CAR_Public/060823.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 167

                            Headlines

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.: Dismissal of N.Y. "Aucoin" Suit Appealed
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.: Tex. Court Certifies Class in Enron Suit
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: No Ruling Yet on Appeal of Dismissal Order
ATICO INT'L: Recalls Folding Tables with Legs that Can Buckle up
BALLARD DESIGNS: Recalls Toulon Potted Candles for Fire Hazard

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Approval of Campbell Settlement Now Final
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Review Sought in Termination Fee Lawsuit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Farina" Transferred to MDL-1421 Suit in Md.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Suits Over V710 Models in Two States
CERIDIAN CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.

CIT GROUP: Settles N.J. Litigation Over NorVergence Leases
DANA CORP: New Claims Against Execs Emerge in Ohio Stock Suit
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Continue to Face Suits Over Reporting
FMC CORP: Settles Pa. Microcrystalline Cellulose Suit for $25M
FREDDIE MAC: Reaches $4.65M Settlement in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit

FULLEI FRESH: Recalls Alfalfa on Salmonella Contamination Risk
FUTURE FOOD: Recalls Dips for Possible Listeria Contamination
KENTUCKY: Reaches $20M Settlement in Suit Over Anthem Stock Sale
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Rejects Securities Complaint
NEW YORK: Court Approves $8.4M Settlement of Workers' Bias Suit

PENNSYLVANIA: DA Seeks to Intervene in Suit Over Jail Conditions
PETRON CORP: Faces Potential Suit Over Oil Spill in Phil. Waters
SEMCO ENERGY: Subsidiaries Dismissed from W.Va. Antitrust Suit
STATE FARM: Calif. Appeals Court Dismisses "Hill" Lawsuit
ST. JUDE: Continues to Face Minn. Consolidated Securities Suit

TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Settles Buyers' Source Financing Suit in Ohio
UNITED STATES: Mich. Court Rules Surveillance Program Illegal


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BROADCOM CORP: Brower Piven Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Kahn Gauthier Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
JOS A BANK: Kirby McInerney & Squire Announces Stock Suit Filing
WITTNESS SYSTEMS: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
ZALE CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.


                            *********


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.: Dismissal of N.Y. "Aucoin" Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York of the remaining
claim in the consolidated securities class action, "Aucoin, et
al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al."  

The suit names as defendants:

      -- AllianceBernstein L.P.,

      -- AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.,

      -- AllianceBernstein Corp.

      -- AXA Financial Corp.,

      -- Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc.,

      -- certain current and former directors of the U.S. Funds,
         and

      -- unnamed Doe defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from U.S. Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for
         preferential marketing services;

      -- that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments; and

      -- that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary
duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary
duties.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
AllianceBernstein, including recovery of all fees paid to
AllianceBernstein pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all U.S. Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar
payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily
obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit
were filed against the company and certain other defendants.  
All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint.  
They were brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein
Funds.

On Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint that asserted claims substantially similar to
the lawsuits referred above.  On April 14, 2005, defendants
moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On
Oct. 19, 2005, the District Court dismissed each of the claims
set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint, except
for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.

In January 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion
for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.  Plaintiffs have
moved for leave to amend their consolidated complaint.

On May 31, 2006, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file their amended complaint.  On July 5, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The suit is "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jerome M. Congress, Kim Elaine Levy, Janine Lee
         Pollack, Michael Robert Reese, Steven Schulman, Peter
         Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         klevy@milberg.com, jpollack@milbergweiss.com,
         mreese@milberg.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Marshall N. Perkins and Charles J. Piven, The World
         Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street,
         Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: (410) 332-0030.

Representing the company are Mark Holland and Mark Adam Kirsch
of Clifford Chance US, LLP (NYC), 31 West 52nd Street, New York,
NY 10019-6131, Phone: (212)-878-8432, Fax: (212)-878-8375, E-
mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com or
mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.  


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.: Tex. Court Certifies Class in Enron Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted class-action status to the complaint against
AllianceBernstein L.P. in the case, "In re Enron Corp.
Securities Litigation."

On April 8, 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
case, which names numerous defendants, including
AllianceBernstein.

The principal allegations of the Enron Complaint, as they
pertain to AllianceBernstein, are that AllianceBernstein
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended with respect to a registration statement filed by Enron
Corp. and effective with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 18, 2001.  The registration statement was
used to sell $1.9 billion Enron Zero Coupon Convertible Notes
due 2021.

The suit alleges that the registration statement was materially
misleading and that Frank Savage, a director of Enron, signed
the registration statement at issue.

It also alleges that AllianceBernstein was a controlling person
of Frank Savage, who was at that time an employee of
AllianceBernstein and a director of the General Partner.

Plaintiffs therefore assert that AllianceBernstein is itself
liable for the allegedly misleading registration statement.
Plaintiffs seek rescission or a rescissionary measure of
damages.

On April 12, 2006, AllianceBernstein moved for summary judgment
dismissing the Enron Complaint as the allegations therein
pertain to AllianceBernstein.  This motion is pending, according
to the company's Aug. 7 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

On July 5, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' amended motion
for class certification.

The suit is "In re Enron Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
H-01-3624, MDL Docket No. 1446)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda
Harmon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph M. Alioto of Alioto Law Firm, 555 California
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-434-8900,
         Fax: 415-434-9200; and

     (2) Regina M. Ames of Lerach Coughlin, et al., 9601
         Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510, Los Angeles, CA 90210, Phone:
         310-859-3100, Fax: 310-278-2148.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) James N. Benedict of Clifford Chance, US, LLP, 31 W
         52nd ST., FL 3, New York, NY 10019-6127, Phone: 212-
         878-8000; and

    (ii) Ronald Earl Cook of Cook & Roach, LLP, 1111 Bagby
         Ste. 2650, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-652-2031, Fax:
         713-652-2029.


