CAR_Public/060829.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 29, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 171

                            Headlines
                       
AMERICAN HOME: High Court Suspends Attorneys in Fen-Phen Suit
AXIS CAPITAL: U.S. Insurers Continue to Face N.J. Antitrust Suit
AXIS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y
CANADA: Dartmouth Man to be Named Plaintiff in Agent Orange Suit
CHEVRON CORP: Judge Speeds up Ecuadorian Waste Dumping Lawsuit

CHUBB CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
CONSECO HEALTH: Continues to Face La. Suit Over Insurance Policy
CONSECO INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Insurance Fee Costing
CONSECO INSURANCE: Files Motion to Dismiss Annuity Products Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status for Calif. Wage Suit

EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
EQ RESOURCE: Suits Over 2005 Explosion May be Joined as One Case
EV3 INC: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction
FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Class in Suit Over Minivans
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Arguments in "Turner" Suit Settlement Heard

HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions
HUB INT'L: Still Faces N.J. Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Applied Medical's Lawsuit Goes to Trial
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Nears for Wholesale Drug Pricing Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuit in N.J.

MEADOW GOLD: Recalls Choco Ice Cream with Undeclared Egg Content
MEDSTAFF INC: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Pa. Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ruling in D.C. Pension Fund Lawsuit Appealed
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

MORTGAGEIT HOLDINGS: Faces Stockholder Suit in N.Y. State Court
NEW YORK: Attorney Plans Suit Over Parking Meters in Bellerose
OSCEOLA FARMS: Fla. Court Dismisses Sugarcane Cutters' Wage Suit
POZEN INC: Discovery Starts in N.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
REWARDS NETWORK: Allowed to Ask Review of Ruling in "Bistro"

SANDS REGENT: Agrees to Settle Nev. Lawsuit Over Herbst Merger
SPIN MASTER: Recalls Toy Planes with Batteries That Can Overheat
TELLIUM INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for N.J. Stock Suit Settlement
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Anti-Smoking Groups Urge Filipinos to Sue
TORCHMARK CORP: Oct. Trial Set for Vesta Insurance Suit in Ala.

TOYOBO: Mass. Police Gets Payout in $29M Zylon Suit Settlement
VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
VISTEON CORP: Settlement Talks Continuing in Mich. ERISA Suit
YORK BARBELL: Recalls Weightlifting Bars with Defective Sleeve


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set October


                            *********


AMERICAN HOME: High Court Suspends Attorneys in Fen-Phen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Supreme Court has temporarily suspended the
licenses of three Lexington lawyers accused of breaching their
fiduciary duty when they diverted more than $20 million in the
settlement of Kentucky's fen-phen lawsuits, the Herald-Leader
reports.

The court suspended Melbourne Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr. and
William Gallion until further court order.

The court said there is probable cause to think that the three
had misappropriated money they held for others to their own use
or that they had been improperly dealing with that money,
according to the report.

In 2001, fen-phen maker American Home Products settled a
national class action over its diet drug by paying $200 million.  
Three years later, in 2004, former fen-phen plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit against the lawyers who took their case, asking for a
full accounting of settlement funds.  It turned out that the
three lawyers and their consultants received more money than
their 431 clients by getting about $105 million and giving their
clients only $74 million.

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

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

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

The three attorneys are represented by Frankfort lawyer William
E. Johnson.


AXIS CAPITAL: U.S. Insurers Continue to Face N.J. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. insurance companies of AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd.
remain defendants in the putative class action, "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Filed on Aug. 1, 2005, the suit includes as defendants numerous
insurance brokers and insurance companies.  It generally alleges
antitrust and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act in connection to the payment of
contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.  

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Thomas M. Louis of Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC, P.O. BOX
         131, JACKSON, MS 39205-0131, Phone: (601) 355-8321, E-
         mail: tlouis@wellsmar.com;

     (2) H. Alan Mccall of Stockwell Sievert, P.O. Box 2900,
         Lake Charles, LA 70601, US, Phone: 337-436-9491;

     (3) Ellen Meriwether of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One
         Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18TH & Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
         emeriwether@millerfaucher.com; and

     (4) Douglas A. Millen, Counsel Not Admitted to USDC-NJ Bar
         Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein,
         PC, 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-
         1615, Phone: (312) 521-2100.

Representing the company is William F. Clarke of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meahter & Flom, LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY
10036-6522, Phone: (212) 735-3000, E-mail: wclarke@skadden.com.


AXIS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y
-------------------------------------------------------------
AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. and certain of its executive officers
remain defendants in the consolidated securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Two suits initially filed against the company relate to dealings
being investigated by the Attorney General of the state of New
York and other state regulators.  The suits are:

     -- "James Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael A.
        Butt and John R. Charman" (filed on Oct. 28, 2004); and

     -- "Robert Schimpf v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael
        A. Butt, Andrew Cook and John R. Charman," (filed on
        Nov. 5, 2004).

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
publicly traded securities during the period between Aug. 6,
2003 and Oct. 14, 2004.  The complaints charge AXIS and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints further allege that during the class period,
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's results and operations.  

