CAR_Public/060817.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 163

                            Headlines

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Continues to Face Suit Over Billing Practices
A OK PAYDAY: Canadian Court Says Fees Amount to "Criminal Rates"
APPLICA INC: Continues to Face Fla. Consolidated Securities Suit
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
CMS ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Nev. Natural Gas Rulings

CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit in Colorado
CMS ENERGY: ACTS Purchasers File New Lawsuit in E.D. Michigan
CMS ENERGY: Kans. Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of Case to Nev. MDL
CMS ENERGY: Subsidiaries Settle NYMEX Manipulation Suit for $7M
CMS ENERGY: Tenn. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss "Leggett"

CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Franks Due to Undeclared Milk Content
CRYOLIFE INC: Reserves $11.8M to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CUDECO LTD: Slater & Gordon Investigates Reserves Restatement
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces New FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Alabama
E. I. DU PONT: Consolidated Teflon Litigation Proceeds in Iowa

E. I. DU PONT: W.Va. PFOA Lawsuits Removed to Federal Court
E. I. DU PONT: Quebec Court Considers Motion to Expand Class
ELI LILLY: Faces Additional Zyprexa-Related Suits in N.Y., Ind.
ELI LILLY: To Settle U.S. Product Liability Suits Over Zyprexa
ENRON CORP: Hearing on "Newby" Litigation Moved to April 2007

EXXON MOBIL: Court Considers $4.5B Judgment in Exxon Valdez Case
ISRAEL: Legislature Expands Law on "Representative" Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Securities Suit Named
MOLSON COORS: Continues to Face Suits Related to 2005 Merger
NORTEL NETWORKS: Reaches $438M Settlement in U.S., Canada Suits

POTLATCH CORP: Faces Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit in E.D. Pa.
SANDISK CORP: Faces Lawsuits in Calif. Over M-Systems Purchase
SOUTHEASTERN MEATS: Recalls Ground Beef for E.coli Contamination
SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls ElectroPlasma Lamps Posing Fire Hazard
TECO ENERGY: Fla. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Facing Lawsuit Over Tax Remittances in Florida


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HOME SOLUTIONS: Aug. 21 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
IMAX CORP: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
IMAX CORP: The Paskowitz Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
SCOTTISH RE: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Continues to Face Suit Over Billing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Response, Inc., a subsidiary of Emergency
Medical Services Corp., remains a defendant in class action
filed in a Spokane, Washington state court over its alleged
charging of high transport rates to patients and third-party
payors.

On Dec. 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action was
commenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.  
It alleges that AMR billed patients and third-party payors for
transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at higher rates
than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and
membership of the class has not yet been determined, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

Greenwood Village, Colorado-based Emergency Medical Services
Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency  
medical services in the U.S., which are operated and marketed
under the AMR and EmCare brands that respectively represent its
subsidiaries, American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare
Holdings Inc.  It also provides ambulance transport services in
35 states and the District of Columbia, and provides services to
emergency department and hospitalist programs in 39 states.  


A OK PAYDAY: Canadian Court Says Fees Amount to "Criminal Rates"
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Brenda Brown ruled that the
processing fees and late fees charged by A OK Payday Loans Inc.
to clients were interest, and is thus a "criminal" rate, the
Canadian Press reports.

The ruling came after an April trial wherein the court was told
that A OK charges a 21 percent interest rate and a processing
fee of $9.50 for every $50 borrowed; $75 fee for returned checks
and for loan payment delayed; and $25 for every $100 deferred.

In a written ruling, Judge Brown said: "I accept the plaintiff's
submission that if processing fees and late fees are interest,
and their payment results in payments at a criminal rate, then A
OK has necessarily received interest at a criminal rate."

An expert witness said that if fees are factored in the interest
rate, the charge exceeds the 60 percent annual rate allowed
under the Criminal Code.

The plaintiff in the suit, Doris Kilroy, is represented by
attorney Paul Bennett.


APPLICA INC: Continues to Face Fla. Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applica, Inc. remains a defendant in the consolidated class
action complaint, "Scott Schultz and Joseph Rothman, et al. v.
Applica Inc., Harry D. Schulman, Terry L. Polistina and Michael
Michienzi, Case No. 06-60149-CIV-DIMITROULEAS," which was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Filed on Feb. 3, 2006 and amended on July 10, 2006, the
consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between Nov. 4, 2004
and April 28, 2005.

The complaint charges the company and certain executive officers
with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It
alleges that, throughout the class period, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its
business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its
common stock.

The complaint also alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading on the asserted basis that they failed to
disclose that the company:

      -- was experiencing decreasing demand for its products; in
         particular, demand for two key products were not
         meeting internal expectations and were experiencing
         quality and design defects;
  
  -- was materially overstating its net worth by failing to
         timely write down the value of its inventory which had
         become obsolete and unsaleable;
  
  -- was experiencing higher product warranty returns, which
         it had not appropriately reserved for;
  
  -- lacked adequate internal controls; and
  
  -- issued financial statements during the class period
         were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted
         accounting principles and, therefore, were materially
         false and misleading.

Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, to be declared a class, to
be awarded compensatory damages, rescission rights, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Applica, Inc. (NYSE: APN) -- http://www.applicainc.com/-- is a  
marketer and distributor of a range of branded small household
appliances in five categories: kitchen products, home products,
pest control products, pet care products and personal care
products.


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Freight Lines, Inc. has reached oral agreements in
principle with plaintiffs to settle all outstanding securities
class action litigation, two purported derivative actions
related to the period between the date of Central's initial
public offering and August 2004, and a third derivative action
related to a merger.

In addition, Central Freight announced that it expects to move
further towards completion of its previously announced merger
with a companies controlled by Jerry Moyes by responding within
the next week to a second set of comments from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

On Jan. 30, 2006, Central announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, with North American Truck Lines,
LLC (NATL) and Green Acquisition Company.  Under the agreement,
Green will merge with and into Central Freight, with Central
Freight continuing as the surviving corporation.  Central
Freight would then cease to be a publicly traded company.

In June and July 2004, three stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against the company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging that false and misleading statements were
made in the initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding the initial public
offering and up to the press release dated June 16, 2004 (Class
Action Reporter, May 1, 2006).

The suits were subsequently consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas as, "In re: Central
Freight Lines Securities Litigation."

The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was
named lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on May 9,
2005.

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint generally
alleges that false and misleading statements were made in the
company's initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding the initial public
offering and up to March 17, 2005.

On July 8, 2005, the company responded to the complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss.  On Aug. 23, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to this motion to dismiss, and on
Sept. 12, 2005, the company filed a response in which it again
requested dismissal of the complaint.

In recent developments, the parties reached oral agreements that
do not contain any admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part
of Central Freight or any of the individual defendants in such
litigation.

The agreements are subject to the completion of the usual and
customary documentation for such settlements, and are subject
to, and conditioned upon, final court approval.

The settlements will be funded from the proceeds of Central's
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy.  It is a
condition to the consummation of the merger that this litigation
be settled within Central Freight's limits of coverage under the
applicable insurance policies.

