CAR_Public/060824.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 168

                            Headlines

ACE LTD: Court Mulls Motions in Insurance Policyholders' Suit
ACE LTD: Pa. Court Deliberates on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
ACE LTD: State Courts Stay Policyholders' Suits Against Units
AES CORP: Plaintiffs File Opening Brief in Calif. Suit Appeal
CONNECTICUT: Arbitration Sought in Greenwich Police's Bias Suit

DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit
FRONTIER INSURANCE: Court Orders Enforcement of $1.6M Settlement
GENZYME CORP: Biosurgery Investors' Suit Allowed to Move Forward
GOOGLE INC: Facing Click Fraud Lawsuit in Penna. Federal Court
HEALTH NET: Appeals New Jersey Court Order in ERISA Litigation

HEALTH NET: Motions Filed to Dismiss Tag-Along Cases in MDL 1334
HOME DEPOT: Facing Labor Lawsuit in Wash. Superior Court
ILLINOIS: Tax Body Should Address Budget Complaints, Judge Says
IMAGITAS INC: Class in Motorists Suit Over Ad Deal May Reach 2M
INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Continues to Face Landowners' Suit in Ind.

KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Faces Suit Over High Mercury Level at Facility
KINDER MORGAN: Ark. Court Considers Motions in "Johnson" Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Settles Styrene Leak Litigation in Ohio for $2M
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Asks to Bifurcate Proceedings in OOIDAI Lawsuit
LEHIGH VALLEY: Anti-Arbitration Argument in Loan Suit Heard

MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Vacates November 2005 Vioxx Trial Verdict
MISSOURI: Appeals District Judge's Ruling in "Roe" Abortion Case
MISSOURI: Trial in Suit Against Voter Identification Law Begins
NEW ZEALAND: Auckland City Council May Face Suit Over Land Rates
PETCO ANIMAL: Lawsuits Question Sale to Private Equity Firms

PIONEER COS: Appeal on Removal of Mercury Emission Suit Denied
SCANA CORP: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Right-of-Way Suit Appeal
SILICON STORAGE: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
STAR GAS: Conn. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
STATION CASINOS: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Bias Lawsuit

STONE & WEBSTER: Court Denies Motion to Amend Securities Suit
TENNESSEE: Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Sevier Jail
TENNESSEE GAS: Still Faces Hurricane Related Litigation in La.
TEREX CORP: Settles Shareholder's Lawsuit in Conn. State Court
WELLMAN INC: Settles Polyester Staple Fiber Antitrust Suits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
IMAX CORP: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.J.
SAFENET INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
ZALE CORP: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ACE LTD: Court Mulls Motions in Insurance Policyholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule in certain motions in a multidistrict litigation pending
against ACE, Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA, Inc.
along with a number of other insurers.

A series of federal putative nationwide class actions filed by
insurance policyholders have been consolidated by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into one case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On Aug. 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning
employee benefit plans.  The employee benefit plans litigation
against the company has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named the
company, ACE INA, ACE USA, ACE American Insurance Co., Illinois
Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North
America.  

They allege that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and
brokers conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions.  In
addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer.

Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries.

In the commercial insurance consolidated complaint, plaintiffs
assert these causes of action against the company:

      -- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
      -- federal antitrust law,
      -- state antitrust law,
      -- aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
      -- unjust enrichment  

The plaintiffs have sought unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees.

On Nov. 29, 2005, the company and other property and casualty
insurer defendants filed motions to dismiss the commercial
insurance complaint.  

In that motion, defendants argued that plaintiffs' federal
antitrust and RICO claims were barred by the McCarran-Ferguson
Act, which limits antitrust and some other types of liability
for insurance activities regulated by state law.

Defendants also argued that plaintiffs had not adequately
alleged proximate cause or conspiracy.  Also, they argued that
plaintiffs' claims alleged fraud and were subject to heightened
pleading standards, which plaintiffs could not meet, and that
plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the elements of a RICO
claim, including the existence of an enterprise or a pattern of
racketeering activity.

Finally, defendants argued that plaintiffs' state-law antitrust
claims were deficient for many of the same reasons that the
federal claims were alleged to be deficient, and that plaintiffs
had not adequately alleged any state common-law claims.

Plaintiffs have filed a response and the motion to dismiss
remains pending.  

On Feb. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class in
the Commercial and Employee Benefits MDL cases.  This motion has
been fully briefed and is pending.

ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- the  
holding company of the ACE Group of Companies provides a range
of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide
through operations in more than 50 countries around the world
and has the authority to conduct business in over 140 countries.


ACE LTD: Pa. Court Deliberates on Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities fraud class action, "In Re Ace Limited Securities
Litigation."

Following the filing of a civil suit against Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, ACE,
Ltd.was named in four putative securities class actions on Oct.
14, 2004.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the suits in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet Metal Workers'
National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust.  
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian
Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants.  Plaintiffs
assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control person liability).

Plaintiffs allege that the company public statements and
securities filings should have revealed that insurers, including
certain company entities and brokers, allegedly conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions and that the company's
revenues and earnings were inflated by these practices.

On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and
that defendants could not be held liable for any failures to
disclose information.  

Defendants also argued that the individual defendants could not
be held liable for statements they did not make that plaintiffs
had not adequately pled scienter, and that plaintiffs had not
adequately pled loss causation.  

Plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains
pending.  

The suit is "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Timothy J. Savage.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Tor Gronborg, Udoka Nwanna and
Debra J. Wyman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
231-1058, E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com, udokan@lerachlaw.com and
debraw@lerachlaw.com.


ACE LTD: State Courts Stay Policyholders' Suits Against Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts and the Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida stayed
certain purported class actions pending against subsidiaries of
ACE Ltd.

The state court class actions have allegations similar to the
multidistrict litigation brought by insurance policyholders
against the company and other defendants in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The state court cases involve:

     --  Illinois Union Insurance Company, an ACE subsidiary,
         which was named in: "Van Emden Management Corp. v.
         Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al., (Case No. 05-
         0066A; Superior Court of Massachusetts, filed Jan. 13,
         2005);" and

     -- ACE American Insurance Co., an ACE subsidiary, which
        was named in a state court lawsuit in Florida: "Office
        Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. et al.,
        (Case No. 502005CA004396; Circuit Court of the 15th
        Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County Florida, filed
        June 22, 2005).

The Van Emden and Office Depot were stayed pending resolution of
the consolidated proceedings against the company in the U.S.
District of New Jersey or until further order of the court.  
Plaintiffs in Office Depot have appealed the court's order
staying the case.

ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- the  
holding company of the ACE Group of Companies provides a range
of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide
through operations in more than 50 countries around the world
and has the authority to conduct business in over 140 countries.


AES CORP: Plaintiffs File Opening Brief in Calif. Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an opening brief in an appeal of the dismissal
by the San Diego County Superior Court, California of a remanded
antitrust class action against AES Corp. and other electric
companies.

In November 2000, the company was named in a purported class
action along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful
manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market,
allegedly resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices
throughout California.

The alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright
Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  

On July 30, 2001, the court remanded the case to San Diego
Superior Court.  The case was consolidated with five other
lawsuits alleging similar claims against other defendants.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in
the consolidated action, which reasserted the claims raised in
the earlier action and names the company, AES Redondo Beach,
LLC, AES Alamitos, LLC, and AES Huntington Beach, LLC as
defendants.

In May 2002, the case was removed by certain cross-defendants
from the San Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.  The plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which was
granted on Dec. 13, 2002.  

Certain defendants appealed aspects of that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On Dec. 8, 2004, a
panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part
and reversing in part the decision of the District Court, and
remanding the case to state court.

On July 8, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer in state court
seeking dismissal of the case in its entirety.  On Oct. 3, 2005,
the court sustained the demurrer and entered an order of
dismissal.  On Dec. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  

Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening appeal brief on June
16, 2006.  Defendants-appellees anticipate filing their
responsive brief in or about mid-August 2006.

The federal suit is "Gordon v. Reliant Energy Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:00-cv-02525-RHW-RBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California under Judge Robert H. Whaley
with referral to Judge Ruben B. Brooks.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ralph B. Kalfayan of Krause
Kalfayan Benink and Slavens, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 232-0331, Fax: (619) 232-4019.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Katherine Koransky Pothier of Coughlan Semmer and
         Lipman, 501 West Broadway, Suite 400, San Diego, CA
         92101-3544, Phone: (619) 232-0800, Fax: (619) 232-0107;
         and

     (2) Stephen David Raber and Richard Hackney Wiegmann of
         Williams and Connolly, 725 12th Street North West,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 434-5000, Fax:
         (202) 434-5029.


CONNECTICUT: Arbitration Sought in Greenwich Police's Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for seven Greenwich police who accused their
department of racial discrimination has offered to seek
arbitration before a federal judge, according to the Greenwich
Post.

Seven members of the Greenwich Police Department filed the
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut in June (Class Action Reporter, June 14,
2006).

The main allegation in the suit is that the department has
"systematically and continuously discriminated" against members
of racial and ethnic minorities in its hiring and promotional
practices.  

Plaintiffs in the suit include five African-American and two
Hispanics, who all make up roughly half the African-Americans
and Hispanics in the department and nearly 5 percent of its work
force.  Plaintiffs in the suit, who are represented by attorney
Lewis Chimes, includes Terral Hardy, John Rodriguez, Scott
Johnson, Carlos Franco, John Woodward, Robert Brown, and,
Vincent O'Banner.

