CAR_Public/060828.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 170

                            Headlines
                         
ACUITY SPECIALTY: Recalls Cleaning Product to Replace Container
ART TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Defers Dismissal of Securities Suit
ATHEROGENICS INC: N.Y. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ATLAS COLD: Avion Offer Excludes $350M Liability for Lawsuit
AXONYX INC: Court to Consider Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit

BANK OF REHOBOTH: Arbitration Ordered in Consumer Rep.'s Lawsuit
BECTON DICKINSON: Still Faces N.J. Consolidated Antitrust Suit
BIG BEND: Reaches Partial Settlement in Shelter Care Lawsuit
CANADA: Aboriginal Woman Challenges Prisoner Classifying System
CALIFORNIA: Disability Rights Group Files Suit Against Caltrans

DEBT COLLECTORS: Ark. Resident Sues Over Debt Act Violations
DELTA FUNDING: Asks for Summary Judgment in Mortgage Fee Suit
ENRON CORP: Mr. Lay's Attorneys Ask for Fraud Charges Dismissal
INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs Plan Appeal on Judge's Removal, Rulings
FOOTE HOSPITAL: Patients Suit Returned on Failure to Prove Claim

FUN EXPRESS: Recalls Animal Toys with Lead-Containing Paint
GENESIS MICROCHIP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 8
HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. Court Upholds Securities Suits Claims
KINDERMUSIK INT'L: Recalls Toys Posing Choking Risk to Infants
KRISPY KREME: Reaches $4.75M Settlement in ERISA Violations Suit

LEVEL 3: Settles "Bauer" Right-of-Way Suit in Ill., Report Says
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Court Notifies Shingles Consumer Suit Class
METLIFE LIFE: Conn. High Court Decertifies Suit Over Annuities
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Face Broker-Related Suit in N.J.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.Y.

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Certifies Insurance Law Violations Suit
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Discovery Proceeds in Fla. OEM Parts Suit
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Fraud Claim in Ill. Insurance Suit Junked
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Reaches Agreement in Mont. Insurance Suit
NEBRASKA: Suit Over Foster Children Services Denied Class Status

NEW YORK: Parents of Special Education Students Sue City
QT INC: Judge Yet to Rule on Deceptive Advertising Suit in Ill.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Labor Suit
SCOTTISH RE: Continues to Face Shareholder Suits in N.Y. Courts
SOUTH CAROLINA: Kigre Files Suit Against Hilton Head Over Taxes

TARGET: Recalls Firestreet Scooters After Reports of Injuries
TENNESSEE: Prisoner Using Alias Loses Suit Filed Under Real Name
TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Aug. Hearing Set for Ill. Consumer Suit
TRITON NETWORK: Enters Agreement to Settle "IPO Laddering" Suits
USI HOLDINGS: Still Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit

UTAH: Reaches Deal in Lawsuit Over Access of Disabled to Roads
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Injunction Appealed to Del. High Court
WAL-MART STORES: Court Mulls Class Status in Ky. Labor Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLE COMPUTER: Stull, Stull Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ACUITY SPECIALTY: Recalls Cleaning Product to Replace Container
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Specialty Products Group Inc., a subsidiary of Acuity
Brands Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 6,800
units of 5-gal. sizes of "Zep Industrial Purple Cleaner &
Degreaser," and "Zep Heavy Duty Floor Stripper."

The company said the 5-gal. plastic pails containing the
cleaning products can unexpectedly crack and leak from the base,
posing a risk to consumers due to the corrosive nature of these
products.

Acuity Specialty Products Group Inc. has received three reports
of leaking pails.  No injuries or property damage have been
reported.

"Zep Industrial Purple Cleaner & Degreaser" is a clear, purple
liquid.  "Zep Heavy Duty Floor Stripper" is a clear, colorless,
water-thin liquid.  Both products were sold in 5-gal., white
pails with large blue labels and blue lids.  Each pail carries a
batch code written on the side of the pail.

Only the following batch codes are included in the recall:

Industrial Purple Cleaner & Degreaser (HD0856), Batch Codes:
1607501, 1607601, 1608001, 1608101, 1608201, 1608601, 1608701,
1609001, 1609101, 1609401, 1609601, 1610101, and 1610301.

Heavy Duty Floor Stripper (HD1071), Batch Codes: 1607401,
1607601, 1608101, 1608201, 1608301, 1608801, 1609001, 1609701,
1610001, and 1610201.

These cleaning products were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at the Home Depot nationwide from March 2006 through
April 2006 for between $32 and $35.

Pictures of the recalled cleaning products:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06237a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06237b.jpg

For additional information, contact Acuity Specialty Products
Group Inc. at (888) 591-5053 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit http://www.zeprecall.com


ART TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Defers Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
deferred a final order to dismiss the consolidated class action
filed against Art Technology Group, Inc. and certain of its
former officers.

The company and certain of the company's former officers were
named as defendants in seven purported class action that have
been consolidated into one action currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the
caption, "In re Art Technology Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 01-CV-11731-NG."  

The case alleged that the company, and certain of the company's
former officers, have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule SEC 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, which generally may subject issuers of securities
and persons controlling those issuers to civil liabilities for
fraudulent actions in connection with the purchase or sale of
securities.  The case was originally filed in 2001, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in March 2002.  

In April 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
On Sept. 4, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but
one of the plaintiffs' allegations.  The remaining allegation
was based on the veracity of a public statement made by one of
the company's former officers.

In August 2004, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
and motion for summary judgment as to the remaining allegation,
which the court granted in September 2005.  The plaintiffs have
moved for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint,
which, if allowed, would revive some of the claims previously
dismissed by the court.  

The court has deferred a final order of dismissal of plaintiffs'
case to allow it time to consider plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a second consolidated amended complaint.  The company
has opposed that motion.

The suit is "In Re: Art Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:01-cv-11731-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.     

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro
         Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108,
         Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com

     (2) David C. Katz, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
         1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010, E-mail: dkatz@wllawny.com

     (3) Douglas M. Risen, Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-875-3000,
  
     (4) Patrick K. Slyne, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, Fax:
         212-490-2022  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Dyan Finguerra-DeCharme, Mary Jo Johnson, William H.
         Pane, Jeffrey B. Rudman and Matthew A. Stowe of Wilmer
         Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-
         8888; and

    (ii) Nancy Margaret Gorton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-742-9100, E-mail: maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com,
         william.paine@wilmerhale.com,
         jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com and
         matthew.stowe@wilmerhale.com.


ATHEROGENICS INC: N.Y. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "In re Atherogenics Securities
Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, voluntarily dismissed their case against
Atherogenics, Inc.

Purported securities class actions were filed against the
company and some of its executive officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Jan. 5, 2005 and Feb. 8, 2005, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta division on Jan.
7, 2005, Jan. 10, 2005, Jan. 11, 2005 and Jan. 25, 2005.

The allegations in these lawsuits relate to the company's
disclosures regarding the results of its Canadian Antioxidant
Restenosis Trial-2 clinical trial for its lead compound AGI-1067
for the treatment of atherosclerosis.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during
the period after these disclosures were made in September 2004
to Dec. 31, 2004.

Plaintiffs filed separate motions to consolidate these lawsuits
in both the Southern District of New York and the Northern
District of Georgia on March 7, 2005.

On April 18, 2005, the Honorable Richard J. Holowell ordered
the Southern District of New York Actions consolidated as, "In
re Atherogenics Securities Litigation" and appointed lead
plaintiff and co-lead counsel.

On July 14, 2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Northern District of Georgia Actions.  On May 22, 2006, the
company announced that the remaining securities class action had
been dismissed voluntarily, without prejudice, and without any
payment or consideration to the plaintiffs or their counsel.

The suit is "In Re: Atherogenics Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-00061-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

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

     (3) Lauren D. Antonino of 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: (404) 873-3900.

Representing the company is Dawn M. Wilson Wilmer, Cutler,
Pickering, Hale & Dorr L.L.P. (VA), 1600 Tysons Boulevard, Suite
1000, Mclean, VA 22102, Phone: (212)-230-8862, Fax: (212)-230-
8888, E-mail: dawn.wilson@wilmerhale.com.


ATLAS COLD: Avion Offer Excludes $350M Liability for Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A CA$7 per trust unit offer by Avion Group for Atlas Cold
Storage Income Trust includes a provision that the results of a
putative class action proceeding, in which claimants are seeking
damages of approximately $350 million, remain with Atlas.

On Aug. 19, Avion, an Iceland-based investment company, said it
mailed the formal documents for its offer to acquire all of the
outstanding trust units of Atlas.  

Atlas shareholders filed a putative class action in Canadian
court in 2004 on behalf of all persons in Canada who purchased
or acquired Trust units in the period of Aug. 11, 2000 to Aug.
29, 2003 and held them at the close of business on Aug. 29, 2003
(Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2004).

The suit also names as defendants certain former directors and
officers of Atlas Holdings, certain current and former trustees
of the Trust, the Trust's auditors, and the lead underwriter of
various public equity offerings of Trust units between 2001 and
2002.