Bob Fasso, Central Freight's chief executive officer and
president, stated "We now expect to mail the finalized
definitive proxy statement to stockholders in September.  The
proxy statement will solicit proxies for voting on the merger
transaction at our annual meeting, which will be held
approximately 30 days from the date the proxy statements are
mailed to our stockholders."

The suit is, "In re Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-177," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Waco) under Judge Walter S. Smith.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Klein of Smith Robertson Elliott Glen Klein &
         Bell, LLP, 221 West 6th Street, Suite 1100, Austin, TX
         78701, Phone: (512) 225-5808; and

     (2) Michelle N. Peterson and Michael K. Yarnoff of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.

Representing the Company are:

     (1) John L. Malesovas of Malesovas & Martin, L.L.P., P.O.
         Box 1709, Waco, TX 76703-1709, Phone: (254) 753-1777;
         and

     (2) Nicole M. Healy, Kent W. Easter, Randolph Gaw and Lloyd
         Winawer of Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill
         Road, Palo Alto, CA 84306, Phone: (415) 493-9300.


CMS ENERGY: Court Considers Appeals on Nev. Natural Gas Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on appeals
regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada that dismissed certain lawsuits against CMS Energy
Corp. and several other defendants in relation to the sale of
natural gas in the U.S.   

Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in
November 2003 against a number of energy companies engaged in
the sale of natural gas in the U.S., including CMS Energy.  

The complaint alleged defendants entered into a price-fixing
scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of
natural gas in California.  The complaint alleged violations of
the federal Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the
California Business and Professions Code relating to unlawful,
unfair and deceptive business practices.  

The complaint sought both actual and exemplary damages for
alleged overcharges, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief
regulating defendants' future conduct relating to pricing and
price reporting.

In April 2004, a Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Panel ordered
the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL matter in
the Nevada federal district court that at the time involved
seven complaints originally filed in various state courts in
California.  

These complaints make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case regarding price reporting, although none contain a
federal Sherman Act claim.  In November 2004, those seven
complaints, as well as a number of others that were originally
filed in various state courts in California and subsequently
transferred to the MDL proceeding, were remanded back to
California state court.  

The Texas-Ohio case remained in Nevada federal district court,
and defendants, with CMS Energy joining, filed a motion to
dismiss.  The court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss on April 8, 2005 and entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants on April 11, 2005.  

Texas-Ohio has appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

In a related matter, three federal putative class actions, were
filed:

     -- Fairhaven Power Co. v. Encana Corp. et al.,

     -- Utility Savings & Refund Services LLP v. Reliant Energy
        Resources Inc. et al., and

     -- Abelman Art Glass v. Encana Corp. et al.,

The suits all make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case, now under the caption, "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."  

Specifically, the suits claim price manipulation and seek
similar relief.  They were originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California in September 2004,
November 2004 and December 2004, respectively.  

The Fairhaven and Abelman Art Glass cases also include claims
for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.  The three
complaints were filed against CMS Energy and many of the other
defendants named in the Texas-Ohio case.  

In addition, the Utility Savings case names CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading and Cantera Resources Inc.  Cantera
Resources Inc., the parent of Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and CMS
Energy is required to indemnify Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and
Cantera Resources Inc. with respect to these actions.

The Fairhaven, Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass cases have
been transferred to the MDL proceeding, where the Texas-Ohio
case was pending.  

Pursuant to stipulation by the parties and court order,
defendants were not required to respond to the Fairhaven,
Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass complaints until the court
ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss in the Texas-Ohio case.  

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated class action
complaint alleging violations of federal and California
antitrust laws.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the
consolidated complaint should be dismissed for the same reasons
as the Texas-Ohio case.  The court issued an order granting the
motion to dismiss on Dec. 19, 2005 and entered judgment in favor
of defendants on Dec. 23, 2005.  

Like the Texas-Ohio case, plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alan G. Crone of Crone & Mason, PC, 5100 Poplar Ave.,
         Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 83137, Phone: 901-683-1850
         Fax: 901-683-1963; and

     (2) Paul Alexis Del Aguila of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77
         West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 456-8400.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Frederic G. Berner, Jr. of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
         LLP, 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 80005, Phone:
         202-736-8000, Fax: 202-736-8711; and

     (2) Robert E. Craddock, Jr. of Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, P.O.
         Box 775000, Memphis, TN 92177-5000, Phone: 901-537-
         1000, Fax: 901-537-1010.


CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. along with several other firms was named as a
defendant in the purported class action, "Breckenridge Brewery
of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et
al.," which was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of
natural gas in Colorado.

Defendants, which also includes: CMS Field Services, Inc. and
CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co., are alleged to have
violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities.  

This is a class action energy trading case that was filed on May
19, 2006 in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado.  The
putative class is all direct purchasers of natural gas in
Colorado during the period from Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31,
2002 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006).

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

CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE: CMS) -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is  
an integrated energy holding company that operates through two
principal subsidiaries, Consumers Energy Co. and CMS Enterprises
Co.  The company operates in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: ACTS Purchasers File New Lawsuit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. was named as defendant in two class actions
filed in Michigan alleging violations of U.S. securities laws
and regulations.

Beginning on May 17, 2002, a number of complaints were filed
against the company, Consumers Energy Corp., and certain
officers and directors of company and its affiliates.

The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit, which
generally seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that
the defendants violated U.S. securities laws and regulations by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about CMS
Energy's business and financial condition, particularly with
respect to revenues and expenses recorded in connection with
round-trip trading by CMS MST.

In January 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss Consumers
and three of the individual defendants, but denied the motions
to dismiss CMS Energy and the 13 remaining individual
defendants.

The court issued an opinion and order dated March 24, 2006,
granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' amended motion
for class certification.

The court conditionally certified a class consisting of "all
persons who purchased CMS Common Stock during the period of Oct.
25, 2000 through and including May 17, 2002 and who were damaged
thereby."  

The court excluded purchasers of CMS Energy's 8.75 percent
Adjustable Convertible Trust Securities from the class.  Trial
has been scheduled for March 2007.  

In response to the court's opinion and order excluding
purchasers of ACTS from the shareholder class, a new class
action was filed on behalf of ACTS purchasers.

The new lawsuit names the same defendants as the shareholder
action and contains essentially the same allegations and class
period.  

The first suit is "Green v. CMS Energy Corp., et al., Case No.
2:02-cv-72004-GCS-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge George Caram Steeh with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Clifford S. Goodstein of Milberg, Weiss, (New York),
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-
         0165, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
         cgoodstein@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) E. Powell Miller of Miller Shea (Rochester), 950 W.
         University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307,
         Phone: 248-841-2200, E-mail: emiller335@aol.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven J. Aranoff of McDermott, Will, 18191 Von Karman
         Avenue, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92612-7108, Phone: 949-
         851-0633, Fax: 949-851-0633; and

    (ii) Steven L. Bashwiner of Katten, Muchin, (Chicago), 525
         W. Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661-3693,
         Phone: 312-902-5200, Fax: 312-902-5200.


CMS ENERGY: Kans. Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of Case to Nev. MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Kansas state court action, "Learjet, Inc., et
al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.," are opposing the conditional
transfer order to remove their case to the MDL proceeding in
Nevada.  The Nevada suit is captioned "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."

