strike from the claim
included an allegation that a male managing director of the bank
brought prostitutes into the office during lunch hour.

But the bank failed to have both claims dismissed as "incidents
of perceived sexism may be admissible to demonstrate a
defendant's discriminatory intent," according to the judge.

A copy of Judge Deborah Batts' Ruling is available free at:  

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f7c

Mr. Wigdor, who is representing the women, said "retaliation
claims", would also be added to the case on the grounds that
Dresdner has allegedly transferred some of his clients to less
favorable roles since the case was filed.

The suit is "Hart et al. v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Securities LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00134-DAB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Deborah A. Batts.

Representing the plaintiffs are Scott Browning Gilly, Kenneth P.
Thompson and Douglas Holden Wigdor all of Thompson Wigdor and
Gilly, 350 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10118, Phone: (212)-239-9292,
Fax: (212)-239-9001, E-mail: sgilly@twglawyers.com or
kthompson@twglawyers.com or dwigdor@twglawyers.com.

Representing the defendants is Kenneth John Kelly of Epstein,
Becker & Green, P.C. (New York), 250 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10177, Phone: 212 351 4606, Fax: 212 878 8606, E-mail:
kkelly@ebglaw.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: "Finley" Transferred to N.J. Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
transferred the purported class action, "Finley v. Dun &
Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05134," to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in
Sept. 7, 2005 on behalf of a current employee raising complaints
against the company's retirement plans.  

The complaint seeks certification of these putative classes:

      -- current or former Dun & Bradstreet employees (other
         than employees who on December 31, 2001, were at least
         age 50 with 10 years of vesting service);

      -- had attained an age which, when added to his or her
         years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than
         70; or

      -- had attained age 65, who participated in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1,
         2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet
         Corporation Retirement Account at any time since
         January 1, 2002.

The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
1,000 individuals.  There are five counts in the complaint.  

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by reducing the rate of an employee's
benefit accrual on the basis of age.  

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement, because the plan allegedly conditions receipt of
cash balance benefits on foregoing the early retirement benefits
plaintiff earned prior to the adoption of the cash balance
amendment.  

Count 3 claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's
"anti-backloading" rule.  

Count 4 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to supply advance
notice of a significant benefit decrease.  

Count 5 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to provide an
adequate Summary Plan Description.

In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks:

      -- a declaration that Dun & Bradstreet's cash balance plan
         is ineffective and that the Dun & Bradstreet Master
         Retirement Plan is still in force and effect, and
         plaintiff's benefit accrual under the cash balance plan
         must be unconditional and not reduced because of age;

      -- an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash
         balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit
         accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits
         due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable
         relief to determine plan participant losses caused by
         D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance
         plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional
         benefits as appropriate;

      -- attorneys' fees and costs;

      -- interest; and

      -- such other relief as the court may deem just.

A Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District of New Jersey
was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 and was granted on March 31, 2006.
The action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, and,
on June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which
omitted the claim for violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability
requirement and added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based
on allegedly misleading plan communications.

On July 5, 2006, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant
to Section 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures, on
the grounds that:

      -- the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations
         and the doctrine of laches;

      -- the cash balance plan does not discriminate on the
         basis of age;

      -- the cash balance plan does not violate ERISA's anti-
         backloading rule;

      -- D&B complied with Section 204(h) of ERISA by providing
         sufficient advance notice of the plan amendment;

      -- D&B's Summary Plan Description fully complies with the
         requirements of ERISA; and

      -- plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of
         fiduciary duty.

The suit is "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-05134," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Paul E. Plunkett.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul William Mollica, Johanna J. Raimond and Thomas R.
         Meites of Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica, Phone:
         (312) 263-0272, Fax: (312) 263-2942, E-mail:
         pwmollica@mmbmlaw.com, jraimond@mmbmlaw.com and
         tmeites@mmbmlaw.com; and

     (2) Thomas G. Moukawsher of Moukawasher & Walsh, 21 Oak
         Street, Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: (860)
         278-7000, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael P. Roche of Winston & Strawn, 35 West Wacker
         Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-
         5600, E-mail: mroche@winston.com; and

    (ii) Patrick W. Shea of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker,
         1055 Washington Boulevard, 9th Floor, Stamford, CT
         06901, Phone: (203) 961-7400, E-mail:
         patrickshea@paulhastings.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Second Circuit Hears Appeal on Conn. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiff's appeal of a ruling in the case "McCarthy, et al.
v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU."

The appeal is against the U.S. District Court of the District of
Connecticut's ruling that granted motion to dismiss, motion for
summary judgment, and denial of leave to amend the amended
complaint in the case.

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed
against the company on behalf of 46 specified former employees
in relation to the company's retirement plans.  During the
fourth quarter of 2004, most of the counts in the complaint were
dismissed.

The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth these
putative classes:

      -- current Dun & Bradstreet employees who are participants  
         in The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and
         were previously participants in its predecessor plan,
         The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

      -- current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         Previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

      -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet or Dun &
         Bradstreet's Receivable Management Services (RMS)
         operations who received a deferred vested retirement
         benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
         Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet Master
         Retirement Plan; and

      -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet's RMS operations
         whose employment with Dun & Bradstreet was terminated
         after the sale of the RMS operations but who are not
         employees of RMSC and who, during their employment with
         Dun & Bradstreet, were Eligible Employees for purposes
         of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan.

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint.  

Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by not paying severance benefits to
plaintiffs under its Career Transition Plan.  

Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the firm's sale of
the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of
employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs
and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the intentional
purpose of interfering with their employment and/or attainment
of employee benefit rights, which they might otherwise have
attained.

Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the
company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a
summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and
beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans
and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions -- in this
case, the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they
leave Dun & Bradstreet before age 55 and elect to retire early -
- cannot be enforced against them.  

Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the rate is
actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early retirement
benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a prohibited
forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought:

      -- payment of severance benefits;

      -- equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
         employment with Dun & Bradstreet or restoration of
         employee benefits, including stock options;

      -- invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to
         deferred vested early retirement benefits, including
         invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% -- the actual
         rate is 6.75% -- used to actuarially reduce former
         employees' early retirement benefits;

      -- attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may
         deem just.

The company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.  In September
2003, the firm filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of
the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot
prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February
2004, the court heard oral argument on the motion.  With respect
to Count 4, the court requested that the parties conduct limited
expert discovery and submit further briefing.

In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count
4, the company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the
ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter
of law.  On Nov. 30, 2004, the court issued a ruling granting
the motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3.  Shortly after that
ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to dismiss with prejudice
Count 2, which challenged the sale of the RMS business as an
intentional interference with employee benefit rights, but which
the motion to dismiss did not address.  

Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal with
prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to
forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim.  
Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs
and to amend the Amended Complaint to add a new count
challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality
tables.  The court granted the motion and the company filed its
objections.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted Dun & Bradstreet's motion for
summary judgment as to Count 4 -- the interest rate issue -- and
also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended
Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables.  

On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal;
they are appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss,
the ruling granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to
amend their Amended Complaint.  

