CAR_Public/060821.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 165

                            Headlines

AAIPHARMA INC: Aug. Hearing Set for ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Securities Suit Status Hearing Set Sept. 13
BISYS GROUP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
CANADA: S.C. Orders CA$13M Compensation for Private Abortions
EAST COOPER: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for Patients' Lawsuit

EMACHINES INC: Suit Over Empire Merger May Go to Trial Next Year
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settlement Hearing in "Turner" Suit Set Today
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls SUVs, Pickups to Repair Fuel Rail Damper
GEORGIA: Congresswoman Mulls Suit Over Election, E-Voting System
GILEAD SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Complaint

GLOBAL CROSSING: Oct. Hearing Scheduled for $99M N.Y. Settlement
GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Stock Options
HCA INC: Tenn. Court Consolidates Lawsuit Over Hercules Merger
HCA INC: Tenn. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ILLINOIS: School Fails to Comply with Settlement, Attorney Says

JC PENNEY: Recalls Electronic Motion Shade Lamps for Fire Hazard
LAMINATES LITIGATION: Oct. Hearing Scheduled for $41M Settlement
MASSACHUSETTS: Status Report in "Rosie v. Romney" Due Aug. 25
MCI COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set for D.C. Stock Suit Deal
MEDCO HEALTH: Ala. Court Dismisses CAM's Suit Over Drug Pricing

MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
MEDCO HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Filed by Okla. Pharmacies
MEDCO HEALTH: Antitrust Suits Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated
ONEOK PARTNERS: Kans. Court Yet to Certify Price I, II Lawsuits
PALMONE INC: "Kiser" Settlement Hearing Set Nov. in Calif. S.C.

QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls Kids' Pants that Fail Flammability Test
RADIOSHACK CORP: Settles Ill. FLSA Violations Suit for $8.5M
RJR TOBACCO: Amendment Sought for "Tatum" Complaint in N.C. Suit
RJR TOBACCO: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Simon (II)" Smokers' Lawsuit
RJR TOBACCO: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California

RJR TOBACCO: Still Faces "Lights" Litigation in Seven States
ROYAL BANK: Former Execs Told to Give Depositions in Enron Case
SEMPRA ENERGY: Court Asks for Trade Tapes in Gas Pricing Suit
SPX CORP: N.C. Court Considers Motions in ERISA Violations Suit
SPX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of N.C. Consolidated Securities Suit

STANDARD FIRE: Nov. Hearing Set for "Melvin Simon" Settlement
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in La.
STONE ENERGY: Class Status Sought for Derivative Lawsuit in La.
TARGET: Recalls Mini Angel Food Cakes with Undeclared Egg Whites
TOYOTA MOTOR: N.J. Appellate Division Sides With Firm in "Jorge"

WESTPOINT CORP: Stater & Gordon Builds up Lawsuit Over Collapse


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IMAX CORP: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Saxena White Announces Fla. Stock Suit Filing
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


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

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

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

Filed on Feb. 12, 2004, the suit alleges that defendants were
fiduciaries of the plan and violated fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act that they owed to the
company employees and retirees who were participants.

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

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

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

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

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

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


BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Securities Suit Status Hearing Set Sept. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold on Sept. 13, 2006, a status hearing in the dismissal
of the class action "In re Bally Total Fitness Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03530."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, in the courtroom of the Honorable Judge
John Grady.

In July, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed without prejudice the consolidated class
action complaint filed against Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.
and certain of its officers, alleging securities fraud by the
company and certain of its current and former officers (Class
Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).

                        Case Background

Between May and July 2004, 10 putative securities class actions,
now consolidated and designated, "In re Bally Total Fitness
Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.   

On March 15, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and on
May 23, 2005 the court appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements in
November 2005.

On Dec. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased Bally stock between Aug. 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004.

The various defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Feb. 24, 2006.  Judge Grady gave
plaintiffs until Aug. 14 to file an amended complaint and
scheduled a status hearing for Sept. 13.

A copy of the court report is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?fe9   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Fay Clayton of Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C., 300   
         South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606,   
         Phone: (312) 663-3100, E-mail:   
         fclayton@robinsoncurley.com; and   

     (2) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,   
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite   
         1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403,   
         Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Janet Malloy Link of Latham & Watkins, LLP, (IL), 233   
         South Wacker Drive, 5800 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL   
         60606, Phone: (312) 876-7700, E-mail:   
         janet.link@lw.com;

    (ii) Gregory A. Markel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,   
         LLP, One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281,   
         Phone: (212) 504-6000;  

   (iii) Howard Steven Suskin of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM   
         Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th   
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E-  
         mial: hsuskin@jenner.com; and  

    (iv) Mary Ellen Hennessy of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525   
         West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661,   
         Phone: (312) 902-5200, E-mail:   
         maryellen.hennessy@kattenlaw.com.


BISYS GROUP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
BISYS Group, Inc. along with certain of its current and former
officers and directors remain defendants in a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  

Following the company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results, seven putative class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers.  

By order of the court, all but one of the putative class actions
was consolidated into a single action, and on Oct. 25, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the company's securities between Oct.
23, 2000 and May 17, 2004.  It generally asserts that the
company, certain of its officers, and its independent auditors
allegedly violated federal securities laws in connection with
the purported issuance of false and misleading information
concerning the company's financial condition.  

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount as well as
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.

On December 23, 2004, the company, the individual defendants and
the company's independent registered public accounting firm
filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint.  

On Oct. 28, 2005, the court dismissed certain claims under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to six of the individual
defendants, narrowed certain additional claims against the
company and the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
as to the company's independent registered public accounting
firm.  The court denied the motions to dismiss in all other
respects.

The court granted leave for plaintiffs to file on or before Nov.
14, 2005, an amended complaint addressing the scienter of the
individual defendants and the independent registered public
accounting firm.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who acquired BISYS securities from the
company as part of private equity transactions during the period
Oct. 23, 2000 to May 17, 2004.

The complaint generally asserts that the company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the company's financial condition, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Nov. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  By
order of the court, the amended complaint was consolidated into
the above complaint.

The first identified complaint is, "Rosen, et al. v. BISYS
Group, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) 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;

     (3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         (Philadelphia), 1845 Walnut St., Suite 945,
         Philadelphia, CA, 19103, Phone: 215.988.9546, Fax:
         215.988.9885, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: E-mail@rabinlaw.com;

     (6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (7) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; and

     (8) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com.


CANADA: S.C. Orders CA$13M Compensation for Private Abortions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Superior Court Justice Nicole Benard ordered the
government of Quebec to pay more than CA$13 million to the women
of Quebec who had to pay to obtain an abortion.

The court concluded that the Quebec government violated its own
legislation by paying only partially for abortions.

Abortions are covered under the Quebec Health Insurance Act, and
for many years, women who require an abortion have had to pay to
obtain it when delivered in certain women's or private clinics.

The suit was filed in May 2002 on behalf of the Association for
Access to Abortion, a group set up to represent claimants and
lobby for changes to the way abortions are managed in Quebec.

It principally covers claims for abortions completed in the
first 13 weeks of a pregnancy.

The lawsuit could apply to about 45,000 women who paid $200-$300
to have abortions outside of the hospital system.

The judge has ordered the government to deposit the award money
with a financial institution, pending a decision on how to pay
out the claims.

The government has 30 days to appeal the judgment.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff5

For more information, contact Me Bruce Johnston, Me Philippe
Trudel and Me Danielle Parizeau all of Trudel & Johnston, 85 de
la Commune East, 3rd Floor, Montreal (Quebec), H2Y 1J1, Phone:
(514) 871-8385, Fax: (514) 871-8800, E-mail:
bwjohnston@trudeljohnston.com or phtrudel@trudeljohnston.com or
dparizeau@trudeljohnston.com.


EAST COOPER: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for Patients' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, South Carolina
will hold a  fairness hearing on Aug. 29, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.
for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Singletary, et al.
v. East Cooper Community Hospital, Inc., et al., Civil Action
Nos. 04-CP-10-4211 & 04-CP-10-4212."  

The court will hold the hearing to consider the fairness and  
adequacy of the proposed settlement and to consider class  
counsel's petition for fees and costs at the Chester County  
Courthouse, 140 Main Street, Chester, South Carolina.

Deadline for objections and exclusions to and from the  
settlement was July 31, 2006.  Claims form must be submitted  
on or before Sept. 15, 2006.

Under the settlement eligible class members will be given either
a 10% discount or even a 10% refund, which will be determined by
the settlement administrator.  

Plaintiffs Robert A. Singletary, Sr. and R. Allen Singletary,  
Jr. brought the actions on behalf of themselves and similarly  
situated persons who were patients of East Cooper Regional  
Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and  
Piedmont Healthcare System.  The two actions were consolidated  
for the purposes of administering the settlement.   

The suit claims that the hospitals did not provide plaintiffs  
and other patients with a statutory discount to which they were  
allegedly entitled under South Carolina Code Section 38-71-120.   

It was brought on behalf of a class that consists of two sub-
classes:

      -- The Uninsured Class consisting of all persons who were  
         patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center,
         Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont
         Healthcare System from Oct. 7, 2001 to May 22, 2006,
         and were uninsured at the time of treatment; and
  
      -- The Insured Class consisting of all persons who were  
         patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center,
         Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont
         Healthcare System from Oct. 7, 2001 to May 22, 2006,
         and were insured at the time of treatment.

More details on the settlement agreement are available at:

       http://www.tenetclassaction.com/tes/notice.php3

For more details, contact:

     (1) Singletary v. E. Cooper Community Hospital, Settlement  
         Administrator, P.O. Box 91126, Seattle, WA 98111-9226,  
         Phone: 1-800-280-8427, Web site:  
         http://www.tenetclassaction.com/tes/;and    

     (2) A. Camden Lewis, Esquire of Lewis & Babcock, L.L.P.,
         1513 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803-
         771-8000, Fax: 803-733-3534, Web site:  
         http://www.lewisbabcock.com/.