According to the suit, the seven plaintiffs had "individually
and collectively sought redress" internally before seeking
relief in the courts.  It also claims that the department
"manipulated assignments of the few minority officers on the job
to foster the appearance of diversity," and has never appointed
a black or Hispanic chief, deputy chief or captain.

Plaintiffs were particularly concerned on the fairness of the
application process for the sergeant position.  They are seeking
damages and lost benefits, as well as a third party to monitor
the police department's hiring, promotion and discipline
procedures.

The suit is "Hardy et al. v. Greenwich, Case No. 3:06-cv-00833-
WWE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Warren W. Eginton.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Lewis H. Chimes of Garrison
Levin-Epstein Chimes & Richardson, 405 Orange St., New Haven, CT
06511, Phone: 203-777-4425, E-mail: lchimes@garrisonlaw.com.


DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal
Healthcare, Inc. filed a demand to compel arbitration in the
case, which was previously dismissed by U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana back in March.  DVA Renal is
formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc.  It is now a
subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities.  

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on
behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the
defendants for health care goods and services from on or about
January 1991 through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting
from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December
2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and
certain agencies of the U.S. Government.  

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  In August
2006, the plaintiff proceeded with a demand to compel
arbitration.

The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co v. Gambro A
B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge
Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill.  

Representing the plaintiff is Greg Murphy of Morain & Murphy,
6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225-
767-7151, Fax: 225-767-8995, E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com.

Representing the company is G. William Jarman of Kean Miller, et
al., (Baton Rouge), P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone:
225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133.


FRONTIER INSURANCE: Court Orders Enforcement of $1.6M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted a class of securities fraud plaintiffs' motion to
enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the plaintiffs
and the defendant insurance group in "In Re Frontier Group Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:94-cv-05213-LBS."

The court said the settlement agreement clearly required the
settlement fund to be no less than $1.6 million, regardless of
the sale price of the defendant's property.  

The plaintiffs and Frontier agreed on a settlement, which the
district court approved as fair, adequate and reasonable.  The
settlement agreement stated, in part, that the settlement fund
would be no less than $1.6 million.

The settlement would be funded by $500,000 in officers and
directors liability insurance proceeds and by the sale of real
property owned by Frontier.  The anticipated sale price of the
property was no less than $1.1 million.  Frontier paid the
insurance proceeds into the fund, but was unable to sell the
property for two years.  The final sale price was $833,500.

Frontier filed for bankruptcy in 2005, and pursuant to the
bankruptcy plan, no proceeds of the sale were awarded to the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs moved the court to enforce the settlement
agreement against the defendants and to rule that the defendants
were liable for the entire $1.1 million.

The district court ordered the settlement agreement be enforced
at the $1.6 million figure, ruling that the defendants were
liable for the difference between the sale price of the property
and the $1.1 million anticipated figure.

The suit is "In Re Frontier Group Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:94-cv-05213-LBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge VJ, Leonard B. Sand

Representing the defendants are Robert C. Boneberg and Kurt W
Lenz both of Lowenstein Sandler PC, 1251 Avenue Of The Americas
New York, NY 10020, Phone: (212) 262-6700, Fax: (973) 422-6845
or (973) 422-6871, E-mail: rboneberg@lowenstein.com or
klenz@lowenstein.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jules Brody and Mark Levine both of Stull, Stull &
         Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 687-7230, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:
         ssbny@aol.com or mlevine@ssbny.com;

     (2) Robert M. Kornreich of Wolf Popper Ross Wolf & Jones,
         L.L.P., 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 759-4600; and

     (3) Samuel Sporn of Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton
         Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: (212)964-
         0046.


GENZYME CORP: Biosurgery Investors' Suit Allowed to Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton of the Southern District of
New York allowed a suit filed by former shareholders of Genzyme
Corp.'s Biosurgery Division to go forward, according to The
Boston Globe.
  
Genzyme set up tracking stocks for its Genzyme Biosurgery and
Genzyme Molecular Oncology divisions in the 1990s.  Tracking
stocks are securities created to reflect the performance of a
division within a larger company, and may be folded back into
the parent company according to a predetermined procedure.

In May 2000, Chief executive Henri Termeer and Genzyme said they
exercised the right to fold back the shares and set the terms
for the exchange based on the average closing price of the
divisions' and parent company's shares from March 26 through
April 23, 2003.  That gave shareholders about one-twentieth of a
share of Genzyme for each share of the Biosurgery division.

Subsequently, shareholders of the biosurgery division accused
the company of intentionally manipulating the price of
Biosurgery shares so it could trade them for Genzyme shares at
an advantageous rate.  Plaintiffs also claim several failures of
the company to disclose important transactions, including a
planned sale of a cardiothoracic device business; as well as
significant developments about the division's arthritis drug,
Synvisc, positive news about recent Synvisc sales, and buyout
interests for it.

The suit awaits certification as a class action.  Shareholders
are represented by attorneys at Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP.

The suit is "Riggs, et al. v. Termeer, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
04014-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Vineet Bhatia of Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone:
         (713) 651-9366;

     (2) Andrew Zenner Michaelson of Boies, Schiller & Flexner
         LLP (Florida), 401 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1200, Ft.
         Lauderdale, FL 33446; Frank C. Moore, III and Philippe
         Z. Selendy both of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 446-
         2383 or (212) 446-2300, Fax: (212) 446-2350, E-mail:
         fmoore@bsfllp.com; and Jonathan H. Sherman of Boies,
         Schiller & Flexner LLP, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.,
         Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 237-2727.

Representing the defendants are William I. Sussman of Ropes &
Gray, LLP (Rockefeller), 45 Rockefeller Centre, New York, NY
10111, Phone: (212) 8415700, Fax: (212) 841-5725, E-mail:
wsussman@ropesgray.com; and John D. Donovan, Jr. of Ropes & Gray
LLP (Boston, MA), One International Place, Boston, MA 02110,
Phone: (617) 951-7000, Fax: (617) 951-7050, E-mail:
jdonovan@ropesgray.com.


GOOGLE INC: Facing Click Fraud Lawsuit in Penna. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Delaware County, Pennsylvania is suing Google,
Inc. on behalf of several hundred Pennsylvania and New Jersey
customers exposed to alleged click fraud following a breach of
contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair business
practices by the company.

Plaintiff Samuel Lassoff filed the suit as a customer of
Google's advertising services, whose account was allegedly
exposed to hundreds of dollars worth of illegitimate click
fraud.

His complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania holds Google liable for negligent
handling of plaintiffs' advertising account and for a failure to
immediately warn Plaintiff of their negligence.  It also accused
Google of receiving and retaining money paid by the plaintiff in
response to fraudulent clicks.

Mr. Lassoff is bringing his complaint as a class action on
behalf of a purported class, consisting of Pennsylvania and New
Jersey customers whose advertising accounts were allegedly
negligently handled by Defendant between October, 2005 through
February 2006, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

Mr. Lassoff's complaint claims that in December 2005, he
received an invoice regarding his Pay Per Click advertising,
where it was discovered that plaintiff was the victim of
hundreds of dollars worth of fraudulent clicks.

He said that in an attempt to rectify the situation, plaintiff
contacted defendant numerous times via mail and telephone, with
no response from the defendant.  Further, in an attempt to
correct his credit account, he allegedly had to spend several
hours contacting his credit card company to appeal the charges,
which ultimately led to litigation.

According to him, the tasks were extremely burdensome and time
consuming for plaintiff to complete and required over 30
attorney hours over several days.

He said Google engaged in a scheme to hide its negligent
handling of plaintiffs' advertising account, and that the
company did not warn the plaintiffs of fraudulent clicks or made
any recovery efforts for the plaintiffs.

His complaint claims of breach of contract, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and unfair business practices.  He is seeking relief
and judgment:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action
        and certifying plaintiff as class representative under
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest thereon;

     -- pre-judgment interest and post judgment interest from
        the date of entry until the date of satisfaction at the
        highest rates allowable by law;

     -- punitive and exemplary damages to the extent permitted
        by law; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including
        attorneys fees and expert fees, among others.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

The suit is "Lassoff v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-03542-
MAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Mary A. Mclaughlin.

To contact Mr. Lassoff: Lassoff Law Associates, 1616 Walnut
Street, Suite 1105 Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-545-4450,
E-mail: lawfast@aol.com.


HEALTH NET: Appeals New Jersey Court Order in ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. is appealing a May 11, 2006 ruling on
"fiduciary" exception by the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey in class actions against the company
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The first two suits filed against the company are: "McCoy v.
Health Net, Inc. et al.," and "Wachtel v. Guardian Life
Insurance Co."

These suits are nationwide class actions and are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
a class of subscribers in a number of the company's large and
small employer group plans.

The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff
case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001.  Subsequently,
the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and
plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of
a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New
Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001.

The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003 and asserts
claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net
subscribers.  These two cases have been consolidated for
purposes of trial.

Plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the
Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated
ERISA in connection with various practices related to the
reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-network
providers.  Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of payment of
benefits, injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees.

During 2001 and 2002, the parties filed and argued various
motions and engaged in limited discovery.  On April 23, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers.  The
Company opposed that motion and the Court took it under
submission.

On June 12, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which was ultimately denied.  On Aug. 8, 2003, plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Health Net, Inc. as a
defendant and expanding the alleged violations.

On Dec. 22, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
on the issue of whether Health Net utilized an outdated database
for calculating out-of-network reimbursements, which the company
opposed.  That motion, and various other motions seeking
injunctive relief and to narrow the issues in this case, are
still pending.