In the class action, the plaintiffs claim, on behalf of the
putative class, damages in the amount of $353.0 million, plus
$5.0 million in punitive damages, as well as other relief,
alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations,
conspiracy, negligence, and statutory oppression relating to the
restatement of financial statements in respect of the Trust for
2002 and 2001.


AXONYX INC: Court to Consider Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
filed in the consolidated securities class action against
Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003 through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive Dr. M. Hausman, and
Axonyx chief executive Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named as
defendants in the lawsuits.  These actions were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.  

Plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and will be
submitted to the court for a decision following the parties'
filing of their legal briefs.

The suit is "In Re: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Evan Jay Kaufman and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs),
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747,
         Phone: (631) 367-7100, Fax: (631) 367-1173, E-mail:
         ekaufman@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola
         Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-mail:
         esmith@brodsky-smith.com; and

     (3) Darren J. Robbins and William S. Lerach of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San Diego), 401 B
         Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, May Orenstein and Sigmund
Samuel Wissner-Gross of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP,
(NYC), Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 209-
4800 and 212-209-4930, Fax: 212-938-2804, E-mail:
morenstein@brownrudnick.com and swissnergross@brownrudnick.com.


BANK OF REHOBOTH: Arbitration Ordered in Consumer Rep.'s Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court has allowed a student of Berkeley
College in Paramus to represent a group of consumers complaining
of excessive short-term loan, but ordered that an arbitrator,
not a jury, decide her case, the Star-Ledger reports.

The suit was filed by Jaliyah Muhammad, a part-time student at
Berkeley College, who made a $200 student loan with County Bank
of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.  When she signed the loan agreement
in 2003, she had to agree that any dispute on the contract would
be heard in arbitration, not by jurors in a class action.
Eventually, Ms. Muhammad incurred a total of $180 in interest
charges on the loan.  She filed a class action contending that
the lender violated the state's usury laws.  The interest she
was charged amounted to an annual interest rate of 608%.

County Bank moved to enforce the arbitration agreement, and won
twice in the lower court.  However, recently, the state's
Supreme Court reversed these rulings.  It said that in cases
involving small claims not worth pursuing on an individual
basis, the ban on class actions is "unconscionable" and
unenforceable, according to the report.

"Class actions fulfill the policies of this state even when only
a small amount of damages is at stake," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia
wrote.  Many similar claims filed together build a bigger case,
which puts plaintiffs in a better position to attract a
competent counsel to pursue the case on their behalf.

However, because Ms. Muhammad gave up her right to a jury trial
when she signed the contract, the case will go to arbitration.

Consumer advocates considered the ruling significant in the
state, even if it is only a partial victory, according to the
report.

Representing Ms. Muhammad is Philadelphia lawyer Michael Quirk.


BECTON DICKINSON: Still Faces N.J. Consolidated Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. remains a defendant in a consolidated
antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey that were brought on behalf of either
direct or indirect purchasers of company products.

Essentially, either direct or indirect purchasers of Becton's
products have brought 10 purported antitrust class actions
against the company.

In each case, the plaintiff seeks monetary damages.  These class
actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in
Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The company has filed motions to
dismiss each of the consolidated complaints.  

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey-based Becton, Dickinson and Co.
(NYSE: BDX) -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical technology  
company engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of a
range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life
science researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the
general public.


BIG BEND: Reaches Partial Settlement in Shelter Care Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Private contract foster care agency Big Bend Community Based
Care entered into a settlement on Aug. 7, 2006 with plaintiffs
in the class action "Susan C. et al. v. Department of Children
and Family Services, et al." filed in Tallahassee, Florida.

The suit was brought by Youth Law Center against the alleged
practice of the department and its private contractor to make
foster children live in the department's conference room for
days, and sometimes weeks.

Under the settlement, Big Bend agreed that it would set a policy
prohibiting overnight stays in offices, conference rooms, or
other unlicensed placements in the district over which it
manages foster care services.   The settlement does not affect
ongoing litigation against Florida, but Youth Law and local
counsel hope that the state will make a similar agreement soon.

Specifically, the department and Big Bend are accused of forcing
foster children to sleep night after night in a conference room
in a Department of Children and Family Services building at 3019
Jackson Bluff Road in Tallahassee.

Florida and Youth Law attorneys filed the case on behalf of
foster children who have suffered physical harm and
psychological trauma from being sent to live and sleep in a
conference room with children of all ages, and without beds,
bedding, adequate food, sanitary facilities, supervision, or
medical care.

The lawsuit charges that the state uses the Jackson Bluff Road
office building by day for various programs and to administer
food stamps, but at night it houses children for whom Big Bend
has not found a foster care placement.  There are allegedly no
individual sleeping rooms, dining areas or approved areas for
food preparation.  Also, there are no recreation areas in the
office, nor are there any provisions for privacy in sleeping,
dressing or personal grooming.

Youth Law Executive Director Carole Shauffer and Staff Attorney
Corene Kendrick are attorneys for the children.  Local counsels
on the case are Paolo Annino of Tallahassee and Michael Dale of
Ft. Lauderdale.

For more details, contact Paolo Aninno, Suite A, 112 Orange
Ave., Daytona Beach, FL 32114-4310, Phone: (904) 252-3367, Fax:
(904) 254-3943.


CANADA: Aboriginal Woman Challenges Prisoner Classifying System
---------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia aboriginal woman is suing the Correctional
Service of Canada over the classification of all aboriginal
women serving time in federal jails, according to CBC News.

Tanya Lorraine Neill of the Gitxsan First Nation filed the class
action in federal court in Canada, alleging an offense
classification system of the government is designed for male
inmates and is biased against female aboriginal inmates.  All
aboriginal women sent to federal jails face the same problem,
according to her.

Ms. Neill claims she has been wrongly sent to a medium security
prison last year instead of a minimum security prison.  She said
she had no previous criminal record.

Ms. Neill's lawyer, John Conroy, said the overclassification
results to a longer prison time for aboriginal women than other
inmates.

For more information, contact Mr. Conroy, 2459 Pauline Street
Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada V2S 3S1, Phone: (604) 852-
5110, Fax: (604) 859-3361, E-mail: office@johnconroy.com.  On
the Net: http://www.johnconroy.com/.


CALIFORNIA: Disability Rights Group Files Suit Against Caltrans
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. (CDR) initiated a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the California
Department of Transportation.

The suit, "Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben
Rockwell and Dmitri Belser, et al. v. California Department of
Transportation and Wil Kempton," was filed on behalf of all
Californians with disabilities on Aug. 23, 2006.  Ben Rockwell
has mobility impairment, while Dmitri Belser, has a vision
disability.

It seeks to remedy the numerous access barriers and pervasive
violations committed by Caltrans in its provision of sidewalks
and other facilities throughout the state.  The lawsuit is the
first of its kind to challenge violations statewide.

The lawsuit charges that Caltrans has violated federal and state
civil rights laws designed to provide people with disabilities
full and equal access to sidewalks.

These laws require that sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian
crossings, other walkways and Park and Ride facilities be
accessible to persons with disabilities.

The complaint states Caltrans' violations, which include:

      -- pervasive barriers such as missing and inadequate curb
         ramps, dangerous slopes and crumbled or uneven
         pavement;

      -- lack of detectible warnings at curb ramps needed by
         those with vision disabilities;

      -- Park and Ride facilities with inaccessible paths of
         travel, non-compliant accessible parking spaces and
         other barriers;

      -- a failure to provide accessible alternative routes
         during construction; and

      -- lack of accessible information for persons with visual
         impairments when sidewalks are closed.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by Disability Rights
Advocates, a non-profit law firm in Berkeley, California that
specializes in high-impact cases on behalf of persons with
disabilities.

Plaintiffs are seeking only injunctive relief.  "Though Caltrans
could be liable for damages given its violation of the civil
rights of persons with disabilities, plaintiffs are not pursuing
damages.  Our focus is on a fix to the problems," explains
Laurence Paradis, Executive Director of Disability Rights
Advocates, and an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1076

For more details, contact Disability Rights Advocates, 2001
Center Street, Third Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704-1204, Phone:
(510) 665-8644, Fax: (510) 665-8511 and (510) 665-8716, E-mail:
caltrans@dralegal.org, Web site: http://www.dralegal.org.  


DEBT COLLECTORS: Ark. Resident Sues Over Debt Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several out-of-state debt collectors in Arkansas face a
purported class action in Washington County Circuit Court for
allegedly not registering with the Arkansas State Board of
Collection Agencies (ASBCA), the Northwest Arkansas Times
reports.

The companies named in the suit are:

     -- Intraoperative Monitoring Co.,
     -- American Intraoperative Monitoring,
     -- Oklahoma Management Services for Physicians, and
     -- Orthopedic Management Services

The suit was filed by Springdale local, Eddie Dickard on Aug.
18.  It claims allegations of fraud and federal Fair Debt
Collection Act violations.  It seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

The class is defined as any Arkansas residents who have been
contacted by the defendants about the collection of alleged
outstanding consumer debts any time since August 2001.

According to the plaintiffs' attorney, Tim Hutchinson, Arkansas
law specifically stipulates that companies are not permitted to
contact an Arkansas resident about the collection of debt unless
they are registered with ASBCA.  The case stresses that the
companies have "repeatedly contacted" Mr. Dickard and other
state residents.