EMACHINES INC: Suit Over Empire Merger May Go to Trial Next Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative 2007 trial is expected for the shareholder class
action, "Dvorchak v. eMachines, Inc., et al.," which was filed
in California State Superior Court, County of Orange.

The suit, filed against eMachines and others in November 2001,
relates to a plan to privatize the company through a merger with
Empire Acquisition Corp.  The merger was consummated after a
court denied a requested injunction on Dec. 27, 2001.

After the merger, plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or rescission relating to the
negotiations for and terms of the merger through allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duties by eMachines, its board members
prior to the merger, and certain of its officers.  The court
certified the suit Aug. 25, 2003.

Dispositive motions filed by the defendants were heard and
denied by the court in August 2004 and August 2005.  No trial
date has been set, but it is currently expected to occur in
early 2007.

California-based eMachines, Inc., -- http://www.emachines.com/-
- sells personal computers and peripheral displays.  Marketed
toward budget-conscious consumers, its desktop and notebook PCs
are sold by retailers such as Best Buy, Circuit City, and Office
Depot.  

Former rival Gateway, Inc. acquired eMachines for approximately
$235 million in cash and stock in 2004.  After the acquisition
Gateway closed its retail stores and installed a number of
eMachines executives in top management posts.  Sold exclusively
through retailers, eMachine PCs now represent Gateway's value
brand.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settlement Hearing in "Turner" Suit Set Today
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on the settlement of the suit, "William F.
Turner v. General Electric Co.," is set today at the federal
courthouse in downtown Fort Myers, Florida, according to
NBC2.com.

On April 29, 2005, plaintiff filed his complaint on behalf of
himself and a putative class consisting of all persons in the
state of Florida who purchased any of nine specific models of GE
refrigerators.  

Among other things, the complaint alleged that the "GE" and
"Hotpoint" side-by-side refrigerators sizes 20, 22, and 25 cubic
feet, manufactured between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2002 did
not perform in accordance with the advertisements, marketing
materials and warranties disseminated by GE nor with the
reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers because of alleged
moisture problems.  The complaint asserted causes of action for
breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and unjust
enrichment.

List of model and serial numbers of affected refrigerators:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff7  

Plaintiffs' class counsel are Scott Wm. Weinstein, Weinstein
Bavly & Moon, P.A., Gary E. Mason and Alexander E. Barnett of
The Mason Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J.
LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, L.L.P.; and William M. Audet
of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.

A settlement, preliminarily approved Dec. 9, 2005, includes:

     -- Additional Warranty Protection: GE shall provide
        settlement class members with additional warranty
        protection for moisture-related problems in the
        refrigerators.  The Additional Warranty Protection shall
        be for one year following the Notice Date;

     -- Refrigerator Exchange: For any settlement class member
        whose refrigerator has required three or more
        unsuccessful moisture-related service calls and still
        has a moisture-related problem, GE shall provide, in
        exchange for the settlement class member's refrigerator,
        a new GE refrigerator of like grade and quality with
        comparable features; and

     -- Reimbursement: GE shall reimburse settlement class
        members for the reasonable cost of moisture-related
        service calls (including parts and labor) charged to the
        settlement class members by a GE factory service
        technician, an authorized GE customer care servicer, or
        a firm or technician that holds a business license, or
        is otherwise demonstrably qualified to perform major
        appliance service and repair work.  The costs to be
        reimbursed must have been incurred and paid by the
        settlement class members between the date of purchase of
        their Refrigerators and the notice date.

Subject to Court approval, GE has agreed to pay attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses to class counsel in the total amount of
$1,325,000.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff6

The suit is "William F. Turner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. General Electric Co., Case No.
2:05-CV-186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.  
Representing the plaintiff are:   

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.P.,
         300 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415/921-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776;  

     (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., P.O.         
         Box 230758, 144 West 72nd St., #3D, New York, NY 10023,         
         US, Phone: 202/408-4600, E-mail:         
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com;

     (3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th         
         St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:         
         202/429-2290, Fax: 202/429-2294, E-mail:            
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;  

     (4) Jordan Lucas Chaikin and Scott Wm. Weinstein of         
         Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A., 2400 First St., Suite          
         303, Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax:         
         239/334-1289, E-mail: jordan@weinsteinlawfirm.com and         
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com; and

     (5) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo         
         Gilbert & LaDuca, 507 C. St., NE, Washington, DC 20002,         
         Phone: 202/789-3960, Fax: 202/789-1813, E-mail:         
         jonc@cuneolaw.com and charlesl@cuneolaw.com.      

Representing the defendant is Charles Wachter of Fowler White
Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1700, P.O. Box
1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438, Phone: 813/228-7411 ext. 1136, Fax:
813/229-6679, E-mail: cwachter@fowlerwhite.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls SUVs, Pickups to Repair Fuel Rail Damper
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
ordering General Motors Corp. to recall about 38,439 General
Motors SUVs and pickups because of a potential fuel leak that
could result in an engine compartment fire.

The recall involves:

     -- 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche,
     -- 2004-2006 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500,
     -- 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak,
     -- 2004-2006 Chevrolet Silverado,
     -- 2004-2005 Chevrolet Suburban,
     -- 2006 Chevrolet Suburban 1500,
     -- 2004-2006 GMC Sierra,
     -- 2006 GMC Topkick 6500, and
     -- 2004-2006 GMC Yukon XL

According to the NHTSA, some of the GM trucks equipped with the
8.1 liter V8 contain a fuel rail pulse damper retainer clip that
can fracture resulting in a fuel leak which is near an ignition
source in the engine compartment.

Dealers will replace the fuel rail damper free of charge when
the recall begins.  Owners may contact 1-800-630-2438 and GMC
Trucks 1-866-996-9463.


GEORGIA: Congresswoman Mulls Suit Over Election, E-Voting System
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney is pursuing several legal
challenges to the results of the recent Primary and Runoff
Elections, and the "reality" of the E-voting system in Georgia,
including a possible class action, according to Atlanta
Progressive News.

Rep. McKinney is trying to determine how to either join or
support Donzella James's suit over alleged election
irregularities that resulted to the latter's loss in the 13th
Congressional District.

The moves under consideration if Rep. McKinney cannot join
James's lawsuit are a separate suit, a "friend of the court"
briefs in Ms. James's case, provision of evidence of elections
irregularities in the 4th District, according to Ms. James who
is working closely with the congresswoman.  A multi-party class
action is being pursued as well, she said.

The James lawsuit essentially applies to the election the
VoterGA lawsuit that eventually sought injunction against
Georgia elections because all physical evidence of voter intent
has been removed from the process, according to the report.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the fourth amended
complaint in the class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Gilead Sciences,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers.

Filed in 2003, the suit is alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.

On May 12, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California executed orders dismissing in its
entirety and with prejudice the Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint associated with a purported class action against, the
company and certain of its officers.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal.

The suit is "Hartman v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-04999," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric J. Belfi of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0878,
         Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com;

     (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154,
         Phone: 206-839-0730, Fax: 206-839-0728, E-mail:
         lfeldman@milberg.com; and

     (3) Jack G. Fruchter of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
         212-279-5050, Fax: 212-279-3655.

Representing the defendants are John C. Dwyer and Grant P. Fondo
of Cooley Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino
Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650-843-5000, Fax: 650-
857-0663, E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com and gfondo@cooley.com.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Oct. Hearing Scheduled for $99M N.Y. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $99 million settlement in the matter, "In Re Global
Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 910
(GEL)."

The court will hold the hearing at U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York, in Courtroom 6B.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Oct. 6, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons, entities, or legal
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Feb. 1,
1999 to Dec. 8, 2003, purchased, sold, exchanged, acquired,
disposed of, transferred or made any other investment decision
involving Global Crossing or Asia Global Crossing securities.

This lawsuit involves the demise of Global Crossing and Asia
Global Crossing, which were global telecommunications companies.  
Global Crossing was founded in 1997 and Asia Global Crossing in
1999.  Global Crossing became a public company on Aug. 13, 1998.  

Asia Global Crossing became a public company on Oct. 12, 2000,
although Global Crossing retained a 51% ownership interest in
Asia Global Crossing.  

The settlement described in this notice provides for the payment
of $99 million to settle claims brought by persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Global Crossing and Asia
Global Crossing securities during the class period.  

The settlement would result in the dismissal and/or release of
certain claims by all class members in the action as to the
persons and entities included within the definition of
"Releasees" in the Settlement Agreement.  

The Releasees include the "Underwriter Defendants":  

     -- Goldman, Sachs & Co.;

     -- Merrill Lynch & Co.;

     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;

     -- CIBC World Markets Corp. (CIBC WM);
  
     -- Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.;

     -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.;

     -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.;

     -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (including the former
        Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.);

     -- Morgan Stanley; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.;

     -- Lehman Brothers Inc.; ABN AMRO Rothschild LLC;

      -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.;

      -- Wachovia Securities (formerly First Union Securities,
         Inc.);

      -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.;

      -- Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein-Grantchester, Inc.
         (formerly Wasserstein Perella Securities, Inc.);

      -- Advest, Inc.;

      -- Harris Nesbitt Gerard, Inc. (formerly Gerard Klauer
         Mattison & Co., Inc.);

      -- Guzman & Company; Kaufman Bros., L.P.;

      -- McDonald Investments, Inc.;

      -- Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., Inc.;

      -- Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc.;

      -- Raymond James & Associates, Inc.;

      -- Scott & Stringfellow, Inc.; and

      -- Stephens Inc.

The Releasees also include two Asia Global Crossing underwriters
that were not named in the action:

     * The Robinson-Humphrey Company LLC, and
     * Williams Capital Group, L.P.

as well as the "CIBC Defendants":

     * Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
     * CIBC WM,
     * CIBC Capital Partners, and
     * CIBC Capital Partners (Cayman).  

In this settlement, the Underwriter Defendants and CIBC
Defendants are collectively referred to as the "Settling
Defendants."   

Since February 2002, over 50 putative class actions alleging
securities law violations have been filed against employees of
Global Crossing and other defendants, including the Settling
Defendants, on behalf of putative classes of holders of Global
Crossing securities.  