On Aug. 5, 2004, the District court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and issued an order certifying two
nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers who received
medical services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and
to whom dDefendants paid less than the providers' actual charge
during the period from 1997 to 2004.

On Aug. 23, 2004, the company requested permission from the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to appeal the District
Court's class certification Order pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On Nov. 14, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the company's motion for leave to appeal.  On March 4,
2005, the Third Circuit issued a briefing and scheduling order
for the company's appeal.  Briefing on the appeal was completed
on June 15, 2005.  

The Third Circuit heard oral arguments on Dec. 15, 2005.  No
decision has yet been rendered on the appeal.

                        "Scharfman" Suit

On Jan. 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the
McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action against:

     -- Health Net, Inc.,
     -- Health Net of the Northeast, Inc.,
     -- Health Net of New York, Inc.,
     -- Health Net Life Insurance Co., and
     -- Health Net of California, Inc.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey as "Scharfman v. Health Net, Inc., 05-CV-00301
(FSH)(PS)."

It was brought on behalf of the same parties who would have been
added to the McCoy/Wachtel action as additional class
representatives had the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint in that action.  This
new action contains similar allegations to those made by the
plaintiffs in the McCoy/Wachtel action.

Discovery has concluded and a final pre-trial order was
submitted to the District Court in McCoy/Wachtel on June 28,
2005.  Both sides have moved for summary judgment, and briefing
on those motions has been completed.

In their summary judgment briefing, plaintiffs also sought
appointment of a monitor to act as an independent fiduciary to
oversee the administration of the company's Northeast health
plans, including claims payment practices.  

The company opposed the appointment of a monitor.
Notwithstanding its pending Third Circuit appeal of the District
Court's class certification order, a trial date was set for Aug.
19, 2005.

On July 29, 2005, the company filed a motion in the District
Court to stay the District Court action and the trial in light
of the pending Third Circuit appeal.

On Aug. 4, 2005, the District Court denied the company's motion
to stay and instead adjourned the Aug. 19 trial date and ordered
that the parties be prepared to go to trial on seven days'
notice as of Aug. 19, 2005.  

The company immediately filed a request for a stay with the
Third Circuit seeking an order directing the District Court to
refrain from holding any trial or entering any judgment or order
that would have the effect of resolving any claims or issues
affecting the disputed classes until the Third Circuit rules on
the class certification order.

Plaintiffs cross-moved for dismissal of the class certification
appeal.  On Aug. 27, 2005, the Third Circuit granted the
company's motion for a stay and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion.

Plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages being sought
in this litigation and, although these proceedings are subject
to many uncertainties, based on the proceedings to date, the
company believes that the amount of damages ultimately asserted
by plaintiffs could be material.

On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion with the District
Court seeking sanctions against the company for a variety of
alleged acts of serious misconduct, discovery abuses and fraud
on the District Court.  

The sanctions sought by plaintiffs and being considered by the
Court include, among others, entry of a default judgment,
monetary sanctions, including a substantial award for
plaintiffs' legal fees and either the appointment of a monitor
to oversee claims payment practices and dealings with state
regulators or the appointment of an independent fiduciary to
replace the company as a fiduciary with respect to claims
adjudications for members.

Plaintiffs also are seeking the appointment of a discovery
special master to oversee any further document production.  On
Aug. 12, 2005, the company responded to plaintiffs' motion
denying that any sanctionable misconduct, discovery abuses or
fraud had occurred.

The District Court conducted hearings for 11 days on this issue
from October 2005 through March 2006.  Throughout the time that
the court has held these hearings, the parties have taken
additional depositions and have submitted additional briefing on
several issues that have arisen.

The hearings have now been concluded.  Following the conclusion
of the sanctions hearings, the parties submitted proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The District Court has
taken these proposals under advisement and the company are
awaiting a decision.

While the sanctions proceedings were progressing, the court and
the Magistrate Judge overseeing discovery entered a number of
orders relating, inter alia, to production of documents.

On March 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ordered that all e-mails
of Health Net and all of its subsidiaries be searched for
documents responsive to all of plaintiffs' document requests.
The practical effect of this order would be to require the
company to restore all e-mails from back-up tapes and to review
them along with e-mails on all current servers.

Defendants appealed the March 9, 2006 order based upon the undue
burden associated with such an expansive and expensive
restoration and review of backed up emails.

In an order dated May 5, 2006, the court limited the scope of
the restoration, search and review of backed up emails to 59
current and former associates.  The May 5 Order set a deadline
of July 15, 2006 to complete the restoration, search and
production of emails, which deadline has been extended until
Sept. 30, 2006 by the court.

The company is in the process of restoring back-up tapes and
identifying emails to comply with the court's May 5 order.  This
restoration process is complex, time consuming and expensive.

On July 14, 2006, in light of a Third Circuit Ruling, the
company filed a motion seeking relief from the obligation to
search and produce documents pursuant to the May 5 order on the
basis that the cases are no longer class actions and, in the
event that the cases are subsequently certified for class
treatment, the search for documents should be guided by issues
that remain in the class action.  The court has yet to rule on
this request.

The May 5 Order also set forth certain findings regarding
Plaintiffs' argument that the "crime-fraud" exception to the
attorney-client privilege should be applied to certain documents
for which the company have claimed a privilege.

In this ruling, the court made preliminary findings that a
showing of a possible crime or fraud was made with respect to
Health Net's interactions with New Jersey Department of Banking
and Insurance and the payment of a second restitution in New
Jersey.

In this opinion and in earlier orders, the court explained that
a multi-step process must occur before determining whether a
claim of privilege can be pierced by the "crime-fraud" exception
to the attorney-client privilege.

The May 5 order is not a final decision on this issue, but
rather one step in the multi-step process.  The court has not
yet made a final ruling on this issue.

On May 11, 2006, the court issued another opinion ruling on the
"fiduciary" exception to the attorney-client privilege.  In this
ruling, the court held, among other things, that the fiduciary
exception to the attorney-client privilege should apply to this
litigation, and that the decision of which year's database to
apply is a fiduciary function and not a "plan design" function
for ERISA purposes.  

The court also held that functions Health Net, Inc. performs
related to medical reimbursement determinations are fiduciary
functions, therefore making Health Net, Inc. potentially liable
to plaintiffs as a fiduciary under the ERISA.  

On June 12, 2006, the company filed a notice of appeal of this
order, and its appellate brief was filed on July 21, 2006.

Woodland Hills, California-based Health Net, Inc. (NYSE: HNT) --
http://www.healthnet.com/-- is an integrated managed care  
organization that delivers managed healthcare services through
health plans and government-sponsored, managed-care plans.  It
operates and conducts its businesses through its subsidiaries.


HEALTH NET: Motions Filed to Dismiss Tag-Along Cases in MDL 1334
----------------------------------------------------------------
After the settlement of the class action, "In re Managed Care
Litigation, MDL 1334," motions to dismiss were filed for the
tag-along suits involved in the consolidated case, which names
Health Net, Inc. as one of the defendants.  

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation previously
transferred various class actions against managed care
companies, including the company, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in "In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL
1334."

This proceeding was divided into two tracks, the subscriber
track, comprising actions brought on behalf of health plan
members, and the provider track, comprising actions brought on
behalf of health care providers.

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the final subscriber
track action involving the company.  All appeals regarding that
action have been exhausted and the subscriber track has been
closed.

The provider track includes these actions:

      -- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et al., including Health Net,
         Inc., filed in the Southern District of Florida on
         Aug. 17, 2000 as an amendment to a suit filed in the
         Western District of Kentucky;

      -- "California Medical Association v. Blue Cross of
         California, Inc., PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.,
         PacifiCare Operations, Inc. and Foundation Health
         Systems, Inc." filed in the Northern District of
         California in May 2000;

      -- "Klay v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, et al.,
         including Foundation Health Systems, Inc.," filed in
         the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 22, 2001
         as an amendment to a case filed in the Northern
         District of California;

      -- "Connecticut State Medical Society v. Physicians Health
         Services of Connecticut, Inc.," filed in Connecticut
         state court on Feb. 14, 2001;

      -- "Lynch v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut,
         Inc." filed in Connecticut state court on Feb. 14,
         2001;

      -- "Sutter v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc." filed in
         New Jersey state court on April 26, 2002;

      -- "Medical Society of New Jersey v. Health Net, Inc., et
         al.," filed in New Jersey state court on May 8, 2002;

      -- "Knecht v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc.,
         filed in the District of Oregon in May 2003;

      -- "Solomon v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc.         
         filed in the Southern District of Florida on Oct.
         17, 2003;

      -- "Ashton v. Health Net, Inc., et al." filed in the
         Southern District of Florida on Jan. 20, 2004; and

      -- "Freiberg v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al.," including
         Health Net, Inc., filed in the Southern District of
         Florida on Feb. 24, 2004)"

These actions allege that the defendants, including the company,
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments to providers, imposed unfair
contracting terms on providers, and negotiated capitation
payments inadequate to cover the costs of the health care
services provided and assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, and several state common law
doctrines and statutes.

"Shane," the lead physician provider track action, asserted
claims on behalf of physicians and sought certification of a
nationwide class.  

The Knecht, Solomon, Ashton and Freiberg cases all are brought
on behalf of health care providers other than physicians and
seek certification of a nationwide class of similarly situated
health care providers.  Other than Shane, all provider track
actions involving the company have been stayed.