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: No Ruling Yet on Appeal of Dismissal Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has yet to rule
on the appeal of a court order dismissing the purported
securities class action filed on May 2004 against Allos
Therapeutics, Inc. and one of its officers.

Plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint in August
2004.  The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities from May 29, 2003 to
April 29, 2004.  It sought unspecified damages relating to the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
its radiation sensitizer drug EFAPROXYN during this period, and
subsequent declines in the company's stock price.  

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer &
Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
jberens@dyershuman.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Tara L. Acton of Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.,
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800, Denver, CO
         80202-5698, U.S.A., Phone: 303-825-0800, Fax: 303-629-
         7610, E-mail: tacton@bw-legal.com; and

     (2) Paul Howard Schwartz of Cooley Godward, LLP, Colorado
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900, Broomfield, CO80021-
         8023, U.S.A, Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax: 720-566-4099, E-
         mail: schwartzph@cooley.com.


ATICO INT'L: Recalls Folding Tables with Legs that Can Buckle up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atico International USA Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 209,000 folding picnic tables.

The company said the legs on the picnic table can buckle or
break during use, causing the table to collapse or fold
unexpectedly.

The firm has received 26 reports of the tables collapsing,
including 18 reports of injuries including a broken foot and
muscle strains.

The recalled picnic tables have a green plastic top, four green
plastic seats that are permanently attached, and silver/steel
aluminum legs.  Model numbers involved in this recall are
W50B2268 and W50H0284.  The model numbers are located on the
packaging.

These folding picnic tables were manufactured in China by:

     -- Ningbo Brothers Sports Products Co. Ltd,
     -- Superson Furniture Products Co. Ltd., and
     -- Taihou Yunfeng Electric Appliance Co. Ltd.

and are being sold only at Family Dollar, Rite-Aid, Kerr Drug,
Happy Harry's, Mays, Community Distributors, Farmacias El Amal,
Eckerd, Snyder Drug, Navarro Discount Pharmacies, and Duane
Reade stores nationwide from January 2001 through December 2005
for between $20 and $40.

Picture of the recalled folding picnic table:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06233.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the picnic
tables and contact Atico for product verification and product
return instructions.  Consumers who return their table to Atico
will receive a refund and up to $15 for return shipping by U.S.
ground.

For more information, contact Atico International USA toll-free
at (877) 546-4835 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.aticousa.com.


BALLARD DESIGNS: Recalls Toulon Potted Candles for Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ballard Designs Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
775 Toulon potted candles and candle sets.

The company said the packaging or holder can ignite, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves Toulon potted candles that were sold
individually and as a set.  The larger, citronella-scented
single candles were sold in cream, green and terracotta.  
Candles sold as a set include four smaller candles with cream or
green pots and were sold in citronella and unscented.  Item
numbers involved in the recall are AW058 (single) and AW057
(set).  The pots have a raised floral and garland design.

These potted candles were manufactured in China and are being
sold at Ballard Designs' Web site and through its toll-free
number from May 2006 through June 2006 for about $35 for set of
four candles and $69 for the large candle.

Picture of recalled potted candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06573.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these candles immediately
and discard them.  Consumers should contact Ballard Designs for
instructions on how to receive a full refund.  Direct notices
from Ballard Designs are being sent to consumers with the
recalled candles.

For more information, consumers should contact Ballard Designs
at (800) 367-2810 anytime, or visit
http://www.ballarddesigns.com.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Approval of Campbell Settlement Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement for the class action,
"Campbell, et al. v. Verizon Wireless, et al.," which names
Cellco Partnership as a defendant became final on May 3, 2006.

The purported consumer class action was in relation to the
company's advertising, sales, billing and collection practices.  
The suit was filed in August 2000 in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County.  

The trial court granted final approval of a nationwide class
action settlement in May 2004.  The final approval of that
settlement was appealed to the California Court of Appeal.

The trial court's May 13, 2004 order approving the settlement
became final on May 3, 2006, according to company's Aug. 7, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Bedminster, New Jersey-based Cellco Partnership, --
http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- which does business as  
Verizon Wireless, serves nearly 55 million customers nationwide
and offers mobile voice services, including push-to-talk walkie-
talkie style service.  Other service offerings include text and
picture messaging, multimedia content, and mobile Web services.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Review Sought in Termination Fee Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action "In re Cellphone Termination Fee
Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4332," which
names Cellco Partnership, d.b.a. Verizon Wireless as one of the
defendants, moved for reconsideration of the denial of their
motion to certify a class of current subscribers.

The suit is pending in the Alameda County Superior Court,
California, challenging the imposition of early termination
fees.

In these coordinated proceedings, plaintiffs challenged the
business practices of all major wireless service providers
relating to the imposition of early termination fees and the use
of software -- referred to in the lawsuits as a lock -- that
allegedly prevents handsets sold by a wireless carrier from
being used with the service of competing carriers (Class Action
Reporter, April 11, 2006).  

With respect to the company, plaintiffs asserted on behalf of a
putative California class of the company's subscribers from 1999
to the present that early termination fees charged by the
company in California are unenforceable, unlawful, unfair, in
violation of California Civil Code S.1671 and S.1750, and
violate California's Unfair Competition Law and California
Business and Professions Code S17200.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the use of software "locks" on
wireless handsets sold by the company violates California's
Unfair Competition Law.  They thus sought preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief against the imposition of early
termination fees, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against the use of handset "locks", restitution and
disgorgement.

On June 9, 2006, the court denied certification of a class of
current subscribers, but certified a class of former California
subscribers who were assessed an early termination fee from July
23, 1999 to the present.

The court indicated that it would permit Verizon Wireless to
set-off against the early termination fees collected from class
members the actual charges that Verizon Wireless would have
received from class members as a result of their contractual
termination.  

Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration of the denial of their
motion to certify a class of current subscribers.