In addition, the suit alleges that as a result of the defendants
"unlawful, multiple contacts" with Mr. Dickard, he paid them
fees, which may have included interest, costs and penalties.

For more details, contact Timothy C. Hutchinson of Williams,
Hutchinson & Stone, LLP, 5507 Walsh Lane, Suite 201, Rogers, AR
72758, Phone: 479-464-4944, Fax: 479-464-4946, E-mail:
bobbi@whs-lawfirm.com, Web: http://whs-lawfirm.com/.


DELTA FUNDING: Asks for Summary Judgment in Mortgage Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for Delta Funding has asked Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel J. Stack for summary judgment in a class action
over mortgage fee, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Attorney Robert Bassett told Judge Stack that Lakin Law Firm
plaintiff Douglas Pichee lacked standing to sue Delta Funding
because he failed to report a claim against mortgage lender in a
bankruptcy petition he filed.  

According to him, the failure forfeits his claim against the
defendants.  The claim now has become property of the bankruptcy
estate and could only be asserted by a bankruptcy trustee.  Mr.
Pichee filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

Mr. Pichee filed the suit against Delta Funding in 2003,
complaining that Delta Funding charged $10 each for two
facsimile transmissions when he closed a loan

Mr. Bassett told Judge Stack in his motion for summary judgment
that Delta Funding did not charge for mailing statements and
that the fee was disclosed to clients after they requested to
send faxed statements.

Mr. Bassett is member at Donovan, Rose, Nester & Joley, P.C., 8
East Washington Street, Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair
Co.), Phone: 618-235-2020, Telecopier: 618-235-9632.


ENRON CORP: Mr. Lay's Attorneys Ask for Fraud Charges Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the deceased former chief executive of Enron Corp.
asked a federal court in Houston to dismiss the conviction of
Kenneth Lay for fraud in relation to the company's bankruptcy,
Bloomberg News reports.

Samuel J. Buffone, an appellate lawyer with the Washington firm
of Ropes & Gray, wrote in a motion that the trial convicting Mr.
Lay is "deemed not to have taken place," on the basis that a
federal law that states a defendant's criminal indictment and
conviction can be thrown out if the person dies before
exhausting appeals.

Federal prosecutors have until early next month to respond to
the request to throw out Mr. Lay's conviction.

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease in July more than a
month after he and another former Enron chief executive, Jeffrey
Skilling, were found guilty of hiding financial troubles at
Enron.

On the same day that Mr. Lay's attorney made a request that he
be dismissed from the suit, Judge Sim Lake of U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered that Mr. Lay's
estate could take his place as a defendant in the criminal
proceedings.

A civil litigation trial on the case against Mr. Lay and Mr.  
Skilling has earlier been set Oct. 16, 2006.  The two are
defendants in a class action brought by Enron shareholders and
employees.

                        Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

                         Lead Plaintiff

The lead plaintiff is the University of California Regents.

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

Representing the defendants are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and   
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:   
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and   
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,   
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.


INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs Plan Appeal on Judge's Removal, Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the 10-year-old class action "Cobell v. Norton,"
in which thousands of American Indians claim that the government
mismanaged billions of dollars in federal trust funds will be
appealing the removal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit of Judge Royce Lamberth from the
case.

Back in July, the D.C. Circuit ordered the removal of the Judge
Lamberth, finding that he had lost his objectivity.   The three-
judge panel from the D.C. Circuit thus concluded that this was
one of those "rare cases in which reassignment is necessary"
(Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2006).  

In so ruling, the panel ordered that a new judge be reassigned
to the case.  That task now falls on the hands of Judge Thomas
Hogan, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

The panel -- composed of judges David Tatel, Janice Rogers Brown
and and Laurence H. Silberman -- also stated, "Our ruling
presents an opportunity for a fresh start... We expect both
parties to work with the new judge to resolve this case
expeditiously and fairly."

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs announced that they would be asking
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the July 11 decision to remove
Judge Lamberth from their case citing apparent bias.

Lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, a Blackfeet Indian from Browning,
Montana, pointed out that it is unprecedented for a federal
judge to be reassigned under these circumstances, especially
since he has presided over the complex case for 10 years.

Additionally, plaintiffs also stated that they would appeal a
decision throwing out Judge Lamberth's order to shut down some
government computer systems to protect trust accounts managed
for Indians.

The plaintiffs' announcement comes as lawmakers are trying to
broker a settlement deal between the government and the Cobell
plaintiffs.

Previously, it was reported that American Indians in the
protracted class action are contemplating an offer by the Senate
Indian Affairs Committee to resolve their case for $8 billion
(Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2006).

The Indians had said they were eager to work with Congress, and
the congressional committee scheduled a hearing earlier this
month to work out the details of the Indian Trust Reform Act or
HR 4322, a legislation that would settle the protracted class
action.  A summary of HR 4322 is available free of charge at
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f14.

However, the hearing was postponed until later in the fall after
a meeting between Chairman John McCain, R-Arizona, and Bush
administration officials.  Mr. McCain said afterward that he had
decided to spend Congress' August recess negotiating a deal both
sides could agree to.

Bill McAllister, a spokesman for the plaintiffs, said they had
always made it clear the case would continue.  He maintains that
the decision to file the appeal was not directly related to the
ongoing settlement talks.

                         Case Background

Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, filed
the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia.  It seeks to force the federal
government to account for billions of dollars belonging to
approximately 500,000 American Indians and their heirs, and held
in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.  

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  
   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;  
  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;  
  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:  
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and
  
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:  
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.  

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact

     (1) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:
         http://www.indiantrust.com.

     (2) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and
   
     (3) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


FOOTE HOSPITAL: Patients Suit Returned on Failure to Prove Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals sent back to a circuit court a
class action against Foote Hospital over improperly sterilized
colonoscopy tools, according to a report by Steven Hepker of The
Jackson Citizen Patriot.

The appeals court said the patients suing the company failed to
prove actual physical injury.  It sent the case back to Circuit
Judge Charles Nelson -- who previously certified the suit --
with permission for plaintiffs to amend their complaints to
specify damages based on "present physical injury."

The suit arose out of a discovery by medical personnel that
Foote Hospital's endoscopes were not properly disinfected for
years.  About 700 patients are estimated to have been exposed to
improperly disinfected endoscopes from May to September 2000,
according to the report.

Patients have since complained of pain and suffering, possible
infection, possible permanent disability, shock, emotional
damage and potential aggravation of pre-existing conditions.

The appeals court said these are not valid complaints.  
"Physical injury itself does not support a negligence claim,"
according to the court.

Foote Hospital on the Net: http://www.footehealth.org/.


FUN EXPRESS: Recalls Animal Toys with Lead-Containing Paint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fun Express Inc., a subsidiary of Oriental Trading Co. Inc., of
Omaha, Nebraska, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 340,000 toys bendable dog
and cat toys given away at libraries.

The company said the paint on the bendable toys contains
excessive levels of lead, which is banned under federal law.  
Lead is toxic and if ingested by young children can cause
adverse health effects.  No incidents or injuries have been
reported.

The recalled toy is made of bendable plastic and is in the shape
of a brown dog with black ears, paws and feet, a Dalmatian dog
with pink paws, a white dog with orange spots, a brown dog with
pink paws, a white cat with orange stripes, a brown cat with
pink paws, a black cat with pink ears and a white cat with brown
spots.  The toys are about 3.75 inches tall.  The toy's
packaging is labeled as item 39/1461-K and 39/1461-KM.

Picture of the recalled bendable toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06236.jpg

These bendable toys were manufactured in China and are free
giveaways by libraries nationwide as part of reading programs
from January 2006 through August 2006.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and discard them.

For more information, contact Fun Express Inc. at (800) 723-6155
anytime, or visit http://www.funexpress.com


GENESIS MICROCHIP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold on Dec. 8, 2006, 9 a.m. a hearing in the settlement of
the class action, "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip, et al.,  
Case No. 02-CV-05344."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or acquired
Genesis Microchip Inc. common stock on the open market from
April 29, 2002 through June 14, 2002.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, in the courtroom of the Honorable
Jeffrey S. White.

Deadline to file claims is Dec. 15, 2006.

In November 2002, a putative securities class action was filed
against the company, former Chief Executive Officer Amnon
Fisher, and former Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric Erdman.
The suit was amended in July 2003 to include Executive Vice
President Anders Frisk.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Genesis and individual defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

In July 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the case, with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   

However, on March 2006, parties signed an agreement to settle
the case, according to the company's June 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.

The suit is "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc., et al., Case  
No. 3:02-cv-05344-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP, 300  
         Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,  
         Phone: 415/982-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776, E-mail:
         waudet@alexanderlaw.com;

     (2) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax:
         212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com; and

     (3) Ryan M. Hagan of Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152  
         North Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112,  
         Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax: 408-287-1776, E-mail:
         rhagan@alexanderlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Nina F. Locker, Ignacio E.  
Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &  
Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:  
650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com,
isalceda@wsgr.com and bnoor@wsgr.com.