On May 3, 2005, the company and the representatives of
approximately 900,000 physicians and state and other medical
societies announced that the company had signed an agreement
settling "Shane," the lead physician provider track action.

The settlement agreement requires the company to pay $40 million
to general settlement funds and $20 million for plaintiffs'
legal fees.

The deadline for class members to submit claim forms in order to
receive a portion of the settlement funds was Sept. 21, 2005.  
This deadline was extended by agreement to Nov. 21, 2005 for
class members who reside or practice in a county declared as a
disaster area as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

During the three months ended March 31, 2005, the company
recorded a pretax charge of approximately $65.6 million in
connection with the settlement agreement, legal expenses, and
other expenses related to the MDL 1334 litigation.  On July 6,
2006, the company made payments, including accrued interest,
totaling approximately $61.9 million.

The settlement agreement also includes a commitment that the
company institute a number of business practice changes.  Among
the business practice changes the company has agreed to
implement are:

      -- enhanced disclosure of certain claims payment
         practices;

      -- conforming claims-editing software to certain editing
         and payment rules and standards;

      -- payment of electronically submitted claims in 15 days
         (30 days for paper claims);

      -- use of a uniform definition of "medical necessity" that
         includes reference to generally accepted standards of
         medical practice and credible scientific evidence
         published in peer-reviewed medical literature;

      -- establish a billing dispute external review board to
         afford prompt, independent resolution of billing
         disputes;

      -- provide 90-day notice of changes in practices and
         policies and implement various changes to standard form
         contracts;

      -- establish an independent physician advisory committee;
         and,

      -- where physicians are paid on a capitation basis,
         provide projected cost and utilization information,
         provide periodic reporting and not delay assignment to
         the capitated physician.

The settlement agreement requires the company to implement these
business practice changes by various dates, and to maintain them
for a four-year period thereafter.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting
its final approval of the settlement agreement and directing the
entry of final judgment.

Four physicians appealed the order approving the settlement, but
each of the physicians moved to dismiss their appeals, and the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed all of the appeals by June 20, 2006.

On July 19, 2006, joint motions to dismiss were filed in the
District Court with respect to all of the remaining tag-along
actions filed on behalf of physicians, the California Medical
Association, Klay, Connecticut State Medical Society, Lynch, and
Sutter actions.

Woodland Hills, California-based Health Net, Inc. (NYSE: HNT) --
http://www.healthnet.com/-- is an integrated managed care  
organization that delivers managed healthcare services through
health plans and government-sponsored, managed-care plans.  It
operates and conducts its businesses through its subsidiaries.


HOME DEPOT: Facing Labor Lawsuit in Wash. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Washington resident Edward Novak and other Home Depot Inc.
employees initiated a lawsuit against company alleging he and
others who worked in the chain's New Jersey stores are illegally
being denied overtime pay, The Express-Times reports.

The suit, filed in Washington Superior Court, claims that the
company is misclassifying workers as "exempt employees" to save
millions of dollars in employee compensation by requiring them
to work in excess of 40 hours per work week without paying them
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Home Depot Inc. --
http://www.homedepot.com-- operates as a home improvement  
retailer in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.  The company
operates The Home Depot Stores that offer an assortment of
merchandise and services.


ILLINOIS: Tax Body Should Address Budget Complaints, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boone County Judge Gerald Grubb said at a hearing on a suit
challenging the legality of the county's budgets that plaintiffs
in the case should file a tax protest, not a class action,
according to the Rockford Register Star.

Attorney Rene Hernandez filed the suit on behalf of former Boone
County Board member Wallace Ramsay and his wife, Jean.  The suit
questions the county's authority to collect taxes for 2005 and
2006.  

Mr. Hernandez said that the County Board has held seven
allegedly illegal special meetings, including two pertaining to
the budgets-over the past two years.  He is asserting that the
approval of the budgets is therefore null and void.  The
complaint asks for declaratory relief, seeking property tax  
refunds for Boone County residents, who are being represented by  
the Ramsays.

Defendants in the suit are Boone County Board and County
Treasurer Carolynn G. Knox.  The board is being defended by
Boone County State's Attorney Jim Hursh.

For more details, contact Rene Hernandez, Phone: 815-387-0261
and (815) 544-4219, Fax: (815) 547-7917.


IMAGITAS INC: Class in Motorists Suit Over Ad Deal May Reach 2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed by motorists over its
contract with Florida to place advertisements inside automobile
registration packets, News4Jax.com reports.

The suit filed by five motorists is accusing the company of
using personal information it received from the Florida Division
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to distribute advertising
materials.  Plaintiffs could number more than 2 million should
the case be certified as a class action, the report said.

The suit said federal law forbids the use of personal
information for non-governmental purposes without the consent of
the person identified by the information.  Imagitas reportedly
received from the state the name and address of the motor
vehicle owner and the type of registered vehicle.

Imagitas said in a statement its contract with the state
complies with both state and federal privacy laws, and that it
was not sold the information, nor were the information shared or
sold to advertisers.

Frank Penela, a spokesman for the state motor vehicles division,
said the state's agreement with Imagitas enables it to print and
distribute registration renewals for free.  Imagitas said
Florida saved about $1 million from the agreement.

The suit is asking compensatory damages of $2,500 for each
person whose private information was obtained.

The office of Jacksonville attorney Norwood Wilner has
reportedly already received information that more than 2 million
motorists in the state were mailed packets with advertising.

Imagitas is a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, which acquired it in
2005.


INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Continues to Face Landowners' Suit in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., a subsidiary of IPALCO
Enterprises, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported class
action in Morgan County Superior Court, Indiana over the sale of
lands it previously acquired.

Several years back, the company obtained, through purchases from
several owners, a substantial tract of land as a potential site
for a future power plant.  The company later determined it no
longer intended to build a power plant on that land and sold it
in 2004.

In September 2004, a former owner of a parcel included within
the company's land filed purported class action in Morgan County
Superior Court to force Indianapolis Power to pay any profit on
the sale to the various former owners, as well as profits
received from ground leases and timber sales.

Plaintiff contended that the company obtained the various
parcels through eminent domain or the threat of eminent domain
and alleged violations of Indiana's eminent domain statute,
conversion and unjust enrichment.  

Discovery has not yet begun and the court has not certified a
class, according to the company's Aug. 7 Form 10-Q filing the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.ipalco.com/-- through  
its regulated utility unit, Indianapolis Power & Light,
generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to more than
465,000 customers in central Indiana.


KIDDIE KOLLEGE: Faces Suit Over High Mercury Level at Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haddonfield lawyer Philip Stephen Fuoco filed a lawsuit against
Kiddie Kollege on behalf Franklin residents Marc and Jennifer
Mignano, whose son Isaac, attended a mercury-contaminated day
care facility, the Courier-Post reports.

In July, Kiddie Kollege voluntarily shut down its facilities
after testing found abnormal mercury levels inside the building,
which used to be a thermometer factory.  Testing found elevated
mercury levels in 20 students and three employees.

Prolonged exposure to mercury vapor can cause neurological and
kidney damage.

Named defendants in the suit are Jim Sullivan Inc., the current
owner of the property, as well as the current and previous
owners of the center.  Philip J. Guiliano, the owner of the
building when it operated as Accutherm Inc., was also named in
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks that the defendants pay for medical monitoring
and also seeks unspecified punitive damages.  It also seeks
class certification, which would allow additional plaintiffs to
join the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are represented by Philip Stephen Fuoco of The Law
Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco, 24 Wilkins Place, Haddonfield, New
Jersey 08033-2406, Phone: (856) 354-1100, E-mail:
fuoco@prodigy.net.


KINDER MORGAN: Ark. Court Considers Motions in "Johnson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Miller County, Arkansas has yet to rule on
various motions in the class action, "Weldon Johnson and Guy
Sparks, individually and as representative of others similarly
situated v. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et al., No. 04-327-2,"
which names Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and several
other firms including its subsidiaries defendants.

Filed on Oct. 8, 2004, the suit includes as defendants the
company and:

     --  Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.;
     -- Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.;
     -- KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.;
     -- Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC;
     -- Tejas Gas, LLC;
     -- Midcon Corporation; and
     -- CenterPoint Energy, Inc.

The complaint -- served on the Kinder Morgan defendants on Oct.
21, 2004 -- purports to bring a class action on behalf of those
who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1, 1994
to the date of class certification.

It alleges that CenterPoint by and through its affiliates has
artificially inflated the price charged to residential consumers
for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the non-
CenterPoint defendants.

The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint's
purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non-
CenterPoint defendants sell natural gas to CenterPoint's non-
regulated affiliates at prices substantially below market, which
in turn sells such natural gas to commercial and industrial
consumers and gas marketers at market price.

The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful
enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants,
and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 18, 2004, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Case No.
04-4154.  On Jan.   26, 2005, the plaintiffs moved to remand the
case back to state court, which motion was granted on June 2,
2005.

The parties have recently concluded jurisdictional discovery and
various defendants have filed motions arguing that the Arkansas
courts lack personal jurisdiction over them.  The court has not
yet ruled on these motions, 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.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Richard A. Adams of Patton, Roberts,
         McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive,
         Suite 400, Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: (903) 334-7107,       
         Fax: (903) 334-7007, E-mail: radams@pattonroberts.com;

     (2) [Plaintiff] Michael B. Angelovich of Nix, Patterson &
         Roach, LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 500,
         Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: (903) 223-3999, Fax: (903)
         223-8520, E-mail: mangelovich@nixlawfirm.com;

     (3) [Plaintiff] John C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box
         618, Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax:
         (870) 773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com;

     (4) [Defendant] Nelson V. Shaw of Hart, Cranford, Shaw &
         Freeze, LLP, 5505 Plaza Drive, Texarkana, TX 75503,
         Phone: (903) 838-5151, Fax: (903) 838-5961, E-mail:
         nvshaw@hcsf-law.com; and

     (5) [Defendant] J. Clifford Gunter, III of Bracewell &
         Patterson, L.L.P., 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2900,
         Houston, TX 77002-2781, Phone: (713) 223-2900.