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized all
of these actions before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  

In December 2002, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and
appointed Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. as lead counsel in the
action.    

On Jan. 28, 2003, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed against various defendants, including 33 former officers
and directors of Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen LLP (Global
Crossing's former auditor), Citigroup Global Markets (formerly
known as Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.), CIBC, and other financial
institutions that acted as underwriters on certain of Global
Crossing's securities offerings during the Class Period.  

In May 2003, the court consolidated into the action five
putative class actions alleging securities law violations
against, among others, current and former officers, directors
and employees of Asia Global Crossing.  

On Aug. 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint to add claims on behalf of persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Asia Global Crossing
securities during the class period.  

On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint to, among other things,
update factual allegations based upon lead plaintiffs'
continuing investigation of the claims in the action.   

In the action, plaintiffs claim that the Global Crossing and
Asia Global Crossing sold securities on the basis of inaccurate
and/or misleading financial information, and that the
Underwriter Defendants violated federal securities laws by
failing to exercise the requisite due diligence in underwriting
certain of Global Crossing's and Asia Global Crossing's public
offerings.  

They also allege that CIBC is liable for false statements
concerning Global Crossing and liable, as a control person of
Global Crossing, for Global Crossing's alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.  

In the complaint, plaintiffs assert causes of action against the
CIBC Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against the Underwriter
Defendants under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  

The Settling Defendants have denied violating any laws and have
raised or could raise numerous defenses, including that the
Underwriters conducted appropriate due diligence to verify the
accuracy of the disclosures and reasonably relied on audited
financial data.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. and Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
         of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Chase Manhattan Centre,
         1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, Delaware
         19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100; and

     (2) Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Financial
         Institutions Partial Settlement, c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6152,
         Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-866-808-3497, E-mail:
         http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com.


GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Stock Options
------------------------------------------------------------
GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action over GTC stock options in the Court of Common Pleas
for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

On Nov. 13, 2001, two employees of one of the company's former
subsidiaries filed the action seeking damages, declaratory
relief and certification of a class action relating primarily to
their GTC stock options.

The claims arose as a result of the company's sale of Primedica
Corp. to Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. in
February 2001, which it believes resulted in the termination of
Primedica employees' status as employees of GTC or its
affiliates and the termination of their stock options.

The plaintiffs contend that the sale of Primedica to Charles
River did not constitute a termination of their employment with
GTC or its affiliates for purposes of the company's equity
incentive plan and, therefore, the company breached the
company's contractual obligations to them and other Primedica
employees who had not exercised their stock options.

The complaint demands damages in excess of $5 million, plus
interest.  The court certified the case as a class action, with
the class including employees of Primedica who, at the time GTC
sold it, had GTC options that had not been exercised.  

The company filed an answer denying all material allegations in
the complaint and is vigorously defending the case and objecting
to certification of the claims as a class action.

Framingham, Massachusetts-based GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GTCB) -- http://www.transgenics.com/-- is engaged  
primarily in the development and production of human therapeutic
proteins through transgenic technology.  It focuses primarily on
using its transgenic technology in its internal programs to
develop and produce therapeutic products for use in critical
care.


HCA INC: Tenn. Court Consolidates Lawsuit Over Hercules Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee consolidated
class actions filed against HCA Inc. in relation to its merger
with a subsidiary of Hercules Holding II, LLC.

HCA and certain of its officers were named as defendants in
purported class actions filed in Tennessee and Delaware courts
in relation to the merger it entered with Hercules Holding and
its wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules Acquisition Corp. on July
24, 2006.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Hercules Acquisition
will be merged with and into the company, with HCA continuing as
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hercules Holding, which is owned by a consortium of private
investment funds affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Merrill Lynch Global
Private Equity, collectively known as the Sponsors.

The company along with the Sponsors are aware of six asserted
class actions related to the merger that were filed in the
Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee.  

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other
things, that the merger is the product of a flawed process, that
the consideration to be paid to the company's shareholders in
the merger is unfair and inadequate, and breach of fiduciary
duty.

They further allege that the Sponsors abetted the actions of the
company's officers and directors in breaching their fiduciary
duties to the company's shareholders.

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger.

On Aug. 3, 2006, the Chancery Court consolidated these actions
and all later-filed actions as "In re HCA Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 06-1816-III."

A case making similar allegations and seeking similar relief on
behalf of a purported class of shareholders has also been filed
in Delaware.

Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA Inc. (NYSE: HCA) --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is a healthcare services  
company that owns and operates hospitals and related healthcare
entities through its affiliates.


HCA INC: Tenn. Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss filed by HCA, Inc. in the
consolidated securities class action pending against it.

In November 2005, two putative federal securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's stock between Jan. 12, 2005 and July 13, 2005.

These substantially similar lawsuits asserted claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company and
its chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, and executive vice president and chief
financial officer, related to the company's July 13, 2005
announcement of preliminary results of operations for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2005.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the court consolidated these actions under the
caption, "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-
CV-00981."  

Pursuant to federal statute, on Jan. 25, 2006, the court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs to represent the interests of the
putative class members in this litigation.  Co-lead plaintiffs
were set a deadline of March 27, 2006 to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

On June 27, 2006, the company and each of the defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The company
expects that the plaintiffs will file a brief in opposition to
those motions on or before Sept. 8, 2006, and oral argument is
expected to occur on Dec. 8, 2006.

The suit is "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-CV-00981," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul Kent Bramlett Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box
         150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734, Phone: (615) 248-
         2828, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com; and

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas, Tamara Skvirsky and Marc A. Topaz
         of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are James N. Bowen, Amy E. Neff and
Steven Allen Riley of Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC,
1906 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203, Phone: (615) 320-
3700, E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com, aneff@bowenriley.com and
sriley@bowenriley.com.


ILLINOIS: School Fails to Comply with Settlement, Attorney Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney in a class action against East St. Louis School
District 189 said the district failed to comply with a consent
decree entered in May to settle a class action over its
provision of education to special students.

He is considering taking the district back to court, according
to a report by News-Democrat.  

The school provides training in the construction trades to high
school dropouts.  It was sued by Alton attorney Tom Kennedy in
February for allegedly refusing to provide special education
services to Tomorrow's Builders Charter School students.  The
suit was filed in U.S. District Court, in East St. Louis.

The lawyer afterwards won a consent decree requiring the
district to offer special education evaluations within 60 days
to students identified by the charter school as possibly needing
special services.  U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy
approved the decree May 26.  

Tomorrow's builders has identified 45 such students since then,
but, according to Mr. Kenney, none has received services from
the district.

Mr. Kennedy said District 189 failed to comply with the consent
decree for lack of enough certified special education teachers.  
The report, however, at the same time noted that the district
recently spent nearly $35,000 to send administrators for a
seminar on classroom planning and organization.

For more information, contact Thomas E. Kennedy, III at Thomas
E. Kennedy, III, L.C., 2745 East Broadway, Suite 101, Alton,
Illinois 62002 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-474-5326, Fax: 618-474-
5331.


JC PENNEY: Recalls Electronic Motion Shade Lamps for Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Corp. Inc., of Plano, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,000 units of Crazy Daisy 3-in-1 electronic motion shade lamps.

The company said the lamp's electrical circuit board can spark
and overheat due to an electrical problem, posing a fire hazard
to consumers.

J.C. Penney has received one report of the electric circuit
board overheating and melting the wires in a lamp.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled lamps have a four-way switch that allows the lamp
to function as a moving light so that patterns revolve around
the shade.  The lamps can be used as a basic lamp or as a night
light with glowing stripe or floral patterns.  The lampshade is
plastic and the finish on the base of the lamp is brushed steel.

These lamps were manufactured in China and are being sold
exclusively at J.C. Penney's stores nationwide, its catalog and
its Web site from June 2005 through March 2006 for about $30.

Picture of recalled lamp:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06227.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
lamps and return them to any J.C. Penney store for a full
refund.  Lamps purchased through a catalog or through the Web
site may be returned to the nearest J.C. Penney store with a
catalog desk.

For more information, contact J.C. Penney toll-free at (888)
333-6063 anytime or visit its Web site: http://www.jcpenney.com.


LAMINATES LITIGATION: Oct. Hearing Scheduled for $41M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 25, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $41 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: High
Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00-MD-1368."  

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 300 Quarropas Street, White
Plains, New York, in Courtroom 2.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is Sept. 29, 2006.

The settlements provide approximately $41 million to pay claims
from direct purchasers in the U.S. who bought High Pressure
Laminates from Jan. 1, 1994 to June 30, 2000.

The lawsuits claimed that defendants engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of
High Pressure Laminates sold in the U.S. in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act.  Defendants in the suit are:

      -- International Paper Co.,
      -- Panolam International, Inc.,
      -- Pioneer Plastics Corp.,
      -- Formica Corp.,
      -- Premark International, Inc., and
      -- Wilsonart International, Inc.

Plaintiffs claimed that, as a result of the alleged unlawful
conspiracy, they and those like them paid more money for High
Pressure Laminates than they would have paid absent the alleged
conspiracy

For more details, contact:

     (1) Michael J. Freed of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 200 North LaSalle Street,
         Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60601-1095, Phone: (312) 346-
         3100;

     (2) Samuel D. Heins of Heins, Mills & Olson, P.L.C., 3550
         IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN
         55402, Phone: (612) 338-4605;

     (3) Joseph M. Barton of Gold, Bennett, Cera & Sidener,
         L.L.P., 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco,
         CA 94105-2835, Phone: (415) 777-2230;

     (4) Frederick P. Furth of The Furth Firm, 201 Sansome
         Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
         (415) 443-1070; and

     (5) High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, Phone: 1-
         888-265-3331, Web site: http://www.gilardi.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Status Report in "Rosie v. Romney" Due Aug. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action over children's mental health services
face an Aug. 25, 2006 deadline to file status reports on whether
they have agreed on a remedy to address deficiencies in the
program, the Telegram.com reports.