HOLLINGER INT'L: Ill. Court Upholds Securities Suits Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order upholding certain
securities fraud claims by plaintiffs against Hollinger
International, Inc. and the company's officers, directors and
auditors and companies affiliated with Hollinger International,
Inc.

The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations made by defendants
about Hollinger International, Inc.'s business and financial
condition from Aug. 13, 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002.  

As part of its ruling, the court directed plaintiffs to address
standing issues raised by the defendants by amending the
complaint to add named class members who purchased Hollinger
stock between June 29, 2001 and Dec. 11, 2002.

                         Case Background

In February and April 2004, the Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters
Pension and Retirement Fund initiated purported class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against:

     -- the company and certain former executive officers and  
        former directors of the company;

     -- The Ravelston Corp. Ltd.;

     -- certain affiliated entities; and  

     -- KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public  
        accounting firm.  

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  The consolidated action is entitled, "In re
Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on Aug. 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended class action
complaint on Nov. 19, 2004.  

The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class
action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E.
Dean Carlson.  

They are purporting to sue on behalf of an alleged class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of securities
of the company between and including Aug. 13, 1999 and Dec. 11,
2002.  

On June 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed six of eight counts in a securities class
action complaint filed by several plaintiffs against Hollinger
International, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding: certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.   

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, rescission,
and an injunction against future violations.  

A copy of the Second Amended Complaint is available for free at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1067

The suit is "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge David H. Coar.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),  
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:  
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;  

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

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

     (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite  
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:  
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com;

     (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,  
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750;  
         and  

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


KINDERMUSIK INT'L: Recalls Toys Posing Choking Risk to Infants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindermusik International Inc., of Greensboro, North Carolina,
in cooperation with the U.S. Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 10,000 units of cage bell musical instruments
for babies.

The company said if the bell inside the instrument is damaged
during manufacturing, the bell can be pulled out of the
instrument, posing a choking hazard.  No injuries were reported.

The musical instrument is a wooden cylinder with end caps and
wooden dowels connecting the caps.  A single bell is in the
middle.  Model number 5-30-00740 is sold individually; Model
number 0-06-09005 is sold as part of a kit called Busy Days
Home, which also contains a board book, a compact disc and a
poster.  The model number is written on the outside packaging of
the product.

These cage bell musical instruments were manufactured in China
and are being sold by Kindermusik, directly by phone, and on its
Web site from May 2006 through July 2006 for about $28.

Picture of the recalled cage bell musical instrument:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06574.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these instruments away from
children until they are examined for the hazard.  Consumers were
sent instructions on how to examine the cage bell instruments
for defects.  If defects are found, they were instructed to
dispose of the instruments and contact Kindermusik for a free
replacement.

For additional information, contact Kindermusik International
Inc. at (800) 628-5687 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.kindermusik.com,or E-mail:  
cagebell@kindermusik.com


KRISPY KREME: Reaches $4.75M Settlement in ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. lawyer T. David Copley asked the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to
preliminarily approve a settlement in the class action "Smith v.
Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., et al."

In May, the company reached an a agreement resolving an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act class action filed against Krispy
Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and individual defendants including
certain members of its board of directors, officers and
employees (Class Action Reporter May 17, 2006).

The settlement included a one-time cash payment to be made by
the company's insurer in the amount of $4,750,000.  The company
and the individual defendants denied wrongdoings.

If the settlement is finalized, it will impact members of a
settlement class consisting of participants in the company's
retirement savings plan from Jan. 1, 2003 through May 12, 2006.  
In addition to the cash payment by the company's insurer, the
company will amend the plans to cause the merger of the Krispy
Kreme Profit Sharing Stock Ownership Plan into the 401(k) Plan.  

                         Case Background

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
employees were served with the complaint on Mar. 16, 2005, which
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the company's retirement
savings plan or profit sharing stock ownership plan between Jan.
1, 2003 and the date of filing and whose accounts included
investments in the company's common stock.

Plaintiffs, who seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief, contend that:  

      -- defendants failed to manage prudently and loyally the  
         assets of the plans by continuing to offer the  
         company's common stock as an investment option and to  
         hold large percentages of the plans' assets in the  
         company's common stock;  

      -- failed to provide complete and accurate information  
         about the risks of the company's common stock;  

      -- failed to monitor the performance of fiduciary  
         appointees; and  

      -- breached duties and responsibilities as co-fiduciaries.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Jul. 1, 2005,
asserting the same claims they asserted in their original
complaint.   

The defendants received an extension of time to respond to the
amended complaint, and on Dec. 15, 2005, filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.

A copy of the Motion for Preliminary Approval is available at:  

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1073

The suit is "Smith v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., et al., Case  
No. 1:05-cv-00187-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L. Osteen.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) T. David Copley of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., 1201 3rd.
         Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-
         623-3384, E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com; and  

     (2) Gary V. Mauney of Lewis & Roberts, 5960 Fairview Rd.,
         Ste. 102, Charlotte, NC 28210-3102, US, Phone: 704-347-
         8990, Fax: 704-347-8929, E-mail:  
         garymauney@lewis-roberts.com.

Representing the defendants are:

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

     (2) Stacey Cerrone of Proskauer Rose, LLP, 909 Poydras St.,  
         Ste. 1100, New Orleans, LA 70112, US, Phone: 504-310-
         4089, Fax: 504-310-2022, E-mail:  
         scerrone@proskauer.com; and

     (3) Michael Scott Fox of Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A.,  
         P.O.B. 2888, Greensboro, NC 27402, Phone: 336-271-5244,  
         Fax: 336-274-6590, E-mail: mfox@tuggleduggins.com.


LEVEL 3: Settles "Bauer" Right-of-Way Suit in Ill., Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications has settled a purported railroad right-
of-way class action pending against it in Madison County Circuit
Court, according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

In April 2002, the company and two of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in the case, "Bauer, et al. v. Level 3
Communications, LLC, et al.," a purported class action covering
22 states.  The action involves the firm's right to install
fiber optic cable network in easements and right-of-ways
crossing the plaintiffs' land.

The companies obtained the rights to construct their networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed their
networks along the right-of-way so granted.  However, plaintiffs
in the suit assert that they are the owners of lands over which
the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads,
utilities, and others who granted the company the right to
construct and maintain their networks did not have the legal
authority to do so.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property.  It also demands
punitive damages.

Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian set several
certification hearings on the suit, but parties kept putting it
off.  In recent weeks, attorneys for the company and three
plaintiffs have agreed to continue a hearing on class
certification at least four times.

Neither side has submitted court-ordered briefs on the Illinois
Supreme Court decision in "Avery v. State Farm."  The Avery
decision threw out a Williamson County verdict worth about $1.2
billion and derailed class action in the state of Illinois.

On Aug. 4, plaintiffs' attorney argued in a trial that the judge
should hold a trial on common issues, apply his rulings to like
groups of claims, and follow with a trial on damages.  These
should be followed by a claims administration process to
determine whether and how much each putative class member is
entitled to recover.

However, on Aug. 11, a docket declared that the suit has been
settled, according to The St. Clair Record.  

Plaintiffs in the suit are Harriet Bauer, George Schillinger and
Ruth Schillinger.

For more details, contact:  

     (1) Plaintiff's attorney Elizabeth V. Heller of Goldenberg,
         Miller, Heller, & Antognoli, P.C., 2227 S. State Route
         157, P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, IL 62025, Phone: (618)
         656-5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail: liz@ghalaw.com,
         Web site: http://www.gmhalaw.com/;and    

     (2) Defendant's attorney Troy A. Bozarth of Burroughs,
         Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, Two Mark
         Twain Plaza, Suite 300, 103 West Vandalia Street, P.O.
         Box 510, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-0510, (Madison
         Co.), Phone: 618-656-0184, Telecopier: 618-656-1364,
         Web site: http://www.ilmolaw.com.    


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Court Notifies Shingles Consumer Suit Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Stanislaus County Superior Court in California authorized a
notice to inform owners of homes and other structures of a
judgment in favor of Louisiana-Pacific Corp. in the class action
known as over its Nature Guard Shingles.

In July, the Superior Court entered a final judgment and closed
the consumer class action against Louisiana-Pacific (Class
Action Reporter, July 20, 2006).

With the decision, about 5,300 consumers, who joined the case,
which was led by Clint Walker of Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp,
Pallios, Pacher and plaintiff Virginia Davis, won't get any
money form it.  Plaintiffs had claimed that the company's
shingles crack and warp and slide out of place.

After a three-month trial, a jury concluded that roofing
shingles were not defective, but a judge still had to hear a
separate claim about unfair competition, which was denied.

Mr. Walker filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Davis in January
2001, arguing that a company that knew its shingles would fail
before a 25-year warranty ended had cheated plaintiffs.

It specifically alleges that company leaders knowingly failed to
disclose that Nature Guard shingles were potentially defective
before introducing them to the market in 1995 (Class Action
Reporter, July 13, 2005).  

The cement/wood fiber composite shingles were introduced to
mimic the look of cedar shakes, while also being non-flammable
and lightweight.  The company was one of several companies to
develop such products after fires in the late 1980's wiped out
more than 1,000 Oakland, California houses.