KINDER MORGAN: Settles Styrene Leak Litigation in Ohio for $2M
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio held a fairness
hearing for the proposed $2 million settlement in a consolidated
class action over styrene gas leak in Cincinnati, Ohio, which
names as defendants Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and
certain of its subsidiaries as well as other firms.
  
On Aug. 28, 2005, a railcar containing the chemical styrene
began leaking styrene gas in Cincinnati, Ohio while en route to
a terminal operated by Queen City.  The railcar was sent by the
Westlake Chemical Cor. from Louisiana, transported by Indiana &
Ohio Railway, and consigned to Westlake at its dedicated storage
tank at the Queen City terminal.  

The railcar leak resulted in the evacuation of many residents
and the alleged temporary closure of several businesses in the
Cincinnati area.  Within three weeks of the incident, seven
separate class action complaints were filed in the Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, including case numbers: A0507115,
A0507120, A0507121, A0507149, A0507322, A0507332, and A0507913.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court consolidated the complaints under
consolidated case number A0507913.  Concurrently, 13 designated
class representatives filed a Master Class Action Complaint in
the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, case number A0507105
against:

     -- Westlake Chemical Corp.,
     -- Indiana and Ohio Railway Corp.,
     -- Queen City Terminals, Inc.,
     -- Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC,
     -- Kinder Morgan GP, Inc. and
     -- Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.

The complaint alleges negligence, absolute nuisance, nuisance,
trespass, negligence per se, and strict liability against all
defendants stemming from the styrene leak.  It seeks
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, punitive damages, pre
and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees.

The claims against the Indiana and Ohio Railway and Westlake are
based generally on an alleged failure to deliver the railcar in
a timely manner, which allegedly caused the styrene to become
unstable and leak from the railcar.  The plaintiffs allege that
The Kinder Morgan had a legal duty to monitor the movement of
the railcar en route to its terminal and guarantee it's timely
arrival in a safe and stable condition.

On Oct. 28, 2005, Kinder Morgan filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  On Dec. 1, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  On Dec. 12,
2005, Kinder Morgan filed a motion for an extension of time to
respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in order
to conduct discovery regarding class certification.  On Feb. 10,
2006, the court granted the company's motion for additional time
to conduct class discovery.  

On Feb. 10, 2006, the court granted the company's motion for
additional time to conduct class discovery.

In June 2006, the parties reached an agreement to partially
settle the class action.  On June 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed
an unopposed motion for conditional certification of a
settlement class.

The settlement provides for a fund of $2.0 million to distribute
to residents within the evacuation zone (Zone 1) and residents
immediately adjacent to the evacuation zone (Zone 2).  Persons
in Zones 1 and 2 reside within approximately one mile from the
site of the incident.

The court preliminarily approved the partial class action
settlement on July 7, 2006.  The company agreed to participate
in and fund a minor percentage of the settlement.

A fairness hearing was set Aug. 18, 2006 for the purpose of
establishing final approval of the partial settlement.  

Houston, Texas-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE:
KMP) -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- owns or operates  
approximately 27,000 miles of pipelines and approximately 145
terminals.  Its pipelines transport more than two million
barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products, and up
to 8.4 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.  


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Asks to Bifurcate Proceedings in OOIDAI Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, Inc. is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida to bifurcate the proceedings in the
class action, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-
01005-HLA-MCR."

On Nov. 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. and six individual BCO Independent Contractors
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville,
Florida, against the company.

The complaint alleges that certain aspects of the company's
motor carrier leases with its BCO Independent Contractors
violate certain federal leasing regulations and seeks injunctive
relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees.  

On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the court dismissed all claims of
one of the six individual plaintiffs on the grounds that the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act is not applicable
to leases signed before the Act's Jan. 1, 1996, effective date,
and dismissed all claims of all remaining plaintiffs against
four of the seven company entities previously named as
defendants.  

Claims currently stand against:
        
      -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
      -- Landstar Ligon, Inc. and
      -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.  

With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 order
held that the ICC Termination Act created a private right of
action to which a four-year statute of limitation applies.  

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
included additional allegations with respect to violations of
certain federal leasing regulations.  On Aug. 30, 2005, the
court granted a motion by plaintiffs to certify the case as a
class action.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit denied the defendants' petition for permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order.

Discovery is ongoing but substantially complete in the case,
which is currently scheduled for a jury trial in October 2006.
The plaintiffs and the defendants each have motions for partial
summary judgment pending before the Court, which is expected to
rule on these motions prior to or at trial.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the defendants filed a motion, which is
pending, asking that the court bifurcate the proceedings such
that only common issues of law would be decided on a classwide
basis and any remaining issues of fact, including whether any
class member can prove liability or damages, would be tried on
an individualized basis.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary
         Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of
         The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite
         300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or
         202/965-6100; and

     (2) Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,
         Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax:
         904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,
         P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036-
         5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;  

    (ii) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968,
         Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; and

   (iii) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


LEHIGH VALLEY: Anti-Arbitration Argument in Loan Suit Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff attorney in a class action against Lehigh Valley
College over student loans argued before a judge at Lehigh
County Court that the suit should go to trial despite an
arbitration clause in students' enrollment forms, The Morning
Call reports.

The lawsuit accuses Lehigh Valley College in Pennsylvania of
misleading students about high-interest loans.  Palmer Township
law firm Cohen & Feeley, in collaboration with a Lansdale firm
filed the suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in
September 2005.  It was filed on behalf of all former students
of Allentown, now known as Lehigh Valley College, who received
allegedly "high interest private loans" to fund their tuition
requirements.  It names as plaintiff Lisa Baran McCarten and I-
iesha Leon, both of Bethlehem.  

The complaint alleges that the college violated Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and engaged
in intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation,
and negligence by allegedly rushing students through a loan
application process, through which such students applied for and
accepted "private, non-federal, non-state loans" at times when
such students were allegedly eligible for low interest federal
or state guaranteed education loans.

It also claims that actual interest rates were not disclosed on
the loan application.  Both students, according to the suit,
'were deliberately 'rushed through' the financial aid
application process and were not afforded the necessary time to
carefully read and understand any or all clauses."

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

In recent developments, parties are trying to argue before
Carbon County Senior Judge John P. Lavelle whether the case
should go to trial or arbitration.  The defendant maintains that
the suit should be dealt with in arbitration in accordance with
a clause the students signed in enrollment forms.

Plaintiff attorney Richard Gorski of Cohen & Feeley contended
that the suit should be heard by the court because the
arbitration clause was unfair.  Further, the clause should be
dismissed because the students were given little opportunity to
understand it and had little choice but to sign it.

Judge Lavelle is expected to make a decision on the arbitration
issue within a couple of months, according to the report.

The suit is "McCarten et al. v. Allentown Business School, Ltd.
t/a Lehigh Valley College."  Representing Leigh Valley College
is attorney Mark Budoff at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, MetLife
Building, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (New York
Co.), Phone: 212-801-3162, Fax: 212-801-6400.

Mr. Gorski may be reached at Cohen & Feeley, P.C., 2851 Baglyos
Circle, Suite 200, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18020 (Lehigh &
Northampton Cos.).


MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Vacates November 2005 Vioxx Trial Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
The jury verdict rendered in favor of Merck & Co. in the Vioxx-
related trial, "Humeston v. Merck," has been vacated.

After hearing oral argument on Aug. 17 in the New Jersey
Superior Court in Atlantic County, New Jersey, the Honorable
Carol E. Higbee ruled that the November 2005 trial verdict
should be vacated on various grounds, including findings by the
New England Journal of Medicine that Merck had failed to report
material cardiovascular safety data in connection with the
publication of its landmark Vioxx clinical study known as Vigor.

The judge's ruling nullifies the verdict for all purposes, and
will allow plaintiff, Frederick "Mike" Humeston, a new day in
court.

On Nov. 3, 2005, in the case of "Frederick and Mary Jackson  
Humeston vs. Merck & Co., Inc.," filed in Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, a jury returned a verdict
in favor of Merck on all counts.

The case was the second Vioxx personal injury case to go to
trial.  Mr. Humeston, a 60-year old U.S. Postal employee from
Idaho, alleged that he suffered a heart attack in September 2001
as a result of taking Vioxx.  He sought compensatory and
punitive damages.

The jury voted 8 to 1 that the company did not fail to provide
an adequate warning to prescribing physicians of an association
between Vioxx and an increased risk of serious cardiovascular
events prior to Mr. Humeston's heart attack.

The jury also unanimously found that the company did not violate
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in marketing the drug to
prescribing physicians.

For more information, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. at
Seeger Weiss LLP, E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com, or David R.
Buchanan, Esq., E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com, Phone: (212)
584-0700, Toll Free: (877) 541-3273.


MISSOURI: Appeals District Judge's Ruling in "Roe" Abortion Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Jay Nixon filed a notice of appeal to the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis against a ruling in
the "Roe v. Crawford" suit, according to Associated Press.