Bedminster, New Jersey-based Cellco Partnership, --
http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- which does business as  
Verizon Wireless, serves nearly 55 million customers nationwide
and offers mobile voice services, including push-to-talk (PTT)
walkie-talkie style service.  Other service offerings include
text and picture messaging, multimedia content (V CAST), and
mobile Web services.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Farina" Transferred to MDL-1421 Suit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of the purported class action, "Farina, et al. v. Nokia
Inc., et al.," which names Cellco Partnership as one of the
defendants, to the MDL-1421 Litigation in Maryland federal
court.

Filed on April 19, 2001 in Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, the suit names the company and various
other wireless carriers and phone manufacturers as defendants in
the case over wireless phone use (Class Action Reporter, April
11, 2006).

Plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the wireless phones were
defective, since the defendants failed to include a proper
warning about alleged adverse health effects, failed to
encourage the use of a headset, and failed to include a headset
with the phone.

Plaintiffs also alleged that the sale of wireless phones without
a hands-free device facilitated the violation of certain state
laws restricting the use of wireless phones without a hands-free
device while operating a motor vehicle.

The suit sought damages and injunctive relief requiring
defendants to provide headsets to all class members.  The class
actions was removed to federal court and subsequently
coordinated by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
and transferred to the U.S. District Court in Maryland.

On March 5, 2003, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion
to remand to state court and dismissed plaintiffs' claims in the
case.

On March 16, 2005, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's finding of federal jurisdiction and ordered
the actions remanded to the state courts in which they were
originally filed.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants'
petition for certiorari seeking to vacate the Fourth Circuit
judgment in light of intervening precedent.

On Feb. 17, 2006, the suit was removed to federal court.  On
June 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the conditional transfer
order and ordered transfer of the action to MDL-1421 -- In re
Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions Products Liability
Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland).

Bedminster, New Jersey-based Cellco Partnership, --
http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- which does business as  
Verizon Wireless, serves nearly 55 million customers nationwide
and offers mobile voice services, including push-to-talk walkie-
talkie style service.  Other service offerings include text and
picture messaging, multimedia content, and mobile Web services.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Suits Over V710 Models in Two States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership reached a settlement for three purported
class actions alleging that Verizon Wireless did not adequately
disclose certain limitations on the Bluetooth technology that
was included in the Motorola V710 handset.  The handset has been
available for use on the Verizon Wireless network since August
2004.  

The suits are:

     -- "Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, et al.," filed
         on December 30, 2004 in the Superior Court of
         California, Los Angeles County;

     -- "Zhao v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.," filed on January 7,
         2005 in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
         County; and

     -- "Kaner, et al. v. Cellco Partnership," filed on January
         20, 2005 as a purported class action arbitration with
         the American Arbitration Association in New York.

The Opperman action was brought on behalf of a purported class
of California residents who purchased the V710 handset; the Zhao
actions are brought on behalf of a purported nationwide class.  

These actions asserted claims for violation of state consumer
fraud statutes and claims of common law fraud and unjust
enrichment.  They sought compensatory, consequential and
exemplary damages, recovery of attorney's fees, and injunctive
relief.

On Sept. 2, 2005, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered an
order on a preliminary nationwide settlement, which will provide
claimants who submit a claim form under penalty of perjury with
the options of:

     (i) retaining their V710 handset and receiving a $25 bill
         credit;

    (ii) returning their phone and accessories, receiving the
         actual purchase price or $200 if they do not have a
         receipt, and canceling service; or

   (iii) returning their phone and receiving a credit (for $200
         or the actual purchase price) toward a new phone.

The settlement agreement does not address attorneys' fees, which
will be determined by the court.  Plaintiffs' counsel filed a
motion seeking $6.3 million in fees.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court granted final approval of the
settlement for those class members who had received notice of
the settlement prior to that date.  

On May 18, 2006, the court awarded $2,684,958 fees and costs to
plaintiffs' counsel.

Bedminster, New Jersey-based Cellco Partnership, --
http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- which does business as  
Verizon Wireless, serves nearly 55 million customers nationwide
and offers mobile voice services, including push-to-talk walkie-
talkie style service.  Other service offerings include text and
picture messaging, multimedia content, and mobile Web services.


CERIDIAN CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for District of
Minnesota against Ceridian Corp., according to company's Aug. 7,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Since Aug. 6, 2004, six shareholder lawsuits were filed against
the company and certain executive officers.  These suits were
consolidated into a single case as, "In re Ceridian Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-03704 MJD-JGL."

This consolidated suit purports to be a class action filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of the company between April 17, 2003 and March 17, 2005,
inclusive.  It alleges claims against the company and certain of
its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures
made by Ceridian regarding its financial performance, and in
particular Ceridian's accounting for revenue and expenses,
accounting for capitalization, accounting for derivatives,
accounting for long-term leases, and accounting for trademarks.
Plaintiffs allege, in essence, that the company's series of
restatements constituted a violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 25, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and gave leave
to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  An amended
complaint was filed on July 14, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Ceridian Corp Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:97-cv-02044-MJD-JGL," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Minnesota under Judge Michael J. Davis.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Acevedo of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP - SF, 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-676-4495, E-mail:
         eacevedo@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Frances E. Baillon of Halunen & Associates, 220 South
         Sixth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
         612-605-4098, Fax: 612-605-4099, E-mail:
         baillon@halunenlaw.com; and

     (3) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Craig W. Gagnon, Michael E. Keyes, Oppenheimer Wolff &
         Donnelly LLP, 3300 Plz VII Bldg, 45 S 7th St Ste 3300,
         Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 607-7000, Fax: 612-607-
         7100, E-mail: cgagnon@oppenheimer.com or
         mkeyes@oppenheimer.com;

    (ii) Gregory Paul Joseph, Joseph Law Office, 805 3rd Ave
         31st Fl, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-407-1200, Fax:
         1-212-407-1280 (fax), E-mail: gjoseph@josephnyc.com;

   (iii) Amy J. Longo, O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dt
         17th Fl, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-760-9600,
         Fax: 1-949-823-6994; and

    (iv) Ann Curme Shaw, Ceridian Corp, 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd
         Mpls, MN 55425, Phone: 952-853-4210, Fax: 952-853-3413,
         E-mail: ann.c.shaw@ceridian.com.