Oral Argument before the Second Circuit took place on Feb. 15,
2006.  The company is still awaiting a decision, according to
the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the U.S District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian O.
Smith of Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd., Capitol Place, 21 Oak St.,
Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-
548-1740, E-mail: ismith@mwlawgroup.com and
tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com.

Representing the defendants are Sandra K. Lalli, Patrick W. Shea
and Carla R. Walworth of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - CT,
1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone:
203-961-7400 and 203-961-7465, Fax: 203-359-3031, E-mail:
sandralalli@paulhastings.com, patrickshea@paulhastings.com and
carlawalworth@paulhastings.com.


EN POINTE: Sept. Fairness Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $1.8 million settlement in: "In Re En Pointe
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Master Case No.: 01-CV-
0205 BEN (AJB)."

The suit was bought on behalf of all persons who bought or
otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of En Pointe
Technologies from Dec. 7, 1999 to April 13, 2000, inclusive; and
all purchasers of En Pointe stock contemporaneously with the
insider sales on Feb. 28 and March 13, 2000 (Subclass).

The hearing will be at Courtroom A, United State Courthouse, 940
Front St., San Diego, California 92101-8900.  

Proofs of claim are due Oct. 30, 2006.  Filing for individual
hearing is until Sept. 15, 2006.

In February 2001, En Pointe Technologies and five of its
directors, one current officer, and certain former officers
along with seven unrelated parties were named in a stockholder
class action complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations regarding the company and that the individual
defendants improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the
company's common stock and seeking a recovery by the company's
stockholders of the damages sustained as a result of such
activities.  

In an amended complaint, plaintiffs limited their claims to the
company and its chief executive officer.  In response to a
motion to dismiss, the court further limited plaintiffs' claims
to allegations of market manipulation and insider trading.  

Counsel for the parties agreed to resolve the case for $1.8
million.  The company's insurance carrier will make the payment.

Fore more information, contact: In re En Pointe Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O.
Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040.

Plaintiff firms involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,  
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:  
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;  

     (2) Krause & Kalfayan, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.232.0331, Fax:  
         619.232.4019;  

     (3) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:  
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;  

     (4) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,  
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:  
         info@whhf.com; and

     (5) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala  
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com.   


FLORIDA: County Suspends Plan for New Water System After Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citrus County commissioners voted unanimously to reconsider
their assessment program for new water and sewer lines to
evaluate its effect on ratepayers, according to the St.
Petersburg Times.

The decision follows a purported class action filed by a group
of Chassahowitzka River property owners challenging the county's
assessments (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).

The suit was filed by Lutz attorney Gerald T. Buhr in the Citrus  
County Circuit Court on July 14, 2006.  It alleges that
assessments the commissioners approved last month to pay for a
new water system in Chassahowitzka are unfair and excessive.  It
further claims that county officials unfairly burdened
residential property owners by incorrectly calculating the
assessments that owners of commercial properties must pay.

It is demanding that the county, represented by County Attorney
Robert "Butch" Battista, add properties north of Chassahowitzka,
east of U.S. 19 along U.S. 98, to the assessment list.  

With the recent decision by county commissioners, Chassahowitzka
residents won't have to pay for new water and sewer lines until
at least 2007, according to the report.

The government is planning to lay down more than 7,000-foot of
water main in that portion of the road; however, county plans
currently don't require adjoining properties to hook up.

The project stands to cost residents at least $6,361.88 for the
water project, in addition to a 6 percent interest rate and
possible administrative fees according to estimates by county
staffers.  That amount was slated to be included on this year's
tax bills.  The amount for new sewer lines has not yet been
determined.

Plaintiffs in the suit are Michael D. Hartley, Clay Steinman,
Matthew Corona and PSC Holdings LLC, representing Chassahowitzka
residents.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Gerald T. Buhr of Gerald T. Buhr, P.A.,  
         Northfork Professional Center, Suite 100, 1519 Dale  
         Mabry Highway, Lutz, Florida 33548, (Hillsborough Co.),  
         Phone: 813-949-3681, Cell Phone: 813-610-8108, Fax:  
         813-949-3196; and  

     (2) [Defendants] Robert B. Battista, County Attorney, 110  
         N. Apopka Ave., Inverness, Florida 34450, Phone: (352)  
         341-6560, Fax: (352) 341-6585.


GNC CORP: Seeks Andro Products Suits' Removal to Federal Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Corp. is seeking to remove certain class actions relating to
the sale of certain nutritional products alleged to contain the
ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol,
Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol that were filed
against it in state courts to their respective federal courts.

In each case, plaintiffs seek to certify a class and obtain
damages on behalf of the class representatives and all those
similarly-situated who purchased certain nutritional supplements
from the company alleged to contain Andro Products.  

The original state court proceedings include:

      -- "Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.,"
         (previously pending in the Supreme Court of the State
         of New York, New York County, New York, Index No.
         02/126277).  

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25,
2002.  The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or
about Dec. 6, 2002, alleged claims for unjust enrichment,
violation of General Business Law Section 349 -- misleading and
deceptive trade practices --  and violation of General Business
Law Section 350 -- false advertising.  On July 2, 2003, the
Court granted part of the company's motion to dismiss and
dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action.  On Jan. 4,
2006, the court conducted a hearing on the company's motion for
summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
both of which remain pending.
    

      -- "Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.,"
         (previously pending in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789-
         02).  

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25,
2002.  The Second Amended Complaint filed thereafter on or about
Dec. 20, 2002, alleged claims for false and deceptive marketing
and omissions and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.  On Nov. 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing
plaintiff's claims for affirmative misrepresentation and
sponsorship with prejudice.  The claim for knowing omissions
remains pending.

      -- "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith
         v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." (previously
         pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach
         County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02-14221AB).  

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25,
2002.  The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or
about Nov. 27, 2002, alleged claims for violations of Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and
violation of Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.  
These claims remain pending.

      -- "Abrams, et al. v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.,
         et al.," (previously pending in the Common Pleas Court
         of Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No.
         02-703886).  

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25,
2002.  The Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about April
8, 2003, alleged claims for violations of the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment.  
The court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
and that order has been affirmed on appeal.  Plaintiffs
thereafter filed a petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
asking that the court consider an appeal of the order denying
class certification.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet
ruled on the petition.

      -- "David Pio and Ty Stephens, individually and on behalf
         of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition
         Companies, Inc.," (previously pending in the Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
         Chancery Division, Case No. 02-CH-14122).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25,
2002.  The Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about April
4, 2004, alleged claims for violations of Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment.  The motion for class
certification was stricken, but the court afforded leave to the
Plaintiffs to file another motion. Plaintiffs have not yet filed
another motion.

      -- "Santiago Guzman, individually, on behalf of all others
         similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public
         v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," (previously
         pending on the California Judicial Counsel Coordination
         Proceeding No. 4363, Los Angeles County Superior
         Court).  

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about Feb. 17,
2004.  The Amended Complaint, filed on or about May 26, 2005,
alleged claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust
enrichment.  These claims remain pending.