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the class period, are
allegedly:

     (1) that the company was paying illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements;"

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions
         of dollars; and

     (3) that as a result, the company's prior reported revenue
         and income was grossly overstated.

On April 13, 2005, these lawsuits were consolidated as, "In re
AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation."  

The suit alleges securities violations in connection with the
failure to disclose payments made pursuant to contingent
commission arrangements and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  

On May 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated
complaint and added as defendants the managing underwriters and
one of the selling shareholders in the company's secondary
offering completed in March 2004.

The suit is "Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the company is Benjamin E. Rosenberg of Swidler
Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10174, Phone: (212) 891-9231, Fax: (212) 891-9519, E-mail:
benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com.


CANADA: Dartmouth Man to be Named Plaintiff in Agent Orange Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant Law Group will file court papers in Halifax naming
Paul Thompson of Dartmouth as plaintiff in a class action
against the federal government over Agent Orange sprayed in CFB
Gagetown, according to a report by Jennifer Taplin of The Daily
News.  The filing will make Mr. Thompson the first Nova Scotian
to launch a class action against Canada.

Merchant Law filed the suit in July 2005.  Mr. Thompson
reportedly said what they have is a lead plaintiff in every
province.  There are least 1,000 other plaintiffs across the
country, according to the report.

Mr. Thompson served in Gagetown base where U.S. military sprayed
herbicides between the mid 1950s and 1984.  In the 1960s they
tested defoliants Agent Purple and Agent Orange.  Mr. Thompson
was stationed in the base in 1966-1970 and in 1981-1987.

Mr. Thompson has multiple sclerosis and Graves' disease, his son
has Crohn's disease and his grandson is severely autistic,
according to the report.

Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com/.


CHEVRON CORP: Judge Speeds up Ecuadorian Waste Dumping Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuadorian judge German Yanez denied Chevron Corp.'s motion to
conduct 64 additional judicial inspections in a move to speed up
a lawsuit against Chevron Corp. over toxic wastewater dumping in
the rainforest of Ecuador.  The decision eliminated almost all
of the remaining judicial inspections.

Chevron is accused of dumping more than 18 billion gallons of
toxic waste into Ecuador's rainforest.

The suit asserts the dumping threatened five indigenous groups
and has produced cancers and oil-related health problems.  
Cleanup is estimated at $6.1 billion.

Proof in the lawsuit, the first by rainforest residents against
a U.S. oil company, is based largely on field inspections of
Chevron well sites where scientists took water and soil samples
to determine the presence of toxic contamination.

Thus far, both sides are reporting extensive levels of toxins at
100% of the 42 sites inspected, often at levels hundreds of
times higher than both U.S. and Ecuadorian norms, Amazon Watch
said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe proof from the 42 inspections
is more than enough to prove the case and that Chevron's motion
to conduct 64 additional inspections was intended to delay.  If
accepted, Chevron's motion would have added at least three years
to the trial.

According to Alejandro Ponce, a member of the plaintiffs' legal
team, Chevron wanted the trial to continue endlessly because it
fears the outcome.

"Chevron believes it is cheaper to pay lawyers to delay than to
fund a clean-up that could save lives and protect the company
from further liability and harm to its reputation," he added.

"We urge the leadership of Chevron to change course because
shareholders are at substantial risk in Ecuador as this decision
makes clear," Mr. Ponce said.

He said if further delays by Chevron can be forestalled, the
case could be decided in 2007.  The final phase of the trial is
a damage assessment, which the plaintiffs are currently
preparing.

After the inspections are complete and the damage assessment
submitted, the court will hear final arguments and then make a
decision.

                         Case Background

On April 25, nine unnamed citizens and residents of Ecuador,
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking to represent residents of
Ecuador's Oriente region who allegedly contracted cancer or who
are at increased risk of cancer and other diseases because of
the company's activities.

The suit claims the company dumped wastewater into open pits and
rivers during its oil drilling operations in Ecuador between
1971 and 1992.  The practice was illegal in the U.S. at the
time, the suit says.  

Plaintiffs are asking a court order that would compel Chevron to
give up or disgorge profits Texaco made in the region by using
non-industry-standard drilling methods.  Those funds would then
be used to build and maintain medical facilities for the
affected regions.

The suit also charges that Chevron violated the California
Business and Professions Code by repeatedly and publicly
misrepresenting or denying its responsibility for the problems.

The suit arose out of the activities of Chevron subsidiary --
Texaco Petroleum Co., which the company bought in 2001 -- in
Ecuador as the operating partner of a joint venture with the
state-owned oil company, PetroEcuador.

Chevron has filed a motion to dismiss.  