Six other law firms eventually joined the case, representing
homeowners who bought Nature Guard shingles in California,
Hawaii, Oregon and Washington from 1995 to 1998.  They were
seeking $100 million from the manufacturer, but with the court's
decision they are now contemplating an appeal.

A copy of the Court's Notice is available at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1065

The suit is "Nature Guard Cement Roofing Shingles Cases, All
Actions; Virginia Davis, Angel Jasso, Angela Jasso, Mahleon
Oyster, George Sousa, Karl Von Tagen, Nick Marassi, Debra
Marassi, and Stephen Redmond on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, vs. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Civil
Action No. 275768, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No.
4215."

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger M. Schrimp and Clinton P. Walker both of Damrell,
         Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva, 1601 I
         Street, Fifth Floor, Modesto, CA 95354, Phone: (209)
         526-3500;
  
     (2) Beth E. Terrell of Tousley Brain Stevens PLLC, 700
         Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600, Seattle, WA 98104-5056,
         Phone: (206) 682.5600;

     (3) William Bernstein and Kristen E. Law both of Lieff,
         Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein LLP, Embarcadero Center
         West, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94111-3339, Phone: (415) 956-1000; and Jonathan D.
         Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 780
         Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017-2024,
         Phone: (212) 355-9500;

     (4) Bruce Simon of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, San
         Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road,
         Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: (650) 697-6000;

     (5) Dan W. Clark of Dole, Coalwell, Clark, Mountainspring,
         Mornarich & Aitken, P.C., 810 S.E. Douglas Ave., PO Box
         1205, Roseburg, OR 97470, Phone: (541) 673-5541; and

     (6) David M. Birka-White of Birka-White Law Offices, 275
         Battery Street, Suite 2160, San Francisco, CA 94111,
         Phone: (415) 616-9999.

Representing the defendant is Craig van Rooyen of Bingham
McCutchen LLP, Phone: +1-415-393-2000.


METLIFE LIFE: Conn. High Court Decertifies Suit Over Annuities
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed a state court order
certifying a class in the lawsuit against MetLife Life and
Annuity Co. of Connecticut (MLAC), and certain former
affiliates.  MLAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
that was formerly known as The Travelers Life and Annuity Co.;
Travelers Equity Sales, Inc.
  
In August 1999, an amended putative class action complaint was
filed in Connecticut state court.  The amended complaint alleges
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a former MLAC affiliate,
purchased structured settlement annuities from MLAC and spent
less on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities
than agreed with claimants, and that commissions paid to brokers
for the structured settlement annuities, including an affiliate
of MLAC, were paid in part to Travelers Property Casualty Corp.

On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a
nationwide class action involving claims of violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute, unjust enrichment,
and civil conspiracy against MLAC.  On June 15, 2004, the
defendants appealed the class certification order.  

In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's certification of a class.  Plaintiff may seek upon
remand to the trial court to file another motion for class
certification, according to MetLife's Aug. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) --
http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other  
financial services to individual and institutional customers
throughout the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals,
as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and
savings products and services to corporations and other
institutions.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Face Broker-Related Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. along with certain of its
affiliates remains a defendant in a broker-related multidistrict
proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  

In this proceeding, plaintiffs have filed an amended class
action complaint consolidating the claims from separate actions
that had been filed in or transferred to the District of New
Jersey.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the MetLife,
Inc., Metropolitan Life, several other insurance companies and
several insurance brokers violated Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed other misconduct
in the context of providing insurance to employee benefit plans
and to persons who participate in such employee benefit plans.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of employers that
established employee benefit plans and persons who participated
in such employee benefit plans.  A motion for class
certification has been filed.

New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) --
http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other  
financial services to individual and institutional customers
throughout the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals,
as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and
savings products and services to corporations and other
institutions.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and MetLife, Inc. remain
defendants in a securities class action related to the company's
plan of reorganization.

The suit was filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and
MetLife, Inc. over allegations of violations of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the company's plan of reorganization.

The amended suit claims that the company's Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts
and contained certain material misstatements.  The suit seeks
rescission and compensatory damages.

On June 22, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the claim of violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.   
The court had previously denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the claim for violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

In 2004, the court reaffirmed its earlier decision denying
defendants' motion for summary judgment as premature.  On July
19, 2005, the federal trial court certified a class action
against the company and MetLife, Inc.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Benesowitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et
al, Case No. 2:04-cv-00805-TCP-JO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Thomas
C. Platt.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Eve-Lynn Gisonni of Gisonni &
Harms, LLP, 20 Crossways Park North, Suite 412, Woodbury, NY
11797, Phone: 516-921-7773, Fax: 516-364-3717, E-mail:
elgisonni@gisonniandharms.com.  

Representing the company is Allan M. Marcus of Lester Schwab
Katz & Dwyer, LLP, 120 Broadway, 38th Floor, New York, NY 10271,
Phone: 212-964-6611, Fax: 212-267-5916, E-mail:
amarcus@lskdnylaw.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Certifies Insurance Law Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court granted a motion to certify a class in a
lawsuit over the reorganization plan of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.

Several lawsuits were brought against the company in 2000,
challenging the fairness of company's plan of reorganization, as
amended and the adequacy and accuracy of its disclosure to
policyholders regarding the plan.

These actions named as defendants some or all of the company,
MetLife, the individual directors, the New York Superintendent
of Insurance and the underwriters for MetLife's initial public
offering, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston.

In 2003, a trial court within the commercial part of the New
York State court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss two
purported class actions.  

In 2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by
reinstating certain claims against company, MetLife and the
individual directors.  Plaintiffs in these actions have filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

On May 2, 2006, the trial court issued a decision granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a litigation class with respect to
their claim that the defendants violated section 7312 of the New
York Insurance Law, but finding that plaintiffs had not met the
requirements for certifying a class with respect to a fraud
claim.  

New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) --
http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other  
financial services to individual and institutional customers
throughout the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals,
as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and
savings products and services to corporations and other
institutions.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Discovery Proceeds in Fla. OEM Parts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported Florida class action against
Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary of the
MetLife, Inc. affiliate, Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Co.

The suit alleges breach of contract and unfair trade practices
with respect to allowing the use of parts not made by the
original equipment manufacturer to repair damaged automobiles.  
Discovery is ongoing and a motion for class certification is
pending.

New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) --
http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other  
financial services to individual and institutional customers
throughout the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals,
as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and
savings products and services to corporations and other
institutions.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Fraud Claim in Ill. Insurance Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc., remains a defendant in two purported
nationwide class actions filed in Illinois state court over
allegations of breach of contract.

The first suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the
alleged underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  A motion for
class certification has been filed and discovery is ongoing.  

The second suit claims breach of contract and fraud arising from
the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce
medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of
the insurance policy.  The court recently granted the company's
motion to dismiss the fraud claim in the second suit.

New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) --
http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other  
financial services to individual and institutional customers
throughout the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals,
as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and
savings products and services to corporations and other
institutions.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Reaches Agreement in Mont. Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action filed in
Montana against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Co., a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.  

The suit alleges breach of contract and bad faith against the
company for its alleged failure to aggregate medical payment and
uninsured coverages provided in connection with the several
vehicles identified in insureds' motor vehicle policies.  A
recent decision by the Montana Supreme Court in a suit involving
another insurer determined that aggregation is required.  

The parties have reached an agreement to settle this suit.  The
company recorded a liability in an amount the company believes
is adequate to resolve the claims underlying this matter.  The
company said the amount to be paid is not material.  

New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) --
http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other  
financial services to individual and institutional customers
throughout the U.S.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and
homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals,
as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and
savings products and services to corporations and other
institutions.


NEBRASKA: Suit Over Foster Children Services Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge David Piester rejected class action
certification to a federal civil rights lawsuit charging
Nebraska of failing to provide adequate service to foster
children.

The suit, "Carson P. v. Heineman," was filed in September by
Children's Rights on behalf of plaintiffs.  It claims the state
failed to provide legally required safety, protection and basic
health care services to thousands of abused and neglected
children in state custody.  It also claims that the state forced
them to languish in foster care for long periods of time without
opportunity for a permanent, loving home.   

The suit also alleges that the state failed to address long-
standing problems including a drastic shortage of foster homes,
dangerously high caseloads for caseworkers assigned to monitor
child safety, a lack of critical mental health services, the
lowest "per diem" payments to care for foster children of any
state, and a lack of services and resources to get children
adopted.  

The suit claims that these problems have directly resulted in
children being maltreated while in foster care, placed in many
inappropriate foster homes and institutions, denied basic health
services and forced to languish in state custody with no hope
for a permanent home.

The suit is Case No. 4:05CV3241(RGK)(DLP) filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska.  Defendants are:

     -- Nancy Montanez, as director of services, Nebraska
        Department of Health and Human Services;

     -- Joann Schaefer, as the director of regulation and
        licensure, Nebraska Department of Health and Human
        Services;

     -- Richard Nelson, as the director of finance and support,
        Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services;

     -- Dennis Loose, as the chief deputy director, Nebraska
        Department of Health and Human Services; and

     -- Todd Reckling, as the Administrator of the Department of
        Health and Human Services' Office of Protection and
        Safety.