On April 17 and 18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to
remove each of the actions to the respective federal district
courts for the districts in which they are pending.

Simultaneously, the company filed motions seeking to transfer
each of the suits to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York so that they may be consolidated with the
recently-commenced bankruptcy case of MuscleTech Research and
Development, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, which is
currently pending in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario,
Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-36, as amended, Case No. 06-CL-6241, with a related
proceeding, "In re MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06 Civ 538 (JSR)" and pending in district court in
the Southern District of New York pursuant to chapter 15 of
title 11 of the U.S. Code.

The company believes that the pending the suits are related to
MuscleTech's bankruptcy case since MuscleTech is contractually
obligated to indemnify the company for certain liabilities
arising from the standard product indemnity stated in the
company's purchase order terms and conditions or otherwise under
state law.  The company's requests to remove, transfer and
consolidate the suits to federal court are pending before the
respective federal district courts.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based GNC Corp. -- http://www.gnc.com/
-- is a specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals, herbal, and specialty supplements
(VMHS), sports nutrition products and diet products.  The
company sells its products through a worldwide network of more
than 5,800 locations operating under the GNC brand name and
operates in three business segments: retail, franchise and
manufacturing/wholesale.


GNC CORP: Settles Fraud Suits Concerning Third-Party Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Corp. settled several class actions that were filed in state
courts of Alabama, California, Illinois and Texas in relation to
third-party products that it sold.

Five class actions were filed against the company with respect
to claims that the labeling, packaging and advertising with
respect to a third-party product sold by the company were
misleading and deceptive.  The company denies any wrongdoing and
is pursuing indemnification claims against the manufacturer.

As a result of mediation, the parties agreed to a national
settlement of the lawsuits, which has been preliminarily
approved by the court.

Notice to the class has been published in mass advertising media
publications.  In addition, notice has been mailed to
approximately 2.4 million GNC Gold Card members.

Each person who purchased the third-party product and who is
part of the class will receive a cash reimbursement equal to the
retail price paid, net of sales tax, upon presentation to the
Company of a cash register receipt or original product packaging
as proof of purchase.

If a person purchased the product, but does not have a cash
register receipt or original product packaging, such a person
may submit a signed affidavit and will then be entitled to
receive one or more coupons.

Register receipts or original product packaging, or signed
affidavits, must be presented within a 90-day period after the
settlement is approved by the court and the time for an appeal
has ended.

The number of coupons will be based on the total amount of
purchases of the product subject to a maximum of five coupons
per purchaser.

Each coupon will have a cash value of $10.00 valid toward any
purchase of $25.00 or more at a GNC store.  The coupons will not
be redeemable by any GNC Gold Card member during Gold Card Week
and will not be redeemable for products subject to any other
price discount.

The coupons are to be redeemed at point of sale and are not
mail-in rebates.  They will be redeemable for a 90-day period
beginning in the first calendar quarter after the court approves
the settlement and the time for an appeal has ended.  The
company will issue a maximum of 5.0 million certificates with a
combined face value of $50.0 million.  

In addition to the cash reimbursements and coupons, as part of
the settlement the company will be required to pay legal fees of
approximately $1.0 million and will incur $0.7 million in 2006
for advertising and postage costs related to the notification
letters; as a result $1.7 million was accrued as legal costs at
Dec. 31, 2005.  No adjustments were recognized during the second
quarter 2006.

The deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement
class or object to the terms of the settlement was July 6, 2006.
A final fairness hearing is scheduled to take place on Nov. 6,
2006.

As the sales of this product occurred in the late 1990s and
early 2000s, the company cannot reasonably estimate:

      -- how many of the purchasers of the product will receive
         notice or see the notice published in mass advertising
         media publications;

      -- the amount of customers that will still have sales
         receipts or original product packaging for the
         products; and

      -- the amount of customers that sign an affidavit in lieu
         of a register receipt or original product packaging.

Due to the uncertainty that exists as to the extent of future
sales to the purchasers, the coupons are an incentive for the
purchasers to buy products or services from the entity at a
reduced gross margin.  Accordingly, the company will recognize
the settlement by reducing revenue in future periods when the
purchasers utilize the coupons.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based GNC Corp. -- http://www.gnc.com/
-- is a specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals, herbal, and specialty supplements,
sports nutrition products and diet products.  The company sells
its products through a worldwide network of more than 5,800
locations operating under the GNC brand name and operates in
three business segments: retail, franchise and
manufacturing/wholesale.


LEIMEN-SCHLISSEL: Sued Over Kosher Labeling of Tic-Tac Candies
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The maker of Tic-Tac candies, Leimen-Schlissel, is facing a $47
million (NIS205 million) class action in Israel for marketing
the product without a valid kosher certificate, according to
Ynetnews.

The suit was filed by Ofir Fikholtz with his attorneys Dr. Avi
Weinrot and Yaniv Aharonovich from the offices of Dr. Weinrot
and Partners.  The filing follows a report by Ynet that the
kosher license of Tic-Tac candy expired at the end of 2005, and
that at the start of 2006 the product would no longer have a
kosher certificate.

The suit alleges the company violated the law of kashrut which
prohibits the marking of a product kosher if it hasn't been
granted a kosher certificate.  

Leimen-Schlissel said it has recalled all the products.  But Mr.
Fikholtz's complaint states that Tic-tac packages made after
Jan. 1, 2006 and have misleading kosher symbol are still out in
many stores in the Tel Aviv region.


MEDICAL STAFFING: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted class-action status to the consolidated securities class
action against Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc.,
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 25, 2006.

                   Marrari, Williams Lawsuits

On Feb. 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari filed class
actions against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of themselves and
purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the company's initial public offering in April
2002.  On April 16, 2004, Tommie Williams filed the same suit in
the same court.

These lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the company's
directors and executive officers.  The complaints allege that
certain disclosures in the Registration Statement/Prospectus
filed in connection with the company's initial public offering
on April 17, 2002 were materially false and misleading in
violation of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  The complaints
seek compensatory damages, as well as costs and attorney fees.

                      Haddon Zia's Lawsuit

On March 29, 2004, a third class action was brought on behalf of
the same class of the company's stockholders, making claims
under the Securities Act similar to those in the lawsuits filed
by Joseph and Patricia Marrari and Tommie Williams.  The suit
was brought by Haddon Zia in the Florida Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.

Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and plaintiff moved to remand the
case back to the Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit, a motion that defendants opposed.  

On Sept. 16, 2004, the federal district court entered an order
granting plaintiff's motion to remand.  On Jan. 6, 2005, the
state court stayed the state court proceedings until further
order of the court.  The Zia complaint seeks rescission or
damages as well as certain equitable relief and costs and
attorney fees.

                      Jerome Gould Lawsuit

On March 2, 2004, Jerome Gould filed another class action
complaint against the company and certain of its directors and
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of the company's
stockholders who purchased stock from April 18, 2002 through
June 16, 2003.

It alleges that certain of the company's public disclosures
during the class period were materially false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, costs and attorney fees.

On July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould, Williams and Zia actions
were consolidated, although, as noted above, the Zia action was
subsequently remanded to state court.

               Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointment

Plaintiff Thomas Greene was appointed lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action and the law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman &
Rudman LLP -- now known as Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
and Robbins LLP -- was appointed plaintiffs' lead counsel.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed his consolidated
amended class action complaint, which makes allegations on
behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of the company's
common stock pursuant to or traceable to the company's initial
public offering in April 2002, for purposes of the Securities
Act claims, and on behalf of the company's stockholders who
purchased stock during the period from April 18, 2002 through
June 16, 2003, for purposes of the Exchange Act claims.

The complaint alleges that certain of the company's public
disclosures during the class period were materially false and
misleading in violation of Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act
and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages as well as costs and attorney fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which, on
Sept. 27, 2005, was granted in part as to those portions of
plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims concerning statements
or omissions prior to Oct. 29, 2002, and denied as to the
remaining claims.  On May 15, 2006, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Boca Raton, Florida-based Medical Staffing Network Holdings,
Inc. (NYSE: MRN) -- http://www.msnhealth.com/-- is a temporary  
healthcare staffing company and providing of per diem nurse
staffing services.


MONTANA: Billings Firefighters' Labor Lawsuit Under Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit over back pay filed by Billings firefighters against
the city is currently before mediator Ron Lodders, according to
Billings Gazette.

The suit was filed before District Judge G. Todd Baugh, but was
appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.  As a requirement under
state law, parties submitted to mediation so that the case could
go to the high court.

About six years ago, a group of 119 firefighters filed a class
action against the city, claiming that they'd been working more
than 40 hours a week for years, but are only receiving an annual
wage equivalent to a 40-hour work week.

The lawsuit was brought by individual firefighters, not their
union.  It was based on the claim, upheld by Judge Baugh, that
because of their 27-day work cycle, consisting of 24-hour shifts
followed by multiple days off, firefighters had been working
more than 40 hours a week for years but had been paid for only
40 hours.  It eventually grew into a class action on behalf of
119 current and former firefighters to whom the city owed money.

Judge Baugh looked at three contracts between the city and the
firefighters covering the years 1991-93, 1993-94 and 1995-97.
He found that the two earlier contracts stated the firefighters
were paid an annual wage.  But in the 1995-97 contract the
wording was changed, and it became an hourly wage agreement.

Since the wording of that contract was kept in later labor
agreements, Judge Baugh ruled, the period of liability ran from
1995 onward.  The period of liability ended June 30, the day
before a new contract went into effect.  The new contract
stipulated that the firefighters were to be paid an hourly wage.

In a May ruling Judge Baugh ordered the city to pay firefighters
$625,000 and another $81,000 in back pay.  Back in November,
Judge Baugh ruled the city owed the firefighters close to $3
million in back pay (Class Action Reporter May 3, 2006).

The judge also ordered the city of Billings to pay $253,000 in
penalties, bringing the damages and penalties owed to just under
$4 million.

For more details, contact Richard A. Larson of Harlen,
Chronister, Parish & Larson, P.C., Attorneys at Law, 36 W. Sixth
Avenue, P.O. Box 1152, Helena, Montana 59624, Phone: (406) 443-
0360, Fax: (406) 449-3693, E-mail: info@hcpllaw.com, Web site:
http://hcpllaw.com/attorneys.html.


PARMALAT SPA: Court Lets Investors File 3rd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge of the Southern District of New York has allowed
class plaintiffs of the "Parmalat Securities Litigation" to file
the Third Amended Complaint, which includes [the new] Parmalat
S.p.A. among the defendants (Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue
Number 75).  

The class action has been pending for more than two years in the
District Court.  The judge has denied certification in his July
21, 2006 ruling.

Other defendants in this class action are:

     -- Deloitte & Touche;
     -- Mr. James Copeland, as an individual;
     -- Grant Thornton;
     -- Citigroup, including Buconero, Vialattea, Eureka
        Securitization;
     -- Bank of America;
     -- Credit Suisse;
     -- Banca Nazionale del Lavoro;
     -- Banca Intesa; Morgan Stanley;
     -- the law office of Pavia Ansaldo;
     -- the law office of Zini Associates; and
     -- other individuals.

Defendants may conduct discovery with respect to class
certification until Sept. 21, 2006.

A copy of the District Court Order is available for free at:

   http://bankrupt.com/misc/ParmalatJul21DistCourtORD.pdf

The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:04-md-01653-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joshua Seth Devore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500,
         Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax:
         (202)-408-4699, Web site: jdevore@cmht.com; and

     (2) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, (DE), Chase
         Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington,
         DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100,
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (1) Christopher Moore Brubaker of Kittredge Donley Elson  
         Fullem & Emb (PA), 400 Market Street, Suite 200,   
         Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215)-829-9900, Fax:   
         (215)-829-9888, E-mail: cbrubaker@kdefe.com;  
   
     (2) Donald C. Moss of Moss & Moss, L.L.P., 170 East 61st   
         Street, New York, NY 10021, Phone: (212) 644-1000;


PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in N.Y. Lawsuit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a court decision to deny class
certification to the consolidated class action, "In re Issuer
Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 00 CV 7804," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Piper Jaffray
companies along with other leading securities firms.

Similar purported class actions were filed against the company
on behalf of issuer plaintiffs asserting antitrust claims based
upon allegations that 7.0 percent underwriters' discounts
violate the Sherman Act.

These purported class actions were consolidated by the district
court as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23,
2001.  They seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001.  The district court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on Sept. 30, 2002.

Defendants filed a motion to certify the order for interlocutory
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
Oct. 15, 2002.  

On March 26, 2003, a motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity was also filed in connection with this action.  The
court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting
memorandum of law on Sept. 16, 2004.  Class discovery concluded
on April 11, 2005.  Defendants filed their brief in opposition
to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 25, 2005,
and plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2005.  

Defendants filed a surreply brief in opposition to class
certification on Nov. 15, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a summary
judgment motion on liability on Oct. 25, 2005.

The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its
Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006.  The Order further
requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14
days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of
purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect
of recovery of money damages.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class certification on May 1, 2006.  The court granted
their request that the response to Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on
the 23(f) application or the Second Circuit rules on the appeal,
whichever is later.

The suit is "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Lawrence M. McKenna with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randall Keith Berger of Kirby, McInerney & Squire,
         L.L.P., 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 371-6600; and

     (2) Francis S. Chlapowski of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison,
         LLP, 1633 Broadway, 47th Floor, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212) 237-2571, E-mail:
         fchlapowski@morganlewis.com.  

Representing the company is Jay N. Varon of Foley & Lardner,
3000 K. Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007-5109, Phone: 212-672-
5300.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in Antitrust Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the denial of class certification to
the consolidated class action, "In re Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:98-cv-07890," which was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Piper Jaffray companies along with other leading
securities firms.

Initially several putative class actions were filed against the
company in 1998.  The court's order, dated Feb. 11, 1999,
consolidated these purported class actions for all purposes as,
"In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 98 CV
7890 (LMM)."