On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. was
served with a summons and complaint, which named also named as
defendants:

     -- CMS Energy Corp., and
     -- CMS Field Services, Inc.  

The putative class action, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok,
Inc., et al.," was filed in Kansas state court.  

Similar to the other actions that have been filed, the complaint
alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000
through Oct. 31, 2002, defendants engaged in a scheme to violate
the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly reporting false
or inaccurate information to the publications, thereby affecting
the market price of natural gas.  

Plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from
defendants and other for their facilities, are seeking statutory
full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration
paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.  On Dec. 7, 2005, the case
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and later that month a motion was filed to transfer the
case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada.

On Jan. 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
Kansas state court.  On Jan. 23, 2006, a conditional transfer
order transferring the case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada was
issued.  On Feb. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
conditional transfer order.

CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE: CMS) -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is  
an integrated energy holding company that operates through two
principal subsidiaries, Consumers Energy Co. and CMS Enterprises
Co.  The company operates in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Subsidiaries Settle NYMEX Manipulation Suit for $7M
---------------------------------------------------------------
A current and a former subsidiary of CMS Energy Corp. settled a
federal lawsuit filed against them over alleged manipulation of
New York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures and options.  

CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. (CMS MST) and CMS Field
Services, Inc. -- sold to Cantera Natural Gas, LLC and for which
CMS Energy Corp. has indemnification obligations -- were
defendants in a consolidated class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. filed the original complaint
in August 2003 as a putative class action and it was later
consolidated with two similar complaints filed by other
plaintiffs.

The amended consolidated complaint, filed in January 2004,
alleged that false natural gas price reporting by the defendants
manipulated the prices of NYMEX natural gas futures and options.

The complaint contained two counts under the Commodity Exchange
Act, one for manipulation and one for aiding and abetting
violations.

On May 24, 2006, the judge entered a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal approving settlements between plaintiffs and various
defendants, including CMS MST and CMS Field Services.  

The settlement agreement required a $6.975 million cash payment
that MST was responsible to pay.  The payment was made into a
settlement fund that will be used to pay the class members as
well as any legal fees awarded to plaintiffs' attorneys.  CMS
Energy had established a reserve for this amount in the fourth
quarter of 2005.

The suit is "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero and
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
         (415)-398-8700;

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com;

     (3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
         Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900; and

     (4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,     
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280.

Representing the defendants is Robert A. Jaffe of Kutak, Rock,
L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 922-
9155; and Gregory Copeland, Holly Roberts, J. Michael Baldwin,
Baker Botts, L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX
07002, Phone: (713) 229-1234.


CMS ENERGY: Tenn. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss "Leggett"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss the class action, "Samuel D. Leggett, et
al v. Duke Energy Corp., et al.," in which CMS Energy Corp. is a
defendant.

Filed in January 2005, the class action complaint was brought on
behalf of retail and business purchasers of natural gas in
Tennessee.

The complaint contains claims for violations of the Tennessee
Trade Practices Act based upon allegations of false reporting of
price information by defendants to publications that compile and
publish indices of natural gas prices for various natural gas
hubs.

The complaint seeks statutory full consideration damages and
attorneys fees and injunctive relief regulating defendants'
future conduct.  Defendants include the company, CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading Co. (CMS MST) and CMS Field Services, Inc.

On Aug. 10, 2005, certain defendants, including CMS MST, filed a
motion to dismiss and CMS Energy and CMS Field Services also
filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction.

Defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court, but it
was remanded to state court by a federal judge.  Plaintiffs have
opposed the motions to dismiss and they remain pending,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE: CMS) -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is  
an integrated energy holding company that operates through two
principal subsidiaries: Consumers Energy Co. and CMS Enterprises
Co.  The company operates in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Franks Due to Undeclared Milk Content
------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods of Quincy, Michigan, in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service,
is voluntarily recalling approximately 16,716 lbs. of jumbo
franks due to undeclared milk content.

The product label indicates that the package contains jumbo
franks made with turkey and pork; however, the package may
contain cheese smoked sausage made with pork and turkey.

The cheese smoked sausage contains milk, a known allergen, which
is not declared on the label.

The product subject to the recall are in 16-oz. vacuum packages
of "Eckrich, Jumbo Franks, Made With Turkey, Pork."  Each label
bears the establishment number "1941" and the lot code "3F."
Each package also bears the manufacturer's code "0549082306" and
the sell by date, "Aug. 23, 2006."

The franks were produced on May 15, 2006, and were shipped to
retail stores in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia.  

The problem was discovered by the company.  FSIS has received no
reports of illness due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about an allergic reaction should contact a physician.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the
company toll-free, 24-hour information line at 1-866-344-6833.  
Media with questions about the recall should contact company
Communications Director Tania Graves at (402) 595-6258.


CRYOLIFE INC: Reserves $11.8M to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CryoLife, Inc. has included an $11.8 million charge for the
settlement of a shareholder class action in its result for the
second quarter of 2005.

Last year, Cryolife reached an agreement in principle to settle
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

Several putative class actions were filed in July through
September 2002 against the company, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on a series of purportedly materially false and
misleading statements to the market.

The suits were consolidated, and a consolidated amended
complaint filed, alleges that the company made
misrepresentations and omissions relating to product safety and
the company did not comply with certain U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulations regarding the handling and processing
of certain tissues and other product safety matters.  

The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of
purchasers between April 2, 2001 and Aug. 14, 2002, compensatory
damages, and other expenses of litigation.   

The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on Feb. 28, 2003, which motion the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied
in part and granted in part on May 27, 2003.  The discovery
phase of the case commenced on July 16, 2003.  On Dec. 16, 2003
the court certified a class of individuals and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired company stock from April 2, 2001
through Aug. 14, 2002.  

On March 11, 2005 defendants moved for summary judgment on all
plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment as to some of their claims against certain defendants.  
On June 17, 2005 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 21, 2005 the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the securities class action.  The settlement will
resolve all claims asserted against the company and the
individual defendants in this case.  The terms of the
settlement, which must be approved by the court following notice
to the class, include a total settlement of $23.25 million,
approximately $11.5 million of which is expected to be paid from
insurance proceeds.

The remainder of the settlement is comprised of a cash payment
from the company of approximately $8.0 million, expected to be
paid in the third or fourth quarter of 2005, and common stock
with a stipulated value of approximately $3.75 million.  

The suit is "Robert Murray and Richard A. Pearson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cryolife,
Inc., Steven G. Anderson, Albert E. Heacox, James C. Vander Wyk
and D. Ashley Lee," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood and Nikole Davenport of Chitwood &  
         Harley, Mail: 2900 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street,  
         NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax:  
         404-876-4476

     (2) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, Barbara A.  
         Podell, David F. Sorensen of Berger & Montague PC, 1622  
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-
         3000, Fax: 215-875-4604

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?5eb.   


CUDECO LTD: Slater & Gordon Investigates Reserves Restatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Slater & Gordon said it has begun investigating the
dramatic fall in the price of shares in CuDeco Ltd., formerly
Australian Mining Investments Ltd.