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Ponsor found that
the state has failed to identify children with mental health
needs, notify their families, connect their evaluations with a
service plan, coordinate their care, and provide home- and
community-based services.  He ordered that several thousand
Medicaid-eligible children in Massachusetts who are now in
institutions should be released and provided with home-based
treatment services.

He ordered the parties to carve out a program to do this, and
set a deadline this month to file a status report.  The parties
are scheduled to appear before the court on Sept. 13, 2006, 2
p.m. in Springfield.

The parties differ in their assessment of the progress of their
negotiations, according to the report.  In a June filing,
attorneys for the plaintiff said the children "have not received
any new programs, services or treatments that would allow them
to remain in their homes and home communities."  Whereas, the
state said in a court document filed on the same month, that
remedy negotiation meetings have been productive."

The suit, "Rosie D. v. Romney," was filed by Northampton-based
Center for Public Representation in 2001.  It is asking home-
care option for thousands of children with extreme functional
disabilities who participate in Medicaid.  It said that most of
the roughly 15,000 children under Medicaid receive adequate
services only when placed in psychiatric hospitals, but they
often become just "stuck kids" there.  Thus, they endeavored to
ask for homecare option.

The suit is "Rosie D., et al. v. Romney, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-30199-MAP," filed in U.S. District of Massachusetts under
Judge Michael A. Ponsor with referral to Judge Kenneth P.
Neiman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James C. Burling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-
         526-6416, Fax: 526-5000, E-mail:
         james.burling@wilmerhale.com; and

     (2) Cathy E. Costanzo and Steven J. Schwartz of Center for
         Public Representation, 22 Green Street, Northampton, MA
         01060, Phone: 413-586-6024, Fax: 413-586-5711, E-mail:
         ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org and sschwartz@cpr-ma.org.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel J. Hammond and Deirdre Roney of Attorney
         General's Office, One Ashburton Place, Room 2019,
         Boston, MA 02108-1698, Phone: 617-727-2200, Fax: 617-
         727-5785, E-mail: dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us and
         deirdre.roney@ago.state.ma.us; and

    (ii) Adam Simms of Deutsch Williams, 99 Summer St., Boston,
         MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2300, Fax: 617-951-2323, E-
         mail: ASimms@dwboston.com.


MCI COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set for D.C. Stock Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 1, 2006, 10 a.m. for the proposed $4.5
million settlement in the matter, "In re: MCI Communications
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 97-CV-1976 (RWR)."  

The hearing will be held in Courtroom #9 of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C.  

Objection to the settlement, plan of distribution, or award of
attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses was due Aug. 1,
2006.

The case was brought in 1997 on behalf of all persons who
purchased MCI common stock between July 11, 1997 and Aug. 21,
1997.  It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia against defendants MCI, and certain of its officers
and directors, including Gerald H. Taylor, Timothy F. Price,
Douglas L. Maine, Jr. Bert C. Roberts, and David M. Case.

The suit alleges violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78(j)(b) and 78(t), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5.

The complaint claims that MCI and BT Telecommunications PLC
entered into a merger agreement in November 1996 whereby BT
would acquire all of the outstanding shares of MCI in exchange
for cash and stock valued at approximately $24 billion.  The
merger faced serious regulatory hurdles from the start that had
to be cleared before the merger could be consummated.  During
the time these approvals were being sought, MCI surprised the
investment community and, apparently, BT when it announced in
July 1997, that it would suffer an $800 million loss for the
year.

On Aug. 14, 1997, in the company's Form 10-Q Report for the
quarter ended June 30, 1997, the defendants announced that the
merger was set to close in the fall of 1997.  Just one week
later, on Aug. 21, 1997, MCI was forced to acknowledge that the
merger had been renegotiated and shortly thereafter it announced
that its shareholders would receive 22% less than under the
merger agreement as originally structured.  The price of MCI
stock plummeted on this announcement.  Plaintiffs and the Class
lost tens of millions of dollars as a result.

Additional cases were filed on behalf of investors.  On Oct. 31,
1997, motions were made to consolidate the various actions and
appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On March 18, 1998, the
court consolidated the cases under the caption, "In re MCI
Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 97-CV-1976," and
appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, co-lead
counsel.  On May 8, 1998, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint.  On July 13, 1998, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied pursuant to an Order
entered on May 8, 2002.

On July 31, 2002, lead plaintiffs moved for certification of the
class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired common
stock of MCI between July 11, 1997, and Aug. 21, 1997, and who
were damaged thereby, and appointing the plaintiff class
representatives as representatives of the class.  On Feb. 12,
2003, that motion was granted in full with respect to the
individual defendants.  The class certification did not extend
to MCI, as the claims against MCI were stayed as a result of
MCI's bankruptcy proceedings.

On Oct. 27, 2003, the court ordered that this case was stayed
pending resolution of MCI's bankruptcy proceedings, or until
such time as MCI provided discovery to plaintiffs.  Pursuant to
that order, the case was administratively closed.

MCI emerged from bankruptcy in April 2004.  A motion to re-open
discovery was never brought by plaintiffs because the individual
defendants and lead plaintiffs were already engaged in
settlement discussions.  On March 11, 2005, the parties agreed
to the principle terms of the settlement.  On Dec. 29, 2005,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against MCI.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jeffrey G. Smith of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600; Web site:
         http://www.whafh.com/modules/case/?action=view&id=775.

     (2) Ilana Kohn of Abbey Gardy, L.L.P., 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax:
         212-684-5191;

     (3) Herbert Esar Milstein of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
         Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
         West Tower, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: (202)
         208-4600, Fax: (202) 208-4699, E-mail:
         hmilstein@cmht.com; and  

     (4) Joseph Alexander Ward of Jenner & Block, 601 13th
         Street, NW Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 639-6000, E-mail: award@jenner.com.


MEDCO HEALTH: Ala. Court Dismisses CAM's Suit Over Drug Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County in Alabama dismissed
without prejudice the class action, "CAM Enterprises, Inc. v.
Merck & Co., Inc., et al.," which names Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. as a defendant.

Filed in February 2005, the suit seeks to represent a national
class of independent retail pharmacies that have contracted with
the company under a formula that included the Average Wholesale
Price (AWP) as a method of reimbursement.

It alleges, among other things, that the company has refused to
reimburse the plaintiff using the correct AWP and has
deceptively misled the plaintiff regarding the nature of the
company's AWP reimbursement methodology for brand-name
prescriptions.

The plaintiff asserts claims for misrepresentation/suppression,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
imposition of a constructive trust, and injunctive relief.  

Upon motion by the plaintiff, the court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice in May 2006.

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey-based Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
(NYSE: MHS) -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a pharmacy benefit  
manager with a mail order pharmacy operations based on
prescriptions dispensed.  The company's clients include private-
and public sector employers and healthcare organizations.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action, "Alameda Drug Co., Inc., et al. v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al." that was filed against the
company and Merck & Co. in the Superior Court of California

The suit was filed in January 2004.  It seeks to represent a
class of all California pharmacies that have contracted with the
company and that have indirectly purchased prescription drugs
from Merck.  It alleges that since the expiration of a 1995
consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, if not earlier, the company
failed to maintain an Open Formulary, and that the company and
Merck had failed to prevent nonpublic information received from
competitors of Merck and the company from being disclosed to
each other.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the company has been able to increase its market
share and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the
retail pharmacy class members, and that the prices of
prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers that do business with the company have been fixed
and raised above competitive levels.

The suit asserts claims for violation of California antitrust
law and California law prohibiting unfair business practices.  
It demands among other things, compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits, and
injunctive relief.

In an amended complaint, the plaintiff further alleges, among
other things, that the company acts as a purchasing agent for
its plan sponsor customers, resulting in a system that serves to
suppress competition.

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey-based Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
(NYSE: MHS) -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a pharmacy benefit  
manager with a mail order pharmacy operations based on
prescriptions dispensed.  The company's clients include private-
and public sector employers and healthcare organizations.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Filed by Okla. Pharmacies
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a
purported class action filed by Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

The suit was filed in February 2006, and seeks to represent a
class of Oklahoma pharmacies that have contracted with the
company within the last three years.  It alleges, among other
things, that the company has contracted with retail pharmacies
at rates that are less than the prevailing rates paid by
ordinary consumers and has denied consumers their choice of
pharmacy by placing restrictions on the plaintiff's ability to
dispense pharmaceutical goods and services.

The plaintiff asserts that the company's activities violate the
Oklahoma Third Party Prescription Act, and seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
relief.  On April 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

The suit is "Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00118-TCK-SAJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge
Terence Kern with referral to Judge Sam A. Joyner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bradford D. Barron of Gibbon Barron & Barron, PA, 2 W.
         6th St., Ste. 320, Tulsa, OK 74119-1215, Phone: 918-
         745-0687, Fax: 9180745-0821, E-mail:
         Bbarron@gbbfirm.com; and

     (2) Bobby Leon Latham, Jr. of Latham Stall Wagner Steele &
         Lehman, PC, 1800 S. Baltimore, Ste. 500, Tulsa, OK
         74119, Phone: 918-382-7523, Fax: 918-382-7541, E-mail:
         blatham@lswsl.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark Banner of Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &
         Nelson (Tulsa), 320 S. Boston, Ste. 400, Tulsa, OK
         74103-3708, Phone: 918-594-0432, Fax: 918-594-0505, E-
         mail: mbanner@hallestill.com; and

    (ii) John Briggs of Howrey, LLP, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
         Washington, DC 20004-2402, Phone: 202-783-0800.


MEDCO HEALTH: Antitrust Suits Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are seeking the consolidation of several antitrust
class actions pending against Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
before a single federal judge.

The suits the company is facing includes:

      -- "Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
         Solutions, Inc., et al.;"

      -- "North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
         Solutions, Inc., et al.;" and

      -- "Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health
         Solutions, Inc., et al."

"Brady" was filed on August 2003 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Merck & Co. and the
company.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that have contracted with the company, allege that it
conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and used the
combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.

The suit allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the
company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct,
including, among other things, setting artificially low
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.

Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  Their motion for
class certification is currently pending.  

"North Jackson" was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama against Merck and the company on
October 2003.  