NEW YORK: Parents of Special Education Students Sue City
--------------------------------------------------------
The city of New York is defendant in a purported class action
filed by parents of special education students claiming that
their children are being cheated out of services when disputes
over instruction erupt at public schools, the New York Daily
News reports.

Seven families, who claim that special education students used
to continue receiving services even if "educrats" had objected
to the type of instruction, filed the suit on Aug. 23, 2006.

The services were only cut after a city hearing officer settled
the disputes between parents and schools.  However, according to
the suit, in August 2005, the Education Department began cutting
disputed services immediately, rather than allowing them to
continue as cases were argued.  The services are to be
reinstated if the hearing officer rules in the student's favor.

Gary Mayerson, attorney for the parents said that instruction is
being "diminished, delayed or denied" during the disputes.  The
suit also charges that overburdened and underpaid hearing
officers who decide disputes have no incentive to rule quickly.

Attorney Kim Sweet of the New York Lawyers for the Public
Interest and who has represented parents of special education
students, but is uninvolved with the lawsuit agreed that the
hearings are an obstacle, particularly for those who can't
afford lawyers.  

For more details, contact Gary S. Mayerson of Mayerson &
Associates, 330 West 38th Street, Suite 600, New York, New York
10018, (New York Co.), Phone: 212-265-7200, Fax: 212-265-1735,
Web site: http://www.mayerslaw.com.


QT INC: Judge Yet to Rule on Deceptive Advertising Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morton Denlow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has yet to make a decision on whether a
claim by the inventor of "ionized" Q-Ray bracelet that the
product works constitute false advertising, the Chicago Tribune
reports.

The decision for the purported class action "FTC, et al v. QT
Inc, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-03578" will also determine whether
Andrew Park can keep or forfeit up to $87 million in sales.

Mr. Park sold the Q-Ray "ionized" metal bracelet, claiming it
could relieve the pain of everything from arthritis to
chemotherapy.  His Elk Grove Village company, QT Inc., sold the
bracelets from 2000 to 2003 for $50 to $250 each, making pre-tax
profits of about $22 million.

However, in 2002, a Mayo Clinic study showed the bracelets did
nothing to relieve pain, but consumers only benefited from a
placebo effect.

In 2003, a Chicago lawyer filed a class suit against QT, Inc.,
accusing the company of fraudulently claiming that its "ionized"
metal bracelets can relieve arthritis pain.

Circuit Judge Irwin Solganick ruled in favor of Mr. Park, saying
the customers had not met the legal requirements for bringing a
class action.  That ruling is being appealed.

That same year, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, accused QT
Inc. of violating federal laws against false or deceptive
advertising.  It is asking Judge Denlow to force the company to
pay back at least $22 million and as much as $87 million so that
Q-Ray customers could get refunds for their money.

Meanwhile, the FTC has frozen some QT Inc. assets and won a
temporary court order that prevents the company from claiming
that the bracelet relieves pain.  It continues to market
bracelets, but reduced its claim to only that the bracelet will
"increase one's bio-energy, vitality and feelings of well-
being."

The suit is "FTC, et al. v. QT Inc, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
03578," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Morton Denlow.

Representing the defendants are Michael Andrew Ficaro and John
P. Buckley both of Ungaretti & Harris LLP, 3500 Three First
National Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 977-9200 or
(312) 977-4400, E-mail: maficaro@uhlaw.com or
jpbuckley@uhlaw.com;

Representing the plaintiffs is Trade Commission, Division of
Advertising Practices, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., NJ-3213
Washington, DC 20580, Phone: (202) 326-2125, (202) 326-3126,
(202) 326-3087; (202) 326-3321, (312) 960-5634; E-mail:
jevans@ftc.gov, eglennon@ftc.gov, rmontague@ftc.gov,
sviswanathan@ftc.gov, E-mail: swernikoff@ftc.gov.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court in California certified a class
and decertified another in the consolidated employee class
action against Rubio's Restaurants, Inc., which is alleging
violations of state labor laws.

On June 28, 2001, a former employee, who worked in the position
of general manager, filed a class action complaint against the
company in Orange County, California Superior Court.  

A second similar class action complaint was filed in Orange
County, California Superior Court on Dec. 21, 2001, on behalf of
another former employee who worked in the positions of general
manager and assistant manager.  

On May 16, 2002, these two cases were consolidated into one
action.  These cases currently involve the issue of whether
employees and former employees in the general and assistant
manager positions who worked in California units during
specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived
of overtime pay.

The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for alleged
missed meal and rest breaks.  In addition to unpaid overtime,
Cthese cases seek to recover waiting time penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the
current and former employees that these former employees purport
to represent.

On Nov. 9, 2005, the court certified a class of assistant
managers and has not yet ruled on the adequacy of the proposed
class representative for the class of general managers.  

On March 22, 2006 the court certified a class of general
managers.  Plaintiffs have stipulated to the decertification of
a meal and rest break class and that class has been decertified.

Carlsbad, California-based Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. (NASDAQ:
RUBO) -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns and operates affordable,  
fast-casual Mexican restaurants under the Rubio's Fresh Mexican
Grill name with restaurants primarily in California, Arizona,
Nevada, Colorado and Utah.


SCOTTISH RE: Continues to Face Shareholder Suits in N.Y. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Re Group Ltd. and certain officers and directors remain
defendants in lawsuits seeking class-action status filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over
alleged cover-ups of serious operational deficiencies, BestWire
reports.

The company faces at least four lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York:

     -- "Zuckerman v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case No.
        1:06-cv-05853-SAS," under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin;

     -- "Komito v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:06-
        cv-05994-SAS," under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin;

     -- "Dalos v. Scottish Re Group Limited et al., Case No.
        1:06-cv-06005-SAS," under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin; and

     -- "Hickock v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case No.
        1:06-cv-06173-UA," which has yet to be assigned.

The complaints allege that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements and made omission
concerning Scottish Re's financial well-being and future
business prospects.  Moreover, it is alleged that the company
also covered up serious operational deficiencies.

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paulette Suzanne Fox and Gregory Mark Nespole both of
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-
         4600 or 212-545-4657, Fax: (212) 545-4653, E-mail:
         nespole@whafh.com;

     (2) Peter A. Lagorio of Law Offices of Peter A. Lagorio,
         The Prince Building, 63 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA
         02110, Phone: (617) 367-4200, Fax: (617) 227-3384, E-
         mail: plagorio@conversent.net;

     (3) David A.P. Brower of Brower Piven, 488 Madison Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 501-9000, Fax: (212)
         501-0300;

     (4) Peter W. Overs, Jr. and Robert I. Harwood both of
         Weschler, Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400, Fax: (212)
         753-3630, E-mail: povers@whesq.com or
         rharwood@whesq.com;

     (5) Arthur N. Abbey and Nancy Kaboolian both of Abbey
         Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax:
         (212) 684-5191, E-mail: aabbey@abbeygardy.com or
         nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com;

     (6) Alison K. Clark, Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz
         all of Schiffrin & Barroway, L.L.P., 280 King of Pussia
         Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706; and

     (7) Evan J Smith of Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., 240 Mineola
         Boulevard, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (516) 741-4977,
         Fax: (516) 741-0626, E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Kigre Files Suit Against Hilton Head Over Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kigre Inc. filed a lawsuit against the town of Hilton Head
Island, South Carolina over what it says is an illegal business-
license practice that unfairly discriminates against certain
companies, Hilton Head Island Packet reports.

The company, which specializes in laser equipment and has an
office on Marshland Road, claims the town is unconstitutionally
taxing companies that conduct business across state lines.

According to Vice President Jeff Myers, the company hopes to
turn the legal action into a class action.  He however, declined
to give the names of the other parties involved in the case.

The suit, filed Aug. 15, was an outgrowth of another case the
town brought against the company in March seeking more than
$70,000 in unpaid business-license fees and late penalties
dating back to 2002.  While the company paid its base amount
required under the law, it did not pay the fee rate attached to
its gross income, according to the town's lawsuit.

The company -- represented by island attorney G. Richardson
Wieters -- has not paid the fee since it believes that under the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution it is exempted from
paying.  The clause basically states that only the federal
government could regulate interstate commerce, according to the
lawsuits.

The town, however, says it is owed a fee based on all of the
company's gross receipts as reported to the Internal Revenue
Service.

Mr. Myers argues that none of the company's business is within
the boundaries of the town and most of it is out of state or
international.  He points out that by requiring the company to
pay another fee based on the amount of money it makes, the town
is unfairly levying an extra sales tax on businesses.

The company began as an Ohio entity in 1973 but moved to South
Carolina in 1986, according to records from both Secretary of
State offices.  Records revealed that it is a registered company
in South Carolina.

Additionally, Mr. Myers said that the company was not allowed a
proper hearing before the town council over the issue.  He says
that the company is willing to take the case all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the interstate commerce issue.

For more details, contact G. Richardson Wieters, Suite 300,
Watersedge at Shelter Cove Harbor, 19 Shelter Cove Lane, P.O.
Box 7682, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29938, Phone: 843-
341-7000, Fax: 843-341-7007, http://www.grwlaw.com.