In July, Judge Dean Whipple of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri granted all women inmates in
Missouri access to timely, safe, and legal abortion care (Class
Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).

The suit started in 2005 when prison officials vigorously denied
a woman prisoner access to abortion care.  In early October, the
American Civil Liberties Union asked a court to require prison
officials to transport the prisoner for an abortion.  After
losing in lower courts, the state appealed the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court.  At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court refused
to block the lower court's decision requiring the state to
transport the woman to a nearby health care facility for an
abortion.

Following that decision, Judge Whipple certified the case of
"Jane Roe" against the Department of Corrections as a class
action on behalf of all current and future Missouri inmates
wanting abortions in seeking to overturn a state policy against
helping prisoners get the procedure (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
12, 2005).  

In his order, filed in Kansas City, Judge Whipple said that  
three more inmates have requested abortions since his initial  
ruling in October.  Gov. Matt Blunt, a Republican, appealed  
Judge Whipple's ruling to the Supreme Court, which declined to  
intervene.

At issue in the case was the state's abandonment in 2005 of a  
long-standing policy of providing transportation and guards for  
inmates wanting abortions leaving an exception only if a woman's  
life or health is in danger.  The state cited costs and security  
concerns.  Ms. "Roe" argued that the policy is a violation of
her right to an abortion.  

According to Judge Whipple's recent decision, women prisoners do  
not lose their constitutional right to abortion care.  And as  
with all other serious medical needs, including abortion, prison  
officials must transport a prisoner offsite for treatment if  
necessary.

The attorney general's appeal on the ruling will be grounded on
a 1986 Missouri law prohibiting the use of public funds,
facilities and employees to assist an abortion when it's not
necessary to save the life of the woman, spokesman John Fougere
said, according to the report.

Associated Press noted that Judge Whipple rejected a similar
argument in his July 18 ruling.

Meanwhile, attorneys in the suit are in disagreement on how much
money should lawyers receive in the suit.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys filed court requests earlier this month to recoup
roughly $200,000 in fees and costs from the state.  The attorney
general's office said the request was premature, and it should
only be for around $45,000.

The suit is "Roe v. Crawford et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04333-DW,"  
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District Of  
Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple.
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Thomas Michael Blumenthal of Paule Camazine &   
         Blumenthal, PC, 165 N. Meramec Ave., 6th Floor, St.  
         Louis, MO 63105-3789, Phone: 314-727-2266, Fax: 314-  
         727-2101, E-mail: tblumenthal@pcblawfirm.com;
   
     (2) Talcott Camp, Diana Kasdan, Jennifer Nevins and
         Chakshu Patel of American Civil Liberties Union
         Foundation, 125 Broad St., 18th Floor, New York, NY
         10004-2427, Phone: (212) 549-2632, Fax: (212) 549-2652,
         E-mail: tcamp@aclu.org, dkasdan@aclu.org,
         jnevins@aclu.org and cpatel@aclu.org; and  

     (3) James G. Felakos of American Civil Liberties Union of   
         Eastern Missouri, 4557 Laclede Ave., St. Louis, MO   
         63108, Phone: (314) 361-3635, Fax: (314) 361-3135, E-  
         mail: jim@aclu-em.org.
   
Representing the defendant is Michael Pritchett, Missouri   
Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102,
Phone:  573-751-8864, Fax: (573) 751-9456, E-mail:   
mike.pritchett@ago.mo.gov.


MISSOURI: Trial in Suit Against Voter Identification Law Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Bench trial in a suit challenging a state law requiring photo
identification to vote in elections began on Aug. 21, according
to the Jurist.

St. Louis and Kansas City Democrats officials filed the suit  
against the state to block a new Republican-backed law requiring  
voters to show photo identification to vote in the coming  
November election (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2006).

The suit was filed in Cole County Circuit Court by local  
governments and officials, including the city of St. Louis and  
Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley,  
Jackson County and its executive, Katheryn Shields.  

The law, which was signed by Republican Gov. Matt Blunt a month  
ago, requires voters to show a photo identification issued by  
Missouri or the federal government to cast a regular ballot.   
Those lacking such identifications this fall can cast  
provisional ballots, but the votes would only count if the  
signatures matched those on file with election authorities and  
they are in the right polling place, according to a report by
the Associated Press.   

In the future only the elderly, disabled and those with  
religious objections to carrying photo identification could vote  
without the required identification, and only by provisional  
ballot, the report said.

The suit, which is seeking class-actions status, alleges the law  
violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs  
on local governments without providing state funding.  It seeks  
a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

The suit was jointly filed by St. Louis attorney Burton Newman,
a general counsel of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, and Kansas
City attorney Richard Miller.  American Civil Liberties  
Union of Eastern Missouri on the Net: http://www.aclu-em.org/.


NEW ZEALAND: Auckland City Council May Face Suit Over Land Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Waiheke Island are considering filing a class
action to complain against a hefty increase in their land
valuation rates, reports say.

Waiheke ratepayers are facing up to 400% rate increases when the
average homeowner in Auckland city is facing a rates rise of
just over 13%.  

At a public meeting this month, the islanders passed a motion to
investigate the land valuation process in existence to see the
possibility of filing a class action against the Auckland City
Council.


PETCO ANIMAL: Lawsuits Question Sale to Private Equity Firms
------------------------------------------------------------
Petco Animal Supplies Inc. is facing two class actions
questioning management's decision to accept the lesser of two
bids it has received for the business, The San Diego Union-
Tribune reports.

The suit was filed by Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP.  It alleges that Petco's board and management were
unduly influenced by Leonard Green and Texas Pacific Group to
enter into the deal because of their past relationship.

Leonard Green, a private investor, is the previous owner of
Petco.  It turned out in a recent regulatory filing that the
company entered into a disposal agreement with Leonard Green for
$29 per share, rejecting an undisclosed rival's bid of $33 per
share.

A report by the Union-Tribune quoted one of the suits, the two
firms "have a long history of handsomely compensating those who
help them fulfill their goals. ... "

Petco's management is now facing questions on why they didn't
inform shareholders sooner that there had been a better cash
offer.  In the filing, Petco's board explained that it considers
the private equity firm's offer to be better because it would
avoid an antitrust review that is likely should it is bought by
an industry rival instead.

Petco is asking for shareholder approval for the deal.

Lerach Coughlin on the Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com/.


PIONEER COS: Appeal on Removal of Mercury Emission Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit denied plaintiff's
appeal in relation to the removal from state to federal court of
the purported class action against Pioneer Cos., Inc. over
damages caused by mercury released from the company's St.
Gabriel chlor-alkali facility in 2004.

The suit -- now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana -- was filed in October 2005 by 18
named plaintiffs in a Louisiana state court as, "Claude Frazier,
et al. v. Pioneer Americas, LLC and State of Louisiana through
the Department of Environmental Quality."  

Plaintiffs claim that they and a proposed class of approximately
500 people who live near the St. Gabriel facility were exposed
to mercury released from the facility for a two and one-half
month period as a result of the 2004 mercury vapor emissions
release.

The plaintiffs request compensatory damages for numerous medical
conditions that are alleged to have occurred or are likely to
occur as a result of the alleged mercury exposure.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the suit was removed to the U.S. District
Court in the Middle District of Louisiana, although the
plaintiffs have appealed this action.

The plaintiffs appealed this removal, but the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and the lawsuit will
proceed in federal court.  

The suit is "Frazier v. Pioneer Americas, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-01338-JJB-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with
referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph Charles Possa of Tyler &
Possa, APLC, 3225 Broussard, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225-
343-8313, Fax: 344-8353, E-mail: jpossa@tylerpossa.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Bradley Charles Myers of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
         D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge,
         LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133,
         E-mail: brad.myers@keanmiller.com; and

     (2) William M. Hudson, III and Patrick Bayard McIntire of
         Oats & Hudson - Lafayette, 100 East Vermilion, Suite
         400, Lafayette, LA 70501, Phone: 337-233-1100, Fax:
         337-233-1178, E-mail: pmcintire@oatshudson.com.


SCANA CORP: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Right-of-Way Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina Supreme Court has yet to rule on plaintiff's
appeal regarding the dismissal by the Circuit Court of Common
Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the class action,
"Douglas E. Gressette, et al., v. South Carolina Electric & Gas
and SCANA Corp."

The case alleges the against SCANA Corp. along with its
principally owned subsidiary SCE&G made improper use of certain
easements and right-of-ways by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than the defendant's electricity-
related internal communications.  

The plaintiff asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment,
trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiff
did not assert a specific dollar amount for the claims.

The company believes its actions are consistent with governing
law and the applicable documents granting easements and right-
of-ways, it stated in a regulatory filing.  

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss and issued an
order dismissing the case on June 29, 2005.  The plaintiff
appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which heard the
appeal on May 2006, but has not announced a decision.

Columbia, South Carolina-based SCANA Corp. (NYSE: SCG) --
http://www.scana.com/en/-- through its wholly owned regulated  
subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity in parts of South
Carolina and the purchase, transmission and sale of natural gas
in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina.  


SILICON STORAGE: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of the
second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against it and certain of its directors and
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.  

On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated
as "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.)."  

On May 3, 2005, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed the
"Louisiana Funds Group," consisting of the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System and the Louisiana District
Attorneys' Retirement System, to serve as lead plaintiff and the
law firms of Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP and
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo to serve as lead
counsel and liason counsel, respectively, for the class.

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on July 15, 2005.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from April 21, 2004 to Dec. 20, 2004.  