In their second amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
Merck and the company have engaged in price fixing and other
unlawful concerted actions with others, including other Pharmacy
Benefit Managers (PBMs), to restrain trade in the dispensing and
sale of prescription drugs to customers of retail pharmacies who
participate in programs or plans that pay for all or part of the
drugs dispensed, and have conspired with, acted as the common
agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan
sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the
dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.

Plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck and
the company have engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.

Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification has been granted.

"Mike's Medical" was filed against the company and Merck in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 2005.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies and
pharmacists that have contracted with the company and California
pharmacies that have indirectly purchased prescription drugs
from Merck and make factual allegations similar to those in the
Alameda Drug Co. action.

The suit asserts claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law, and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.

It demands, among other things, treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits, and injunctive
relief.

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs,
including North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before
a single federal judge.  The motion is pending.

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey-based Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
(NYSE: MHS) -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a pharmacy benefit  
manager (PBM) with a mail order pharmacy operations based on
prescriptions dispensed.  The company's clients include private-
and public sector employers and healthcare organizations.  


ONEOK PARTNERS: Kans. Court Yet to Certify Price I, II Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of ONEOK Partners, L.P., remain defendants
in a consolidated lawsuit pending in the 26th Judicial District,
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas.

The consolidated suits are:

      -- "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No.
         Case No. 99C30 (Price I) (f/k/a Quinque Operating
         Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.);" and
  
      -- "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
         Pipelines, et al., 26th Judicial District, District
         Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case
         No. 03C232 (Price II)."

Plaintiffs in Price I brought the suit on May 28, 1999, against
MidContinent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Field Services Co.,
ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.P., and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P.,
formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP -- all of which were recently
acquired by the company -- as well as approximately 225 other
defendants.

Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims that the
defendants had underpaid gas producers and royalty owners
throughout the U.S. by intentionally understating both the
volume and the heating content of purchased gas.

After extensive briefing and a hearing, the court refused to
certify the class sought by the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs then
filed an amended petition limiting the purported class to gas
producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming and
limiting the claim to under measurement of volumes.  They are
seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005 on the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the suit as a class action.  The court has not
yet ruled on the class certification issue.

The plaintiffs filed Price II on May 12, 2003, after the court
had denied class status in Price I.  Plaintiffs claim that 21
groups of defendants, including MidContinent Market Center,
Inc., ONEOK Field Services Company, ONEOK WesTex Transmission,
L.P., and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. -- formerly Koch Hydrocarbon,
LP) -- all of which were recently acquired by the company,
intentionally underpaid gas producers and royalty owners by
understating the heating content of purchased gas in Kansas,
Colorado and Wyoming.

Price II has been consolidated with Price I for the
determination of whether either or both cases may properly be
certified as class actions.  Plaintiffs in this suit are also
seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Like Price I, oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005 in
relation the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class
action.  The court has not yet ruled on the class certification
issue, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
June 30, 2006.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based ONEOK Partners, L.P., (NYSE: OKS) --
http://www.oneok.com/-- formerly Northern Border Partners L.P.,  
exports natural gas from Canada to the U.S.  It operates through
three business segments: interstate natural gas pipeline, which
provides natural gas transportation services; natural gas
gathering and processing, which gathers, processes and
compresses natural gas, and fractionates natural gas liquids,
and coal slurry pipeline, which transports crushed coal
suspended in water.


PALMONE INC: "Kiser" Settlement Hearing Set Nov. in Calif. S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara
will hold on Nov. 14, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. a final approval hearing
on the settlement of the class action, "Kiser v. palmOne, Inc.,
No. 1-04-CV-022956."

The class consists of all persons or entities in the U.S. who
purchased or owned a Palm Treo 180, Treo 270 or Treo 300 between
Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.

The hearing will be at the Superior Court of California for the
County of Santa Clara, in the courtroom of the Honorable Jack
Komar.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 16, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Feb. 13, 2007.

Plaintiffs in the suit allege that Palm's Treo 180, Treo 270 and
Treo 300 had defective flip covers.

Under the settlement, consumers shall be reimbursed for all or a
portion of what they paid to have it fixed.  How much will be
re-paid depends on how long the person owned the smartphone
before having problems with the flip cover.

Palm has denied and continues to deny these allegations and has
asserted a number of affirmative defenses.

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?fe2


QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls Kids' Pants that Fail Flammability Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quiksilver Inc., of Huntington Beach, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 48,000 pairs of Quiksilver and Roxy Girl lounge pants.

The company said these lounge pants fail to meet the children's
sleepwear flammability standards, posing a risk of burn injury
to children, due to the possible ignition of the garment.  These
garments were not labeled or marketed as sleepwear, but because
they are children's loungewear, they must meet the children's
sleepwear flammability standards.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled loungewear was sold in girls and boys sizes 7
through 14 in plaid, camouflage, floral and heart print patterns
with elastic or drawstring waistbands.  Girls' items are labeled
"Roxy Girl" and boys' items are labeled "Quiksilver".  

For specific information on which models are included in this
recall, consumers should contact the firm.

These lounge pants were manufactured in the U.S., India and
Macao, China and are being sold in surf and skate shops,
specialty stores, and department stores nationwide including
Macy's, McCalou's, Nordstrom, Nordstrom Rack, Quiksilver and
Roxy retail stores and outlets, from September 2003 through
January 2006 for between $20 and $50.

Pictures of recalled lounge pants:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06228a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06228b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06228c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06228d.jpg

Parents are advised to stop their children from wearing the
recalled lounge pants immediately and return them to the place
of purchase for a refund.  If consumers are unable to return
their recalled item back to the place of purchase, they should
contact the firm.

For information, consumers should contact Quiksilver Consumer
Affairs at (800) 576-4004 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., PT, or E-
mail: channels@quiksilver.com.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Settles Ill. FLSA Violations Suit for $8.5M
------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. reached an $8.5 million settlement in a
purported class action alleging violations of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.  

On Oct. 31, 2002, Alphonse L. Perez and Douglas G. Phillips
brought this lawsuit against the company on behalf of themselves
and all other past and present employees of RadioShack who were
designated, paid, or employed as "Y" Store Managers in the U.S.
within the past three years, and who have not already had their
claims for overtime previously adjudicated (Class Action
Reporter, April 20, 2006).

The suit alleges a claim under FLSA.  This lawsuit alleges that
RadioShack has and continues to have a policy of requiring their
employees in the "Y" Store Manager position to work in excess of
40 hours per week without paying them overtime compensation as
required by federal wage and hour laws.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
including the interest thereon, statutory penalties, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated current and former "Y" Store Managers.

Prior to the commencement of the Perez trial in June 2006, the
company reached a tentative settlement agreement with counsel
for the Perez plaintiffs and four other wage-hour lawsuits
pending against the company.

The global settlement, if finalized, will result in a payment by
the company of approximately $8.5 million, in the aggregate, to
resolve all five of the pending lawsuits.  The settlement amount
was recognized during the quarter ended June 30, 2006.  The
respective courts will need to approve the tentative settlement.

The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation, Case No.
02 C 7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy J. Touhy, Esq., Daniel K. Touhy, Esq., James B.
         Zouras, Esq., and Ryan F. Stephan, Esq., of Touhy &
         Touhy, LTD., 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210,
         Chicago, Illinois 60601,Phone: (877) 372-2209, Fax:
         (312) 456-3838, E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com Web site:
         http://www.radioshackclassaction.com,and  

     (2) Peter M. Callahan, Esq., Robert W. Thompson, Esq. and
         Lee A. Sherman, Esq. of Callahan, McCune & Willis, 111
         Fashion Lane, Tustin, California, 92780, Phone: (714)
         730-5700, Fax: (714) 730-1642, E-mail:
         classaction@cmwlaw.net.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Edward W. Bergmann, Esq., Justin M. Crawford, Esq.,
         Brian J. Hipp, Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe
         Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, Phone:
         (312) 346-8000, Fax: (312) 269-8869; and

    (ii) Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq., Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., and
         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq., of McKenna, Long & Aldridge,
         LLP, 750 B Street, Suite 3300, San Diego, California,
         92101, Phone: (619) 595-5400, Fax: (619) 595-5450, E-
         mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com, Web site:
         http://www.radioshackovertimelawsuits.com.


RJR TOBACCO: Amendment Sought for "Tatum" Complaint in N.C. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are seeking to amend their complaint in the class
action, "Tatum v. The RJR Pension Investment Committee of the RJ
Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina.  RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. is an operating segment
of Reynolds American, Inc.

On May 13, 2002, an employee of the company filed the class
action, alleging that the defendants, including the company, the
RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment
Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.,
subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to
as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco
business and food business.

As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously
related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for
the now separate tobacco and food businesses.

Plaintiff contends that the defendants violated ERISA by not
overriding an amendment to RJR's 401(k) plan requiring that,
prior to Feb. 1, 2000, the stock funds of the companies involved
in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred
to as Nabisco, be eliminated as investment options from RJR's
401(k) plan.

In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things,
that the court issue an order requiring the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

On July 29, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which the court granted on Dec. 10, 2003.  On Jan. 7, 2004, the
plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, which, on Dec. 14, 2004, reversed the dismissal of the
complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Jan. 20, 2005, the defendants filed a second motion to
dismiss on other grounds, which remains pending.  On Feb. 6,
2006, the court entered an order staying the ruling on the
defendants' motion to dismiss for 60 days beginning on Feb. 8,
2006, to allow the parties to engage in limited discovery.
The period of limited discovery has ended.

The parties have since filed supplemental briefs regarding the
motion to dismiss.  On June 6, 2006, the plaintiff filed a
motion to amend the complaint to name as party defendants six
individuals who were members of the two defendant committees.

The suit is "Tatum v. R.J.R. Pension, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00373-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lisa Belenky of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C.,
         1330 Broadway, Ste. 1800, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone:
         510-839-6824;

     (2) Robert M. Elliot of Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., 426 Old
         Salem Rd., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone: 336-724-
         2828, Fax: 336-714-4499, E-mail: rmelliot@epmlaw.com;
         and

     (3) James M. Fingerg of Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 275 Battery St., 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000.