TARGET: Recalls Firestreet Scooters After Reports of Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 185,000
units of Firestreet scooters.

The company said the handlebars, wheels and wheel brakes can
break and detach, causing the rider to lose control, fall and
possibly suffer injuries.

Target has received five reports of incidents and injuries
resulting from breaking or collapsing parts.  Injuries resulting
from falls include: a fractured arm, cracked teeth, bruises to
the head, face and arm, a report of a lacerated toe, and
scratches.

This recall involves F Forward Firestreet scooters.  The red or
blue aluminum scooters have a fold-down frame and model number
BZ 020 SP.  The "F Forward" logo is noted on the stem, wheel or
base deck of the scooter.

These scooters were manufactured in China by Triple Win Sports
and are being sold at Target stores nationwide from February
2004 through July 2006 for about $24.

Picture of the recalled scooter:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06238.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these scooters away from children
immediately and return the scooter to the nearest Target store
for a $24 gift card, plus applicable sales tax.

For more information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7
a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or log on to
http://www.target.com


TENNESSEE: Prisoner Using Alias Loses Suit Filed Under Real Name
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Leon Jordan has dismissed a suit by a
prisoner in Blount County Jail who was not able to receive court
orders regarding the case he filed while in jail because he is
docketed under a different name in prison.

Vicente Corona was docked as Antonio Varagan in Blount County
Jail after he was arrested in California in January.  He is top
suspect in a mail-order drug distribution network being
prosecuted in federal court in Knoxville.  He is believed to
have used the alias to hide his identity as an illegal
immigrant.

While booked into Blount County Jail as Antonio Varagan, he
filed a suit from his jail complaining of overcrowding.  He
asked for a certification of his suit as a class action on
behalf of all inmates at the Blount facility.  

He later admitted in federal court in Knoxville that his real
name is Corona, but the Blount County Jail authorities were
reportedly not told about the admission.

Meanwhile, the federal court issued an order directing Mr.
Corona to either pay the $350 fee for the filing of federal
lawsuits or file a form declaring he is unable to pay it.

When Corona failed to respond within the 30 days Judge Jordan
had given him, the federal judge issued another order dismissing
Mr. Corona's lawsuit, barring him from filing it again, and
ordering his jail "trust account" to be docked.

The facts about his two names were discovered after a News
Sentinel reporter called the agency.


TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Aug. Hearing Set for Ill. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division set an Aug. 28, 2006 hearing on the motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the consumer fraud class
action against Trinsic Communications, Inc., formerly known as
Z-Tel Communications, Inc.

Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed the putative class action on May 13, 2004.  The
original complaint alleged that the company's subsidiary engaged
in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into paying
amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively labeling
certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes or fees
when in fact they were not.

It sought to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
persons or entities that contracted with the company for
telecommunications services and were billed for particular taxes
or regulatory fees.

Additionally, the complaint asserted a claim under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and sought
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

On June 22, 2004, the company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187.

On July 26, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the state circuit court.  On Jan. 12, 2005, the federal court
granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court.

On Oct. 17, 2005, the state court heard argument on the
company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and granted that motion,
in part with prejudice.  

The court dismissed with prejudice the claims relating to the
"E911 Tax," the "Utility Users Tax," and the "Communications
Service Tax."  It found that those tax charges were specifically
authorized by state law or local ordinance, and thus cannot be
the basis of a Consumer Fraud claim.

The court also dismissed with leave to replead the claims
relating to the "Interstate Recovery Fee" and the "Federal
Regulatory Compliance Fee."  It determined that plaintiff had
failed to allege how she was actually damaged by the allegedly
deceptive description of the charges.

On Nov. 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint alleging that the company mislabeled its "Interstate
Recovery Fee" and "Federal Cost Recovery Fee" in supposed
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

As with the original complaint, the first amended class action
complaint seeks damages, fees, costs, and class certification.

The company filed a further motion to dismiss, which was heard
by the court on April 3, 2006.  The court granted that motion by
dismissing plaintiff's claims for unfair practices under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
dismissing in part plaintiff's claims for deceptive practice
under the Act.

The court determined that the plaintiff did not state sufficient
facts indicating that her alleged damages were caused by the
company's alleged deception.  

Plaintiff was granted 21 days in which to replead the claims of
deception.  On April 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a second
amended class action complaint again alleging that Trinsic
mislabeled its "Interstate Recovery Fee" and "Federal Cost
Recovery Fee" in supposed violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The second amended class action complaint seeks damages, fees,
costs, and class certification.

The company has moved to dismiss the second amended class action
complaint, and hearing is set on the motion for Aug. 28, 2006.

The suit is "Susan Schad v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc.," filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Illinois County
Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 04CH07882," under Judge
Richard J. Billik, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Miller Faucher Chertow, 30 N
LaSalle St. 3630, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.  

Representing the company is Pretzel & Stouffer, 1 S. Wacker Dr.
#2500, Chicago, IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 346-1973.


TRITON NETWORK: Enters Agreement to Settle "IPO Laddering" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triton Network Systems, Inc. submitted an offer of settlement to
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to which
the registration of Triton's shares registered under Section 12
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will be revoked.  This
action will relieve Triton of any future obligation to file
periodic reports under the Exchange Act.

As previously disclosed, pursuant to a Complete Plan of
Liquidation and Dissolution approved by its directors and
stockholders, on Jan. 31, 2002, Triton was dissolved and de-
listed from the Nasdaq National Market.

Since then, Triton no longer conducts business as a going
concern, its stock transfer records have been closed, and it
exists solely to resolve the remaining legal proceedings in
which it is involved and to liquidate and distribute its assets
to its stockholders of record as of Jan. 31, 2002.  Triton has
no intent to undertake any other activities or to seek the
registration or listing of its shares on any exchange or over-
the-counter market.

As previously reported, the remaining set of class actions in
which Triton is a defendant is part of what is referred to as
the "IPO laddering" claims.  Triton is one of approximately 300
companies that have been named as defendants in these lawsuits.  

These suits have been brought on behalf of stockholders
alleging, among other things:

     -- that the prospectus for the defendants' public
        offerings, including Triton's public offering, were
        misleading because the prospectus did not disclose
        alleged improper compensation that the plaintiffs claim
        the underwriters of the offerings obtained for
        themselves in connection with the offerings; and

     -- that the defendants should have disclosed alleged
        agreements between the underwriters and those to whom
        they allocated shares that the plaintiffs claim caused
        the market price of the defendants' shares (including
        Triton's) to be inflated.

The principal terms of a proposed global settlement between the
plaintiffs, almost all the issuers, including Triton, and all
individuals affiliated with those issuers -- including the
individuals named in the IPO laddering lawsuit against Triton --
have been set forth in a settlement agreement.

Should the lawsuits be resolved pursuant to the settlement
agreement, Triton would not be required to make any cash
payments to the plaintiffs.  

Currently, Triton has approximately $1.3 million (over $0.03 per
share) of net assets.  If the outstanding litigation is resolved
under the terms of the global settlement outlined above, Triton
would make a final cash distribution to the Stockholders of
Record as soon as the class actions are finally settled.


USI HOLDINGS: Still Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
USI Holdings Corp. remains a defendant in the multidistrict
case, "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The company was named as one of more than 30 insurance firms and
insurance brokerage defendants in an amended complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York in a
putative class action, "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV 06954
(DC)."

The amended complaint focused on the payment of contingent
commissions by insurers to insurance brokers who sell their
insurance and alleged bid rigging in the setting of insurance
premium levels.  It purported to allege violations of numerous
laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations and federal restraint of trade statutes, state
restraint of trade, unfair and deceptive practices statutes and
state breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment laws.

The amended complaint sought class certification, treble damages
for the alleged injury suffered by the putative plaintiff class
and other damages.

The company was also named as a defendant in "copycat" or tag-
along lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, styled, "Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7847," and "Preuss v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7853."  

In April 2005, the company was served in another copycat class
action, "Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et al. v. Ace, USA,
et al.," and filed in the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida, Civil
Division, Class Representation, No. 05-CA-373-16-W.  This action
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Orlando Division, Case No. 6:05-CV-422-2ZKRS.

A similar copycat class action complaint captioned, "Bensley
Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,
No. ESCV2005-0277 (Essex Superior Court, Massachusetts)" was
served upon the company in May 2005.  This action was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Like the Opticare complaint, these complaints contained no
particular allegations of wrongdoing on the company's part.  In
February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the actions then pending to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Palm Tree and Bensley lawsuits to the
same court for the same purposes.

On Aug. 1, 2005, in the multidistrict litigation pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended commercial class
action complaint and a first consolidated employee benefits
class action complaint that alleged claims against the company
based upon RICO, federal and state antitrust laws, breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary and
unjust enrichment.

The consolidated MDL Complaints, like the predecessor
complaints, focus the allegations of fact upon defendants other
than the company.  The company moved to dismiss the consolidated
MDL complaints.  None of the plaintiffs in any of the actions
has set forth the amounts being sought in the particular
actions.