The plunge followed an investigation by The Australian
Securities and Investments Commission into recent company
announcements.  In the wake of the investigation CuDeco released
information to the ASX effectively halving the size of the
inferred copper resource it had previously claimed.

"This is a very significant development and calls into question
the accuracy of the company's statements in recent weeks," said
Slater & Gordon partner Lisa Nichols.

According to her, companies have a duty not to mislead their
shareholders and the public and they also have a legal
obligation to keep the market properly informed, including
continuously disclosing price sensitive information and also
making sure that the information disclosed is accurate.

"The slide in the share price of the company will cause
substantial losses for a large number of CuDeco shareholders.

"They have a right to ask whether they were investing in a
company that was properly informing the market and the
Australian Stock Exchange."

In recent weeks CuDeco had made a number of ambitious statements
about its Rocklands copper discovery.  Those statements helped
push shares in the company from 29 cents to more than $7,
reaching an intra day high of $10.

In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange, the company
revised downwards its estimate of the inferred copper resource
from 59 million tons to 25 million tons.  The share price
dropped sharply after the announcement reaching a low of below
$3.

"We're now looking at whether those earlier statements by the
company were justified in light of the information released
today," Ms. Nichols said.

"Shareholders who invested in the wake of the company's positive
announcements and are now looking at a loss are rightly
concerned by recent events.

"Whether they have a legal claim against the company is
something we're strenuously investigating."

Slater & Gordon, Melbourne: Phone: (03) 9602 6888, On the Net:
http://www.slatergordon.com.au/.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces New FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles,
P.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of approximately 2,500 former and
current Dollar General Corp. store managers, alleging that the
company intentionally misclassified them as "executives" to
avoid paying them overtime, a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Dollar General,
operator of Family Dollar, Dollar General and Fred's, forces its
managers to work 60 to 80 hours a week of manual labor as their
primary duty and that they spend as little as 10 percent of
their time as managers, the Montgomery Advertiser reports.

According to Allen Beasley attorney, Dee Miles "labor cost is
reduced, the companies' highest expense, resulting in increased
profits, all on the backs of the store managers".

Ms. Miles said, "The FLSA is specifically designed to prevent
this very scheme where these companies are trying to cheat
working folks out of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work".

"It's very clear that store managers of the discount retail
stores like Dollar General don't qualify as executives," she
added.

The suit seeks certification as a collective action to join a
similar suit filed in Tuscaloosa.

Under the executive exemption of the FLSA, companies are allowed
to pay store managers a set salary and avoid paying them
overtime in the event a store manager works more than forty
hours.  However, the exemption also mandates that managers must
actually do management duties as their "primary duty" as opposed
to "manual labor."

However, Dollar General claims that their store managers'
"primary duty" is management and that they qualify as
"executives" under the exemption.

The suit is "Brown, et al. v. Dollar Gen Stores, et al., Case
No. 7:02-cv-00673-UWC", filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District Court of Alabama under Judge U. W. Clemon.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jere L. Beasley, W. Daniel Miles
III and Roman A. Shaul all of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis
& Miles PC, PO Box 4160, Montgomery, AL 36103-4160, Phone: 1-
334-269-2343, Fax: 1-334-954-7555, E-mail:
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com or dee.miles@beasleyallen.com or  
roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com.

Representing the company are:  

     (1) Joel S. Allen and Ronald Manthey both of Baker &  
         McKenzie, 2300 Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Avenue,  
         Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 1-214-978-3000, Fax: 1-214-
         978-3099, E-mail: joel.allen@bakernet.com or  
         ron.manthey@bakernet.com; and  

     (2) Keith D. Frazier and J. Trent Scofield both of Ogletree  
         Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Suntrust Center, Suite  
         800, 424 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: 1-
         615-254-1900, Fax: 1-615-254-1908, E-mail:  
         keith.frazier@odnss.com or trent.scofield@odnss.com.


E. I. DU PONT: Consolidated Teflon Litigation Proceeds in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action proceeding against E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co. over its Teflon non-stick coating continues in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

As of June 30, 2006, 21 intrastate class actions were filed on
behalf of consumers that have purchased cookware with Teflon
non-stick coating in federal district courts against the
company.

The actions were filed on behalf of consumers in Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and West Virginia and two were filed in
California.

By order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all
of these actions were combined for coordinated and consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa.

The proceedings in this court will include the central question
of whether these cases can proceed as class actions.  A ruling
on this issue is not expected before 2007.

The actions allege that company violated state laws by engaging
in deceptive and unfair trade practices by failing "to disclose
to consumers that products containing Teflon were or are
potentially harmful to consumers" and that the company has
liability based on state law theories of negligence and strict
liability.  

They also allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and
dangerous substances, including a chemical Perfluorooctanoic
acid alleged to have been determined to be "likely" to cause
cancer in humans.  

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The suit is "In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation, MDL-
1733, Master Docket No. 4:06-md-1733," pending in the U.S.  
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge  
Ronald E. Longstaff with referral to Judge Celeste F. Bremer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roberto Anguizola of Schwartz Cooper, Chartered, 180
         North Lasalle Street, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: 312-845-5115, Fax: 312-264-2464, E-mail:
         ranguizola@schwartzcooper.com; and

     (2) Kimberley K. Baer of Wandro & Associates, PC, 2501
         Grand Ave., Ste. B, Des Moines, IA 50312, Phone: 515-
         281-1475, Fax: 515-281-1474, E-mail:
         kbaer@2501grand.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Eric M. Anielak of Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, 2555 Grand
         Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613, Phone: 816-474-
         6550, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail: eanielak@shb.com; and

    (ii) Susan J. Baronoff of Murtha Cullina, LLP, 99 High
         Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-457-4031, Fax:
         617-482-3868, E-mail: sbaronoff@murthalaw.com.


E. I. DU PONT: W.Va. PFOA Lawsuits Removed to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. is a defendant in several
purported class actions filed in West Virginia and New Jersey
over alleged Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination in the
local drinking water.

In the second quarter of 2006, three purported class actions
were filed against the company alleging that drinking water had
been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.05 parts per billion
(ppb) due to alleged releases from certain DuPont plants.

One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court on
behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but
was removed on DuPont's motion to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

The other two purported class actions were filed in New Jersey.
One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals who
allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.  

The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont's
motion.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,  
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


E. I. DU PONT: Quebec Court Considers Motion to Expand Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada has yet to
rule on a motion seeking to expand the class in the lawsuit
against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. over its Teflon and
Zonyl non-stick coating.

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Quebec court seeking authorization to institute a class
action on behalf of all Quebec consumers who have purchased or
used kitchen items, household appliances or food-packaging
containing Teflon or Zonyl non-stick coatings.  

Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages.

In June 2006, plaintiffs filed an additional motion seeking
authorization to expand the purported class to include all
Canadian consumers of these products, not just Quebec residents.
The court is not expected to rule on this latest motion until
late 2006.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,  
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


ELI LILLY: Faces Additional Zyprexa-Related Suits in N.Y., Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. is a defendant in new Zyprexa-related class
actions in both federal and state courts that were filed on
behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding
governmental entities, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors
-- excluding governmental entities -- that have made or will
make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act statute, and common law theories, seeking a
refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees.