CIT GROUP: Settles N.J. Litigation Over NorVergence Leases
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the putative national class action,
"Exquisite Caterers Inc., et al. v. Popular Leasing Inc., et
al.," which names CIT Group, Inc. and other financial
institutions as defendants.  The court is before the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County.

The suit was filed on Sept. 9, 2004 against 13 financial
institutions, including CIT, which had acquired equipment leases
from NorVergence, Inc., a reseller of telecommunications and
Internet services to businesses.

The complaint alleged that NorVergence misrepresented the
capabilities of the equipment leased to its customers and
overcharged for the equipment, and that the NorVergence Leases
are unenforceable.  Plaintiffs sought rescission, punitive
damages, treble damages and attorneys' fees.

In addition, putative class actions in Illinois and Texas, which
were based upon the same core allegations and seeking the same
relief, were filed by NorVergence customers against CIT and
other financial institutions.

The parties in Exquisite Caterers reached a settlement, which
was approved by the court on June 30, 2006.  Pursuant to the
class settlement, the court certified a national class, and
class members will receive the money, plus an extra 2% discount
if the settling plaintiff makes all payments due under the dlass
settlement.

Only 22, or approximately 5%, of the national class plaintiffs
opted out of the class settlement.  The putative class action
commenced in Texas will be dismissed as part of the class
settlement.  

The putative class action in Illinois will not be dismissed in
connection with the class settlement.  It has only 2 plaintiffs
remaining.

New York-based CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT) -- http://www.cit.com/
-- is a global commercial and consumer finance company, which
provides a range of financing and leasing products to small,
medium and larger companies across a variety of industries,
including manufacturing, retailing, transportation, aerospace,
construction, technology, communication and various service-
related industries.


DANA CORP: New Claims Against Execs Emerge in Ohio Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated shareholder class action against Dana Corp. has
been expanded to include allegations that the company entered
into side agreements with various customers that were not
properly included on its financial statements, The Toledo Blade
reports.

Five purported class actions were filed against Dana Corp. in
the fourth quarter of 2005, which were later consolidated as,
"Howard Frank v. Dana Corp., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-07393-
JGC."   

The plaintiffs in the consolidated case allege violations of the   
U.S. securities laws arising from the issuance of false and
misleading statements about Dana's financial performance and
failures to disclose material facts necessary to make these
statements not misleading, the issuance of financial statements
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules and the issuance
of earnings guidance that had no reasonable basis.   

The plaintiffs' claim that the price at which Dana's shares
traded at various times was artificially inflated as a result of
the defendants' alleged misstatement.    

In March, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  
Ohio appointed the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions &   
Retirement as the lead plaintiff in consolidated securities
class action against Dana and certain of its current and former
officers (Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2006).   

Recently, U.S. District Court Judge James Carr ruled that can
continue despite the company's bankruptcy (Class Action
Reporter, July 4, 2006).  The company and its affiliates filed
for chapter 11 protection on Mar. 3, 2006.

In the recent filing, former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer Mike Burns and former chief financial officer Bob
Richter are accused of concealing Dana's actual operating
performance to avoid having to write down hundreds of millions
of dollars of deferred-tax assets.

They are also accused of buoy Dana's stock price; get a better
credit rating; keep key employees; raise $450 million by selling
debt securities; and avoid board liability for rejecting
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s $18-a-share takeover attempt in 2003.

They were also accused of hiding suppliers' steel surcharges of
up to 10 percent through special "give-back" deals with
commercial truck customers, the lawsuit said.

In addition, they allegedly entered into side agreements with
various customers to give 15 percent to 25 percent credits,
which were not properly included on Dana's financial statements
so as to report revenue and income on total invoice amounts.

Representing the lead plaintiffs is Darren Robbins at Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway,
Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4297 (San Diego Co.),
Phone: 619-231-1058; 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Continue to Face Suits Over Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. remain defendants in
several class actions that are pending in New York federal court
and in California state court.

In the New York action, the plaintiffs allege that the
subsidiary, directly and through its agents, violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act and
New York's Deceptive Practices Act by failing to use reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy when issuing
tenant reports.

The action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.

In California, two subsidiaries of the company are defendants in
separate class actions.  The plaintiffs in both cases allege
that the company's subsidiaries, directly and through their
agents, violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act and California Business and Professions Code by
failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum
possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports.

The company did not report material development in the case at
its Aug. 7 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

St. Petersburg, Florda-based First Advantage Corp. (NASDAQ:
FADV) -- http://www.fadv.com/-- provides risk mitigation,  
screening services and credit reporting to enterprise and
consumer customers.


FMC CORP: Settles Pa. Microcrystalline Cellulose Suit for $25M
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp. reached a $25.0 million settlement in an antitrust
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania that alleges violations of antitrust
laws involving its microcrystalline cellulose product.

In 2005, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the
company's co-defendant, Asahi Kasei Corp. for a payment of $25.0
million.

As a result of motions by the company to disqualify the
plaintiffs' economic experts, the experts' reports were required
to be revised.  At the oral hearing on these motions, the court
requested that the parties engage in settlement discussions.

Mediation before a magistrate judge was held on July 21, 2006
and as a result, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the federal class action for the same amount paid by
the company's co-defendant.

The suit is "Highland Lab., Inc. v. FMC Corp., et al, Case No.
2:01-cv-01464-TON," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas N. O'Neill,
Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs is H. Laddie Montague, Jr. of Berger
& Montague, PC, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
215-875-3000, E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net.


FREDDIE MAC: Reaches $4.65M Settlement in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac has reached a proposed settlement resolving the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action that was
filed following the company's restatement of financial results
for the years 2000 through 2002.

The proposed settlement includes a payment of $4.65 million,
which will be fully covered by insurance.  The company did not
admit wrongdoing in entering the agreement.

The proposed settlement is subject to the negotiation and
execution of final documentation and preliminary and final
approval by the court.

"[The] proposed settlement further demonstrates our commitment
to resolving past issues so that we can maintain our focus on
achieving our mission, serving our customers and running our
business well," said Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac's chairman
and chief executive officer.

In anticipation of the proposed settlement, the Department of
Labor informed Freddie Mac that it has closed its investigation
of Freddie Mac's Thrift/401(k) Savings Plan.

The Department has indicated that it will consider whether
further action is warranted if the settlement is not finalized,
approved, and implemented as proposed.

Freddie Mac has agreed to retain an independent fiduciary to
review and approve the settlement and plan for the allocation of
settlement proceeds.

In addition, the company has agreed to conduct voluntary
seminars to educate employees about investing and the importance
of asset diversification, and to amend the Thrift/401(k) Savings
Plan to appoint an independent fiduciary to oversee the Freddie
Mac Stock Fund, one of the investment options under the plan.

The company has also agreed to provide additional education to
employee ERISA-fiduciaries regarding their obligations under
ERISA.

Freddie Mac is a stockholder-owned company established by
Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing.
Freddie Mac fulfills its mission by purchasing residential
mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances
primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt
instruments in the capital markets.

Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in
six homebuyers and more than four million renters in America.

For more information, contact Heather McElrath of Freddie Mac,
Phone: +1-703-903-4123.


FULLEI FRESH: Recalls Alfalfa on Salmonella Contamination Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fullei Fresh of Miami, Florida, is recalling its 5-oz.
containers of alfalfa sprouts because they have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled alfalfa sprouts were distributed statewide in food
service establishments.  The product comes in a 5-oz., clear
plastic cup container.  This product was grown and packaged by
Fullei Fresh, and distributed by produce companies.

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

The potential for this contamination was noted after random
testing by the company revealed the presence of Salmonella in
one 5-oz. cup of alfalfa finished product.  Distribution of this
product has been suspended while the company continues its
investigation as to the source of this finding.

Consumers who have purchased 5-oz. containers of alfalfa sprouts
in the month of July are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-877-4-Fullei.


FUTURE FOOD: Recalls Dips for Possible Listeria Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Future Food Ltd. of Dallas Texas, in cooperation with the U. S.
Food and Drug Administration, is recalling 7-oz. and 12-oz.
packages of Krab Supreme Dip and Supreme Krab Dip, sold under
the brand names of Salads of the Sea, Hen House and Fisherman's
Market.  

The company said the dips have the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria Monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea.  Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Krab Dip Supreme and Supreme Krab Dip were distributed in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Missouri,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas in the retail stores
of Winn-Dixie, Harris Teeter, Kash n Karry, Ball's and Hen
House.

The product was sold under the Salads of the Sea, Hen House and
Fisherman's Market brands and is packaged in 7-oz. and 12-oz.
round and rectangular shaped containers.  The use by code date
on the product is Aug. 23, 2006 and will be indicated on either
the top or bottom of the container.  Lot code for the product is
06186.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
of the product in one of the states where it is distributed.
Testing revealed that a package of the finished product
contained Listeria Monocytogenes.  Future Food will have no more
of this product produced while it continues its investigation
into the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased packages of this product with the
August 23rd code date are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund or they may discard it.  Consumers
with questions can call the company at 1-800-318-7229.


KENTUCKY: Reaches $20M Settlement in Suit Over Anthem Stock Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing to approve a $20 million settlement of a lawsuit
filed against the Kentucky retirement system is set Sept. 28,
2006 according to The Courier-Journal.

The suit stemmed from the demutualizaton of Anthem Insurance
Cos. in June 2001.  Under Indiana law, the retirement systems
were identified as policyholder and thus qualified to receive
shares in Anthem's conversion.  The retirement systems raised
$61.6 million by selling the stocks received.

But plaintiffs said the retirement systems breached fiduciary
duty by failing to return the money to retirees.  Franklin
Circuit Court sided with plaintiffs in a May 2004, order.  
Afterwards, parties entered settlement negotiations.

A settlement subsequently reached received preliminary approval
July 3.  Under it, the three original plaintiffs could receive
up to $25,000 each.  Legal fees are allowed up to 30% of the
settlement.  Up to $300,000 will be set aside to pay for
administering the class action.

Eligible claimants are retirees belonging to the Kentucky
Employees' Retirement System, the County Employees' Retirement
System, State Police Retirement System, Legislators' Retirement
Plan or Judicial Retirement Plan who had Anthem as a health
insurer between June 18, 2001, and Nov. 2, 2001, with no break
in coverage for more than one day.  The class is estimated at
22,306 and each could receive at least $400 each.

The retirement system is required to put the $20 million in
trust.  It continues to deny wrongdoing.

Representing the retirement systems is Lexington lawyer C.
Joseph Beavin at Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, 300 W. Vine Street,
Suite 2100, Lexington, Kentucky 40507-1801 (Fayette Co.), Phone:
859-231-3000, Telecopier: 859-253-1093; 859-253-1027.  
Representing the retirees is Covington lawyer Ron Parry of Parry
Deering Futscher & Sparks, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky (Kenton
Co.).


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Rejects Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted a motion to dismiss a complaint, with leave for the
plaintiffs to amend and refile the consolidated securities class
action against LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., according to
company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

In Dec. 2003, April 2005 and June 2005, six purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These actions have since been consolidated into a single
proceeding captioned, "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

On Jan. 27, 2006, the lead plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended and consolidated complaint.  This complaint purports to
be a class action seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who acquired the company's Class A common stock between
July 24, 2003 and Oct. 18, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the company to
make false and misleading statements about the company's
business and forecasts about the company's financial
performance, that certain of its individual officers and
directors sold portions of their stock holdings while in the
possession of adverse, non-public information, and that certain
of the company's financial statements were false and misleading.

On March 27, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint, and on July 31, 2006, the
court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend and
refile.

The suit is "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05421-RMW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Julie Juhyun Bai of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
         & Pucillo, 425 California Street, Suite 2100, San
         Francisco, CA 94104-2205, Phone: 415-433-3200 x241,
         Fax: 415-433-6382, E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants are Leo Patrick Cunningham and
Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650/320-4573, Fax:
650-565-5100 and (650) 493-9300, E-mail: lcunningham@wsgr.com
and dturbow@wsgr.com.


NEW YORK: Court Approves $8.4M Settlement of Workers' Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Manhattan approved on Aug. 15 a
settlement among the New York Convention Center Operating Corp.,
the state authority charged with operating the Javits Convention
Center, and three individual employees of NYCCOC with a class of
current and former African-American and Hispanic NYCCOC
employees.

The agreement resolves class proceedings in the case, "Cokely,
et al. v. NYCCOC, et al." that was commenced in 2000 alleging,
among other things, racially biased distribution of work
opportunities and treatment of minorities.

The settlement requires NYCCOC to institute a range of human
resources programs aimed at enhancing its policies and
procedures, already in place, to prevent and remedy any
discrimination in the workplace.  

The settlement also calls for a payment of approximately $8.4
million to be paid to minority class members who are or were
during the relevant period freight handlers, show carpenters,
and part-time housekeepers, which payment includes a total of $3
Million in attorneys' fees and costs, as approved by the court.

While the defendants in this action have maintained that the
plaintiffs' charges are baseless, they have agreed to the
settlement and the implementation of the remedies provided for
by the decree in the interest of ending a time consuming and
very expensive litigation.

The District Court certified the suit in 2004 (Class Action
Reporter, May 28, 2004).  In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that
a work environment in which pervasive racism not only cripples
earning potential, partly through dishonest manipulation of a
supposedly random system of work assignment, and jeopardizes the
jobs of those who are subjected to retaliation and/or
discriminatory discipline, but also infects the work
environment, manifesting itself in the form of vicious verbal
slurs, physical attacks, and death threats.

The plaintiffs also complain that the Caucasian males who
operate the Javits Center have discriminated against Black and
Hispanic carpenters, freight handlers and part-time housekeepers
by:

     (1) manipulating the job allocation and promotion system to
         give Caucasian male employees preferences with respect
         to the type and amount of work assigned, and greater
         opportunities to obtain higher paying jobs at the
         Javits Center;

     (2) denying these Black and Hispanic employees various
         privileges of employment and singling them out for
         reprimand because of their race; and

     (3) subjecting these Black and Hispanic employees to
         retaliation for complaining to management about this
         discrimination.

In addition, the action includes three individual Caucasian
plaintiffs who claim that they have been retaliated against for
complaining about pervasive and overt racism at the Javits
Center.

Plaintiffs allege that the Javits Center's employment policies
and practices violate various federal and state civil rights
laws, and seek both injunctive and monetary relief.  

For more details, visit the Web Sites of plaintiff law firms
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and Leeds Morelli & Brown,
P.C.:  http://www.milberg.comor http://www.lmblaw.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: DA Seeks to Intervene in Suit Over Jail Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham has filed a motion
to intervene in a federal class action that is asking the
release of non-violent offenders to address jail overcrowding.

Attorney David Rudovsky filed the suit on behalf of prisoners at
Philadelphia jails.  According to Jim McCaffrey of The Evening
Bulletin, Mr. Rudovsky raises not only the problem of
overcrowding in cells, but also of people being forced to sleep
in common areas, as well as increased tensions among inmates,
inadequate screening and health care, lack of access to their
attorneys, denial to their right to a speedy hearing, and
inadequate toilet and shower facilities.

Mr. Rudovsky is intent on addressing these problems even if it
means releasing non-violent offenders, a solution Ms. Abraham
said she will oppose.

"Public safety is my most important concern," she said in a
release.  She noted in her motion to intervene a 1980 federal
court order releasing prisoners to address overcrowding.  She
said: "These releases were devastating.  The number of fugitives
nearly tripled; outstanding bench warrants skyrocketed from
18,000 to 50,000."

Ms. Abraham said Ms. Rudovsky has taken no position on her
request for intervention in the case.


PETRON CORP: Faces Potential Suit Over Oil Spill in Phil. Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------
An organization of fishermen in the Philippines is planning to
file a class action against Petron Corp. over an oil spill in
the waters of one of its provinces, according to The Manila
Times.

The Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas
(Pamalakaya) wants the oil firm to account for economic and
environmental crimes arising from the sinking of the company's
fuel cargo in Guimaras Strait.  The damage brought by the oil
that spilled as a result of the sinking has reportedly affected
26,000 people.

"A class suit can be filed against Petron either in the
Philippines or in any international court," according to
Fernando Hicap, national chairman of Pamalakaya.

He cited as precedent a class action filed by Ecuadorans against
Chevron Texaco in 2003 because of a toxic spill in the Latin-
American nation.

Petron's 998-ton MT Solar 1 tanker was carrying about two
million liters of bunker fuel when it sank on August 11 off
Guimaras Island.  It has since polluted coastal areas in a
region known for beach resorts and marine reserves.

According to Mr. Hicap, 453 hectares of mangrove and 58 hectares
of seaweed plantation have been destroyed and some 20 barangays,
6 wharves, 13 resorts, 9 fishing grounds, 4 diversities, 7
scenic views and a cave were affected by the oil spill.

A statement from Petron said it has employed deep-sea underwater
inspection and salvage operations to determine whether and how
the fuel cargo can be safely retrieved from under 640 meters of
water.  It has also started a cleanup that is expected to be
completed in 30 to 45 days.


SEMCO ENERGY: Subsidiaries Dismissed from W.Va. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia
granted the motion for summary judgment in the class action,
"Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," which names two subsidiaries of SEMCO
Energy, Inc. as defendants.  The order essentially dismisses
with prejudice, SEMCO Energy Services, Inc. and SEMCO Pipeline
Co. from the suit.

In October 2004, both subsidiaries were added as defendants in
the putative class action brought in West Virginia federal
court.

The suit alleged that the approximately 30 named defendants
engaged in gas marketing activities that violated state and
federal anti-trust laws and otherwise tortiously interfered with
the business opportunities of the plaintiffs from 1996 to
present.

On Oct. 4, 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss by
certain defendants, including the company's subsidiaries, as to
federal anti-trust claims arising prior to Oct. 25, 2000.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the court declined a request that it amend its
dismissal order to include any state anti-trust claims arising
during the same period.  

On June 14, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment on all remaining claims pending against the
company's subsidiaries, on statute of limitations grounds.

As a result of this ruling, SEMCO Energy Services, Inc. and
SEMCO Pipeline Co. have been dismissed, with prejudice, from the
lawsuit.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp. et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under
Judge Robert C. Chambers.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly McGinley
         Han and Lonnie C. Simmons, Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero,
         604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301, Phone:
         304/342-0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and

     (2) Robert C. Sanders, Law Office of Robert C. Sanders,
         12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-
         2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Michael S. Becker, James W. Draughn, Jr., Avery
         Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of Kirkland & Ellis,
         Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and

    (ii) John H. Tinney of The Tinney Law Firm, P.O. Box 3752,
         Charleston, WV 25337-3752, phone: 304/720-3310, Fax:
         304 720-3315.


STATE FARM: Calif. Appeals Court Dismisses "Hill" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carolyn Kuhl of the California Superior Court in Los
Angeles granted State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.'s
motion for summary judgment in a nationwide class action in
which the plaintiffs are seeking to recover up to $47 billion
from the company.

In her opinion, Judge Kuhl ruled that the plaintiffs had failed
to show that State Farm's board of directors had not properly
exercised its business judgment with regard to surplus and
dividends.

In particular, Judge Kuhl held that State Farm's board was
sufficiently informed and that there were "meritorious"
rationales for State Farm's decision to accumulate surplus,
rather than liquidate its surplus assets to pay dividends.

In addition to rejecting plaintiffs' contract claims, Judge Kuhl
held that plaintiffs could not use their claim for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing to make an end-run
around the business judgment rule and could not use their claims
under California statutory law to attempt to create liability
for State Farm's governance of its internal corporate affairs.

In "Hill v. State Farm", plaintiffs challenged the dividend and
surplus decisions made from 1983 to 1998 by State Farm's board
of directors at the company's headquarters in Illinois.

The plaintiffs alleged that State Farm's surplus was too large
and that its dividends to its policyholders were too small.  
Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought to have a California court
and jury determine what amount of surplus would have been
reasonable and prudent and to compel State Farm to distribute
the excess to its policyholders across the nation.  The
plaintiffs claimed that the class was entitled to as much as $47
billion.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates,
representing State Farm, filed a summary judgment motion,
seeking dismissal of all of the plaintiffs' claims.

The law firm argued that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by
the business judgment rule and by the plain language of the
plaintiffs' insurance policies, which gave State Farm's board of
directors discretion to determine what amount of dividends, if
any, should be awarded to policyholders.

For more information, contact Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP and Affiliates - Palo Alto, 525 University Avenue,
Suite 1100, Palo Alto, California 94301, Phone: 650.470.4500,
Fax: 650.470.4570, E-mail: info@skadden.com


ST. JUDE: Continues to Face Minn. Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

In April and May 2006, three shareholders, each purporting to
act on behalf of a class of purchasers from Jan. 25 through Apr.
4, 2006, separately sued the company and certain officers,
alleging that the company made materially false and misleading
statements during the class period relating to financial
performance, projected earnings guidance, and projected sales of
implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The complaints, which all seek unspecified damages and other
relief, as well as attorneys' fees have been consolidated.  A
lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed.

The first identified complaint is "Paskowitz, et al. v. St. Jude
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01379," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James
M. Rosenbaum.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax:
         212-684-519, E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;
  
     (4) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

     (5) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

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

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


TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Settles Buyers' Source Financing Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for Knox County, Ohio approved a
preliminary settlement in the purported class action against
Textron Financial Corp. in relation to the financing of certain
land purchases by consumers through a third party land developer
commonly known as "Buyer's Source."

The lawsuit was commenced on Feb. 3, 2004 against the company
and Litchfield Financial Corp., certain of their current and
former officers, and other third parties.

Among other claims, the purported class action alleges fraud and
failure to disclose certain information in the financing of
Buyer's Source and seeks compensatory damages and punitive
damages in excess of $10 million.

The court has approved a preliminary settlement that is
contingent upon acceptance by class members.  


UNITED STATES: Mich. Court Rules Surveillance Program Illegal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division ruled that the
government's secret surveillance program is unconstitutional.

The suit challenges the legality of a secret program launched by
the National Security Agency at least by 2002 and continuing
today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other
judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international
telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and
organizations within this country.

The program has been acknowledged by the U.S. administration to
have been authorized by the president's secret order during 2002
and reauthorized at least thirty times since.  

Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who,
according to their affidavits, are defined by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act as "U.S. persons."  Many of their
communications are and have been with persons in the Middle
East.  Plaintiffs alleged that they have been subjected to
defendants' interceptions, and that the surveillance program not
only injures them specifically and directly, but that it
substantially "chills and impairs" their constitutionally
protected communications.