The consolidated amended complaint, which seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief, was
filed on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in certain
initial public offerings for U.S. companies and alleges that
defendants conspired in offerings of an amount between $20
million and $80 million to fix the underwriters' discount at 7.0
percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

The court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an
issuer plaintiff.  The court stated that its decision did not
affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on Dec. 13, 2002 and remanded the action to the
district court.  

A motion to dismiss was filed with the district court on March
26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this action in their entirety,
based upon the argument that the determination of underwriting
fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws because of the
extensive federal regulation of the securities markets.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further
support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.

The court denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity in its memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003.  A
supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss,
applicable only to this action because the purported class
consists of indirect purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and
sought dismissal based upon the argument that the proposed class
members cannot state claims upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003, and defendants
filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on
July 25, 2003.

The court entered its memorandum and order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss on Feb. 24, 2004.

Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed because they were
indirect purchasers, but the motion to dismiss was denied with
respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.

The company filed its answer to the consolidated amended
complaint on April 22, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and supporting memorandum of law on Sept.
16, 2004.

Class discovery concluded on April 11, 2005, and defendants
filed their brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on May 25, 2005.  

Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2005, and defendants filed a
surreply brief in opposition to class certification on Nov. 15,
2005.  Plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion on liability
on Oct. 25, 2005.

The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its
Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006.  The Order further
requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14
days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of
purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect
of recovery of money damages.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class certification on May 1, 2006.  The court granted
their request that the response to Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on
the 23(f) application or the Second Circuit rules on the appeal,
whichever is later.

The suit is "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:98-cv-07890-LMM-DFE," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lawrence
M. McKenna with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Randall Keith Berger of Kirby,
McInerney & Squire, L.L.P., 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600.

Representing the company are Bryan B. House, Jay N. Varon and
Samuel Winer of Foley & Lardner, 3000 K. Street, NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20007-5109, Phone: 202-672-5300.


PLAINS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef for E. Coli Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------
Plains Meat Co., Ltd. of Lubbock, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 13,078 lbs. of
ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7.

The products subject to recall are in five to 20-lb. packages of
"Ground Beef, Packed by Plains Meat Company, Ltd."  Each package
bears the establishment number "Est. 1429" inside the USDA mark
of inspection.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
testing. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of this product.

The ground beef was produced between July 31 and Aug. 4, 2006
and was sent to restaurants and distributors in Amarillo and
Lubbock, Texas.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company owner Howard Griffin at (806) 765-5595.


RENT-A-CENTER: Proposed Burdusis Suit Settlement to Cost $4.95M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. reached a prospective settlement with the
plaintiffs to resolve these coordinated cases pending in state
court in Los Angeles, California:

     -- "Jeremy Burdusis, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et
        al./Israel French, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."; and

     -- "Kris Corso, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."  

The suits allege violations by the company of certain wage and
hour laws of California.

Under the terms contemplated, the company anticipates it will
pay an aggregate of $4.95 million in cash, including plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, to be distributed to an agreed-upon class of
company employees from August 1998 through the date of
preliminary court approval of the settlement.

The company estimates the class size to be approximately 6,000
persons.  However, in the event there are more than 6,250 class
members, the company has agreed to increase the settlement fund
by $750 per person in excess of 6,250.  In connection with the
prospective settlement, the company is not admitting liability
for its wage and hour practices in California.  

As a result of the settlement, the company anticipates recording
a charge in the third quarter of this year to account for the
aforementioned settlement amount and attorneys' fees.  The terms
of the prospective settlement are subject to the parties
entering into a definitive settlement agreement and obtaining
court approval.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., headquartered in Plano, Texas, currently
operates approximately 2,750 company-owned stores nationwide and
in Canada and Puerto Rico.  The stores generally offer high-
quality, durable goods such as major consumer electronics,
appliances, computers and furniture and accessories under
flexible rental purchase agreements that generally allow the
customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the
conclusion of an agreed upon rental period.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Enters MOU to Settle Suit Over Planned Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. and Public Storage, Inc. entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding on Aug. 8, 2006 to settle the
action, "Doris Staer v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., et al.,"
pending in Superior Court of Washington, County of King at
Seattle.

The suit was filed as a putative class action on behalf of
holders of Shurgard common stock against Shurgard and certain of
the members of its board of directors related to the proposed
merger between Public Storage and Shurgard.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, Shurgard and Public
Storage agreed to disclose certain additional information.  This
information should be read carefully together with the joint
proxy statement/prospectus that Public Storage and Shurgard have
previously filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and mailed to their respective shareholders in
connection with the proposed merger.

In the process of evaluating the strategic alternatives
available to Shurgard, the Shurgard board of directors
considered selling Shurgard's European operations separately.

However, after conducting an auction process that sought bids
for both Shurgard's European operations and U.S. operations
separately, as well as for the entire company, the Shurgard
board determined that a transaction for the entire company in a
single transaction would likely result in a higher total value
than selling the company in separate parts.

In addition to the bid received from Public Storage, on Jan. 12,
2006, Shurgard received five non-binding preliminary bids from
third parties, two of which were for the entire company and
three of which were for only Shurgard's European operations.  

The two preliminary bidders that submitted a bid for the entire
company proposed $51.00 and $49.49, on an implied value basis,
respectively, for each outstanding share of Shurgard common
stock, representing approximately 12.9% and 15.4% less,
respectively, than the proposed price reflected in Public
Storage's preliminary bid for the entire company, based on the
closing price of Public Storage common stock on Jan. 12, 2006.

The three preliminary bidders that expressed an interest in
acquiring only Shurgard's European operations proposed a
purchase price for those operations of EUR1.05 billion, EUR1
billion and EUR868 million, respectively, or $1.26 billion,
$1.20 billion and $1.04 billion, respectively, based on currency
prices at the close of trading in New York on Jan. 12, 2006.

At a meeting of Shurgard's independent directors on March 5,
2006, the independent directors noted that the combined value of
the highest offer submitted in the bidding process for
Shurgard's European operations and the highest offer for
Shurgard's U.S. operations was less than the implied value of
Public Storage's offer for the entire company.

Accordingly, the independent directors determined that, pending
resolution of negotiations with Public Storage for a sale of the
entire company, Shurgard should take no further action with
respect to the revised bid for Shurgard's European operations
from the only other remaining bidder in the process at the time,
the acquisition group that included Charles K. Barbo, chairman
of the board of directors of Shurgard, and David K. Grant,
president and chief executive officer of Shurgard.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the Shurgard board of directors approved
certain technical amendments to Shurgard's business combination
agreements with senior management.  The amendments to the
business combination agreements were intended to:

     -- clarify the terms for inclusion of bonus in severance
        amounts to ensure that a buyer could not reduce bonuses
        to $0 after a sale and thereby dramatically reduce the
        amount of severance owed;

     -- to clarify that the business combination agreements
        would terminate if an executive were to quit other than
        for "Good Reason"; or be fired for "Cause"; prior to a
        business combination;

     -- to clarify that the business combination agreements
        would terminate on a leave of absence unless otherwise
        agreed to in writing by Shurgard; and

     -- "to add a provision requiring Shurgard (or its
        successor) to pay for the executive's legal fees in the
        event of a dispute under the business combination
        agreement, unless the executive's claim was found to be
        frivolous or brought in bad faith.