Representing the defendants is Adam H. Charnes of Kilpatrick
Stockton, L.L.P., 1001 W. Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101.
Phone: 336-607-7382, Fax: 336-734-2602, E-mail:
acharnes@kilpatrickstockton.com.


RJR TOBACCO: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Simon (II)" Smokers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entered a final judgment dismissing the smoker class action, "In
re Simon (II) Litigation," which names RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
an operating segment of Reynolds American, Inc., and its
affiliates as defendants.

The class action was about taking all of the legal claims of
individuals with specific cigarette smoking-caused injuries
diagnosed since April 9, 1993 and before some time in the future
when official notice to the class is sent, and the estates of
those who died as a result of such injuries, and consolidating
all of their claims for punitive damages against the major U.S.
tobacco companies into a single case.

In Simon (II), on Sept. 19, 2002, Jack B. Weinstein certified a
nationwide mandatory, non-opt-out punitive damages class.  
On Feb. 14, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit granted the defendants' petition to review the class
certification decision.  

On May 6, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, decertified the class.   On
Aug. 8, 2005, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing and remanded the case for further proceedings to the
District Court.  

On Feb. 6, 2006, Judge Weinstein entered an order dismissing the
case, but stayed the order for 30 days to give the class
representatives, now individual plaintiffs an opportunity to
retain new counsel.

On March 20, 2006, the court entered final judgment dismissing
the case.  The class did not appeal.

The suit is "In re Simon (II) Litigation, Case No. 1:00-cv-
05332-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein with referral
under Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven E. Fineman of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
         Bernstein, LL, 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York,
         NY 10017, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-
         mail: sfineman@lchb.com; and

     (2) Gregory T. Arnold of Brown Rudnick Freed & Gesmer, One
         Financial Center, Boston, Ma 02111, Phone: (617) 856-
         8200.

Representing the defendants are:
     
     (i) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citicorp Center
         Citigroup Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY
         10022-4675, Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900,
         E-mail: peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com;

    (ii) David S. Eggert of Arnold & Porter of 555 Twelfth
         Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202)
         942-5000.


RJR TOBACCO: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., an operating segment of Reynolds
American, Inc., along with other cigarette manufacturers remain
defendants in California cases, alleging violations of the
state's business and professions code.

The suits, both filed in San Diego Superior Court, are:

      -- "Daniels v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.;" and

      -- "Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc."

On Nov. 30, 2000, in "Daniels," a San Diego Superior Court
judge, based on a California unfair business practices statute,
certified a class consisting of all persons who, as California
resident minors, smoked one or more cigarettes in California
between April 2, 1994 and Dec. 1, 1999.

The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment
on preemption and First Amendment grounds and dismissed the
action on Oct. 21, 2002.  On Oct. 6, 2004, the California Court
of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the
trial court.  

On Feb. 16, 2005, the California Supreme Court granted the
plaintiffs' petition for review.  Briefing is complete.  Oral
argument has not been scheduled.

In "Brown," the same judge in San Diego granted in part the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on April 11, 2001.
The class is composed of residents of California who smoked at
least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10, 1993
through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California.

Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.  

The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.

Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in
California that changed the law regarding cases of this nature,
the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class.

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 19, 2005.  Oral
argument was scheduled Aug. 14, 2006.

Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc.
(NYSE: RAI) -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a  
primarily a holding company, whose wholly owned operating
subsidiary, RJR Tobacco is a cigarette manufacturer in the U.S.  
RJR Tobacco's cigarette brands include Camel, Kool, Doral,
Winston, Salem, Pall Mall, Eclipse, Misty, Capri, Carlton,
Vantage, More And Now.


RJR TOBACCO: Still Faces "Lights" Litigation in Seven States
------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., an operating segment of Reynolds
American, Inc., along with other cigarette manufacturers remain
defendants in "lights" class actions that are pending in
Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Florida, Washington
and New York.  

The cases are generally alleging that the use of the term
"lights" in cigarettes constitutes unfair and deceptive trade
practices.  

                        Illinois Cases

On Nov. 14, 2001, in" Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," an
Illinois state court judge (Madison County) certified a class
defined as "all persons who purchased defendants' Doral Lights,
Winston Lights, Salem Lights and Camel Lights, in Illinois, for
personal consumption, between the first date that defendants
sold Doral Lights, Winston Lights, Salem Lights and Camel Lights
through the date the court certifies this suit as a class
action...."

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris' appeal of the "Price v. Philip Morris
case."

On July 11, 2003, the judge denied the motion, and RJR Tobacco
appealed to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals.  The
Court of Appeals denied this motion on Oct. 17, 2003.

However, on Oct. 24, 2003, a justice on the Illinois Supreme
Court ordered an emergency stay of all proceedings pending
review by the entire Illinois Supreme Court of RJR Tobacco's
emergency stay/supremacy order request filed on Oct. 15, 2003.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.  

On Dec. 18, 2001, in "Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.," another Madison County, Illinois state court judge
certified a class defined as "all persons who purchased
Defendant's Misty Lights, GPC Lights, Capri Lights and Kool
Lights cigarettes in Illinois for personal consumption, from the
first date that Defendant sold Misty Lights, GPC Lights, Capri
Lights and Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois through this
date."

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all
proceedings pending resolution of the "Price v. Philip Morris
case.".

The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's
stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.

                         Missouri Cases

A "lights" class action is pending against each of RJR Tobacco
and Brown & Williamson in Missouri.  On Dec. 31, 2003, in
Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a Missouri state court
judge in St. Louis certified a class defined as "all persons who
purchased defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem
Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri for personal
consumption between the first date the defendants placed their
Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston
Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce through the date
of this Order."

On Jan. 14, 2004, the company as the only named defendant
removed this case to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  On Sept. 30, 2004, the case was remanded
to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis.

On Sept. 23, 2005, RJR Tobacco again removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, based
on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's Aug. 25,
2005 decision in "Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.,"
which upheld the federal officers removal statute as a basis for
removal in "lights" cases.  The plaintiffs' motion to remand was
granted on April 18, 2006.

In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," the company
removed the case to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005.  On Oct. 25, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted on March
17, 2006, returning the case back to the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis.

                         New York Case

"Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a nationwide
"lights" class action, was filed on May 11, 2004, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the
company, as well as other tobacco manufacturers.  

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and summary judgment
motions by both sides were heard on Sept. 12, 2005 and Sept. 13,
2005.

Although trial was scheduled to commence on Jan. 9, 2006, the
court decided to permit several months of additional discovery
before deciding the class certification issue.

Defendants' motions for summary judgment, the plaintiffs'
supplemental brief in support of class certification and various
other motions were filed on June 9, 2006, and are scheduled to
be heard on Aug. 14, 2006.


                        Louisiana Cases

The company removed two Louisiana "lights" class actions to
federal court.  In "Harper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," on
Jan. 27, 2005, the federal judge denied the plaintiffs' motions
to remand.

Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the motion, and on July 17,
2006, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's order.  On June 17, 2005, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for
summary judgment based on federal preemption.  

In "Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," the company
filed a similar motion for summary judgment on July 5, 2005.  On
Sept. 14, 2005, the court granted the motion in part by
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' Louisiana Unfair Trade
and Consumer Protection Act claims.  The remainder of the motion
was denied.  On Dec. 2, 2005, the judge denied the motion for
reconsideration, but the judge granted an immediate appeal.

In January 2006, a petition was filed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for permission to appeal, which
was granted on Feb. 10, 2006.  Briefing is complete.  Oral
argument has not been scheduled.

                        Minnesota Cases

In "Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," a Minnesota state court
judge dismissed the case on May 11, 2005, because the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempt the "lights"
claims.  

On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Minnesota Court of Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District.
During the pendency of the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, based
on "Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc."

On Oct. 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which
was denied on Feb. 14, 2006.  On March 7, 2006, the parties
requested that the case be transferred to the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which was granted on March 9,
2006.

Plaintiffs may address the remand decision in the appeal of the
preemption ruling.  Briefing is complete.  Oral argument has not
been scheduled.

In "Thompson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," also pending in
Minnesota, RJR Tobacco removed the case on Sept. 23, 2005 to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, also based on
"Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc."  On Oct. 21, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was denied on Feb.
14, 2006.

                          Washington Case

In "Huntsberry v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Washington)," the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied on April
21, 2006.  On July 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
discretionary review. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 25, 2006.

                           Florida Case

Finally, in "Rios v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Florida)," the
case is dormant pending plaintiffs' counsel's attempt to appeal
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal's decertification in
"Hines v. Philip Morris, Inc."

                         Price Litigation

A "lights" class action is pending in the same jurisdiction in
Illinois against Philip Morris, "Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.,"
formerly known as "Miles v. Philip Morris, Inc."  

Trial began on Jan. 21, 2003.  On March 21, 2003, the trial
judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of
$7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages to the State of Illinois.

Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of
the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.  Because of the
difficulty of posting a bond of that magnitude, Philip Morris
pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement.  

On April 14, 2003, the trial judge reduced the amount of the
bond.  He ordered the bond to be secured by $800 million,
payable in four equal quarterly installments beginning in
September 2003, and a pre-existing $6 billion long-term note to
be placed in escrow pending resolution of the case.

The plaintiffs appealed the judge's decision to reduce the
amount of the bond.  On July 14, 2003, the appeals court ruled
that the trial judge exceeded his authority in reducing the bond
and ordered the trial judge to reinstate the original bond.

On Sept. 16, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered that the
reduced bond be reinstated and agreed to hear Philip Morris'
appeal without need for intermediate appellate court review.  

On Dec. 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower
state court's decision and sent the case back to the lower court
with instructions to dismiss the case.

On May 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay mandate
until final disposition of their petition for certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court.  The motion was granted on May 19, 2006.  

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees, lose
the Turner or Howard cases, or one or more of the other pending
"lights" class actions, it could face similar bonding
difficulties depending upon the amount of damages ordered, if
any, which could have a material adverse effect on RJR
Tobacco's, and consequently Reynolds American Inc.'s results of
operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc.
(NYSE: RAI) -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a  
primarily a holding company, whose wholly owned operating
subsidiary, RJR Tobacco is a cigarette manufacturer in the U.S.  
RJR Tobacco's cigarette brands include Camel, Kool, Doral,
Winston, Salem, Pall Mall, Eclipse, Misty, Capri, Carlton,
Vantage, More And Now.


ROYAL BANK: Former Execs Told to Give Depositions in Enron Case
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Three former executives of Royal Bank of Canada have been served
with papers requiring them to give depositions on Sept. 28, 2006
in a class action against the company over Enron Corp.'s
bankruptcy, according to The Guardian.  

The suit against Royal Bank was launched two years ago by the
regents of the University of California, which lost more than
CA$144 million on Enron shares when the energy firm collapsed in
2001.

The suit was filed on behalf of people who bought Enron stock
and bonds between Jan. 9, 1999, and Nov. 27, 2001.  The bank is
accused of participating in manipulative or deceptive devices to
inflate Enron's reported profits and financial condition.

David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby, who joined Royal
Bank because of the takeover of their former employer Greenwich
NatWest in 2000, are accused of helping put together an auction
of a 20-year power purchase agreements by the Canadian province
in which Enron was a successful bidder.  Enron allegedly used
complex accounting to avoid putting the transaction on its
balance sheet.

Royal Bank failed to have the case dismissed last December.  It
continues to deny allegations in the civil suit.

The three, all British citizens, are accused of embezzling $7.3
million from their former employer, National Westminster Bank.  
They were extradited from Britain in July.  Royal is not
implicated in the criminal case.

                         Case Background  

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP attorneys filed a consolidated class action against Enron
Corp. in the U.S. District Court in Houston.  The suit seeks
relief for purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt
securities between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.  

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and
directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations
of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants
engaged in massive insider trading while making false and
misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.   

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed  
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.  

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The U.S. District Court in Houston has denied a number of
motions to dismiss Lerach Coughlin's securities litigation.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery and motion practice;
depositions began in the summer of 2004, according to the law
firm.

                         Lead Plaintiff  

The lead plaintiff is the University of California Regents.

                           Settlements

The lead plaintiff has reached settlements with Lehman Brothers,
Bank of America, the Outside Directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan
Chase and CIBC totaling over $7 billion for investors.  The
court granted on May 24 final approval for three banks to pay
$6.6 billion to settle civil claims of conspiracy with Enron.

The deal was made by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Inc.  It brings the
settlement to a total of $7.3 billion, including interest.   

The banks entered these settlements last year:  

        CIBC           $2.4 billion   
        JPMorgan       $2.2 billion   
        Citigroup      $2 billion   

Previously some $500 million of settlements had been reached
with Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Bank of America Corp.,
Andersen Worldwide, and 18 former outside Enron directors.  

                     Non-settling Defendants  

The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,   
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,   
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.  

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.    
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.     

Representing the defendants are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and    
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:    
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and    
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,    
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Court Asks for Trade Tapes in Gas Pricing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager asked Sempra Energy
and several other energy companies to provide tapes of natural
gas trades they executed during the energy crisis of 2000-01,
reports say.  The proposed order would require the companies to
submit 100 hours each of the trading tapes that they keep to
maintain a record of deals.

The order is in relation to a suit filed against energy
companies by 16 plaintiffs, including the city and county of San
Diego, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the
University of California and Cal State University systems,
Alameda County and Santa Clara County.

Defendants in the suit are Sempra, Duke Energy Corp., EnCana
Corp. and Reliant Energy Inc., Williams Cos., Aquila and Coral
Energy among others.  The suit alleges that the companies
routinely misrepresented the price of natural gas trades and
engaged in bogus trading in an effort to rig prices during the
energy crisis.  

The case is reportedly related to an antitrust class action that
Sempra settled earlier this year.  Under it, Sempra agreed to
pay $325 million to Southern California utility customers.

Plaintiffs' attorney in the current suit estimate a potential
judgment of up to $1 billion should damages be trebled.

Representing the plaintiffs is Nanci Nishimura, a partner with
the Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy law firm. On the Net:
http://www.cpsmlaw.com/.  


SPX CORP: N.C. Court Considers Motions in ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on the motions to dismiss class
certification in the lawsuit against SPX Corp. alleging breaches
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The suit also names as defendants the company's then general
counsel, and the Administrative Committee.  It concerns one of
the company's 401(k) defined contribution benefit plans arising
from the plan's holding of company stock.

On April 23, 2004, a class complaint seeking unspecified
monetary damages was on behalf of participants in the company's
employee benefit plans.  

On June 10, 2005 a first amended complaint was filed in the
ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current and former
directors and Administrative Committee members.  

The first amended complaint generally tracks the factual
allegations in the securities class action.

On July 25, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended ERISA complaint in its entirety.  That motion is fully
briefed for ruling by the District Court.  

On Sept. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs moved the court to certify the
proposed class in the ERISA suit.  The company opposed that
motion and it is fully briefed for ruling by the District Court.

The suit is "Reichert v. SPX Corp., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00192," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc L. Ackerman, Jason L. Brodsky and Brodsky & Smith,
         LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,  
         Phone: 610/667-6200;

     (2) Todd Collins and Sheryl S. Levy of Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365,
         Phone: 215/875-3040; and

     (3) Geraldine Sumter of Ferguson, Stein, Chambers, Adkins,
         Gresham & Sumter, P.A., P.O. Box 36486, Charlottte, NC
         28236-6486, Phone: 704-375 8461, Fax: 704-334 5654, E-
         mail: gsumter@fergusonstein.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Ross B. Bricker, Ronald L. Marmer and Anton R. Valukas
         of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-
         3608, Phone: 312/923-4524; and

    (ii) David Calep Wright, III and Julian Hugh Wright, Jr. of
         Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., 101 N. Tryon Street,
         Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246, Phone: 704-377-8322
         and 704-377-8352, Fax: 704-373-3922 and 704-373-3952,
         E-mail: dwright@rbh.com and jwright@rbh.com.


SPX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of N.C. Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western District of North Carolina has yet to rule on a
motion by SPX Corp. to dismiss a consolidated class actions
filed against it and certain of its current and former executive
officers.

Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints
seeking unspecified monetary damages were filed or announced by
certain law firms representing or seeking to represent
purchasers of company common stock during a specified period
against the company and certain of its current and former
executive officers.  

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs generally
allege that the company made false and misleading statements
regarding the forecast of its 2003 fiscal year business and
operating results in order to artificially inflate the price of
its stock.  

These complaints were consolidated into a single amended
complaint against the company and its former chairman, chief
executive officer and president.  

On Sept. 20, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action in its entirety.  That motion is fully
briefed for ruling by the District Court.

The suit is "Belafey, et al. v. SPX Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:04cv99," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747,
         Phone: 631/367-7100; and

     (2) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th
         St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/983-9330.

Representing the company are:

     (i) David C. Wright, III, and Julian H. Wright of Robinson,
         Bradshaw & Hinson, PA, Mail: 101 No Tryon St., Suite
         1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 USA, Phone: 704-377-2536; and

    (ii) Ross B. Bricker, Anton R. Valukas and Ronald L. Malmer
         of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-
         3608, Phone: 312/923-4524.


STANDARD FIRE: Nov. Hearing Set for "Melvin Simon" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court Of Richmond County, Georgia will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 6, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
$24,780,000 settlement in the matter, "Melvin Simon &
Associates, Inc., et al., v. Standard Fire Insurance Company, et
al., Case No. 97-RCCV-28."

The hearing will be at the Richmond County Superior Court, City-
County Municipal Building, 530 Greene Street, Room 321, Augusta,
Georgia 30911.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Oct. 5, 2006.  Deadline for submission of proof of claim
is on Jan. 8, 2007.

The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of a loss-
sensitive workers' compensation insurance policy with an
inception, effective, or renewal date from Jan. 1, 1985, through
and including Dec. 31, 2003.

Several companies initiated this lawsuit in 1997 against
insurance companies that sold loss-sensitive workers'
compensation insurance policies, as defined in Section 3 of this
Notice.  They also sued the National Council on Compensation
Insurance, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim that the insurance company defendants, as part
of a conspiracy with the NCCI, made improper charges, including
charges that were not authorized under the filings the insurance
companies made with insurance regulatory authorities.  The
insurance companies and the NCCI have denied any wrongdoing.  
The court has not decided the claims in the lawsuit.

Beginning in 1997, companies represented by the same lawyers
filed similar lawsuits in thirteen other courts.  State courts
in Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky
and Pennsylvania and a federal court in Florida have dismissed
all claims plaintiffs asserted in those lawsuits.  

Courts in Arizona, Illinois, and Tennessee have dismissed many
of the plaintiffs' claims, including the claims of conspiracy
between the insurance companies and the NCCI.   None of the
lawsuits has been tried, and none of them have ever been
certified as a class action.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Loss Sensitive Workers Comp, Settlement Administrator,
         PO Box 3207, Portland, OR 97208-3207, Phone: 1-800-420-
         2912, Web site: http://losssensitiveworkerscomp.com/;
         and

     (2) John C. Bell, Jr. of Bell & James, 945 Broad Street,
         3rd Floor, PO Box 1547, Augusta, Georgia 30903-1547,
         (Richmond Co.), Phone: 706-722-2014, Fax: 706-722-7552,
         Web site: http://www.belljames.com.


STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. and several of its officers remain defendants
in a consolidated class action pending in U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H. Beer, D.
Peter Canty and James H. Prince.  Three similar complaints were
filed after.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005 and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, defendants,
among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:

     (1) that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

     (2) that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were
consolidated into "In re: Stone Energy Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on or
about June 14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims
similar to those described above and expands the putative class
period to commence on May 2, 2001 and to end on March 10, 2006.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker
L. Melancon with referral Mildred E. Methvin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lewis S. Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, 650 Poydras
         St., Ste. 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-648-
         1850, Fax: 504-455-1498, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com;
         and

     (2) Mitchell J. Hoffman of Lowe Stein, et al., 701 Poydras
         St., Ste. 3600, New Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: 504-581-
         2450, Fax: 504-581-2461, E-mail: mhoffman@lshah.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Walter B. Stuart, IV, of Vinson & Elkins, 666 5th Ave.,
         26th Fl., New York, NY 10103, US, Phone: 212-237-0000,
         Fax: 212-237-0100, E-mail: wstuart@velaw.com; and

    (ii) Amy E. Allums of Johnson Gray McNamara, P.O. Box 51165,
         Lafayette, LA 70505, Phone: 337-412-6003, Fax: 337-412-
         6037, E-mail: aea@jgmclaw.com.


STONE ENERGY: Class Status Sought for Derivative Lawsuit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint in a derivative action that was filed in the 15th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana by
Gregory Sakhno against Stone Energy Corp. was amended to become
a class action as well.

The suit named the company as a nominal defendant.  David Welch,
Kenneth Beer, Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John
Laborde, Peter Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi,
David Voelker, Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard
were named as defendants in the action.

It alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against all
defendants, and claims of unjust enrichment and insider selling
against certain individual defendants.

On April 22, 2006, the complaint in the action was amended to
also be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders of the
company.

Lafayette, Louisiana-based Stone Energy Corp. (NYSE: SGY) --
http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an independent oil and gas  
company engaged in the acquisition and subsequent exploration,
development, operation and production of oil and gas properties
located in the conventional shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the
deep shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the deepwater of the Gulf of
Mexico, Rocky Mountain Basins and the Williston Basin.


TARGET: Recalls Mini Angel Food Cakes with Undeclared Egg Whites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Target of Minneapolis, Minnesota is recalling SuperTarget brand
Mini Angel Food cakes that were purchased before Aug. 5, 2006 as
they contain an undeclared dried egg white ingredient.  

People with an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The recalled item is SuperTarget or ARCHER FARMS Mini Angel Food
6-pack, 9.52 oz with "Sell By dates prior to 08/15/06" printed
on the white label.  This item may have an ARCHER FARMS sticker
on the package.  

Affected UPC Codes include 59608-00465, 32479-20399, 32479-
30350, 32479-60299, 32479-70349, 32479-80798.

The recalled item was sold at SuperTarget retail stores
nationwide within the in-store Bakery area.  

One illness has been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Anyone concerned about an illness related to this
product should contact a physician immediately.

Upon awareness of the issue, the ingredient statement was
corrected to include the missing Dried Egg White ingredient.  
Product with Sell By dates of 08/15/06 and after have the
corrected ingredient statement, which includes Dried Egg White
and also lists Egg within the allergen Contain statement.

Consumers who have purchased this item are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact Target Guest Relations at 1-800-316-6151.


TOYOTA MOTOR: N.J. Appellate Division Sides With Firm in "Jorge"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey
issued an order vacating the trial court's certification of the
class and reversing the denial of Toyota Motor Insurance
Services' Motion for Summary Judgment in the purported consumer
fraud class action, "Jorge v. Toyota Motor Insurance Services."

Filed in November 2002, the suit claims that the TMIS Gold Plan
Vehicle Service Agreement (VSA) is unconscionable on its face
and violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

In September 2004, the case was certified as a class action
consisting of all New Jersey consumers who purchased a TMIS Gold
Plan VSA.  The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief as well
as actual damages and treble damages in an unspecified amount.

In May 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling
granting TMIS' motion for leave to appeal the trial court's
denial of TMIS' motion for summary judgment.  The case has been
remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration on the
merits.

In an opinion dated Aug. 1, 2006, the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court of New Jersey issued a decision vacating the
trial court's certification of the class and reversing the
denial of TMIS' Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Appellate
Division remanded the matter to the trial court for the entry of
judgment in favor of TMIS.

Torrance, California-based Toyota Motor Insurance Services --
http://www.toyotafinancial.com/-- offers credit insurance,  
extended service contracts, and other vehicle protection plans.
It is part of the worldwide financial services operations for
Toyota Financial Services Corp., which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan.


WESTPOINT CORP: Stater & Gordon Builds up Lawsuit Over Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five hundred people have signed up in a class action being
organized by Stater & Gordon and funded by IMF Australia
concerning the collapse of Australia-based company Westpoint
Corp., according to The Age.

Slater & Gordon is pursuing a suit against two financial planner
of Westpoint: the nation's largest, Bongiorno Group and
Australia's largest network of financial planners, Brisbane-
based Professional Investment Services.

Bongiorno Group is acknowledging fault and offering
compensation.  Its offers range from 10 per cent of money lost
to 50 per cent, according to the report.

IMF indicated it will collect 25 percent of any compensation if
the case is settled before December 2006, 30 percent if before
June 2007 and 40 percent if it's after that time.  The terms
would leave the potential class between 60 and 75 percent of
their money back if they win, the report said.

Meanwhile, the Financial Industry Complaints Service is also
building up a legal claim against the financial advisers.  It
has so far received 210 complaints.  FICS procedures require
that clients must go through their adviser first.

Headquartered in Perth, Western Australia, the Westpoint Group  
-- http://westpoint.com.au/-- is engaged in property  
development and owns or manages retail and commercial properties
with a total value of over AU$300 million.  The Group's troubles
began in 2005 when the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission commenced a series of legal proceedings in relation
to a number of companies within the Westpoint Group.  

ASIC contends that Westpoint projects are suffering from
significant shortfall of assets over liabilities so that
hundreds of investors are at serious risk of not receiving
repayment of their investments.  These investigations were then
followed by the winding up of a number of Westpoint's mezzanine
companies.  ASIC also sought wind-up orders after the Westpoint
companies failed to comply with ASIC's requirement to lodge
accounts for certain financial years.  

The most recent development in the Westpoint battle is the wind-
up order issued by the Federal Court in Perth against Westpoint  
Corporation Pty Ltd.  ASIC applied to wind up the company on
grounds of insolvency.  ASIC believes that Westpoint Corporation
is responsible for arranging, managing and coordinating  
Westpoint Group's property projects as well as holding money for
other group companies.  ASIC was concerned that Westpoint
Corporation was unable to pay its debts, including its
obligations under the guarantees given to the mezzanine
companies to make good expected shortfalls in the repayment of
amounts owed to investors.

The Westpoint Group's collapse is considered by many as the
largest of its type in recent years, with small investors being
the biggest group affected.

On the Net:
Professional Investment Services: http://www.profinvest.com.au/;
Bongiorno Group on the Net: http://www.bongiorno.com.au/.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IMAX CORP: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
IMAX Corp. between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 10,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


IMAX CORP: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No.
06-cv-6313) 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 investigated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) 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 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 price of the stock.

The Complaint alleges that to affect a sale or merger of IMAX,
and to gain as high a 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 accepted accounting principles.

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

For morew details, contact Virgillio Soler of Wechsler Harwood
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Phone: 877-
935-7400, E-mail: vsoler@whesq.com.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock and other securities of Parlux Fragrances Inc.
between Feb. 8, 2006 and Aug. 10, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that Parlux and certain officers and
directors violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Further, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued highly positive statements in an effort to
create the impression that Parlux's revenues were growing and
the company was well positioned to generate strong profits. In
response, Parlux stock traded at over $37 per share (prior to a
stock split) during the Class Period.

Starting in June 2006, the truth about the company's declining
sales and accounting issues were revealed in a series of
disclosures indicating that:

      -- contrary to prior public statements, Parlux's sales
         were declining materially, including sales to related
         parties; and

      -- the company suffered from internal control issues with
         respect to its financial reporting, causing Parlux to
         delay the filing of its quarterly and Annual Report.

On Aug. 10, 2006, the company issued yet another shocking
announcement, that Parlux's profit for the quarter ended June
30, 2006 would be far less than guidance sponsored or endorsed
by defendants.

On this news, Parlux stock plunged from $8.16 a share to $4.78 -
- a decline of over 40% on unusually high volume of over 5
million shares traded.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Oct. 16,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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.  


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Saxena White Announces Fla. Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. announced that a complaint was filed against
Parlux Fragrances Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, accusing the company of
securities law violations.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Parlux securities
from Feb. 8, 2006 through and including Aug. 10, 2006.

Based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Parlux is a manufacturer and
distributor of fragrances and beauty products.

The lawsuit claims that Parlux, its Chief Executive Officer Ilia
Lekach, and its Chief Financial Officer Frank Buttacavoli,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Further, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued highly positive statements in an effort to
create the impression that Parlux's revenues were growing and
the company was well positioned to generate strong profits.

In response, Parlux stock traded at over $37 per share (prior to
a stock split) during the Class Period. Starting in June 2006,
the truth about the Company's declining sales and accounting
issues were revealed in a series of disclosures indicating that:

      -- contrary to prior public statements, Parlux's sales
         were declining materially, including sales to related
         parties; and

      -- the company suffered from internal control issues with
         respect to its financial reporting, causing Parlux to
         delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
         the year ended March 31, 2006, and delaying its
         quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
         June 30, 2006.

Prior to revealing this information, defendants and company
insiders sold over $13 million worth of their Parlux holdings.

On Aug. 10, 2006, the company issued yet another shocking
announcement, that Parlux's profit for the quarter ended June
30, 2006 would be far less than the investing public had been
led to believe, due mainly to lower sales to U.S. department
stores and related parties.

On this news, Parlux stock plunged from $8.16 a share to $4.78,
a drop of over 40% on unusually high volumes of over 5 million
shares traded -- vastly higher than the Company's average
trading volume of around 1.1 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Saxena White P.A., Phone: (800) 361-
5096, E-mail: amccook@saxenawhite.com.  


WITNESS SYSTEMS: Brower Piven Announces 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 Witness Systems, Inc.
(WITS) between April 23, 2004 and Aug. 11, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against Witness Systems, Inc. and certain of
its current and/or former officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated Section 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 materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.  No class has yet
been certified in the above action.

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


                            *********


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  * * *