The suit is "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the U.S. District Court in
New Jersey, under Judge Faith S. Hochberg.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC) One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and

     (2) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
         Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


UTAH: Reaches Deal in Lawsuit Over Access of Disabled to Roads
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Utah Department of Transportation settled a federal class
action filed by disabled rights advocates over access to
sidewalks and roadways.

Ronald Decker filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on Feb. 16, 2001 as "Decker, et al. v. UDOT, et
al., Case No. 1:01-cv-00020-DB."  He sought to have all
sidewalks abutting state roads accessible for the disabled.

According to Kerry Chlarson, the managing attorney for the
Disability Law Center, Mr. Decker took his complaint to the
nonprofit agency, which found the problem was widespread enough
to make it a class action.

In previous ruling, Judge Dee Benson pointed out that under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the state has a responsibility to
ensure all citizens' safe access to sidewalks and roadways.  He
also ruled previously that since state received federal funds it
had to observe the federal law.  

Soon after these ruling, the UDOT and the plaintiffs began
settlement negotiations.  Eventually a settlement deal was
agreed upon in 2005 and approved by the Legislature and Gov. Jon
Huntsman Jr.  It came after four years of litigation and
negotiations.

A court order released on Aug. 23, 2006 outlines how the UDOT
will comply with the agreement to build 8,000 new ramps on
sidewalks abutting state roads.  

Under the settlement, the state will spend about $1 million per
year for the next 10 years to build ramps for people who use
wheelchairs or have difficulty walking.  In addition, UDOT will
also pay about $70,000 to the Disability Law Center for
attorney's fees.
   
The suit is "Decker, et al. v. UDOT, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-
00020-DB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah under Judge Dee Benson.

Representing the plaintiffs are Kerry L. Chlarson, Carolyn Pence
and Robert B. Denton of Disability Law Center, 205 N. 400 W. 1st
Fl., Salt Lake City, UT 84103, Phone: (801) 363-1347 and (801)
363-1642, E-mail: kchlarson@disabilitylawcenter.org,
cpence@disabilitylawcenter.org and
rdenton@disabilitylawcenter.org.

Representing the defendants are Jerrold S. Jensen of Utah
Attorney General's Office, (160-140857), 160 E. 300 S., P.O. BOX
140857, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0857, Phone: (801) 366-0350, E-
mail: JerroldJensen@utah.gov.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Injunction Appealed to Del. High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported former shareholder of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
filed an appeal to the anti-suit injunction issued by the
Delaware Court of Chancery in a class action pending in the
California Superior Court against Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
and certain other defendants.

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in
the California Superior Court on behalf of all non-Vishay
stockholders of Siliconix, Inc. against the company, Ernst &
Young LLP -- the independent registered public accounting firm
that audits the company's financial statements -- Dr. Felix
Zandman, chairman and chief technical and business development
officer of the company, and, as a nominal defendant, Siliconix.  

The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims
against the defendants including:

      -- the purported taking by the company of Siliconix sales
         subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries;

      -- the purported taking by the company of Siliconix's SAP
         software system without compensation to Siliconix;

      -- the alleged use by the company of Siliconix's assets as
         security for its loans without compensation to
         Siliconix;

      -- the purported misappropriation by the company of
         Siliconix's identity;

      -- the alleged taking by the company of Siliconix testing
         equipment;

      -- the alleged use by the company of Siliconix to save
         certain credits made available by an Israeli business
         development agency;

      -- the alleged misuse by the company of Siliconix's
         patents to help it acquire General Semiconductor; and

      -- the allegedly improper identification of  Dr. Zandman
         as a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents.  

The action seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  

On April 1, 2005, the company:

      -- demurred to the class action claim in the amended
         complaint, on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing
         to bring a direct claim;

      -- moved to strike some of the allegations in the
         derivative cause of action as barred by the applicable
         statutes of limitation; and

      -- moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
         plaintiffs failed to prosecute their claims in a
         timely manner.

Also on April 1, 2005, defendant Ernst & Young moved to dismiss
the claims against it and, in the alternative, for a stay of the
litigation so that the causes of action asserted against Ernst &
Young may first be arbitrated.  

On June 10, 2005, the company and Ernst & Young separately
demurred to the derivative claim on the ground that as a
consequence of the merger of Siliconix with a subsidiary of the
company, plaintiffs no longer had standing to pursue a
derivative claim.  

At a hearing on Aug. 2, 2005, the court sustained the parties'
demurrers to the direct and the derivative claims and granted
plaintiffs leave to replead both claims.  An amended complaint
was filed in November 2005.  

On March 7, 2006, the California Superior Court rejected the
company's motion to dismiss the claim and required it to answer
the complaint.  

On May 25, 2006, the company filed its answer to the complaint,
denying the allegations of the amended complaint and asserting
various defenses.  

On June 13, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an anti-
suit injunction based on the settlement agreement that was
reached in connection with the tender offer litigation filed by
the Siliconix minority shareholders in Delaware against the
company and other defendants.  The injunction prevents the
litigation from continuing.  

On July 10, 2006, a purported former shareholder filed a notice
of appeal of the injunction order with the Supreme Court of
Delaware.

Malvern, Pennsylvania-based Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (NYSE:
VSH) -- http://www.vishay.com/-- is an international  
manufacturer and supplier of semiconductors and passive
electronic components.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Mulls Class Status in Ky. Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Eastern Kentucky Circuit court is considering a motion asking
for class-action status to a lawsuit filed by employees of Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. that alleges non-payment to workers of hours
worked through breaks, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.

The suit has been delayed with multiple, lengthy filings.  It
was filed by Wal-Mart employees ion 2005, claiming workers
weren't properly compensated for working overtime and were not
paid for missed break time.

In a hearing last week, Boyd County Circuit Judge Marc I. Rosen
asked attorneys of both parties to submit a proposed order.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing numerous cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs have brought claims
under FLSA, corresponding state statutes, or other laws.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly
Associates who allege, among other things, that the company
forced them to work "off the clock," or failed to provide work
breaks, or otherwise claim they were not paid for work
performed.

Class certification has been denied or overturned in cases
pending in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Some or all of the
requested classes have been certified in cases pending in
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Washington.

The cases relate to a 2001 state law stipulating that employees
who work at least six hours must have a 30-minute, unpaid lunch
break.  If they do not get that, the law requires they be must
paid for an additional hour of pay.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APPLE COMPUTER: Stull, Stull Announces Calif. Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities and/or sold
put options of Apple Computer, Inc. between Dec. 1, 2005 and
Aug. 11, 2006.

The Complaint charges that Apple and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10-b(5) and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The action alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning Apple's improper and
undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain
executives which made it appear that such options were issued on
dates when the market price of Apple stock was higher than
actual market price on the actual grant dates.

This improper backdating masked the virtually instant profits
the option recipients obtained.  Under generally accepted
accounting principles, these profits were required to be
recognized as an expense in the company's financial statements
for the appropriate period, but were not.

Thus, the company's financial statements in its Form 10-K filing
for the fiscal year 2005 and interim financial statements for
2005 and 2006 were materially false and misleading.

In addition, the company's Proxy Statement for its annual
shareholder meeting held in 2006 was materially false and
misleading because it contained statements concealing Apple's
practice of backdating stock options.  The Complaint further
alleges that as a result of defendants' actions, plaintiffs and
the Class were damaged.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class members
and are represented by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody,
which has significant experience and expertise in prosecuting
class actions on behalf of investors.

Interested parties must move the Court no later than Oct. 24,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Howard T. Longman of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 973-301-0900 or 800-337-4983, E-mail:
Tsvi@aol.com.


IMAX CORP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP announces that it has filed a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities of IMAX Corp. between February
17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.  The case is "Feeney v. IMAX Corp.,
et al., 06-cv-6449," and was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that IMAX and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
financial health of the company.

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. On this news, shares of
IMAX dropped from $9.63 per share to $5.73 per share, a decline
of 40.5%.

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

For more details, contact Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank &
Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8079 and (212) 682-1818, Fax:
(212) 682-1892.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 17, 2006, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Parlux
Fragrances 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 currently from Feb. 8, 2006 through Aug. 10,
2006, but the law firm of Federman & Sherwood is investigating
possible expansion of the class period.

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

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood of 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.


SCOTTISH RE: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of Scottish Re Group
Limited's 7.25% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Shares
between July 5, 2005 and July 28, 2006.

The action names as defendants the company, along with certain
senior officers and directors of the company, and certain
underwriters on the offering of the Perpetual Preferred Shares.

The complaint alleges that Scottish Re, certain of its officers
and directors, and certain underwriters on the offering violated
federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning Scottish Re's financial
health and business prospects in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus and in other filings and public statements.

In February 2006, the company reported strong earnings for the
4th quarter of 2005, announcing that this positive momentum
would continue going forward.

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

However, on July 31, 2006, the defendants surprised the market
with news that CEO Scott Willkomm had resigned, and that for the
second quarter, the company would report a loss of $130 million,
and that results for the remainder of the year would be
negatively affected. On this news the price of the Perpetual
Preferred Shares plummeted from $25.01 to $9.00, a 64% decline.

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

For more details contact Ira M. Press and Francisco Loya of
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 888-529-4787, E-mail:
floya@kmslaw.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  * * *