Shurgard believes that the changes to the business combination
agreements do not affect the amount of severance payable, except
potentially for the clarification of the treatment of bonus
described in clause (i), the types of transactions that would
trigger severance payments or the duration of the period after a
business combination during which severance payments would be
triggered.

Since Jan. 1, 2004, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., one of
Shurgard's financial advisors, and affiliates of Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. received from Public Storage aggregate fees
for corporate and investment banking services unrelated to the
merger of approximately $10 million.


SOUTH DAKOTA: County Gets Favorable Ruling in Strip Search Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of
Minnehaha County Detention Center in a suit challenging its
strip search policy, Associated Press reports.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol previously ruled that the
policy of strip-searching juveniles accused of minor offenses
was unconstitutional.  Jodie Smook of Luverne, Minnesota,
challenged the policy in court, when in 1999, as a 16-year-old,
she had to be strip searched for a curfew violation by detention
officials.  

Judge Steven Colloton wrote in an opinion that in the context of
the situation the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which
protects against unreasonable searches, was not violated.  The
court said detention center officials are responsible for making
sure that juveniles are not hiding weapons or drugs.

The suit is "Smook, et al. v. Minnehaha, County of, et al. Case
No. 4:00-cv-04202-LLP" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Lawrence L. Piersol.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James G. Abourezk at Abourezk Law Office, 401 E 8th
         Street, Suite 321, Sioux Falls, SD 57103, U.S., Phone:
         334-8402, Fax: 334-9404; and

     (2) Juliet Berger-White at Gessler, Hughes, Socol, Piers,
         Resnick & DYM, Ltd., Three First National Plaza, 70 W.
         Madison, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312)
         580-0100.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mary A. Akkerman at Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC
         P.O. Box 5027, Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5027, Phone: 336-
         3890, E-mail: Mary.Akkerman@woodsfuller.com; and

     (2) Scott N. Heidepriem at Johnson, Heidepriem, Miner,
         Marlow & Janklow, P.O. Box 1107, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-
         1107, Phone: 338-4304, Fax: 338-4162, E-mail:
         scott@jhmmj.com.


STRATEGIC ENERGY: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Power Supply Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Energy, L.L.C., a subsidiary of KLT Energy Services,
faces a purported class action in the Pennsylvania over its
Power Supply Coordination Service Agreements.

In 2005, a class action complaint for breach of contract was
filed against the company. Plaintiffs purportedly represent the
interests of certain customers in Pennsylvania who entered into
the agreement or a certain product in Pennsylvania.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, attorney fees and costs
and a declaration that the customers may terminate their
agreement with the company.

In response to the company's preliminary objections, plaintiffs
have filed an amended complaint that management is evaluating.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Several Securities Suits in N.J. Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. was named as defendant in several
purported securities class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey in relation to the
company's May 2006 initial public offering.

On June 2, 2006, the company and several of its officers and
directors, and the firms who served as the underwriters in its
IPO were named as defendants in, "Lang v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
et al."  Subsequently, several similar purported class actions
were filed.

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with the company's IPO.

They allege, among other things, that the company omitted and/or
misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's Customer Directed
Share Program.

Some complaints also allege the IPO prospectus contained
misrepresentations or omissions concerning certain of the
company's products and/or the prior experience of some of the
its management.  The company expects the complaints to be
consolidated at some time in the future.

The first identified complaint is "Lang v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher Michael Placitella of Cohen, Placitella &
         Roth, PC, 115 Maple Avenue, Red Bank, NJ 07701, Phone:
         (732) 747-9003, E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com; and

     (2) Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported
class action, "Norsworthy v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey in relation to the company's initial public offering.

Filed on July 14, 2006 by Steven R. Norsworthy, the suit also
names as defendants the firms that served as the underwriters in
the company's May 2006 IPO.

The lawsuit asserts state law breach of contract and negligence
claims relating to the alleged inability of participants' in the
company's Customer Directed Share Program to trade their shares
after the IPO.

The suit is "Norsworthy v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-03192-FLW-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiff is Gary Martin Meyers of Law Offices
Of G. Martin Meyers, PC, 35 West Main Street, Suite 106,
Denville, NJ 07834, Phone: (973) 625-0838, E-mail:
gmm@gmeyerslaw.com.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial of WilTel Investors' Suit Set Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed by securities holders of WilTel
Communications, previously an owned subsidiary known as Williams
Communications, are set to meet for a case trial Aug. 16, 2006.

On and after Jan. 29, 2002, multiple securities fraud class
actions were filed against the company and co-defendants, WilTel
Communications, and certain corporate officers.  The defendants
were accused of acting jointly and separately to inflate the
stock price of both companies.

Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public
offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS
offering.  

These cases were also filed in 2002 against the company, certain
corporate officers, all members of its board of directors and
all of the offerings' underwriters.  WilTel is no longer a
defendant as a result of its bankruptcy.

These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued
requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The
underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and
defense from these cases.

The company said that if it grants the requested
indemnifications to the underwriters, any related settlement
costs will not be covered by its insurance policies.  The
company is currently covering the cost of defending the
underwriters.  

In 2002, the amended complaints of the WilTel securities holders
and of the company's securities holders added numerous claims
related to the company's Power segment.  The parties went
through discovery, and an Aug. 16, 2006 trial date was set.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement-in-principle to settle the claims of its securities
holders for a total payment of $290 million.  

Of the total settlement amount, the company expects to pay
approximately $150 million in cash to fund the settlement, and
expect the balance to be funded by its insurers.

Payment will be made after the filing of definitive settlement
documents with the court and the issuance of an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement.  The exact amount of the
company's payment is subject to final determination and timing
of certain insurer coverage allocations.

The company has entered into indemnity agreements with certain
of its insurers to ensure their timely payment related to this
settlement.  The carrying value of the company's estimated
liability related to these agreements is immaterial, as it
believes the likelihood of any future performance is remote.  

As of June 30, 2006, the company has accrued approximately $162
million for this settlement and related costs, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re: Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-
CV-72-H," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot with referral
to Judge Frank H. McCarthy.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) R. Robyn Assaf of Kirby McInerney & Squire, (OKC), 4312
         N. Classen, Oklahoma City, OK 73118, Phone: 405-525-
         0777, Fax: 557-0777;

     (2) Brian Barry of Brian Barry Law Office, 1801 Ave. Of The    
         Stars, Ste. 307, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-
         0831, Fax: 310-788-0841, E-mail: BriBarry1@yahoo.com;

     (3) Laurie Bernice Ashton of Keller Rohrback, LLP, 3101 N
         Central Ave., Ste. 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone:
         602-248-0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail:
         lashton@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (4) Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 1 Corporate
         Ctr., Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: 860-
         493-6292, Fax: 493-6290.


XEROX CORP: Court Hears Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York of the class action, "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et
al.," which was filed against Xerox Corp. and several other
corporations.