Four additional lawsuits were filed in 2006: two in the Eastern
District of New York, one in the Southern District of Indiana,
and one in Indiana state court, all on similar grounds.  

These lawsuits allege that the company inadequately tested for
and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted
the drug.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/--  
discovers, develops, manufactures and sells pharmaceutical
products.  It manufactures and distributes products through
owned or leased facilities in the U.S., Puerto Rico and 26 other
countries, which are sold in approximately 135 countries.


ELI LILLY: To Settle U.S. Product Liability Suits Over Zyprexa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. is working to settle certain U.S. litigation
filed against the company, alleging a variety of injuries from
the use of Zyprexa.

The company has been named as a defendant in a large number of
Zyprexa product liability lawsuits in the U.S. and has been
notified of many other claims of individuals who have not filed
suit.

The lawsuits and unfiled claims allege a variety of injuries
from the use of Zyprexa, with the majority alleging that the
product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose
levels.

The claims seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages
and typically accuse the company of inadequately testing for and
warning about side effects of Zyprexa.

Many of the claims also allege that the company improperly
promoted the drug.  Almost all of the federal lawsuits are part
of a Multi-District Litigation proceeding before The Honorable
Jack Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (MDL No. 1596).

The MDL includes three lawsuits requesting certification of
class actions on behalf of those who allegedly suffered injuries
from the administration of Zyprexa.

The company has entered into agreements with various plaintiffs'
counsel halting the running of the statutes of limitation --
tolling agreements -- with respect to a number of claimants who
do not have lawsuits on file.

Since June 2005, the company has entered into agreements with
various claimants' attorneys involved in U.S. Zyprexa product
liability litigation to settle a majority of the claims.  

The agreements cover approximately 10,500 claimants, including a
large number of previously filed lawsuits -- including the three
purported class actions mentioned above -- tolled claims, and
other informally asserted claims.

The settlements are being overseen and distributed by court-
approved claims administrators.  The agreements are subject to
certain conditions, including obtaining full releases from a
specified number of claimants.

Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/--  
discovers, develops, manufactures and sells pharmaceutical
products.  It manufactures and distributes products through
owned or leased facilities in the U.S., Puerto Rico and 26 other
countries, which are sold in approximately 135 countries.


ENRON CORP: Hearing on "Newby" Litigation Moved to April 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon granted the request of the
lead investor lawyer in a fraud suit against former bankers of
Enron Corp. to delay an Oct. 16 trial against the executives,
according to Bloomberg News.  The new trial date is April 9,
2007.

The suit is a consolidated class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against 69
defendants purportedly on behalf of the purchasers of Enron
Corp.'s publicly traded equity and debt securities from Oct. 19,
1998 to Nov. 27, 2001.  Plaintiffs are seeking $40 billion in
compensation, the report said.

On April 8, 2002, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was added as a
defendant in suit, styled, "Newby v. Enron Corp. et al."  The
complaint alleges, among others, that the company engaged in
improper transactions in the fourth quarter of 1999 that helped  
Enron misrepresent, its earnings and revenues in the fourth
quarter of 1999.  

On Dec. 19, 2002 and March 29, 2004, the court denied the
company's motions to dismiss.  On July 27, 2005, the company
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based, in part, on
the Supreme Court's April 19, 2005, decision in "Dura  
Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo," which addressed the standards for
pleading and proving loss causation.  

On Aug. 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment against Merrill Lynch, which seeks a judgment that the
company knowingly committed deceptive acts in furtherance of a
scheme to defraud.
  
The company is opposing that motion.  In addition, the
defendants, including the company, are awaiting a decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

The case is "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., Case No. No. 01-cv-
3624."  Representing the Proposed Preferred Purchaser Lead
Plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel W. Krasner at Wolf Haldenstein et al., 270
         Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600;

     (2) Jack Edward McGehee at McGehee & Pianelli, 1225 N Loop
         W, Ste 810, Houston, TX 77008, Phone: 713-864-4000,
         Fax: 713-868-9393.

Representing Enron Corp. is Scott David Lassetter Atty. at Law,
3700 Montrose Blvd., Houston, TX 77006, Phone: 713-523-0325,
Fax: 713-523-0132, E-mail: sdl@lassetterfirm.com.


EXXON MOBIL: Court Considers $4.5B Judgment in Exxon Valdez Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal against the $4.5 billion punitive damages judgment
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a case
against Exxon Mobil Corp. over the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in
various courts against the company and certain of its
subsidiaries relating to the accidental release of crude oil
from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.

The vast majority of the compensatory claims have been resolved
and paid.  All of the punitive damage claims were consolidated
in the civil trial that began in 1994.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the first judgment from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska in the amount of $5
billion as being excessive under the U.S. Constitution.  

The second judgment in the amount of $4 billion was also vacated
by the Ninth Circuit panel without argument and sent back for
the District Court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision in "Campbell v. State Farm."

The most recent District Court judgment for punitive damages was
for $4.5 billion plus interest and was entered in January 2004.
The company and the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to
the Ninth Circuit.

The company has posted a $5.4 billion letter of credit.  Oral
arguments were held before the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 27, 2006.  

Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. -- http://www.exxonmobil.com/--  
is engaged in exploration for, and production of, crude oil and
natural gas, manufacture of petroleum products and
transportation and sale of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum
products.  It is a manufacturer and marketer of commodity
petrochemicals, including olefins, aromatics, polyethylene and
polypropylene plastics and a range of specialty products.

The suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al.
(3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska
under Judge H. Russel Holland.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) John F. Clough, III of Clough & Associates, POB 211187,
         Auke Bay, AK 99821, U.S., Phone: 907-790-1912; Fax:
         907-790-1913; and

     (2) Douglas J. Serdahely of Patton Boggs LLP, 601 West 5th
         Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone:
         907-263-6300; Fax: 907-263-6345; E-mail:
         dserdahely@pattonboggs.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles W. Coe of the Law Office of Charles W. Coe, 805
         W 3rd Avenue, #10, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone:
         907-276-6173; Fax: 907-279-1884; E-mail:
         charlielaw@gci.net; and

     (2) Lloyd B. Miller of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller &
         Munson, LLP, 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage,
         AK 99501, U.S., Phone: 907-258-6377; Fax: 907-272-8332;
         E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net.  


ISRAEL: Legislature Expands Law on "Representative" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Civil claims in Israel may now be filed through a class action,
according to Legalbrief Today.

In March, the legislative body of the modern state of Israel
passed Class Action Law 2006, which collates all the matters in
which class actions may be filed in Israel, and sets out the
relevant principles and requirements.

The new law expands the list of subjects for which class actions
may be filed, with regard to both the defendants and the causes
of action, the report said.  It provides a uniform list of rules
for the submission and handling of class actions in a wide range
of violations, including environmental ones.

Previously, class actions in the country were limited to
particular causes of actions as were specifically defined by
certain laws.


KINDER MORGAN: Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Securities Suit Named
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Pamela S. Tikellis of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Diane
Nygaard of The Nygaard Law Firm of Leawood, Kansas have been
appointed interim co-lead counsels in the consolidated class
action filed against Kinder Morgan, Inc. and certain of its
officers.