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 16, 2005.  
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2005.  The company's reply in further support of the motion
to dismiss was filed on Dec. 19, 2005.  

On Jan. 18, 2006, the court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  On March 10, 2006, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave
to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2006.  The
company responded with a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006.

The suit is "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.  

Representing the company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.


STAR GAS: Conn. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted
the motions of Star Gas Partners, L.P., its general partner,
former officers, directors and underwriters to dismiss with
prejudice a consolidated class action complaint alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit names as defendants certain of the company's
subsidiaries and officers and directors.  Lawsuits filed against
the company includes:

      -- "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
         01766-IBA, et al.,"  

      -- "Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832,"
         (filed on 10/29/2004),  

      -- "Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1791,"(filed on 10/22/2004),  

      -- "Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1855,"(filed on 11/3/2004),  

      -- "McCole, et al. v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.  
         04-1859,"(filed on 11/3/2004),  

      -- "Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785,"
         (filed on 10/22/2004),  

      -- "Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803,"
         (filed on 10/25/3004),  

      -- "Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815,"
         (filed on 10/27/2004),  

      -- "Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star
         Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857,"(filed on  
         11/3/2004),  

      -- "Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807,"
         (filed on 10/26/2004),  

      -- "White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837,"
         (filed on 10/9/2004),  

      -- "Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856,"
         (filed on 11/3/2004),  

      -- "Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865,"
         (filed on 11/3/2004),  

      -- "Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884,"
         (filed on 11/9/2004),  

      -- "Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1873,"(filed on 11/5/2004),  

      -- "Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979,"  
         (filed 11/22/04),

      -- "Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133,"
         (filed on 12/17/2004)

The action plaintiffs generally allege that the Partnership
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly failing to
disclose, among other things:  

      -- problems with the restructuring of the company's  
         dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto;  

      -- that the company's heating oil division's business  
         process improvement program was not generating the  
         benefits allegedly claimed;  

      -- that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit  
         margins in its heating oil division;  

      -- that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were  
         not representative of its ability to pass on heating  
         oil price increases; and  

      -- that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts  
         and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to  
         obtain future financing was in jeopardy.  

The class action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest against the defendants
jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses.  

On Feb. 23, 2005, the court consolidated the class action
complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of
lead plaintiff.  On Apr. 8, 2005, the court appointed the lead
plaintiff.  Pursuant to the court's order, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on Jun. 20, 2005.  The
consolidated amended complaint named as defendant:  

      -- Star Gas Partners, L.P.;  

      -- Star Gas LLC;  

      -- Irik Sevin;  

      -- Audrey L. Sevin;  

      -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.;  

      -- Paul Biddelman;  

      -- Ami Trauber;  

      -- A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.;  

      -- UBS Investment Bank; and  

      -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.  

The consolidated amended complaint added claims arising out of
two registration statements, the same transactions under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
defendants had until Aug. 19, 2005 to file an answer.  

On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities  
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.   

Plaintiffs filed their response to defendants' motions to
dismiss on or about Nov. 23, 2005 and defendants filed their
reply briefs on Dec. 20, 2005.  

The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Jonathan F. Andres of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.,  
         7733 Forsyth, Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone:  
         314-862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail:  
         andres@stlouislaw.com;

     (2) David L. Belt of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz,  
         P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New Haven, CT  
         06503-0606, Phone: 203-772-3100, Fax: 203-772-1691, E-
         mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com;

     (3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of  
         Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,  
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and  

     (4) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP,  
         100 Park Ave., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-907-0869, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
         jbernstein@labaton.com.

Representing the defendants are:  

     (i) Terence J. Gallagher, III of Day, Berry & Howard, One  
         Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
         977-7300, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:  
         tjgallagher@dbh.com; and  

    (ii) Elizabeth K. Andrews of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn - NH,  
         205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936, New Haven, CT 06509-
         1910, Phone: 203-784-8200, Fax: 203-777-1181, E-mail:  
         eandrews@tylercooper.com.


STATION CASINOS: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Bias Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Placer County Superior Court Judge Charles D. Wachob issued a
tentative ruling that once finalized will allow former employees
of Thunder Valley Casino, managed by Station Casinos, Inc., to
pursue their class action over working conditions at the
gambling facility, the Sacramento Bee reports.

The suit was filed by seven women in early 2005, claiming sexual
harassment, wrongful termination and sex and age discrimination
while they were employed at the casino.  

The suit was filed in Placer Superior Court.  It names as
defendant Curtis Broome, former director of information
technology for Thunder Valley.

Plaintiffs are Corinn Medina, Cheryl Dalton, Sundi Lyons,
Cynthia Walden, Kathy Robillard, Amarissa Dillhyon and Elizabeth
Ward.  All are residents of Placer and Sacramento counties and
have worked at the casino between 2003 and 2004, (Class Action
Reporter June 9, 2006).  They are represented by Debra Smith of
the non-profit Equal Rights Advocates of San Francisco.

Aside from sexual harassment, the women are also alleging a
variety of claims, including, age discrimination and wrongful
dismissal.  They are thus asking unspecified monetary damages,
including punitive and exemplary damages.

Judge Wachob tentatively allowed the case to proceed despite
defendant's argument that the tribe's status as a sovereign
nation exempts it from state and federal employment law.

Station Casino motioned to dismiss the suit saying the tribe is
Thunder Valley's owner and the actual employer at the casino, so
sovereign immunity still applies.  It said further that the
plaintiffs declined an offer in April to seek redress under the
Auburn tribe's new anti-discrimination ordinance, which
addresses employee discrimination and family leave claims
through an independent arbitrator.

Judge Wachob noted in his ruling that the tribe's ordinance
reflects key provisions of state and federal civil rights laws,
and thus could not impair the tribe's sovereignty should the
court applies those same laws in the suit.

Judge Wachob took the matter under submission and said he will
issue a final ruling as soon as possible, according to Dorothy
Korber of the Sacramento Bee.

For more details, contact Debra A. Smith of Equal Rights
Advocates, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA
94103, Phone: (415) 621-0672, Fax: (415) 621-6744, E-mail:
info@equalrights.org, Web site: http://www.equalrights.org/.

Representing Station Casinos Inc. is Matthew Jacobs partner at
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, California 95814 (Sacramento Co.), Phone: 916-930-
3267, Fax: 916-930-3201.


STONE & WEBSTER: Court Denies Motion to Amend Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed a securities fraud class action against Stone &
Webster, ruling it as untimely.  The court said the plaintiffs'
amended complaint included a new allegation that was time-barred
and did not relate back to the original complaint.

Shareholders sued Stone & Webster for violating Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the company fraudulently concealed the loss of a contract
with another company and inflated revenues.

The district court dismissed the shareholders' original
complaint, and the shareholders appealed.  The shareholders were
then allowed to submit an amended complaint on remand.  The
shareholders moved to file a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.

In the proposed amended complaint, the shareholders alleged that
the company paid an undisclosed $147 million kickback to a third
party in a contract that it signed with them.  Section 10(b)
violations must be brought within one year of alleged fraud.

The court noted that the kickback allegations were new and did
not relate back to save the claim.

The district court denied the shareholders' motion to amend
their complaint, ruling that the new claim was time-barred, and
the original claims were insufficient.  

A copy of the judge's memorandum of decision is available free
of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?101f.

The suit is "In Re: Stone & Webster, Inc v. et al., Case No.
1:00-cv-10874-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward J. Barshak of Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
         101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114,
         Phone: 617-227-3030, Fax: 617-523-4001, E-mail:
         barshak@srbc.com;

     (2) Adria Benner of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 North
         Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone:
         302-622-7000; and

     (3) Jeffrey C Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
         & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Richard D. Batchelder, Jr. of Ropes & Gray LLP, One
         International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-
         7515, Fax: 617-951-7050, E-mail:
         rbatchelder@ropesgray.com;

     (2) Peter M. Casey of Greenberg Traurig, One International
         Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-310-6048, Fax: 617-
         310-6001, E-mail: pcasey@foleyhoag.com;

     (3) Kevin C Conroy of Foley Hoag LLP, 155 Seaport
         Boulevard, Boston, MA 02210-2600, Phone: 617-832-1164,
         Fax: 617-832-7000, E-mail: kconroy@foleyhoag.com;

     (4) Jennifer W. Corinis of Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150
         Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-8579,
         Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
         jennifer.corinis@bingham.com; and

     (5) Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom LLP, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
         dougherty@skadden.com.


TENNESSEE: Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Sevier Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan dismissed without prejudice a
purported class action filed by two men action against the
Sevier County jail officials, The Mountain Press reports.

Last month, Judge Varland ordered John Matkin and Randall Myers
to show cause for allegations of overcrowding at the jail or
their suit will be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies (Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2006).  
In the recent ruling, Judge Varland said the men failed to do
so.  

He wrote in a memorandum of opinion: "While plaintiff may have
filed many grievances with the Sevier County correctional
officers, he did not mention the grievances in the body of his
complaint nor did he attach copies of those grievances to his
complaint."

Knoxville attorney John Eldridge initiated the lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Tennessee on behalf of inmate John Matkin last
year.  The suit alleges that the facility is troubled with
overcrowding, inmate violence, inadequate staffing and
unsanitary conditions (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2005).  
Mr. Matkin then was awaiting trial in the death of his
stepfather.  He was eventually convicted of voluntary
manslaughter.

Mr. Myers filed his complaint of overcrowding after being held
at the jail from Feb. 28 until March 4.  He is also represented
by Mr. Eldridge.