The suit alleges that defendants provided material assistance to
the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948 to 1994, by
engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the South African
government and by employing forced labor, thereby violating both
international and common law.

Filed on Sept. 27, 2002, the First Amended Complaint on the
company was deemed effective as of Dec. 6, 2002.  

On March 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
that eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was
otherwise identical in all material respects to the First
Amended Complaint.  

Plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion
and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion.  The foregoing
damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and
severally.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument of the motion was heard on Nov. 6,
2003.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Nov. 29, 2004, the
court granted the motion to dismiss.  A clerk's judgment of
dismissal was filed on Nov. 30, 2004.  On Dec. 27, 2004, the
company received a notice of appeal dated Dec. 24, 2004.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing
the Dec. 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the Nov. 30, 2004
judgment of dismissal was not appealable.  

On March 28, 2005, plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting
permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and
consolidated complaint.  By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005,
the court denied the request.  

In a second Summary Order filed the same day, the court amended
its Nov. 29, 2004, Opinion and Order, which dismissed the
action, so as to render the Opinion and Order appealable and
plaintiffs filed a new appeal on May 3, 2005.  

On Aug. 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On Oct. 4, 2005,
defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  

Oral argument in the Second Circuit was held on Jan. 24, 2006.  
The company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
the action.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660;

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and

     (3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508)
         620-4798.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500
         Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973)
         549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site:
         http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and  


    (ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP,
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone:
         (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail:
         kristin.heine@dbr.com.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered
the issuance of a form of notice in the consolidated securities
class action, "In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation,"
which was filed against Xerox Corp. and other defendants.  

Initially consisting of seventeen cases, the consolidated action
named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- Barry Romeril,
     -- Paul Allaire, and
     -- G. Richard Thoman

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock of the
company between Oct. 22, 1998 and Oct. 7, 1999.

The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in
violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a
fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock
during the class period by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating
to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material
negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the
company's operations and revenues.  

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common
         stock;

     (2) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

     (3) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         Company at inflated prices.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Sept. 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for
dismissal of the complaint.  On Nov. 5, 2001, the defendants
answered the complaint.  On or about Jan. 7, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  

The company and the individual defendants filed their opposition
to that motion on June 28, 2005.  The motion has been fully
briefed, but has not been argued before the court.  The court
has not issued a ruling.  

On or about Nov. 8, 2004, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164 filed a
motion to intervene as a named plaintiff and class
representative.

Separately, on June 8, 2005, IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to
substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.  

On May 12, 2006, the court denied, without prejudice to
refiling, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, IBEW's
motion to intervene and serve as named plaintiff and class
representative, and IBEW and Mr. Roten's joint motion to
substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The court also ordered the parties to submit to it a notice to
certain putative class members to inform them of the
circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of several lead
plaintiffs, and to advise them of the opportunity to express
their desire to serve as a representative of the putative class.

On July 25, 2006, the court so-ordered a form of notice.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.

The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Hurwitz & Sagarin, 147 North Broad St., Po Box 112,
         Milford, CT, 06460-0112, Phone: 203.877.8000;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

     (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (6) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com;

     (7) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (8) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Alfred U. Pavlis, Daly & Pavlis, LLC, 107 John St.,
         Southport, CT 06890, Phone: 203-255-6700, Fax: 203-255-
         1953, E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com; and

    (ii) Andrew N. Vollmer, Gordon Pearson and Heather A. Jones,
         Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M St., NW, Washington,
         DC 20037-1420, Phone: 202-663-6000.


XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the consolidated securities class
action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities
class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A.
Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril,
Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach.

On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.  

According to the third consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on
behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or
entities who purchased the company's common stock and/or bonds
between Feb. 17, 1998 and June 28, 2002 and who were purportedly
damaged thereby.  

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:

     -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants
        violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
        thereunder; and

     -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as  
        "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section
        20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.  

Plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the
investing public regarding the true state of the company's
financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members
of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and
bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which,
among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty
and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including
restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier
restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper.  

The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
class members against all defendants, jointly and severally,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On July 13, 2005, the court
denied the motion.  On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered
the complaint.

On Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
ratification.  That motion has not been fully briefed or argued
before the court.  The parties are engaged in discovery.

The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:00-cv-01621-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis P. Karam and Keith M. Fleischman of Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St., New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-
         mail: karam@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Eliot B. Gersten and John Joseph Robaczynski of Gersten
         & Clifford, 214 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
         860-527-7044, Fax: 860-527-4968, E-mail:
         egersten@gcrlaw.net and jrobacynski@gcrlaw.net;

     (3) Dennis J. Johnson and Jacob B. Perkinson of Johnson &
         Perkinson, 1690 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT
         05403, Phone: 802-862-0030, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail:
         djohnson@jpclasslaw.com and jperkinson@jpclasslaw.com;

     (4) Abigail Romeo of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
         Pucillo-MA, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         aromeo@bermanesq.com; and

     (5) Cary L. Talbot of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
         Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4915, New York,
         NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael Gruenglas and Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps,
         Slate, Meagher & Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY
         10036-3897, Phone: 212-735-3000;

    (ii) Timothy W. Blakely, Evan R. Chesler, Karin A. DeMasi
         and Sandra C. Goldstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 825
         8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY 10019-7415,
         Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax: 212-474-3700, E-mail:
         echesler@cravath.com, kdemasi@cravath.com and
         sgoldstein@cravath.com; and

   (iii) Thomas D. Goldberg of Day, Berry & Howard, One
         Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
         977-7383, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
         tdgoldberg@dbh.com.


XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corp. and plaintiffs in the class action "Warren, et al.
v. Xerox Corp." reached a settlement in the case after a private
mediation session in mid-May 2006.

On Mar. 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York entered an order certifying a nationwide
class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox from Feb. 1,
1997 to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  Six black
sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001.

Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or
practice of race discrimination against them and other black
sales representatives by assigning them to less desirable sales
territories, denying them promotional opportunities, and paying
them less than their white counterparts.

Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the
classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  

Fact discovery recently concluded and expert reports were
exchanged.  The parties participated in private mediation in
mid-May 2006.  Fact discovery was concluded and expert reports
have been exchanged.  Following three days of mediation with a
private mediator, a tentative agreement was reached.  The
company said terms of the agreement were not material to it.

Counsels for the parties are working on drafting mutually
acceptable language for a settlement agreement and release.  The
agreement will be subject to a fairness hearing and court
approval.

The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv-
02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Barry Alan Weprin of Milberg,
Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
48th floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 946-9312, Fax:
212-868-1229, E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendant are Eugene D. Ulterino and Amy Laura
Ventry of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832-
7500, Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555, E-mail:
eulterino@nixonpeabody.com and aventry@nixonpeabody.com.


ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in N.J. Tellium Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhone Technologies, Inc. and plaintiffs in the securities fraud
class action against Tellium, Inc., which was acquired by the
company in November 2003, reached a settlement in the case.  The
suit, "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation," is filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003,
numerous class action securities complaints were filed against
Tellium.