This action, "In Re: Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, No. 06 C 801," is pending in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas and was brought on behalf of all persons
who currently own common stock of Kinder Morgan.

Excluded from the class are defendants, members of their
families, and the directors and officers of Kinder Morgan and
its subsidiaries.

On June 9, the law firms filed Petitions in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas challenging the proposed acquisition
of Kinder Morgan by an investor group led by its largest
stockholder and chairman, Richard Kinder.

Richard Kinder's group announced a $100 per share merger
proposal on May 28, 2006.  The petitions were consolidated on
June 23, 2006.

The action requests that the Kinder Morgan board of directors
fulfill its fiduciary duties and obligations to the company's
public shareholders in the face of the "going-private" proposal.

The cction alleges that the value of the company's shares is
materially in excess of the $100.00 offered by the insiders, and
that the proposed offer was timed to take advantage of a recent
slump in the share price of Kinder Morgan.

For more information, contact Pamela S. Tikellis, Esquire of
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 1035,
Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 656-2500, Email:
pamelatikellis@chimicles.com; or Diane A. Nygaard, Esquire of
The Nygaard Law Firm, 4501 College Boulevard, Suite 260,
Leawood, Kansas 66211, Phone: (913) 469-5544, Email:
diane@nygaardlaw.com.


MOLSON COORS: Continues to Face Suits Related to 2005 Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Co., formerly Adolph Coors Co., remains
defendant in several purported class actions in both the U.S.
and Canada in relation to its 2005 merger with Molson Inc.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported class actions were
filed against the company in the U.S. and Canada, including
Federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in
Ontario and Quebec.  The suits allege, among other things, that
the company, including Molson Inc., and certain officers and
directors misled stockholders by failing to disclose first
quarter (January-March) 2005 U.S. business trends prior to the
Merger vote in January 2005.

The Colorado Federal case has been transferred to the Delaware
Federal court.  The Delaware Federal lawsuits also allege that
the company failed to comply with U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  

Holding company Molson Coors Brewing Co., through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and
sale of malt beverage products.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Reaches $438M Settlement in U.S., Canada Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in these class actions
filed in the U.S. and Canada:

     -- In Re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation,
        Consolidated Civil Action No.: 2001-CV-1855 (RMB) in the
        U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
        York (U.S. Action);

     -- Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corporation et al., Court
        File No.: 02-CL-4605 in the Ontario Superior Court of
        Justice (Ontario National Action);

     -- Association de Protection des Epargnants et
        Investisseurs du Quebec v. Corp. Nortel Networks, No.:
        500-06-000126-017 in the Superior Court of Quebec
        (Quebec Action); and

     -- Jeffery et al. v. Nortel Networks Corp. et al., Court
        File No.: S015159 in the Supreme Court of British
        Columbia (B.C. Action).

The Ontario National Action, the Quebec Action and the B.C.
Action are collectively referred to as the "Canadian Nortel I
Actions."  The U.S. Action and the Canadian Nortel I Actions are
collectively referred to as the "Nortel I Actions."

                  Terms of Proposed Settlement

The settlement will provide total proceeds consisting of
approximately $438,667,428 in cash, plus 314,333,875 shares of
Nortel common stock for the benefit of members of the classes.  
In addition, Nortel will adopt certain corporate governance
enhancements.  The settlement resolves lawsuits over whether
Nortel misled investors about its historic and future earnings
during the class period.  The settlement is contingent on
approval by the courts in the Nortel I Actions and in certain
related actions against Nortel in the U.S. and Canada (the
Nortel II Actions) for which there is a separate notice.  The
settlement is further subject to certain regulatory approvals.

The settlement constitutes a full and final resolution of claims
and causes of action raised by members of the classes in the
Nortel I Actions and encompassed in the settlement.

               Notice of Certification of Classes

The U.S. Action was certified in 2004 to proceed as a class
action on behalf of persons and entities, wherever located, who
bought Nortel common stock or call options on Nortel common
stock or who wrote (sold) put options on Nortel common stock
during the period Oct. 24, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001,
inclusive, and suffered damages thereby, including, but not
limited to, those persons or entities who traded in Nortel
Securities on the New York Stock Exchange and/or the Toronto
Stock Exchange (U.S. Global Class).

The Canadian Nortel I Actions have now been certified for
settlement purposes on behalf of Canadian class members.  The
Ontario Court, the Quebec Court and the B.C. Court have
certified these classes for settlement purposes:

     -- Ontario National Class: All persons or entities, except
        members of the Quebec Class or British Columbia Class,
        who, while residing in Canada at the time, purchased
        Nortel common stock or call options on Nortel common
        stock, or wrote (sold) put options on Nortel common
        stock, during the period between Oct. 24, 2000
        through Feb. 15, 2001, inclusive;

     -- Quebec Class: All "natural" persons, who, while residing
        in Quebec at the time, purchased Nortel common stock or
        call options on Nortel common stock, or wrote (sold) put
        options on Nortel common stock, during the period
        between Oct. 24, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001, inclusive;
        and

     -- British Columbia Class: All persons or entities, who,
       while residing in British Columbia at the time, purchased
       Nortel common stock or call options on Nortel common
       stock, or wrote (sold) put options on Nortel common
       stock, during the period between Oct. 24, 2000 through
       Feb. 15, 2001, inclusive.

As described in detail in the Long-Form Notice, certain persons
and entities are excluded from the above classes.

Deadline for filing proof of claim is Nov. 20, 2006.  Requests
for exclusion and objections are due Sept. 19, 2006.  Requests
for exclusion and objections must be mailed to: Nortel I
Securities Litigation Exclusions, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6445, Merrick, NY
11566-9000.  

On the Net: http://www.nortelsecuritieslitigation.com.

         Notice of Settlement Fairness/Approval Hearings

Dates for the Settlement Fairness/Approval Hearings have been
scheduled with the respective courts as:

     -- in the U.S. Action: at 1:00 p.m. on Oct. 26, 2006, at
        the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
        York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom
        12A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y.;

     -- in the Ontario National Action: at 10:00 a.m. on Nov. 6,
        2006, at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 361
        University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario;

     -- in the Quebec Action: at 9:30 a.m. on Nov. 16, 2006,
        at the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, 1
        Notre-Dame East, Montreal, Quebec; and

     -- in the British Columbia Action: at 10:00 a.m. on Nov.
        27, 2006, at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, 800
        Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

U.S. Action:             Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
                         ------------------------
                         George A. Bauer III
                         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
                         One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
                         York 10119-0165

                         Murray Gold
                         Koskie Minsky LLP
                         20 Queen Street West
                         Suite 900, Toronto
                         Ontario M5H 3R3

Ontario National Action  Ontario National Class Counsel
                         ------------------------------
                         Joel P. Rochon, Rochon Genova LLP
                         121 Richmond Street West, Suite 900,
                         Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1

Quebec Action            Quebec Class Counsel
                         --------------------
                         Daniel Belleau, Belleau Lapointe, S.A.,
                         306 Place D'Youville, B-10, Montreal,
                         Quebec H2Y 2B6

British Columbia Action  British Columbia Class Counsel
                         ------------------------------
                         David Klein, Klein Lyons, 1100-1333
                         West Broadway, Vancouver, British
                         Columbia V6H 4C1


POTLATCH CORP: Faces Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Potlatch Corp. and other companies were named as defendants in a
consolidated antitrust class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In March, April and May 2006, a series of private antitrust
lawsuits were filed against the company and seven other
manufacturers of oriented strand board.  Plaintiffs, who claim
that they purchased OSB at artificially high prices, filed the
suits.