Plaintiffs have alleged that the program violates:

     -- their free speech and associational rights, as
        guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States
        Constitution;

     -- their privacy rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth
        Amendment of the United States Constitution;

     -- the principle of the Separation of Powers because the
        program has been authorized by the President in excess
        of his Executive Power under Article II of the U.S.
        Constitution, and that it specifically violates the
        statutory limitations placed upon such interceptions by
        the Congress in FISA because it is conducted without
        observation of any of the procedures required by law,
        either statutory or Constitutional.

Plaintiffs have requested a permanent injunction, alleging that
they sustain irreparable damage because of the continued
existence of the program.  Plaintiffs also request a Partial
Summary Judgment holding that the program violates:

     * the Administrative Procedures Act,
     * the Separation of Powers doctrine,
     * the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
       and
     * the statutory law.

Plaintiffs in the suit are: American Civil Liberties Union,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan, Council on American-Islamic
Relations, Council on American Islamic Relations Michigan,
Greenpeace, Inc., National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, James Bamford, Larry Diamond, Christopher Hitchens,
Tara Mckelvey, and Barnett R. Rubin.

The ACLU sued on behalf of a group of journalists, lawyers and
researchers, including several from Detroit, who suspected that
government eavesdroppers had targeted their international calls.

Defendants are:

     -- National Security Agency/Central Security Service; and   
     -- Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, in his official  
        capacity as director of the NSA and chief of the Central
        Security Service.

Defendants have moved to dismiss this lawsuit, or in the
alternative for Summary Judgment, on the basis of the state
secrets evidentiary privilege and plaintiffs' lack of standing.

Defendants argue that the state secrets privilege bars
plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs cannot establish standing
or a prima facie case for any of their claims without the use of
state secrets.  Further, defendants argue that they cannot
defend this case without revealing state secrets.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs do not establish their
standing.  They contend that plaintiffs' claim here is merely a
subjective fear of surveillance which falls short of the type of
injury necessary to establish standing.  They argue that
plaintiffs' alleged injuries are too tenuous to be recognized,
not "distinct and palpable" nor "concrete and particularized."

In a conclusion dated Aug. 17, Judge Taylor said the court is
constrained to grant to plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment
requested, and holds that the program violates the APA; the
Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments
of the U.S. Constitution; and the statutory law.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the final claim of data-mining is
granted, because litigation of that claim would require
violation of defendants' state secrets privilege.

The permanent injunction of the program requested by plaintiffs
is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to
sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met.   The
irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is
clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiffs
are violated by the program.

The suit is Case No. 06-CV-10204.  A copy of the court ruling is
available at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1029

The Detroit ruling will not have a direct impact on 17 class
action against telecommunications companies that have been
consolidated in San Francisco in U.S. District court, according
to a report by Ron Hutcheson and Margaret Talev of The Mercury
News.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BROADCOM CORP: Brower Piven Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Broadcom Corp. between
July 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against defendant Broadcom and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.  

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 12,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


IMAX CORP: Kahn Gauthier Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that a class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock and other securities of IMAX Corp.
between Feb. 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006.
  
On August 10, 2006, shares of IMAX Corp. plummeted 41%, the
morning after the company issued a series of negative reports to
its shareholders.  

IMAX said in its second-quarter earnings report that it had
received an informal inquiry request from the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission regarding revenue-recognition timing.

The SEC's inquiry was focused on IMAX's recognition of revenue
in the fourth quarter of 2005 in 10 theaters that were not open
during that quarter.

Further, IMAX said that it had identified a "material weakness"
related to revenue-recognition issues in its second-quarter
financial report, leading to a reduction of $800,000 in revenue.
IMAX also announced that it could not find a merger partner or
buyer.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 25,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

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


WITTNESS SYSTEMS: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Witness Systems, Inc.
between April 23, 2004 and Aug. 11, 2006.

The lawsuit was filed against Witness Systems and David B.
Gould, Nicholas Discombe, William Evans, Joel G. Katz, Thomas J.
Crotty and Loren Wimpfheimer.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that they had engaged in the backdating of stock option
grants to certain officers and directors of the company and
failed to properly account for the expenses arising from that
activity.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the company announced that its Board of
Directors had formed a special committee to investigate the
company's stock option practices based upon the finding of
certain discrepancies.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the company disclosed that it intended to
restate its prior financial results as well as that it received
an indication from NASDAQ that it may be subject to delisting as
a result of the disclosed matters.

Shares of Witness Systems reacted negatively to the news,
falling from $13.48 per share to $12.91 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 16,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

For more details, contact Brian Penny, Esq. of The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


ZALE CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Zale Corp. common stock during the period between
Feb. 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006.

The complaint charges Zale and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

The company, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates as
a specialty retailer of fine jewelry in North America.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Zale's stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the class period,
reaching a high of $34.42 per share in August 2005.  Defendants
took advantage of the inflation in Zale's stock price caused by
their misstatements, selling $15.8 million worth of their Zale
stock.

On April 10, 2006, the company announced that the SEC had
initiated a non-public investigation relating to various
accounting and other matters related to the company, including
accounting for extended service agreements, leases, and accrued
payroll.

Then, on May 5, 2006, after the market closed, the company
announced that its Chief financial officer, Mark Lenz, had been
placed on administrative leave. On this news, the company's
stock price fell, sending it down 30% from its Class Period
high.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the class period, were that:

      -- the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

      -- the company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its improper accounting practices and
         failure to properly account for extended service
         agreements, leases and payroll accrual; and

      -- the company's financial statements were misstated due
         in part to the timing of certain vendor payments.

Interested who wish to serve as lead plaintiff, must move the
Court no later than 60 days from July 19, 2006.

For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/zale/.


                            *********


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  * * *