On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing
all of the actions was filed.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Tellium and its then-current directors and
executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements
or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating
to the securities offered in the initial public offering.

The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or
intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or
omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including
compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law
or equity.

On Mar. 31, 2004, the court granted Tellium's and the
underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint.  On May 14,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended
complaint.

On Jun. 25, 2004, the company, as Tellium's successor-in-
interest, and the underwriters again moved to dismiss the
complaint.  

On Jun. 30, 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
but denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that portion of the
court's Jun. 30, 2005 decision dismissing their claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On Aug. 26, 2005, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  The case
proceeded to discovery.

On or about March 10, 2006, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case.  The court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement on or about May 30, 2006.
Notice of the proposed settlement is being sent to the affected
stockholders to determine whether those stockholders wish to
participate in or object to the proposed settlement.   The court
has scheduled a final approval hearing for Sept. 7, 2006.

The suit is "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with
referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert J. Berg of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort
Lee, NJ 07024, Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com.

Representing the defendants is Joseph T. Boccassini of Mccarter
& English, LLP, Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street,
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070, E-
mail: jboccassini@mccarter.com.  


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Orthopedic Products Antitrust Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and several other major orthopedic
manufacturers were named as defendants in six putative class
actions as of July 27, 2006.

Direct and indirect purchasers of orthopaedic products filed the
suits, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws
and certain state consumer protection statutes.

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of orthopedic
implant devices.

The direct purchaser cases are:

      -- "South Central Surgical Center, LLC v. Zimmer Holdings,
         Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of Indiana on July 13, 2006; and

      -- "Chaiken DDS, P.C. v. Biomet, Inc. et al.," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         Indiana on July 26, 2006.

The indirect purchaser cases are:

      -- "Morganti v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.," filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         July 19, 2006;

      -- "Thomas v. Biomet, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
         July 18, 2006;

      -- "Kirschner v. Biomet, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
         July 24, 2006; and

      -- "Williams v. Biomet, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
         July 27, 2006.

In all of these cases, plaintiffs seek damages of unspecified
amounts, in some cases to be trebled under applicable law,
attorneys' fees and injunctive or other unspecified relief.

Warsaw, Indiana-based Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ZMH) --
http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and  
markets reconstructive orthopaedic implants, including joint and
dental, spinal implants, trauma products and related orthopaedic
surgical products.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 18-19, 2006
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20, 2006
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20, 2006
INSURANCE CONTRACT WORDING CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21-22, 2006
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21-22, 2006
EMINENT DOMAIN CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2006
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 27-28, 2006
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 27-28, 2006
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 28-29, 2006
INSURANCE & REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

October 4-5, 2006
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 5-7, 2006
LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Ballantyne Resort, Charlotte, NC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2006
CORPORATE E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16-17, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 19-20, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealeys Seminars
Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2006
WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 25-26, 2006
DERIVATIVES BOOT CAMP
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 26-27, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS & PREEMPTION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 31-November 1, 2006
EXIT STRATEGIES FOR THE INSURANCE MARKETPLACE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 1-2, 2006
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 2-3, 2006
LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 9-10, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 4-5, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13-15, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

August 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

August 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

August 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

August 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 16, 2006
INVESTIGATIONS INTO FRAUDULENT ASBESTOS & SILICA CLAIMS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 17, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS AND DEVICES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 13, 2006
PROPOSITION 64/17200
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 15, 2006
HOW TO GET ON AN MDL COMMITTEE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 17, 2006
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WOMEN IN THE LAW
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 24, 2006
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2006
CURRENT CLAIMS ISSUES FOR UNDERWRITERS AND SENIOR CLAIMS PEOPLE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org  


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BROADCOM CORP: Kahn Gauthier Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock and other securities of Broadcom Corp. between
July 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006.

Broadcom and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On July 14, 2006, Broadcom announced that it would record more
than $750 million in added expenses and restate its past
earnings related to the illegal backdating of stock options.
Prior to any news of options backdating reaching in the market,
shares of Broadcom traded at slightly above $40.00 per share
and, thereafter, shares traded down to approximately $27.50 per
share -- a rapid decline of over 31%.

Options pricing backdating occurs when options grants to senior
officers or directors of public companies are made at prices
lower than the trading price of the stock on the date such
options are granted.  The undisclosed backdating of options
violates generally accepted accounting principles.

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


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

The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- the company had overinvested in inventories of fall
         clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock
         inventories of seasonal merchandise that carried over
         into the first quarter of 2006;

      -- that the company resorted to very aggressive
         promotional pricing in February and March 2006 which
         deeply discounted the prices of the merchandise in
         order to move the merchandise and make room for new
         seasonal merchandise; and

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

On June 8, 2006, defendants announced that net income for the
first quarter of 2006 had fallen 13% even as sales revenues
increased 18%. On this news, the company's common stock fell
29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per share on June 8,
2006.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Sept. 25,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press, Esq. of Kirby McInerney
& Squire, LLP, Phone: 888-529-4787, E-mail:
info.newcases@kmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com.  


SCOTTISH RE: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Scottish Re Group Ltd. between Feb. 17, 2005 and July 28, 2006,
against defendants Scottish Re, and certain of its officers and
directors, including:

     -- Glenn S. Schafer,
     -- Scott E. Willkomm,
     -- Paul Goldean,
     -- Elizabeth A. Murphy,
     -- Dean E. Miller, and
     -- Seth Vance,

alleging violations under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a) and Rule
10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.  Mr.
Willkomm resigned as CEO on July 31, 2006.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning Scottish Re's financial health and business
prospects.  Defendants also engaged in a concerted scheme to
cover up serious operational and financial problems.

In February 2006, the company reported strong earnings for the
2005 fourth quarter, and stated that this positive momentum
would continue going forward.  

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

The company then reported reduced earnings for the first quarter
of 2006, but dismissed it as temporary, and certainly not a
cause for major concern.

However, on July 31, 2006, before the market opened, defendants
shocked investors with news that:

      -- the company's chief executive, defendant Scott
         Willkomm, had resigned his position;

      -- that for the second quarter ended June 30, 2006,
         contrary to the company's earlier positive guidance,
         Scottish Re expected to report a net operating loss of
         an astounding $130 million, of which $112 million was
         due to the valuation of allowances on deferred tax
         assets;

      -- that the company would suspend its ordinary share
         dividend;

      -- that the company had engaged Goldman Sachs and Bear
         Stearns to assist Scottish Re with evaluating strategic
         alternatives and potential sources of capital; and

      -- that results for the remainder of the year would be
         negatively affected.

On this news the company's share prices plummeted from $16.00 to
$3.99, a 75% decline, on unusually heavy trading volume.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth above, the market price of Scottish Re
common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment,
on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing
Scottish Re common stock.

Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the
truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or would not
have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

The case is "Hickock v. Scottish Re Group Ltd., et al."

Interested parties may request for lead plaintiff status by Oct.
2, 2006.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Paulette S.
Fox, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone:
(800) 575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *