CAR_Public/060822.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 166

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ill. Judge Refuses to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
AMERICAN HOME: Suspension of Lawyers in Fen-Phen Suit Pressed
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overbilling Suit in Wash.
AVICI SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Recalls Frameworx Chairs, Stools for Repair

CAREER EDUCATION: Dismisses Recent Complaint of Securities Fraud
CISCO SYSTEMS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $91M
DELL INC: Recalls Notebook Batteries at Risk of Overheating
DIVERSIA CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls Power Extension Cords Posing Shock Hazard

EDINA REALTY: Accused of Overcharging Title Insurance Customers
EL PASO: Continues to Face Colo. ERISA, Age Discrimination Suit
EL PASO: Continues to Face Multiple Natural Gas Litigations
EL PASO: Parties Seek Resolution to Tex. ERISA Violations Suit
EL PASO: Settles Multiple Lawsuits in Okla. Over Shallow Wells

EL PASO: Unit Faces La. Suit for Hurricane Katrina, Rita Damages
FIDELITY FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement in Fla. DPPA Lawsuits
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Still Faces Litigation Over ROA Insurance
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Still Faces N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
GUAM: Court to Rule on COLA Increases Owed to Retirees by Sept.

HOSPITAL CORP: Sues Plaintiff Attorney in Kans. Consumer Lawsuit
ILLINOIS: District U46 Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit
INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Settles Suits Over Philips Holding Deal
JAKKS PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
KORIKA INT'L: Recalls Dried Mushrooms with Undeclared Sulfites

LEVEL 3: Opt Out Deadline in "Salomon Analyst" Suit Set Aug. 31
LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until October 2006
LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Stayed Until October 2006
MASSACHUSETTS: Medford Sued Over Govt. Retirees Health Insurance
MARU BAKERY: Recalls Kolo Roasted Barley with Undeclared Peanuts

MICROSOFT CORP: Fla. Schools to Get $80M in Technology Vouchers
OKLAHOMA: Lawsuit Over Hissom Memorial Back to Federal Court
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Appellants File Documents in "Brody" Suit
RJR TOBACCO: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in Kansas
RJR TOBACCO: Faces Medical Monitoring Suits in W.Va., Ore., La.

SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement of Racial Bias Suits to Cost $11.4M


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROADCOM CORP: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
CENTENE CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Stock Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Securities Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
SCOTTISH RE: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

WITNESS SYSTEMS: Kahn Gauthier Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ill. Judge Refuses to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman denied a motion by
Abbott Laboratories Inc. to dismiss claims it misled workers out
of retirement benefits when it spun off its hospital equipment
business in 2004 into Hospira Inc., Reuters reports.  He,
however, dismissed Hospira's motion to dismiss the claim because
Hospira was not yet in existence when the transaction was made.

The ruling adds a fourth claim accusing Abbot and Hospira of
deliberately hiding from pension plan participants "that their
long-standing defined benefit pension plan would be frozen at
year-end 2004 and that Hospira would not provide any retiree
medical benefit coverage," according to court documents.

Judge Gettleman granted class-action status to the lawsuit late
last year (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2006).  The ruling
allows the suit to cover all Abbott employees shifted to newly
the created Hospira, between August 22, 2003, which is the date
the spinoff was announced and April 30, 2004.  Under the ruling,
Hospira employees who were eligible to retire from Abbott when
their jobs were eliminated are also included.

The suit was filed on November 8, 2004 by three former Abbott
employees.  They were represented by the law firm Sprenger &
Lang PLLC and Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica.  The attorneys
then estimated that the number of former employees eligible to
participate in the suit might exceed 10,000 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 6, 2006).

The suit claims that North Chicago-based company spun off the
unit containing many of its older workers because they were near
to claiming rich retirement benefits from Abbott.

The plaintiffs allege their transfer to Hospira as part of the
spin-off of the company, adversely affected their employee
benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.  Plaintiffs seek reinstatement as company employees, or
reinstatement as participants in the company's employee benefit
plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly
lost (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2005).   

The suit is "Nauman, et al. v. Abbott Labs, et al.," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Robert W. Gettleman with referral to Judge
Geraldine Soat Brown.

Representing the plaintiffs is Paul William Mollica of Meites,
Mulder, Burger & Mollica, 208 South LaSalle St., Suite 1410,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272, E-mail:
pwmollica@mmbmlaw.com.
  
Representing the defendants are: William Denby Heinz of Jenner  
& Block, LLC, One IBM Plaza, 330 North Wabash Ave., 40th Floor,  
Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E-mail:  
wheinz@jenner.com; and James F. Hurst of Winston & Strawn, 35  
West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:  
(312) 558-5600, E-mail: jhurst@winston.com.   


AMERICAN HOME: Suspension of Lawyers in Fen-Phen Suit Pressed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Supreme Court held a public hearing recently to
consider suspending licenses of three Lexington lawyers accused
of breaching their fiduciary duty when they diverted more than
$20 million in the settlement of Kentucky's fen-phen lawsuits,
the Herald-Leader reports.

At the hearing, chief bar counsel for the Kentucky Bar
Association, Linda Gosnell, accused the lawyers of getting more
than what their clients had agreed to give them by taking about
$105 million and giving their clients only $74 million.

Frankfort lawyer William E. Johnson, who represents Melbourne
Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion, argued that
his clients knew little about the disbursement of class-action
settlement funds and depended on the wisdom of then-Boone
Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger to decide how to distribute
the money.

Judge Bamberger approved the additional payments and the
creation of the fund.  The Judicial Conduct Commission later
publicly reprimanded him for not properly following judicial
procedures in making the decision.

In 2001, fen-phen maker American Home Products settled a
national class action over its diet drug by paying $200 million.  
Three years later, in 2004, former fen-phen plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit against the lawyers who took their case, asking for a
full accounting of settlement funds.  It turned out that the
three lawyers and their consultants received more money than
their 431 clients.

A judge ruled in March the lawyers had breached their fiduciary
duty by receiving more than their contracts allowed.  Also, by
diverting more than $20 million in settlement money to non-
profit Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living.

According to the lawyers they used case law governing excess
funds in class suits that allow for lawyers to receive
additional fees and also allows for creation of a non-profit
fund from those fees.

The justices have yet to issue a ruling on the temporary
suspension of the three lawyers until an investigation is
complete.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overbilling Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque in Washington denied two
motions that could have dismissed a lawsuit filed against
American Medical Response, Inc., a subsidiary of Emergency  
Medical Services Corp., over its billing practices for ambulance
services, The Columbian News reports.

The ruling allows Spokane residents who have used American
Medical Response ambulances since 1998 to pursue state Consumer
Protection Act and breach of contract claims against the
company, the report said.  It also allowed plaintiffs to ask a
jury a year from now to award "exemplary damages" up to $10,000
for each violation and attorney fees, according to plaintiffs'
lawyer Roger Reed.

The suit was filed in December by Lori E. Davis-Bacon and
Lorraine and Doug Bacon, all of Spokane, alleging the company
overbills hundreds of patients and insurance companies.  The
plaintiffs alleged "unfair and deceptive business practices" in
the city where the company has exclusive contract.

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

In its argument to dismiss the suit, the company said plaintiffs
had failed to prove it had engaged in deceptive business
practices; and that it is the city that has the regulatory power
to monitor its ambulance.

American Medical's attorney is Paul J. Dayton at Short Cressman
& Burgess PLLC, Wells Fargo Center, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98104-4088 (King Co.), Phone: 206-682-3333,
Fax: 206-340-8856.

The plaintiffs' attorney is D. Roger Reed of Reed & Giesa, P.S.
222 North Wall, Suite 410, Spokane, Washington 99201, (Spokane
Co.), Phone: 509-838-8341; Fax: 509-838-6341.  AMR's attorney is
Paul Turner of Seattle.


AVICI SYSTEMS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Avici Systems, Inc., the company said at its Aug. 4, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period ended June 30, 2006.

The company is facing 12 purported securities class actions
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suits are:

      -- "Felzen, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-3363;"

      -- "Lefkowitz, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A.
         No. 01-CV-3541;"

      -- "Lewis, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-3698;"

      -- "Mandel, et. Al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A.
         No. 01-CV-3713;"

      -- "Minai, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-3870;"

      -- "Steinberg, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A.
         No. 01-CV-3983;"

      -- "Pelissier, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A.
         No. 01-CV-4204;"

      -- "Esther, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-4352;"

      -- "Zhous, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc. et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-4494;"

      -- "Mammen, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et. al., C.A.
         No. 01-CV-5722;"

      -- "Lin, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-5674;" and

      -- "Shives, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al.,
         C.A. No. 01-CV-4956."

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action
complaint, which superseded these 12 purported securities class
actions, was filed in the court.  The complaint is captioned "In
re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as
defendants Avici, certain of the underwriters of Avici's initial
public offering, and certain of Avici's officers and directors.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges
violations of the federal securities laws, including among other
things, that the underwriters of Avici's initial public offering
improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters
excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of
Avici's stock in the aftermarket as conditions to receive shares
in Avici's IPO.

The Complaint further claims that these supposed practices of
the underwriters should have been disclosed in Avici's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.

In addition to the complaint against Avici, various other
plaintiffs have filed other substantially similar class actions
against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and
their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along with the
case against Avici have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of case management.

On July 15, 2002, Avici, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual current and former officers and
directors who were named as defendants in the litigation, and
they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to
dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  

In that ruling, the court granted in part and denied in part
those motions.  As to the claims brought against Avici under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the
plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead these claims against
Avici.

As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of
the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud
be pleaded, the court denied the motion to dismiss these claims
as to Avici and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well.  The court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, Avici elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would
result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against Avici and against any of the other issuer
defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement,
together with the current or former officers and directors of
participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.  It
provides that the class members in the class action cases
brought against the participating issuer defendants will be
guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.

In addition, Avici and any other participating issuer defendants
will be required to assign to the class members certain claims
that they may have against the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.  

Avici expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for
these purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to
contribute to the proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditional upon
obtaining approval by the court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
class members.

Thereafter, the court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006,
at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.  
After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

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


BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Recalls Frameworx Chairs, Stools for Repair
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., of Lake Forest, Illinois,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 22,400 units of Frameworx table height chairs
and bar stools.

The company said the down shaft on the seat plate assembly can
fracture, which can cause an occupant of the seat to fall.

Brunswick has received reports of 20 incidents in which the seat
plate assembly has failed.  Three injuries resulting from
falling from a seat have been reported.

The recalled chairs and bar stools were sold under the model
name Frameworx.  The models affected are short table height
chair model number 53-861025-000 and tall bar stool model number
57-860979-000.  The model name and model numbers are not written
on the chairs.  The model number is only written on the original
shipping carton, packing list or invoice.  The chairs and bar
stools have a plastic bucket-style seat bolted to a steel seat
plate assembly that connects to the down tube of the seat.

These chairs and bar stools were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold by distributors of Brunswick Bowling
furniture selling to bowling center operators.  This product was
not sold to the general public.  The chairs were sold from
September 1995 through May 2004.

Pictures of the recalled chairs and bar stools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06572a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06572b.jpg

Bowling centers owning these table height chairs and bar stools
have been directly notified about this recall.  Owners of the
bar stools and table height chairs should stop using these
products immediately and contact Brunswick to receive a free
repair kit.

For more information, call Brunswick at (800) 937-2695 anytime.


CAREER EDUCATION: Dismisses Recent Complaint of Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Career Education Corp. said in papers recently
filed with U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago that the
newest complaint filed by plaintiffs in a securities suit
against the company doesn't fix defects the judge cited in the
court's second dismissal in March, Bloomberg News reports.

Between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, six purported class
actions were filed on behalf of certain purchasers of the
company's common stock.  The complaints alleged that in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made
certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose
certain material facts about the condition of the company's
business and prospects during the putative class periods,
causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the
company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claimed that executive officers John M.
Larson and Patrick K. Pesch are liable as control persons under
Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs asked for unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary
relief.  Five of these lawsuits were found related to the first
filed lawsuit, captioned, "Taubenfeld v. Career Education
Corp., et al. (No. 03 CV 8884)," and were reassigned to the same
judge.

On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases
consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff.
On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder,
as lead counsel.  On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which the company moved to
dismiss on July 30, 2004.

On Feb. 11, 2005, the company's motion to dismiss was granted,
without prejudice.  In addition, the court has issued an order
changing the caption of this matter to "In re Career Education
Corp. Securities Litigation."

On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the company moved to dismiss on May 20, 2005.  Some time
in 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted for the second time the company's motion to
dismiss the action, holding that the plaintiffs had once again
failed to plead a federal securities law violation against the
company.

In its decision, the court gave the plaintiffs until April 17,
2006 to file a third amended complaint.  Shortly before that
deadline, the plaintiffs sought an extension of time, and the
court granted the plaintiffs one last opportunity to file a
third amended complaint by no later than May 1, 2006.

Attorneys for the defendant responded that the newest complaint
failed to address the defects the judge cited in the court's
second dismissal order.

The recent Bloomberg report quoted defense attorneys Mary Ellen
Hennessy and Lee Ann Russo saying: "Managing a company comprised
of 82 unique, accredited institutions is a complicated and
issue-fraught endeavor...[b]ut complications and challenges,
which are at best what plaintiffs have pleaded, do not equate to
securities fraud."

The suit is "In re Career Education Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher
         and Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-4880;

     (2) Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st
         Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222; and

     (3) Andrei V. Rado, Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman,
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania
         Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone:
         (212) 594-5300.

Representing the company are Karl Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin
Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il
60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $91M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc., entered an agreement to resolve the
consolidated shareholder class action filed in 2001 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers.

Under the terms of the settlement, liability insurers for Cisco
and its directors and officers will pay $91.75 million to the
plaintiffs.

The payment will have no impact on Cisco's financial position or
results of operations, as the settlement amount is within
applicable insurance limits.

The agreement is subject to final documentation and court
approval.  The recovery, less fees and expenses, will be
distributed to purchasers of Cisco common stock between Nov. 10,
1999 and Feb. 6, 2001 who timely file valid proofs of claim
under procedures to be implemented by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, which is overseeing the
litigation.

Beginning on April 20, 2001, a number of purported shareholder
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and certain
of its officers and directors.  Plaintiffs allege that
defendants have made false and misleading statements, purport to
assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The suit is "In re: Cisco Systems, Inc., Securities Litigation,
et al., Case No. 5:01-cv-20418-JW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James
Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.  

Counsel for the class is Spencer Burkholz, lead lawyer for
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Gellar, Rudman and Robbins LLP; On the
Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Alice L. Jensen of Fenwick &  
West, LLP, 275 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:  
(415) 875-2300, Fax: (415) 281-1350, E-mail:
ajensen@fenwick.com.


DELL INC: Recalls Notebook Batteries at Risk of Overheating
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc., of Round Rock, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2.7
million Dell-branded lithium-ion battery packs, with an
additional 1.4 million battery packs sold outside the U.S.  The
batteries were made with cells manufactured by Sony.

The company said these lithium-ion batteries can overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Dell has received six reports of batteries overheating,
resulting in property damage to furniture and personal effects.  
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled batteries were sold with or sold separately, to be
used with these Dell notebook computers:

     -- Latitude D410, D500, D505, D510, D520, D600, D610, D620,
        D800, D810;

     -- Inspiron 6000, 8500, 8600, 9100, 9200, 9300, 500m, 510m,
        600m, 6400, E1505, 700m, 710m, 9400, E1705;

     -- Dell Precision M20, M60, M70 and M90 mobile
        workstations; and

     -- XPS, XPS Gen2, XPS M170 and XPS M1710.

"Dell" and one of the following markings are printed on the
batteries: "Made in Japan," "Made in China," or "Battery Cell
Made in Japan Assembled in China."  The identification number
for each battery appears on a white sticker.

These batteries were manufactured in Japan and China by Sony
Energy Devices Corp. and are sold through Dell's Web site, phone
and direct sales as part of a service replacement program, and
catalogs from April 2004 through July 2006.  The computers with
these batteries sold for between $500 and $2850 and individual
batteries sold for between $60 and $180.

Pictures of the recalled lithium-ion batteries and the notebooks
that they are possibly sold with:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06231a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06231b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06231c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06231d.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled batteries
immediately and contact Dell to receive a replacement battery.  
Consumers can continue to use the notebook computers safely by
turning the system off, ejecting the battery, and using the AC
adapter and power cord to power the system until the replacement
battery is received.

For additional information, contact Dell toll-free at (866) 342-
0011 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, visit:
http://www.dellbatteryprogram.com,or write to:  

Dell Inc.
Attn: Battery Recall
9701 Metric Blvd.,]
Austin, Texas 78758.


DIVERSIA CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action against
Diversia Corp.

In December 2002, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and now captioned "In re Diversa Corp.
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-9699."

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company
and certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering violated Sections 11 and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on
allegations that the company's registration statement and
prospectus prepared in connection with the company's IPO failed
to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the
Underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, based on allegations that this omission constituted a
deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

This action is related to "In re Initial Public Offering Sec.
Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92," in which similar complaints were
filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies
that conducted IPOs of their common stock in the late 1990s and
2000.

On Jan. 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the company was assigned
to Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York,
before whom the IPO Cases have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the company and
the company's officers and directors, and granting the motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against the company without
leave to amend.  The court similarly dismissed the Sections
10(b) and 20 claims against two of the company's officers and
directors without leave to amend, but denied the motion to
dismiss these claims against one officer/director.

In June 2003, issuer defendants and plaintiffs reached a
tentative settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the issuers and their
officers and directors from all further liability resulting from
plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the issuers may have against the
underwriters.

The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that
plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1
billion from the underwriters in the IPO Cases and related
litigation, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each
participating issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.  

In the event, for example, the plaintiffs recover nothing in
judgment against the underwriter defendants in the IPO Cases and
the issuers' insurers therefore become liable to the plaintiffs
for an aggregate of $1 billion pursuant to the settlement
proposal, the pro rata liability of the company's insurers, with
respect to us, would be $5 million, assuming that 200 issuers
which approved the settlement proposal, and their insurers, were
operating and financially viable as of the settlement date.

The company is covered by a claims-made liability insurance
policy that would satisfy the company's insurers' pro rata
liability described in this hypothetical example.

In June 2004, the company executed a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval
of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive order, and directed that notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members beginning Nov. 15,
2005.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against
certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be
assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a final fairness hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  A
decision is expected this summer, according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

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

The suit is "In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-9699," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

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

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax; 212.686.0114, e-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.


DOLLAR TREE: Recalls Power Extension Cords Posing Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 600,000 units of
6-foot Power Xtension extension cords.

The company said the counterfeit extension cords could have
undersized wire and substandard insulation, which can cause
overheating, resulting in a possible shock hazard.  No injuries
were reported.

The recalled cords are green, measure 6 feet long, are intended
for indoors and have a three-outlet extension.  Attached to the
cord is a silver counterfeit UL holographic label marked "09/01
E157848 UL LISTED CORD SET BW-3045 13A 125V 1625W".

These counterfeit extension cords were manufactured in China,
imported by Greenbrier International Inc., of Chesapeake,
Virginia, and are being sold at Dollar Tree Stores, Dollar
Bill$, and Dollar Express nationwide from November 2005 through
May 2006 for $1.

Picture of recalled counterfeit extension cord:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06230.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled extension cords
immediately and return them to any Dollar Tree store for a
refund.

For additional information, contact Dollar Tree Stores Inc., at
(800) 876-8077 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.dollartree.com.


EDINA REALTY: Accused of Overcharging Title Insurance Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edina Realty Title Inc. is facing a lawsuit in Hennepin County
District Court over alleged systematic overcharging of customers
for title insurance, the Star Tribune reports.

The suit claims that Edina Realty, acting as an agent for
Chicago Title Insurance Co., charged customers full price on
title policies for homes that previously had been covered by
title insurance.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Edina Realty overcharged
its customers for title insurance by not giving them 40 percent
"reissue" discounts that they were entitled to.  

According to the complaint, Chicago Title's rates, as posted
with the Minnesota Commerce Department, called for a discounted
price on such reissue policies, but Edina Realty did not tell
customers that such a discount was available.

Edina Realty lawyer, Lewis Remele, said Edina Realty simply was
acting as an agent for Chicago Title and was following its
guidelines requiring that a copy of the previous title policy be
produced before a reissue discount would be given.

But according to the complaint, reissue rates are supposed to
apply to any property previously covered by title insurance, no
matter which company issued the policy.  That means the reissue
discount should apply automatically to virtually all homes that
previously had mortgages, because lenders require title
insurance as a condition of granting a mortgage.

Mr. Remele said it's not clear how many Edina Realty Title
customers might be covered by the suit, although the complaint
said Edina Realty has issued title policies for more than 5,000
Minnesota transactions a year since 1999, the period covered by
the suit.  But Mr. Remele said the issue "only involves about
3,000 customers that Edina Realty handled through Chicago
Title."

Representing the plaintiff is J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. a partner with
Zimmerman Reed Attorneys at Law, 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612.341.0400, Fax: 612.341.0844,
E-mail: jgr@zimmreed.com

Representing the defendant is Lewis A. Remele, Jr. of Bassford
Remele, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800, Minneapolis, MN
55402-3707, Phone: 612.376.1601 or 612.333.3000, Fax:
612.333.8829, E-mail: lewr@bassford.com, Website:
http://www.bassford.com


EL PASO: Continues to Face Colo. ERISA, Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
over pension laws violations filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for District of Colorado, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit alleges violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a
result of the company's change from a final average earnings
formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

The suit is "Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Denver, Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Bruce of Stephen R. Bruce, Law Offices, 805
         15th Street, NW #210, Washington, DC 20005, U.S.A.,
         Phone: 202-371-8013, Fax: 202-371-0121, E-mail:
         stephen.bruce@prodigy.net; and

     (2) Barry Douglas Roseman of Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC,
         1120 Lincoln Street #1607, Denver, CO 80203-2141,
         U.S.A, Phone: 303-839-1771, Fax: 861-9214, E-mail:
         broseman@nela.org.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Raymond W. Martin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, United
         States District Court Box 19, 1801 California Street
         #3600, Denver, CO 80202 U.S.A, Phone: 303-244-1863,
         Fax: 303-244-1879, E-mail: martin@wtklaw.com; and

    (ii) Christopher James Rillo of Sonnenschein, Nath &
         Rosenthal, 685 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, U.S.A., Phone: 415-882-5000, Fax:
         543-5472.


EL PASO: Continues to Face Multiple Natural Gas Litigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp., and certain of its affiliates, along with other
energy firms remain as defendants in several sets of lawsuits
over alleged natural gas price manipulations.

Beginning in August 2003, lawsuits have been filed against El
Paso Marketing L.P. (EPM) over allegations that the company, EPM
and other energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of
natural gas by providing false price information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices.

The first cases have been consolidated in federal court in New
York for all pre-trial purposes under the caption, "In re: Gas
Commodity Litigation."

In September 2005, the court certified the class to include all
persons who purchased or sold New York Mercantile Exchange in
New York natural gas futures between Jan. 1, 2000 and Dec. 31,
2002.  

Other defendants in the case have negotiated tentative
settlements with the plaintiffs that have been approved by the
court.

EPM and the remaining defendants have petitioned the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the
class certification order.

The second set of cases involves similar allegations on behalf
of commercial and residential customers.  These cases have been
transferred to a multi-district litigation proceeding in the
U.S. District Court for Nevada, as "In re Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation."  These cases have
been dismissed and have been appealed.  

The third set of cases also involves similar allegations on
behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.  These include the
purported class actions:

      -- "Leggett et al. v. Duke Energy Corp. et al."
         (filed in Chancery Court of Tennessee in January
         2005);

      -- "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy Services Inc. et al."
         (filed in federal court for the Eastern District of
         California in June 2005);

      -- "Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in
         state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in July 2005);

      -- "Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in
         Wyandotte County, Kansas in September 2005); and

      -- "Breckenridge, et al v. Oneok Inc., et al." (filed in
         state court in Denver County, Colorado in May 2006).

The Leggett case was removed but then remanded to state court.
The Breckenridge case has been removed and conditionally
transferred to the MDL proceeding in federal district court in
Nevada.  The remaining three cases have all been transferred to
the MDL proceeding.  Similar motions to dismiss have either been
filed or are to be filed in these cases as well.

Texas-based El Paso Corp. (NYSE: EP) -- http://www.elpaso.com/-
- is an energy company that provides natural gas and related
energy products.


EL PASO: Parties Seek Resolution to Tex. ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso
Corp., et al.," which was filed against El Paso Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas are
working to settle the case, according to the company's Aug. 7,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
company's direct and indirect communications with participants
in the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

It was subsequently amended to include allegations relating to
the company's reporting of natural gas and oil reserves.

In June 2006, the parties participated in a mediated settlement
negotiation.

The suit is "Lewis, et al v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04860," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N. Hughes.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com; and

     (2) Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Three Bala
         Plz E., Ste. 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-
         667-7706.  

Representing the company is Stephen D. Susman of Susman Godfrey,
1000 Louisiana Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-651-
9366, Fax: 713-654-6670, E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com.


EL PASO: Settles Multiple Lawsuits in Okla. Over Shallow Wells
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. along with Burlington Resources, Inc., settled
several class actions filed against it in Oklahoma state courts
over shallow wells.

Included in the settled suits are:

      -- "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
         Company, et al.," and

      -- "Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.,
         et al."

Both actions were filed in 1997 in the District Court of Washita
County, State of Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated by the
court.  The consolidated class action has been settled pursuant
to a settlement agreement executed in January 2006.  

A third action, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Co.," was filed in October
2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma asserting
similar claims as to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas
and New Mexico.  

All the claims in this action have also been settled as part of
the January 2006 settlement.  The settlement of all these claims
is subject to court approval.  

Texas-based El Paso Corp. (NYSE: EP) -- http://www.elpaso.com/-
- is an energy company that provides natural gas and related
energy products.


EL PASO: Unit Faces La. Suit for Hurricane Katrina, Rita Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
An El Paso Corp. affiliate was named as defendant in a
consolidated lawsuit over hurricane damages that was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

The suit was filed against all oil and gas pipeline and
production companies that dredged pipeline canals, installed
transmission lines or drilled for oil and gas in the marshes of
coastal Louisiana.  

Initially, the affiliate was named in the class action
petitions:

      -- "George Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
         Company, et al."; and

      -- "Charles Villa Jr., et al. v. Columbia Gulf
         Transmission Co., et al."

Both assert that the defendants caused erosion and land loss,
which destroyed critical protection against hurricane surges and
winds and was a substantial cause of the loss of life and
destruction of property.  

The first lawsuit alleges damages associated with Hurricane
Katrina.  The second lawsuit alleges damages associated with
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  The has court consolidated the two
lawsuits.

The suit is "Barasich et al v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. et
al, Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S.
Vance with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas R. Kraus of Brent Coon & Associates - N.O.,  
         1515 Poydras Street, Suite 800, New Orleans, LA 70112,
         Phone: 504-566-1704, E-mail:
         douglas.kraus@bcoonlaw.com; and

     (2) Conrad S. P. Williams, III of St. Martin & Williams,
         4084 Highway 311, P.O. Box 2017, Houma, LA 70361-2017,
         Phone: 985-876-3891, E-mail: duke525@msn.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Thomas R. Blum of Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
         LLP, Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras St., 30th Floor, New
         Orleans, LA 70163-3000, Phone: (504) 569-2030, E-mail:
         trblum@spsr-law.com; and

    (ii) Linda Sarradet Akchin of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, LL, One American Place,
         P.O. Box 3513, 22nd Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513,
         Phone: 225-387-0999, E-mail:
         linda.akchin@keanmiller.com.


FIDELITY FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement in Fla. DPPA Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust settled two purported class
actions filed in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of
Florida over allegations of Driver's Privacy Protection Act
violations.

On July 26, 2006, Fidelity Federal entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs in the class actions:

      -- "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust," and
      
      -- "Timothy Neilsen and Timothy G. Martin vs. Fidelity
         Federal Bank & Trust."

The suits allege that the company violated DPPA by obtaining
driver registration information from the State of Florida for
use in its marketing efforts (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2,
2006).  

Under the settlement, the company did not admit any liability or
fault, but agreed to the certification of a conditional
settlement class, solely for settlement purposes.  The agreement
is subject to preliminary and final court approval.

Payout to each eligible claimant is not to exceed $160.  
Fidelity Federal has agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
not more than $10,000,000 plus reasonable expenses of not more
than $120,000.

Fidelity Federal will pay class representative James Kehoe not
more than $10,000, and class representatives Timothy Neilsen and
Timothy G. Martin not more than $3,000 each for their
participation.

Additionally, Fidelity Federal has agreed to certain injunctive
relief, including certifying that Fidelity Federal did not keep
or maintain any data obtained from the State of Florida,
providing that Fidelity Federal shall not disclose or sell any
such data, and agreeing to a privacy audit, the cost of which
shall not exceed $25,000.

Fidelity Federal's total costs and expense, including the
payments to class members, cannot exceed $50 million.

On July 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida entered an order preliminarily approving the
class action settlement.  The court set Dec. 7, 2006 as the
final hearing date to approve the settlement agreement.

The suit is "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Paul Geller of The Law Offices of
Paul S. Geller, 225 S. Lake Ave., 10th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 792-2280, Fax (626) 792-2282; or The Watt Plaza,
1875 Century Park East, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA  90067,  
Phone: (310) 491-7885.

Representing the defendants is L. Louis Mrachek of Page,
Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose, P.A., Suite 600, 505 S.Flagler Dr.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, Phone: (561) 355-6970, Fax:  
(561) 655-5537, E-mail: lmrachek@pm-law.com, Web site:
http://www.pm-law.com.


GENERAL REINSURANCE: Still Faces Litigation Over ROA Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Reinsurance Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., remains a defendant in several
lawsuits over insurance purchased through Reciprocal of America.

Doctors, hospitals and lawyers that purchased insurance through
ROA or certain of its Tennessee-based risk retention groups
initiated nine putative class actions against the company.  
These complaints seek compensatory, treble, and punitive damages
in an indefinite amount.  

The company is also a defendant in actions brought by the
Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, as Deputy Receiver of ROA,
the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance, as liquidator for three
Tennessee risk retention groups, a federal lawsuit filed by a
Missouri-based hospital group and a state lawsuit filed by an
Alabama doctor that was removed to federal court.

The first of these actions was filed in March 2003 and
additional actions were filed in April 2003 through June 2006.

In the action filed by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance,
the Commissioner is claiming damages compensation exceeding $200
million in the aggregate as against all defendants.

Twelve of these cases are collectively assigned to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for
pretrial proceedings.  The remaining federal action filed in
June 2006 in the federal court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky is the subject of a transfer request pending before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The company has filed motions to dismiss all of the claims
against it in all the cases pending in the Tennessee federal
court.  

On June 12, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaints of the Virginia and Tennessee receivers.

The court granted the Tennessee receiver leave to amend her
complaint within 60 days of the order.  The Virginia receiver
has moved for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to
amend his complaint.

The court has not yet ruled on the company's motion to dismiss
the complaints of the other plaintiffs.  On June 27, 2006, the
court held a hearing and announced an intention to allow
document discovery to proceed in the coordinated cases.

No order permitting that discovery to proceed has yet been
entered.  The company has not filed a responsive pleading in the
case currently pending in the Kentucky federal court, according
to the Berkshire Hathaway's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) --
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/-- is a holding company owning  
subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities
with the most important being insurance businesses conducted on
both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis.

The suit is "In Re Reciprocal of America (ROA) Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-md-01551-JDB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge
J. Daniel Breen.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jere L. Beasley, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis &
         Miles, P.O. Box 4160, Montgomery, AL 36103-4160, Phone:
         334-269-2343;

     (2) Patrick H. Cantilo, Cantilo & Bennett LLP, 7501-C North
         Capital Of Texas Highway, Ste. 200, Austin, TX 78731,
         Phone: 512-478-6000, Fax: 512-404-6550, E-mail:
         phcantilo@cb-firm.com;  

     (3) William H. Farmer, Farmer & Luna, 333 Union St., Ste.
         300, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-254-9146, Fax:
         615-254-7123, E-mail: bfarmer@farmerluna.com;  

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

     (5) Jonathan P. Lakey, Pietrangelo Cook, 6410 Poplar
         Ste. 190, Memphis, TN 38119, Phone: 901-685-2662, Fax:
         901-685-6122, E-mail: jlakey@pietrangelocook.com;  

     (6) Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Mccallum & Methvin, PC, The
         Highland Building, 2201 Arlington Ave., S. Birmingham,
         AL 35205, Phone: 205-939-0199, Fax: 205-939-0399, E-
         mail: rgm@mmlaw.net; and

     (7) B. J. Wade, Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt, P.C., 26 N.
         Second Street, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-527-4673,
         Fax: 901-521-0940.


GENERAL REINSURANCE: Still Faces N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Reinsurance Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., remains a defendant in the
consolidated securities class action, "In re American
International Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8141."

The suit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is a putative class action filed on behalf
of investors who purchased publicly traded securities of
American International Group (AIG) between October 1999 and
March 2005.

The company and its former chief executive officer, Ronald
Ferguson, are identified as defendants in this matter.  The
complaint alleges that AIG and certain other defendants violated
federal securities laws, but does not assert any causes of
action against the company or Mr. Ferguson.  Plaintiffs' counsel
in this action has filed a motion for leave to amend their
complaint.  

On June 7, 2005, the company received a second Summons and Class
Action Complaint in a putative class action asserted on behalf
of investors who purchased AIG securities between October 1999
and March 2005.  The suit is "San Francisco Employees'
Retirement System, et al. v. American International Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 05-CV-4270," filed the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  

The complaint alleges that AIG and certain other defendants
violated federal securities laws, and that the company aided and
abetted securities fraud or conspired to violate federal
securities laws.

Both actions have been assigned to the same judge.  At a July
2005 conference, the court ruled that the plaintiffs in Case No.
04-CV-8141 would be lead plaintiffs.  

On Sept. 27, 2005, the plaintiffs in Case No. 04-CV-8141 filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint.  The complaint asserts
various claims against AIG, and various of its officers,
directors, investment banks and other parties.  Included among
the defendants are the company, Messrs. Ferguson, Napier and
Houldsworth, whom the complaint defines as the General Re
Defendants.

The complaint alleges that the General Re Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 through their activities in connection with the AIG
transaction.

The complaint seeks damages and other relief in unspecified
amounts.  The General Re Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim on
which relief can be granted against these defendants.

The motion was heard on April 20, 2006, and was denied by the
court.  General Reinsurance has answered the complaint, denying
liability and asserting various affirmative defenses.  No
discovery has taken place, and no trial date has been scheduled,
according to the Berkshire Hathaway's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas A. Dubbs of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow
         LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-
         907-0700, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
         tdubbs@glrslaw.com; and

     (2) Louis Gottlieb, Goldman Gruder & Wood, 200 Connecticut
         Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06854, Phone: (212) 907-0872, Fax:
         (212) 883-7072, E-mail: lgottlieb@glrslaw.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Steven Ian Froot of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)-446-
         2300, Fax: (212)-446-2350, E-mail: sfroot@bsfllp.com;
         and

    (ii) George Abraham Zimmerman, Skaddden, Arps, Slate,
         Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times Square, New York,
         NY 10036, Phone: (212) 735-2000 x2047, Fax: (212) 735-
         2000, E-mail: gzimmerm@skadden.com.


GUAM: Court to Rule on COLA Increases Owed to Retirees by Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas plans to issue a ruling on
the amount cost-of-living allowances owed to retirees by a self-
imposed Sept. 6, 2006 deadline, the Pacific Daily News reports.

Judge Barcinas held a hearing on the suit on Aug. 9, wherein he
instructed attorneys in the case to submit calculations for the
expected cost to the court by Aug. 23.

The government failed to pay more than 4,000 retirees COLA based
on inflation, as required by a law that was in effect between
1988 and 1995.

In March, Superior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas ordered
the governor to calculate the amount of COLA owed to retirees,
and provide that information by May 31.  But instead of
complying to the order, Guam filed a challenge to the court-
ordered retroactive COLA increases to retirees.

Lawyers of both parties in the class action filed by Candelaria
Rios, were in disagreement over the base year for the
computation of payments.

The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order
for the award, said it is 1990.  On the other hand, the
retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the
court.

Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula
for most of the payout will be based on the consumer price index
of 1988.  The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that
was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.

In the Aug. 9 hearing, the governor's attorney Daniel Benjamin
raised concerns that the consumer price index was "very
inflated" during the years in question because of a flawed
process at the Department of Commerce.

Judge Barcinas told him to include the concern when the
government submits its calculations to the court.  The commerce
department after 1995 started using a different formula to
calculate the price index, according to him.

Meanwhile, Mr. Phillips argued against allowing anyone outside
the commerce department, including the court or the governor, to
change the consumer price index because the law states the cost-
of-living allowance shall be based on the commerce department's
figures.

Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and
$100 million, a previous report says.

Representing the government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP,
Suite 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive,
Tamuning 96913, Guam, Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223,
Web site: http://www.guamlawoffice.com. Representing the  
retirees is Mike Philips.


HOSPITAL CORP: Sues Plaintiff Attorney in Kans. Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------  
Hospital Corp. of America is asking a court in Wichita, Kansas,
to sanction a lawyer who sued the company over allegations it
intentionally understaffed registered nurses at its hospitals,
WBIR.com reports.

In July, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
dismissed the consumer class action alleging HCA, the parent
company of Wesley Medical Center in Wichita it operates under
unsafe levels of nurse staffing (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2006).  

The suit had contended that the hospital chain defrauded
patients by directing its affiliated hospitals to staff its
nursing units below generally accepted levels.

Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled the case involves medical
malpractice that needs to be examined on an individual basis and
not in a consumer class action.  He also ruled that the company
as a corporation could not be held liable for cases at each of
its hospitals.

The judge specifically wrote in his ruling, that plaintiffs'
claims are in reality medical malpractice claims, and therefore
not appropriately advanced as claims for consumer protection or
unjust enrichment.

Hospital Corp. is now asking that plaintiff attorney Lawrence
Williamson and his clients pay nearly $400,000 in attorney's
fees to the nine lawyers it hired to defend the lawsuit since
April.

Mr. Williamson reported said that the motion was intended to
intimidate him.  He noted that Hospital Corp. asked for
sanctions only after he appealed the dismissal of the case.

                         Case Background

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the
company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit in
the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas in March.  She
claimed that her husband died because the hospital did not have
enough nurses working to care for him when he was hospitalized
in 2004 (Class Action Reporter May 24, 2006).

The lawsuit asked the company to repay no less than $12.5
billion to millions of patients who have been treated at its
hospitals.

The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corporation of America, Case No.
2:06-cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. and
Uzo L. Ohaebosim of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N.
Main, 1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400,
Fax: 316-261-5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) John H. Gibson of Gilliland & Hayes, P.A.- Wichita, 301
         N. Main, Suite 1300, Wichita, KS 67202-4801, Phone:
         316-264-7321, Fax: 316-264-8614, E-mail:
         jgibson@gh-wichita.com;  

     (2) Carlos Mattioli of Shannon, Martin, Finkelstein, &
         Sayre, P.C., 909 Fannin St.-Ste. 2400, Houston, TX
         77010-1001, Phone: 713-646-5555, Fax: 713-752-0337, E-
         mail: cmattioli@smfs.com;  

     (3) Charles H. Moody, Jr. of Rodolf & Todd, 401 S. Boston
         Ave., Ste. 2000, Tulsa, OK 74103-5026, Phone: 918-295-
         2100, Fax: 918-295-7800, E-mail: cmoody@rodolftodd.com.


ILLINOIS: District U46 Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Elgin School District U46 filed its latest reply
in a racial discrimination suit filed against it in February
2005, The Courier News reports.

In March District Judge Robert Gettleman refused to certify the
lawsuit, saying the complaint must be narrowed, or the plaintiff
list must be expanded to accommodate all of the issues listed to
get class certification.  Plaintiffs in the suit filed an
amended complaint on May 12.  In June, the district filed a
request that the lawsuit be dismissed.  In July, plaintiffs
attorney responded to that request and defended the suit's
compliance with court requirements.

In the district's recent reply, it said the suit should be
dismissed because of the ambiguity of the complaints and their
irrelevance to the original claim of discrimination, among other
factors. Also, it said most of those minimal allegations "are no
longer relevant" because they describe experiences of the
plaintiff who withdrew from the case after graduating from a U46
alternative high school.

Further, plaintiffs attorney said complaints filed by the
Sifuentes, Burciaga and Montoya plaintiffs "failed to plainly
state any claim."

The revised suit added two Hispanic families and an African-
American family alleging unfair treatment of their children by
the Elgin public schools (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006).  
It is filed on the behalf of 18 students and their parents:
Tracy McFadden, Marielena Montoya, Griselda Burciaga, Beverly
Ivy and Irma Sifuentes.  The suit accuses the school district
of:

     -- treating minority students with hostility,
    
     -- disproportionately referring black and Latino students
        to an alternative high school,

     -- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities,
        and

     -- failing to provide proper services to Latino students
        with limited English proficiency.

A black family and a Hispanic family in Elgin filed the suit in
2005 to complain about the closure of Illinois Park Elementary
School in 2004.  

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black
students who claim they were discriminated against in
assignments, transportation, school closings and educational
programs.

A court hearing is set Sept. 28, 2006 to determine whether the
case will proceed or be dismissed.

The suit is "McFadden et al. v. Board of Education for
Illinois School District U-46," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W.
Gettleman.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, Chtd., 122 South
Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-
3600, E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com.

Representing the defendants is Patricia J. Whitten of Franczek
Sullivan, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL
60606-6785, Phone: (312) 986-0300, E-mail: pjw@franczek.com.


INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Settles Suits Over Philips Holding Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intermagnetics General Corp. reached an agreement in principle
to settle two putative class actions filed in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Albany County, that challenged its
merger agreement with Philips Holding USA Inc., subsidiary of
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V.

Philips and Intermagnetics announced the $1.3 billion deal on
June 15, 2006.  Afterwards, shareholders of Intermagnetics
General filed two class actions in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Albany County, challenging the company's
acquisition.

The first suit is "Mohamed Farouk Gani v. Intermagnetics General
Corporation, et al., No. 3884-06," filed on June 16, 2006, just
a day after the deal was announced.  The second suit, "Thomas
Scionti v. Intermagnetics General Corporation, et al., No. 3946-
06," was filed on June 20, according to the company's PREM14A
filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
June 30, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2006).
  
On lawsuit names that company and its directors as defendants,
while the other adds Royal Philips as a defendant.  Mohamed
Farouk Gani and Thomas Scionti filed the suits, both of which
are seeking to prevent the acquisition.

Generally, the complaints allege that company directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to publicly announce an open
bidding process or otherwise seek additional officers to acquire
Intermagnetics, and by failing to provide full disclosure to
certain material financial information.

Under the deal, the company's Latham, New York, headquarters
would become the global headquarters for the MR division of
Royal Philips.  The company said in a regulatory filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission it would hold a
shareholder meeting Sept. 26 in New York City to approve the
merger.

The regulatory filing, which announced the settlement and the
shareholder meeting, did not specify terms of the agreement.  
According to Larry Rulison at Timesunion.com court documents
examined Friday in Albany did not indicate an official
settlement had been reached or that the cases had been
dismissed.

Representing the plaintiffs in the suit is Jeffrey Sherrin, an
attorney with the Albany law firm O'Connell & Aronowitz; on the
Net: http://www.oalaw.com.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Jakks Pacific, Inc.

The suits filed against the company are:

     -- Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
        04-8807 (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);

     -- Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);

     -- Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
        04-8910 (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);

     -- Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on Nov. 9, 2004); and

     -- Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
        No. 04-9078 (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements
concerning increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment
licensed products which were false and misleading because the
WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern of
commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the company.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the company misleadingly failed to
disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the company's common stock
between Oct. 26, 1999 and late as Oct. 19, 2004.  

The suits seek compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed
amount.  It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by each of the defendants -- the company and Messrs.
Friedman, Berman and Bennett -- and violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett.  

On Jan. 25, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as
"In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation,
Case No. 04-8807."

On May 11, 2005, the court appointed co-lead counsels and
provided until July 11, 2005 for an amended complaint to be
filed and a briefing schedule thereafter with respect to a
motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and argument will
be completed by September 2006.   

The suit is filed under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric James Belfi of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 907-0790, Fax: (212) 883-7579, E-mail:
         ebelfi@labaton.com; and

     (2) Ken H. Chang of Wolf, Popper, L.L.P., 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 451-9667, Fax: (212)
         486-2093, E-mail: kchang@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael H. Gruenglas of Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher &
         Flom, LLP (4 Times Square, Room 44), Four Times Square,
         40th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 735-3567,
         Fax: (917)-777-3567, E-mail: mgruengl@skadden.com; and

    (ii) Jonathan Honig of Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber,
         Skala, Bass & Rhine, LLP, 750 Lexington Avenue, New
         York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 986-1116, Fax: 212-888-
         5968, E-mail: jhonig@fkiwsb.com.


KORIKA INT'L: Recalls Dried Mushrooms with Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Korica International Inc. of Brooklyn, New York, in cooperation
with the New York State Agriculture Commission, is recalling
certain "Dried Mushrooms" due to the presence of undeclared
sulfites.  People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may
run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume this product, the company said.

The recalled "Dried Mushrooms" are packaged in a 5-ounce,
uncoded, plastic bag.  They were sold nationwide.  They are a
product of China.

Routine sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture
and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the
product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product
contained high levels of sulfites, which were not declared on
the label.  

The consumption of 10 mg. of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased "Dried Mushrooms" are advised to
return them to the place of purchase.


LEVEL 3: Opt Out Deadline in "Salomon Analyst" Suit Set Aug. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities arbitration law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
reminds all customers who acquired stocks of Level 3
Communications, Inc. and are eligible to participate in the
settlement of "Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No. 02-
6919," that they have until Aug. 31, 2006 to opt-out of the
class.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities,
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4,
1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any
method, including but not limited to in the second market, in
exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a
registration statement or through the exercise of options
including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:  

     -- Citigroup Inc.,   
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc., formerly Salomon Smith   
        Barney Inc., and   
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman

As part of the settlement of the class action, Smith Barney has
agreed to pay the class $10.25 million.  However, Klayman &
Toskes said this amount represents only a fraction of Level 3's
market capital losses, which were in excess of $30 billion
during the class period of Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.
Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim, it said.

                       Case Background

Beginning August 2002, at least seven putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the defendants, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common
stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.

By Order dated Jan. 24, 2003, the court consolidated these
actions as "In re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No.
02 Civ. 6919 (GEL)."

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs'
selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as lead
counsel.

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint alleging 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 publishing false
and misleading analyst reports concerning Level 3.

Following negotiations between the parties, the parties entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5, 2006.  

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., at the U.S. Courthouse, 500
Pearl St., Room 2103, New York, NY 10007.

For more information on class members' legal options, contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, or Jahan K. Manasseh, Esquire,
both of Klayman & Toskes, Phone: 888-997-9956, Web site:
http://www.nasd-law.com.


LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until October 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
A conference to discuss the status of the class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Bernard L. Schwartz, former chairman of the board and
chief executive officer of Loral Space & Communications Inc.
(New Loral) has been stayed until October 2006.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  It alleges:

      -- that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         promulgated thereunder, by making material
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about
         the company's financial condition relating to the sale
         of assets to Intelsat and its Chapter 11 filing; and

      -- that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Old Loral).

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding
the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with
him.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz
with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into
the Beleson case.

In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  Defendant filed an answer in
March 2004.

In January 2006, the case was stayed for six months.  A
conference to discuss the status of the case scheduled for July
2006 has now been adjourned until October 2006.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against one of its officers, the company believes, although no
assurance can be given, that, to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the
liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendant.

The suit is "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-
06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody of Stull Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022; and Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss
& Yourman, The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue 1600 New York,
NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025.  

Representing Mr. Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja and Francis
James Menton, Jr., Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787
Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax:
(212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com.


LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Stayed Until October 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
A conference to discuss the status of several securities class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against certain officers of Loral Space &
Communications Inc. (New Loral) has been stayed until October
2006.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action
complaint against Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  It alleges:

      -- that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s (Old
         Loral) financial condition relating to the restatement
         in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and
         third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for
         certain general and administrative expenses and the
         alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
         with APT Satellite Company Ltd.; and

      -- that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
         these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
         20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
         person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  The defendants filed an
answer to the complaint in December 2004.  

In January 2006, the case was stayed for six months.  A
conference to discuss the status of the case scheduled for July
2006 has now been adjourned until October 2006.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against certain of its officers, the company believe, although
no assurance can be given, that to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the
liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendants.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz at 10 East 40th Street,
         New York, New York 10016, Phone: (877) 779-1414;

     (2) Chitwood & Harley at 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Phone: (888) 873-
         3999;

     (3) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212)
         545-4600.


MASSACHUSETTS: Medford Sued Over Govt. Retirees Health Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medford and City Manager Mike Dyal are facing a lawsuit filed by
four retired city employees demanding reinstatement of health
insurance benefits, compensation and punitive damages, the Mail
Tribune reports.

Former city attorney Ron Doyle, Bob Deuel, Ben Miller and Chuck
Steinberg filed the civil suit in U.S. District Court seeking to
represent a potential class of hundreds of other retirees who
were denied continued health insurance benefits starting in
1990.

The suit asks for unspecified amount of compensation for the
difference between the cost of their health insurance premiums
and the cost of city employees' premiums; compensation for
emotional distress; and punitive damages against the city
manager for discontinuing the practice of allowing retirees the
same insurance as employees.

The city discontinued health insurance coverage to police
officer retirees in 1990.  It did the same to then management-
level employees in 2001.  Now, about 300 of the 440 current
employees are not offered continued health insurance into
retirement.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Stephen Brischetto of
520 SW Yarnhill, Portland, OR 97204-1129, Phone: (503) 223-2814
Fax: (503) 228-1317.


MARU BAKERY: Recalls Kolo Roasted Barley with Undeclared Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maru Bakery & Wholesale of Dallas, Texas, in cooperation with
the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, is recalling Elsa Kolo
Roasted Barley because it contains undeclared peanuts.

The recalled Roasted Barley are sold in 3 oz., 1/2 lb., 5 lb.
and 10 lb. clear plastic bags, with or without labels, were sold
in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Georgia and Columbus, Ohio.  The
bags with labels identify the product as Elsa Kolo Roasted
Barley.

The product was also distributed in bulk 88 lb. white bags that
are labeled "Maru Import & Export Dallas, Texas U.S.A Item Elsa
Kolo".

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product, according to the company.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Elsa Kolo Roasted Barley should
return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 214-221-3123.


MICROSOFT CORP: Fla. Schools to Get $80M in Technology Vouchers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's needy schools will get more than $80 million to buy
computers, software and other services as part of the settlement
of antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft Corp., according to
state Education Commissioner John Winn.

Microsoft agreed in 2003 to settle a class action alleging it
violated Florida antitrust laws through anticompetitive
practices that increased the prices of its licenses for MS-DOS,
Windows, Word, Excel and Office software purchased from Nov. 16,
1995, through Dec. 31, 2002.  The suit was filed in Florida
Circuit Court in Miami.  Microsoft denied the allegations but
agreed to settle for a maximum of $202 million.

Florida consumers and businesses received vouchers to purchase
computer hardware and software regardless of brand if they had
purchased Microsoft items covered by the agreement.  Microsoft
also agreed to donate half of any unclaimed benefits to Florida
schools in which at least half the students qualify for free or
reduced-price lunches.  The benefits will be in the form of
vouchers that can be used to receive reimbursements for
purchases of any manufacturer's computers running any operating
system and software used with those products.

According to Commissioner Winn's announcement, Broward County
schools will get as much as $6.9 million.  There are 120 schools
eligible in Broward.  They include Stranahan High in Fort
Lauderdale, Hallandale Elementary, Bair Middle School in Sunrise
and Driftwood Elementary in Hollywood.

Treasure Coast school districts will get $2.3 million.  Of that,
Indian River County is expected to receive $472,756.  Those
eligible are: the Alternative Center for Education, Oslo and
Sebastian River middle schools, Fellsmere, Pelican Island,
Citrus, Dodgertown, Vero Beach, Thompson and Highlands
elementary schools, the now-closed Indian River Academy Charter
School and the exceptional student education department.

Tampa Bay schools will receive more than $11.5 million.  Of
those, 150 are in Hillsborough County, 38 are in Pasco County
and 73 are in Pinellas County.  Hillsborough County will receive
$6.8 million.

Palm Beach County schools are eligible for $3.7 million.  St.
Lucie County public schools' share is $1.2 million.


OKLAHOMA: Lawsuit Over Hissom Memorial Back to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has ruled that
a federal judge in Tulsa, Oklahoma should review the details of
a permanent injunction ordered in 2002 in a class action against
the defunct Hissom Memorial Center in Sand Springs, according to
the Tulsa World.

The suit was filed in 1985 by Homeward Bound Inc., a group of
parents of Hissom residents claiming that the center had become
an unsafe, inadequate environment for people with developmental
disabilities.  The suit named as defendants the Oklahoma
Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority
and the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services.

U.S. Senior District Judge James Ellison of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ordered in 1987 that
Hissom be closed and its residents transferred into community-
based homes.

On Feb. 1, 2005, Ellison entered a permanent injunction that
ended the court's active supervision over the case.  Under it,
he allowed plaintiffs to return to federal court to seek
enforcement of the permanent injunction if the defendants failed
to deliver appropriate services.  An important condition for the
case to be retaken is for the plaintiffs to show that such
actions injured the class as a whole.

In recent developments, plaintiffs' are seeking appellate court
intervention for a permanent injunction to ensure that
individualized system of community supports and services will
continue for class members.  Plaintiffs were not seeking to
reinstate "active supervision" by the district court, plaintiff
attorney Louis Bullock said.

In an April appellate court filing, Mr. Bullock said "as a
whole" limitation on enforcement "effectively terminates the
primary goal of the parties to create a permanent injunction.

For more information, contact Mr. Bullock at Miller, Keffer &
Bullock, PC, 222 South Kenosha Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120
(Osage & Tulsa Cos.), Phone: 918-743-4460, Fax: 918-743-6689.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Appellants File Documents in "Brody" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of U S West Retirees submitted an opening
appellate brief on its appeal against attorneys' fees in the
settlement of the class action, "Brody v. Hellman, Nacchio, et
al. (U S WEST Shareholder Dividend)."

Leaders of AUSWR is appealing to the Colorado Court of Appeals a
decision by a trial judge to award plaintiff attorneys the full
amount they requested in the settlement of the "U S WEST
Shareholder Dividend" class action.

The suit was filed on behalf of the public stockholders of U S
WEST, Inc. against U S WEST's former directors, Qwest
Communications International, Inc., and Qwest Chief Executive
Joseph P. Nacchio.  The case concerns the nonpayment of U S
WEST's second quarter 2000 dividend that U S WEST announced it
would pay to shareholders of record on June 30, 2000.

In early June 2000, when U S WEST announced plans to pay a
second quarter 2000 dividend, U S WEST was in the final stages
of completing the terms of the merger agreement with Qwest.  Mr.
Nacchio and U S WEST Chief Executive Solomon D. Trujillo
exchanged testy letters about the situation, according to a
statement by the retirees' association.  

Mr. Nacchio allegedly made it clear that he did not want the
dividend paid and he considered the planned dividend payment to
be a breach of the merger agreement.  Ultimately, the
shareholder dividend was not paid, resulting in a savings of
approximately $273 million, the statement said.  The nonpayment
of the U S WEST shareholder dividend resulted in the Brody
litigation filed in Denver County District Court.

In June 2005, on the eve of the trial of the case, the parties
agreed to cancel the trial and enter into a class action
settlement agreement.  A Settlement Fund was established in the
amount of $50 million -- half paid by U S WEST's directors' and
officers' liability insurance companies, the other half paid by
Qwest out of operating revenues.   

The Settlement Fund was contemplated to be first used to pay the
expenses of sending out the class notice and claim form.  Then,
it would be used to pay attorneys' fees.  The attorneys
requested payment of $15 million in fees, plus approximately
$1.3 million for expenses and costs.  When AUSWR and several of
organizational leaders learned that the attorney's were seeking
such an exorbitant amount, objections were filed, asking the
trial court to award a much more reasonable reduced amount.  

Nevertheless, the trial court judge awarded the attorneys the
full amount they requested -- $15 million in fees and another
$1.3 million for expenses and costs.

AUSWR's leaders decided to appeal this ruling before the
Colorado Court of Appeals.  The notice of appeal was filed on
Sept. 21, 2005.

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

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff2

AUSWR submitted an opening appellate brief on Aug. 3, a copy of
which is available for free at:

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff3

During the course of preparing AUSWR's opening appellant brief,
a thorough review was conducted of the 5,282 page trial court
record.  AUSWR discovered that soon after the decision was made
to avoid paying the U S WEST shareholder dividend which would
have cost $273 million, an agreement was executed on June 29,
2000 -- one day before the merger closed --- to provide Mr.
Trujillo a lucrative severance payout valued in excess of $70
million, a statement by AUSWR said.  The severance package
included $5.5 million for Mr. Trujillo to use to pay any charges
for personal use of corporate executive jet services.

The Settlement Fund obtained in the Brody case has already paid
the $15 million fee award, plus costs to the attorneys.  But, it
is likely the balance of the Settlement Fund will not be paid
out to any claimants until the appeal of the attorney's fee
award and other issues are resolved.  If the attorney's fee
award is reduced, the attorneys will have to reimburse the
Settlement Fund, plus interest.  Meanwhile, the Settlement Fund
will continue to accrue interest.  

The suit is Case No. 00-CV-4142, filed before Judge John W.
Coughlin, Courtroom I.

The counsel for class representative are Keith F. Park, Esq. and
Rick Nelson, Esq. at Lerach Coughlin, 401 B. Street, Suite 1600,
San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-
mail: Email: debg@lerachlaw.com (c/o Debbie Granger, Legal
Secretary).

Representing the defendants is Lawrence Theis, Esq. at MUSGRAVE
& THEIS, LLP, Republic Plaza, Suite 4450, 370 Seventeenth
Street, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-385-4700, Fax: 303-385-
4725, E-mail: ltheis@musgravetheis.com (Lawrence Theis, Esq.).


RJR TOBACCO: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
All state court cases filed on behalf of indirect tobacco
purchasers against RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., an operating segment
of Reynolds American, Inc., and other cigarette manufacturers
have been dismissed, except for one case pending in Kansas.

              Wholesalers' and Consumers' Cases

A suit filed by tobacco wholesalers and consumers in federal and
state courts alleges that defendants combined and conspired to
set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes
and various state unfair business practices statutes.

In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the
lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who
purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of
the defendants.

The federal cases against the defendants were consolidated and
sent by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The court certified a nationwide class of direct purchasers on
Jan. 27, 2001.  The court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated federal cases on July 11,
2002, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed that decision on Sept. 22, 2003.

As of July 14, 2006, all state court cases on behalf of indirect
purchasers have been dismissed, except for one case pending in
Kansas.  The Kansas court granted class certification on Nov.
15, 2001.  

A New Mexico court granted class certification on May 14, 2003,
but granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on June
30, 2006.

               Growers' & Allotment Holders' Case

On Feb. 16, 2000, the company and other cigarette manufacturers
and others were named an antitrust class-action complaint,
"DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a class
of all tobacco growers and tobacco allotment holders.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants conspired to fix the
price of tobacco leaf and to destroy the federal government's
tobacco quota and price support program.

On Nov. 30, 2000, the case was moved to U. S. District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina.  In May 2003, the
plaintiffs reached a court-approved settlement with Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. and other cigarette manufacturer
defendants, but not the company.

The settling defendants agreed to pay $210 million to the
plaintiffs, of which Brown & Williamson's share was $23 million,
to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as set by the court, and
to purchase a minimum amount of U.S. leaf for 10 years,
expressed as both a percentage of domestic requirements and as a
minimum number of pounds per year.

On April 22, 2004, RJR Tobacco and the plaintiffs settled, and
the court approved that settlement on March 21, 2005.  Under
that settlement, RJR Tobacco paid $33 million into a settlement
fund, which included costs and attorneys fees.  

RJR Tobacco also agreed to purchase annually a minimum of 90
million pounds, including the assumed obligation of Brown &
Williamson, of domestic green leaf flue-cured and burley tobacco
combined for the next 10 years, beginning with the 2004 crop
year.

The obligation to purchase leaf was extended an additional year
because the federal government eliminated the tobacco price
quota and price support program at the end of 2005.

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: Faces Medical Monitoring Suits in W.Va., Ore., La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., an operating segment of Reynolds
American, Inc., along with other cigarette manufacturers remain
defendants in several medical monitoring class actions filed in
West Virginia, Oregon and Louisiana.

One of those suits is "Blankenship v. American Tobacco Co.," the
first tobacco-related medical monitoring class action to be
certified and to reach trial.  A West Virginia state court jury
sided with RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and
other cigarette manufacturers on Nov. 14, 2001.  The West
Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendants
on May 6, 2004.

In another case, "Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.," an Oregon state
court judge dismissed the medical monitoring complaint on Nov.
4, 2003, for failure to state a claim.  The plaintiffs appealed,
and oral argument before the Oregon Court of Appeals occurred on
Sept. 26, 2005.  A decision is pending, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On Nov. 5, 1998, in the suit, "Scott v. American Tobacco Co.," a
Louisiana state appeals court affirmed the certification of a
medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana
residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.  

On Feb. 26, 1999, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for review.  Jury selection began on June
18, 2001 and was completed on Sept. 23, 2002.  Opening
statements occurred on Jan. 21, 2003.  

On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, on the
plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and found that
cigarettes were not defectively designed.  

In addition, however, the jury made certain findings against the
defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to
minors and smoking cessation.  

With respect to these findings, this portion of the trial did
not determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.

What primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim, that
the defendants pay for a program to help people stop smoking.  
On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address the
scope and cost of smoking cessation programs.  On May 21, 2004,
the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591 million on the
class claim for a smoking cessation program.  

On Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond --
pursuant to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to
$50 million collectively for multistate settlement agreement
signatories -- and noticed their appeal.  RJR Tobacco posted $25
million -- the portions for RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. -- towards the bond.  

Oral argument occurred on April 12, 2006.  The parties filed
post-argument briefs on April 28, 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.


SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. seeks the dismissal of a third consolidated
amended complaint in the securities class action, "Curry v.
Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.

Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit alleged that the company
and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions
of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The consolidated amended complaint no longer named Mr. Gargus as
an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an
individual defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class
period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
26, 2005.  

Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a
second consolidated amended complaint (second consolidated
amended complaint) on Dec. 8, 2005.  The second consolidated
amended complaint extends the end of the class period from April
22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds additional factual
allegations under the same causes of action against us, Mr.
Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also adds a new plaintiff,
James D. Smallwood.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006
and defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May
19, 2006.

On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend.  
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint by the July 21, 2006 court slated deadline.  
Defendants' response to that complaint is currently due to be
filed on or before Sept. 1, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aaron H. Darsky of Schubert & Reed, LLP, Three
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-788-4220, Fax: 415-788-0161, E-mail:
         adarsky@schubert-reed.com;

     (2) Merrick Scott Rayle of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP,
         212 Wood Street, Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227, Phone:
         831-333-0309, Fax: 831-333-0325, E-mail:
         mrayle@lshllp.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Speirs of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
         LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010,
         Phone: 212-223-3900.

Representing the defendants is Emmett C. Stanton of Fenwick &
West, LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street,
Mountain View, CA 94041-2008, Phone: 650-988-8500, Fax: 650-938-
5200, E-mail: estanton@fenwick.com.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement of Racial Bias Suits to Cost $11.4M
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. is working to settle several purported
class actions filed against it in California federal and state
courts alleging race discrimination in relation to its pricing
practices.

A class action, "Baltimore v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on November 2000.  It claims that the company's
pricing practices discriminate against African-Americans and
Hispanics.

These two additional cases were subsequently filed and are now
pending in the state courts in California:

      -- "Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.;" and
      -- "Gonzales v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp."

They were respectively filed in the Superior Court of California
Alameda County in April 2003 and in the Superior Court of the
State of California in August 2003.  Both contain similar
allegations claiming discrimination against minorities.  

Various individuals have brought the cases.  Injunctive relief
is being sought in all three and they also include a claim for
actual damages in an unspecified amount.  

Recently, the parties reached an agreement to settle these
cases.  The settlement is pending approval by the court.

Under the settlement, the company agreed to stop purchasing
contracts with markups greater than amounts approved under the
settlement and to include disclosures on Toyota Motor's
contracts that explain that the finance charge may be negotiable
and that the dealer may keep part of the finance charge.

The company also agreed to:

      -- offer 850,000 pre-approved offers of credit (that
         cannot be marked up) to African-American and Hispanic
         consumers;

      -- contribute $750,000 to non-profit entities for consumer
         education purposes with a focus on minorities;

      -- pay $95,000 in damages;

      -- pay up to $10,600,000 in attorneys' fees and costs; and
     
      -- on submission of a valid claim, provide eligible class
         members with either a certificate of credit applicable
         to their next financing with Toyota Motor in amounts
         ranging from $50 to $400 or a check in amounts ranging
         from $25 to $225, depending upon the amount of their
         payment over the applicable buy rate or, in certain
         circumstances, the time their contracts were assigned
         to the company.

The suit is "Baltimore, et al. v. Toyota Motor Credit, et al.,
Case No. 2:01-cv-05564-NM-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M.
Manella with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel L. Berger, Hannah E. Greenwald, Hannah E.
         Greenwald, Marcus Jackson, Seth R. Lesser, Samera Syeda
         Ludwig, Blair A. Nicholas, Alan Schulman and Darnley D.
         Stewart of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, 1285
         Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Fl., New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: 212-554-1400; and

     (2) Wyman O Gilmore, Jr. of Wyman O Gilmore Law Offices,
         115 Court St., P.O. Box 729, Grove Hill, AL 36451,
         Phone: 251-275-3115, Fax: 251-275-3847.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Brandon A. Block of Buchalter Nemer, 1000 Wilshire
         Boulevard, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-891-5108, E-mail: bblock@buchalter.com; and

    (ii) Lisa M. Simonetti and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock
         Stroock & Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los
         Angeles, CA 90067-3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-
         556-5959.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BROADCOM CORP: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock and other securities of
Broadcom Corp. between July 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that Broadcom and certain of its officers
and directors are charged with issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Section 19(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

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

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

Interested parties may request the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff no later than Oct. 12, 2006.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


CENTENE CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Centene Corp. from April 25, 2006 to July 17, 2006.

The Complaint charges Centene and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Centene is a leading multi-line healthcare enterprise that
provides programs and related services to individuals receiving
benefits under Medicaid.

According to the Complaint, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

      -- that adverse medical cost trends were negatively
         impacting the company's financial results;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls to
         properly track costs; and

      -- that, as a result of the above, the company's
         statements concerning Centene's financial performance
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On July 18, 2006, Centene announced preliminary financial
results for the second quarter of 2006.  Additionally, Centene
announced that it was revising its 2006 guidance downward,
approximately 38 percent from previous guidance.

On this news, shares of Centene plummeted $7.60, or 36.1
percent, to close, on July 18, 2006, at $13.60 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 2, 2006, move the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

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


IMAX CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all common stock purchasers of IMAX Corp.
from Feb. 17, 2006 through Aug. 9, 2006.

The Complaint charges IMAX and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that defendants improperly timed revenue recognition
         from theatres;

      -- specifically, that the company recognized revenue in
         the fourth quarter of 2005 from at least ten theatres
         before the theatres had opened;

      -- that the company sought to manipulate its financial
         results because it desired to attract entities
         interested in buying or merging with the company;

      -- that the company's financial statements were materially
         inflated;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

On Aug. 9, 2006, after the market closed, IMAX shocked investors
when the company announced that it was in the process of
responding to an informal inquiry from the SEC regarding the
company's timing of revenue recognition, including its
application of multiple element arrangement accounting in its
revenue recognition for theatre systems.

On this news, shares of IMAX plummeted $3.90, or 40.5 percent,
to close, on Aug. 10, 2006, at $5.73 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

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


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Securities Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parlux Fragrances, Inc. and its top executives are named
defendants in a lawsuit filed by a shareholder over alleged
various securities violations, including misleading shareholders
about the company's financial position, the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.

The lawsuit claims that the company and two top managers issued
"false and misleading statements" that inflated the company's
stock price to trade at more than $37 per share (before a stock
split) between Feb. 8 and Aug. 10, 2006.

Specifically, the suit, which seeks class-action status,
contends that Parlux, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Ilia Lekach, and Chief Financial Officer Frank Buttacavoli
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.

The complaint alleges that the two top managers sold millions of
dollars worth of Parlux shares near peak performance, labeling
the sales as "unusual."

Beginning in June, the company issued public statements
announcing, "The truth about the company's declining sales and
accounting issues were disclosed," the lawsuit says.

In June, Parlux was named defendant in a purported shareholder's
class action filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida over the
proposal by PF Acquisition of Florida LLC to acquire all of the
outstanding common stock of the company (Class Action Reporter,
July 28, 2006).

On June 14, 2006, the company's board of directors received an
unsolicited letter from company chairman and chief executive,
Mr. Ilia Lekach, representing PFA, pertaining to the possible
acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of the
company at a proposed price of $29.00 ($14.50 after the Stock
Split) per share in cash, representing a premium of 55% over the
closing price of the company's common stock on June 13, 2006.  

On June 21, 2006, the company was served with a shareholder's
class action complaint that was filed by Glen Hutton, purporting
to act on behalf of other public stockholders of the company.

The class action names the company as defendant, along with
company directors Ilia Lekach, Frank A. Buttacavoli, Glenn
Gopman, Esther Egozi Choukroun, David Stone, Jaya Kader Zebede
and Isaac Lekach.  

Parlux Fragrances, Inc. is a manufacturer and international
distributor of prestige products.  It holds licenses for Paris
Hilton fragrances, watches, cosmetics, sunglasses, handbags and
other small leather accessories in addition to licenses to
manufacture and distribute the designer fragrance brands of
Perry Ellis, GUESS?, XOXO, Ocean Pacific (OP), Maria Sharapova,
Andy Roddick, babyGund and Fred Hayman Beverly Hills.


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

Defendants in the suit are Scottish Re, and certain of its
officers and directors, including Glenn S. Schafer, Scott E.
Willkomm, Paul Goldean, Elizabeth A. Murphy, Dean E. Miller and
Seth Vance, alleging violations under the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-
1(a) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5. Mr. Willkomm resigned as CEO on July 31, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning Scottish Re's financial health and business
prospects.

Defendants also engaged in a concerted scheme to cover up
serious operational and financial problems.  In February 2006,
the company reported strong earnings for the 2005 fourth
quarter, and stated that this positive momentum would continue
going forward.

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

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

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

     -- the company's CEO, Defendant Scott Willkomm, had
        resigned his position;

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

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

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

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

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

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

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment,
on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing
Scottish Re common stock.  Had plaintiffs and the other members
of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices
that were paid.

The case name is "Hickock v. Scottish Re Group Ltd., et al."
Interested parties may request the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by Oct. 2, 2006.

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


WITNESS SYSTEMS: Kahn Gauthier Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against
Witness Systems, Inc., and its executives on behalf of
shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock and other securities of Witness Systems between
April 23, 2004, and Aug. 11, 2006.

Executives named in the suit are David B. Gould, Nicholas
Discombe, William Evans, Joel G. Katz, Thomas J. Crotty, and
Loren Wimpfheimer

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that they
had engaged in the backdating of stock options grants to certain
officers of the company and by failing to account properly for
expenses arising from the backdating.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and filed false and misleading
reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Finally, the complaint asserts that one or more of the
defendants engaged in substantial and suspicious insider trading
while in possession of material, non-public knowledge of the
alleged backdating scheme.

On July 27, 2006, defendant Evans, the company's Chief Financial
Officer, disclosed that the company was reviewing its stock
options grants.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the company announced that its Board of
Directors had formed a special committee to investigate the
stock option practices because the company had identified some
"discrepancies."

The company delayed the filing of its Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2006, pending the outcome of the investigation.
The company admitted that it "believes it will need to record
additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense
in prior periods . . . (which) will total approximately $10
million."

As a result of the internal investigation, the Board stated that
the company's previously issued financial statements from
February 2000 through June 30, 2006, should no longer be relied
upon.

Just three days later, on Aug. 11, 2006, the company disclosed
that it intended to restate its prior financials and revealed
that Nasdaq informed it on Aug. 11 that the company may be
subject to delisting as a result of the matters disclosed thus
far.

The price of Witness Systems common stock has fallen from its
July 27, 2006, closing price of $18.19 per share to as low as
$12.76 per share. The stock closed at $12.91 per share on Aug.
11, 2006.

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

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