The cases purport to be class actions brought on behalf of
direct and indirect purchaser classes.  The complaints allege
that the defendant OSB manufacturers violated federal and state
antitrust laws by purportedly conspiring from mid-2002 to the
present to drive up the price of OSB.  The indirect purchaser
complaints also allege that defendants violated various states'
unfair competition laws and common law.

The cases generally have been consolidated into two Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaints in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption, "In Re
OSB Antitrust Litigation."

Each consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages to be trebled as provided under the antitrust
laws and other relief.

The suit is "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PSD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) William P. Butterfield of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500,
         Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: 202-408-4600, E-mail:
         wbutterfield@cmht.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey J. Corrigan of Spector Roseman and Kodroff,
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Mary Kay Christodoulou, David
L. Comerford and Edward F. Mannino of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, LLP, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market St., Suite 2200,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-965-1200, E-mail:
mchristodoulou@akingump.com.


SANDISK CORP: Faces Lawsuits in Calif. Over M-Systems Purchase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. was named as defendant in two class lawsuits filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California over its
proposed purchase of M-systems Ltd., iTnews.com.au reports.

Both suits, "Dashiell v. SanDisk" and "Capovilla v. SanDisk,"
were filed on behalf of shareholders of Msystems.  They allege
that SanDisk aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by
officers and directors of M-Systems in relation to option
backdating.  

Plaintiffs allege that the terms of the announced merger are not
fair to M-Systems' shareholders and that Sandisk executives
forwarded their own interests in connection with the proposed
merger.

Defendants include SanDisk, M-Systems, and several officers and
directors of M-Systems.

In July, flash memory storage cards supplier SanDisk Corp. inked
a $1.35 billion deal to acquire its solid-state memory
competitor, Israel-based Msystems, in an all-stock transaction.


SOUTHEASTERN MEATS: Recalls Ground Beef for E.coli Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Meats of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 4,337
lbs. of ground beef that may be contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7.

The products subject to recall are in:

     -- 10- pound boxes of "Ground Beef Patties, Southeastern
        Meats, Inc.";

     -- 5- and 10- pound bags of "Ground Beef, Southeastern
        Meats, Inc."; and

     -- 10- pound bags of "Taco Beef Mix, Ingredients Beef and
        Beef Parts, Southeastern Meats, Inc."

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 7953" inside
the USDA mark of inspection and the case code, "07 31 06" or "08
01 06."

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 on July 31 and Aug. 1, and was
distributed to retail establishments and institutions in Georgia
and Tennessee.

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 Vice President John Shoocraft at (423) 892-6024.


SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls ElectroPlasma Lamps Posing Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Gifts LLC, of Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 1,500 units of Mars Lightning ElectroPlasma
Lamps.

The company said the arcing between an object and the removable
cover of the lamp can pose a fire hazard.

Spencer Gifts has experienced two fire incidents at two of their
stores.  One of these fires caused fire, smoke, and water
damage.

The recall involves the Mars Lightning 7001 dome electroplasma
lamp, which simulates lightning bolts inside.  It has a glass
dome glued to a black base.  Writing under the base includes the
SKU number of 00473421, "MARS LIGHTNING7001" and "LIGHTNING
2000."

These EletroPlasma lamps were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Spencer Gifts stores exclusively nationwide during
December 2004 for about $30.

Picture of recalled EletroPlasma lamps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06225.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
return it to any Spencer Gifts for a store credit.

For more information, call Spencer Gifts at (800) 762-0419
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.spencersonline.com.


TECO ENERGY: Fla. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action filed against TECO Energy,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers.

Purchasers of company securities filed a number of securities
class actions in August, September and October 2004.  These
suits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, alleging disclosure violations under
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  These actions were
consolidated and remain in the initial pleading stage, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," comprised of:

     -- NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan),
     -- Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
     -- John Marder and Charles Korpak,

as the lead plaintiff for the class and the law firm of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel.

The plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint
for securities fraud on May 3, 2005.  The consolidated complaint
maintains the same class period, Oct. 30, 2001 to Feb. 4, 2003,
and the same parties as those contained in the original
complaint.  The nature of the claims, which relate to the
adequacy of the company's disclosures and financial reporting,
also remains the same.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 25, 2005,
and the plaintiffs have 60 days to file a response.  The
plaintiffs have been granted an extension to file their response
through Dec. 31, 2005, since the parties have agreed to mediate
the claims in mid-December 2005, in order to eliminate
uncertainty and ongoing expense associated with the litigation.

In March 2006, the court partially dismissed the consolidated
case.  According to Judge James Whittemore's ruling, the
plaintiffs relied on analysts' reports that they alleged
revealed the company's fraud.  However those reports, while
pessimistic about the company's future, did not identify any
improprieties, the judge wrote.

In addition, the judge pointed out that the plaintiffs did not
sufficiently establish a connection between the specific
fraudulent activity alleged and a drop in stock prices.  

Thus in dismissing part of the plaintiff's complaint and the
request for class action, Judge Whittemore wrote, "In sum,
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that defendant's fraud,
as opposed to poor market conditions, was the proximate cause of
TECO's stock price decline."

The judge, however, did not grant the company's motion to
dismiss the entire case.  His reason for not granting that
motion was because he found that the plaintiffs did set forth
allegations of deception and manipulation that were sufficient
to support a fraud claim.

After the consolidated Class Action Complaint brought by the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group" was dismissed without prejudice on
Mar. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their further amended
complaint to which the company and the defendants filed their
motion to dismiss on Jul. 7, 2006, based on failure to plead
loss causation as raised in the prior motion.  

Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on July
21, 2006.  The local rule contemplates a ruling within 60 days,
according to the regulatory filing.

The suit is "In Re: TECO Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:04-cv-01948-JDW-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D.
Whittemore.  

Representing the plaintiffs are David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H.
Rudman, William S. Lerach, Darren J. Robbins, Stephen Richard
Astley, David D. George and Jack Reise of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 561/750-3077, 619/231-1058
and 631/367-7100, Fax: 561/750-3364 and 631/367-1173, E-mail:
sastley@lerachlaw.com, dgeorge@lerachlaw.com,
jreise@lerachlaw.com, and drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Diane Knox, Richard A. Rosen of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
         Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
         New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000;

     (2) Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail:
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and  

     (3) Steven B. Rosenfeld, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000, Fax: 212-757-
         3990.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Facing Lawsuit Over Tax Remittances in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brennan Manna & Diamond, on behalf of the city
of Jacksonville in Florida, filed a class action in the Fourth
Judicial Circuit against several online travel agencies, the
Financial News & Daily Record reports.

The suit contends the agencies have "shortchanged" the city over
the years by selling blocks of hotel rooms but are not
collecting the local 6 percent bed tax.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- priceline.com;
     -- travelocity.com;
     -- hotels.com; and
     -- lowestfare.com.

According to Brennan Manna & Diamond attorney Michael Freed,
they believe these agencies have been collecting the tax based
on the rate charged to the individual consumer but have only
been reimbursing the county some of that tax, if anything at
all.

Mr. Freed is not sure how much exactly may be owed but feels the
damages are in the six-figure amount and his firm will only get
paid if the city wins and collects damages.

Another issue that still needs to be determined is how long the
shortchange has been occurring, but what Mr. Freed is pretty
sure about is the intentional nature of the tax remit cut-back,
according to the report.

Earlier, Duval County in Florida initiated a lawsuit in Duval
County Circuit Court against online travel Web sites, alleging
that the firms are underpaying taxes to Florida counties for
brokering hotel rooms (Class Action Reporter, August 15, 2006).

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

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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HOME SOLUTIONS: Aug. 21 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLC reminds parties interested in becoming lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit against Home Solutions of
America, Inc. that they have until Aug. 21, 2006 to seek for
appointment.  

On June 21, 2006, Scott+Scott, LLC, filed an amended class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas against Home Solutions of and certain officers.

The action is on behalf of Home Solutions securities purchasers
between April 11, 2006 and June 6, 2006, inclusive.  The
complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the company's revenue opportunities.

As a result, the price of the company's securities was inflated
during the class period, thereby harming investors.  Meanwhile,
the company's officers and directors aggressively sold shares of
their Home Solutions stock, resulting in proceeds of
approximately $12.2 million.  The complaint earlier mistakenly
reported insider proceeds at over $15.7 million.

According to the complaint, on April 11, 2006, Home Solutions
announced it had been awarded a contract valued at up to $20
million, to provide infrastructure support for Hurricane Katrina
rebuilding efforts.  Following this, the company announced a
string of contract awards, including substantial contracts with
Home Depot Inc. and American Renaissance Homes.

Then, on June 6, 2006, the company issued a shocking press
release, revealing that it was, in fact, lending up to $800,000
to American Renaissance for "working capital," secured by its
modular homes and land.

The complaint alleges that defendants' prior representations
concerning the company's financial performance and prospects,
based, among other things, on the American Renaissance Homes'
contract, were false and misleading and concealed from the
investors the company's actual performance and prospects.

As a result of this news, Home Solutions' stock price plummeted
29.1%, or $2.80, to close on June 6, 2006 at $6.80, on extremely
heavy trading volume of 26.2 million shares.

The suit is "Hansen v. Fradella et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01096,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge David C. Godbey.

Representing the defendants is Gerard G. Pecht of Fulbright &
Jaworski - Houston, 1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100, Houston, TX
77010-3095, Phone: 713/651-5151, Fax: 713/651-5246, E-mail:
gpecht@fulbright.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Geoffrey Johnson of Scott + Scott, 33 River St.,
         Chagrin Falls, OH 44022, Phone: 440/247-8200; or David
         R. Scott and Denise V. Zamore both of Scott + Scott,
         108 Norwich Ave., PO Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415,
         Phone: 860/537-5537, Fax: 860/537-4432, E-mail:
         dzamore@scott-scott.com; or Arthur L. Shingler, III of
         Scott + Scott, 600 B St., Suite 1500, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: 619/233-4565, Fax: 619/233-0508, E-mail:
         ashingler@scott-scott.com; and

     (2) Theodore Carl Anderson, III of Kilgore & Kilgore, 3109
         Carlisle, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214/969-
         9099, Fax: 214/292-8758, E-mail: tca@kilgorelaw.com.


IMAX CORP: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, filed on Aug. 11, a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Civil Action No. 06-6128) on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock and other securities of IMAX
Corp. from Feb. 17, 2006 to Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of IMAX securities.

During February and March 2006, the company issued press
releases touting the Company's financial success, and indicated
the company's willingness to explore financial options.  A press
release issued as late as May 9, 2006 continued to mislead
investors concerning IMAX's true financial condition.

Then on Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX shocked the market by announcing that
it was being under investigation by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission regarding revenue-recognition timing.  The
SEC's inquiry was focused on IMAX's recognition of revenue in
the fourth quarter of 2005 in 10 theaters that were not open
during that quarter.

Further, IMAX said that it had identified a "material weakness"
related to revenue-recognition issues in its second-quarter
financial report, leading to a reduction in revenue.  The press
release also stated the company had yet to find an investor to
effectuate a merger or purchase.  After these announcements the
price of IMAX shares crashed, falling by 40.6%, or $3.91 on the
following trading day.

The complaint alleges that IMAX and its top executives knew
during the class period that revenue was being improperly
recognized, but failed to make the necessary adjustments, thus
artificially inflating the stock.

It also alleges that to affect a sale or merger of IMAX, and to
gain as higher price as possible for IMAX in such a transaction,
it was critical that the value of IMAX was perceived to be high.

Therefore, IMAX and some of its top executives sought to bolster
the share price of the company by strategically recognizing
revenue when it most suited the company, even when such revenue
recognition policies violated recognized accounting principles.

Interested parties may, no later than Oct. 10, 2006 request the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian of Abbey Spanier Rodd
Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Phone: 1-800-889-3702, E-mail:
nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com.


IMAX CORP: The Paskowitz Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of IMAX Corp. from Feb. 17, 2006
through Aug. 9, 2006.  The action was filed in the Southern
District of New York against IMAX, and certain of its officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
through false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
IMAX's financial health and business prospects.

During February and March 2006, the company issued press
releases touting the company's financial success, and indicated
the company's willingness to explore financial options.  

A press release issued as late as May 9, 2006 continued to
mislead investors concerning IMAX's true financial condition.

Then on Aug. 9, 2006, the company shocked the market by
announcing that it was being investigated by the U.S. Securiteis
and Exchange Commission and that the company had uncovered a
"material weakness" in its revenue accounting.

The press release also stated the company had yet to find an
investor to effectuate a merger or purchase.  After these
announcements the company's stock substantially dropped.

The complaint further alleges that IMAX and its top executives
knew during the Class Period that revenue was being improperly
recognized, but failed to make the necessary adjustments, thus
artificially inflating the stock.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court no later than Oct. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz, Esq., Phone: 1-
800-705-9529, E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com.


SCOTTISH RE: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Scottish Re Group Ltd.
between Dec. 16, 2005 and July 28, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant Scottish Re and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.

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

In February 2006, the company reported strong earnings for the
2005 fourth quarter; they also 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, Scottish Re's
reinsurance business.

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

However, as further alleged in the complaint, on July 28, 2006,
the defendants jolted the market on news that CEO Scott Willkomm
had resigned, and that for the second quarter, the company would
report a gigantic loss of $130 million, and that results for the
remainder of the year would be negatively affected.  On this
news the company's share prices plummeted from $16.00 to $3.99,
a 75% decline.

Ineterested parties may request the court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by Oct. 2, 2006.  

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/332-0030, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.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  * * *