The suit is "Myers v. Sevier County, Tennessee et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00216," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas A. Varlan with referral
to H. Bruce Guyton.

Representing Sevier County is Rhonda L. Bradshaw at Spicer,
Flynn & Rudstrom, 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1400 Knoxville, TN
37929, Phone: 865-673-8516, Fax: 865-673-8972, E-mail:
rlb@sfrlaw.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs is John E. Eldridge at Eldridge &
Gaines, PLLC, P.O. Box 84, Knoxville, TN 37901-0084, Phone: 865-
523-7731, Fax: 865-523-0341, E-mail: johneldrid@aol.com.


TENNESSEE GAS: Still Faces Hurricane Related Litigation in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. along with other oil and gas
exploration and production companies remain defendants in a
consolidated class action pending U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana that alleges that they should be
held liable for damages caused by hurricane winds and storm
surge.

Initially, the company was named in two class action petitions
for damages filed against all oil and natural gas pipeline and
production companies that dredged pipeline canals, installed
transmission lines or drilled for oil and natural gas in the
marshes of coastal Louisiana.

The lawsuits are:

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

      -- "Charles Villa Jr., et al. v. Columbia Gulf
         Transmission Company, 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 court consolidated the two
lawsuits.

The consolidated suit is "Barasich et al v. Columbia Gulf
Transmission Company 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) 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; and  

     (2) 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.

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) Joseph E. LeBlanc, Jr. of King, LeBlanc & Bland, PLLC,
         (Houston), 6363 Woodway, Suite 750, Houston, TX 77057,
         Phone: 713-334-5644, E-mail: jleblanc@klb-law.com.


TEREX CORP: Settles Shareholder's Lawsuit in Conn. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corp. settled a purported class action and derivative
complaint filed by a shareholder in the Superior Court of the
State of Connecticut.

The complaint was filed on Sept. 14, 2005, and is entitled,
"Michael Morter, derivately on behalf of nominal defendant Terex
Corporation, v. G. Chris Andersen, Ronald M. DeFeo, Don
DeFosset, William H. Fike, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
J.C. Watts, Jr., Helge H. Wehmeier and Phillip C. Widman,
defendants, and Terex Corp., nominal defendant."

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the
company's by-laws.  Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment requesting that the court order the company to hold an
annual meeting of shareholders which has not been held to date
due to the inability of the company to satisfy SEC and NYSE
rules.

The company has reached an agreement, which is subject to court
approval, to settle the lawsuit with the plaintiffs and
accordingly, the company anticipates that the complaint will be
withdrawn.

Terex Corp. (NYSE: TEX) -- http://www.terex.com/-- is a  
diversified global manufacturer of capital equipment delivering
solutions for the construction, infrastructure, quarry, mining,
shipping, transportation, refining and utility industries.


WELLMAN INC: Settles Polyester Staple Fiber Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wellman, Inc. and certain other defendants settled several state
antitrust class actions over polyester staple fiber, 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.

Indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber products have
filed 40 purported class actions claiming violations of state
antitrust or unfair competition laws and certain state consumer
protection acts against the company and certain other persons in
various state courts by alleging that the defendants engaged in
a conspiracy to fix prices of polyester staple fiber.

These indirect purchaser cases are pending in Arizona,
California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Plaintiffs seek damages of unspecified amounts, attorney's fees
and costs and unspecified relief and certain of the actions
claim restitution, injunction against alleged illegal conduct
and other equitable relief.

On March 20, 2006, the company and certain other parties entered
into an agreement to settle the indirect purchaser actions
brought against it, except for the indirect purchaser actions
pending in California.

This settlement agreement remains subject to final approval by
the Tennessee courts because a class representative that
purports to be an indirect purchaser in that state signed it.

Fort Mill, South Carolina-based Wellman, Inc. (NYSE: WLM) --
http://www.wellmaninc.com/-- is principally engaged in the  
manufacture and marketing of PermaClear brand polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) packaging resins, Fortrel brand polyester
staple fibers and EcoLon engineering resins.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all securities purchasers of FoxHollow
Technologies, Inc. from May 13, 2005 through Jan. 26, 2006.

The Complaint charges FoxHollow and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. 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 the company's Chairman of the Board, defendant
         John Simpson, directed the company's management to
         enter into related-party transactions with Lumend, Inc.
         (Lumend), a company which defendant Simpson founded and
         served as Chairman; and

      -- that defendant Simpson caused the company to terminate
         certain senior management members that refused to
         follow defendant Simpson's directives.

On Dec. 12, 2005, FoxHollow shocked investors when the Company
announced that Robert W. Thomas, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, had informed the company's Board of Directors
that he would be retiring effective Jan. 1, 2006.

On this news, shares of FoxHollow plummeted $7.15, or 15.5
percent, to close, on Dec. 13, 2005, at $38.97 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

On Jan. 26, 2006, FoxHollow announced that the company had
accepted the voluntary resignation of William H. Hoffman from
his position as Vice President of Sales effective Feb. 1, 2006.

The company also announced that David L. Martin, the company's
Chief Operating Officer, would be leaving the company on or
before March 31, 2006.

On this news, shares of FoxHollow shed an additional $0.69, or
2.7 percent, to close, on Jan. 27, 2006, at $24.75 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may, not later than Sept. 26, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


IMAX CORP: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP commenced a securities
class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of IMAX Corp. between Feb.
17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against IMAX
and certain officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges that IMAX and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning IMAX's
financial health.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that in the fourth quarter
of 2005 IMAX recognized revenue from theaters that were not yet
opened in order to inflate its financial results in order to
attract a buyer or merging partner for the company.

On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was responding to an
informal inquiry from the SEC with respect to its accounting, in
particular, revenue recognition issues.

Shares reacted negatively to this news, falling from $9.63 per
share to $5.73 per share, a decline of 40.5%.

Interested parties may, not later than October 10, 2006, move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Kimberly M. Donaldson, Esq. of
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Phone: +1-610-642-8500 and 1-888-805-
7848, E-mail: KimDonaldson@chimicles.com, Web site:
http://www.chimicles.com.


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Seeger Weiss, LLP, filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. common stock in
the open market between April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006.  The
complaint seeks remedies for the class under the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges that defendants Par, Scott L. Tarriff,
Gerald A. Martino, and Dennis J. O'Connor violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

Par develops, manufactures and markets more than 110 generic
drugs and innovative branded pharmaceuticals for specialty
markets.

The company's product line consists of prescription and over the
counter products in both oral dosage and semi-solid forms.  Its
generic versions of drugs include antidepressants Paxil and
Prozac.

On July 5, 2006, after the market closed, the company issued a
press release entitled "Par Pharmaceutical Will Restate Certain
Prior Period Results and Delays Filing Its Second Quarter Form
10-Q" which stated, "that an internal review of its trade
accounts receivable balances revealed accounting errors that
will result in the restatement of financial results for fiscal
years 2004 and 2005 and the first quarter of 2006."

On July 6, 2006, following these announcements, Par stock fell
$4.78 per share, losing nearly 26% of its value in one day of
extremely high volume trading of over 9 million shares, to close
at $13.47 per share.  

On July 24, 2006, the company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC.  
Therein, the defendants disclosed that the SEC had commenced an
informal probe into the company's restatement.

Interested parties may, not later than Sept. 15, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact David R. Buchanan, Esq. of Stephen A.
Weiss. Esq. and Eric T. Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss, LLP, One
William Street, New York, New York 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700
and (877) 541-3273, E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com and
echaffin@seegerweiss.com, Web site: http://www.seegerweiss.com.


SAFENET INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Aug. 1, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against SafeNet, Inc.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from March 31, 2003 through May 18, 2006.

Interested parties may, not later than Oct. 2, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


ZALE CORP: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of Zale Corp. common stock between
Feb. 18, 2005 through and including May 5, 2006.

The complaint charges Zale and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants omitted or misrepresented
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition,
business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class
Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, defendants issued numerous materially false and
misleading statements, which caused Zale's securities to trade
at artificially inflated prices.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose that:

      -- the company improperly timed vendor payments, thereby
         overstating its net cash flows and free operating cash
         flows;

      -- the company skewed its true operational results by
         improperly accounting for extended service agreements,
         leases, and accrued payroll;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls;

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

      -- as a result, the company's financial statements were
         materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the complaint, on April 10, 2006, before the market
opened, Zale shocked investors when it announced that the
company had received a notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it was conducting 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.

The complaint alleges that in response to the Company's
announcement, the price of Zale stock dropped $2.64, or 9.5
percent, to close, on April 10, 2006, at $25.16 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Then, according to the complaint, on May 5, 2006, after the
market closed, Zale announced that defendant Mark R. Lenz
(Lenz), the company's Chief Financial Officer, had been placed
on administrative leave.

The company reported that the decision was made after recent
discussions with the company's outside auditors that concerned
Lenz's failure to timely disclose to Zale's auditors that vendor
payments scheduled to be made during the last two weeks of the
company's fiscal year ended July 2005 were delayed until the
first week of August 2005, which was the start of a new fiscal
year.

According to the complaint, on this news, shares of Zale's stock
shed an additional $0.44, or 1.8 percent, to close, on May 8,
2006, at $24.18 per share. Zale's stock continued to fall the
next day as investors absorbed the company's announcement,
losing $0.40, or 1.6 percent, to close, on May 9, 2006, at
$23.78 per share.

Interested parties may, not later than Sept. 18, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Lauren
DeStefano of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100
New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or ldestefano@cmht.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  * * *