Chevron Corp Ecuadorian Waste Dumping suit on the Net:

               http://chevrontoxico.com

The suit is "Doe, et al. vs. Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Co.  
Inc. and Chevron Corp.," filed under Judge William H. Alsup.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cristobal Bonifaz of Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz,  
         180 Maple St., PO Box 180 Conway, MA 01341, U.S.,  
         Phone: 413-369-4263, 413-369-0076;

     (2) Thomas Joseph Cmar of International Labor Rights Fund,  
         2001 S Street, NW, Suite 420, Washington, DC 20009,  
         Phone: (202) 347-4100, E-mail: thom.cmar@ilrf.org; and

     (3) Paul Lindsey Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow  
         Harris & Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA  
         90291, Phone: 310-396-0731, E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Robert A. Mittelstaedt of Jones  
Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104,  
Phone: 415-875-5710, Fax: 415/875-5700, E-mail:  
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com.


CHUBB CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corp. is a defendant in purported class actions arising
out of investigations into payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and agents in the property and casualty insurance
industry.


On Aug. 1, 2005, the company and certain of its subsidiaries
were named in a putative class action "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act and
state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, arising from the unlawful use of contingent commission
agreements.  The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.  

The company was also named in two purported class actions in
state court relating to allegations of unlawful use of
contingent commission arrangements.  The first was filed on Feb.
16, 2005 in Seminole County, Florida.  The second was filed on
May 17, 2005 in Essex County, Massachusetts.

In October 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the Florida case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."  

On the same month, the JPMDL issued a Conditional Transfer Order
conditionally transferring the Massachusetts case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

The plaintiff and one of the company's unaffiliated co-
defendants filed motions to vacate the Conditional Transfer
Order.  Those motions have not yet been decided.

In December 2005, the company and certain of its subsidiaries
were named in an action similar to the "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."  The action is pending in the
same court and has been assigned to the judge who is presiding
over the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

The complaint has not yet been served in this matter.  In these
actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants
unlawfully used contingent commission agreements.  The actions
seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

Separately, in April 2006, the company and one of its
subsidiaries were named in an action similar to the "In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."  This action is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.  

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the
defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements.  
The actions seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

New Jersey-based Chubb Corp. (NYSE: CB) -- http://www.chubb.com/
-- is a holding company for a family of property and casualty
insurance companies known informally as the Chubb Group of
Insurance Companies (P&C Group).  The P&C Group is divided into
four business units: Chubb Commercial Insurance, Chubb Specialty
Insurance, Chubb Personal Insurance and Reinsurance Assumed.


CONSECO HEALTH: Continues to Face La. Suit Over Insurance Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
against Conseco Health Insurance Co., a unit of Conseco, Inc.

On Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class action, "Diana
Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health Insurance Co., Case No.
61,534," was filed in the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish
of Iberville, Louisiana.

In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to
Conseco Health's failure to pay claims made under her cancer
policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Conseco caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004, and it was
assigned case number 04-784-D-M2.  

This case is now in the discovery stage, and the court has not
yet set a hearing for plaintiff's class certification motion,
according to the company's Aug. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "Doiron v. Conseco Health Co., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00784-JJB-CN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with referral
to Judge Christine Noland.

Representing the plaintiff is Stanley P. Baudin of Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.,
Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071, Phone: 225-687-6396, Fax: 225-687-
6398, E-mail: sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com.

Representing the defendant is Raymond J. Pajares of Pajares &
Schexnaydre, LLC, 103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110, Covington,
LA 70433, Phone: 985-292-2000, Fax: 985-292-2001, E-mail:
rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com.


CONSECO INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Insurance Fee Costing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. and certain subsidiaries, including principally
Conseco Life Insurance Co., remain defendants in several
purported state court class actions in Indiana, California and
Pennsylvania.

The suits alleges breach of contract, fraud and
misrepresentation in relation to a change made in 2003 and 2004
in the way cost of insurance charges are calculated by the
company for life insurance policies sold primarily under the
names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime."

Those cases filed in Superior Court, Hamilton County, Indiana
were consolidated as "Arlene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211."

Four putative nationwide and/or statewide class actions filed in
California state courts have been consolidated and are being
coordinated in the Superior Court of San Francisco County under
the new caption "Cost of Insurance Cases, Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 4384" (Judicial Council of
California).

On Jan. 25, 2005 an amended complaint making similar allegations
was filed in the case, "William Schwartz v. Jeffrey Landerman,
Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc., Samuels Jacky Insurance
Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Co., Successor to Philadelphia
Life Insurance Co., Case No. GD 00-011432," filed in the Court
of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Additionally, Mr. Schwartz filed a purported nationwide class
action, "William Schwartz and Rebecca R. Frankel, Trustee of the
Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life
Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-3742," filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  On May 12, 2006
these two Schwartz cases were consolidated under both original
case numbers.

On Dec. 22, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in Court of Common Pleas,
Chester County, Pennsylvania as, "Lisa M. Jordan v. Allen R.
Shank and Conseco Life Insurance Co., Case No. 05-10204."

Carmel, Indiana-based Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group
of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.


CONSECO INSURANCE: Files Motion to Dismiss Annuity Products Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated consumer
fraud class action against Conseco Insurance Co. over the sale
of annuity products to seniors 65 years and older.

On Nov. 17, 2005, the complaint "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco
Insurance Co., f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Co., Case No.
C0504726" was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class over alleged:

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- elder abuse;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising;

      -- breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach
         of fiduciary duty; and

      -- unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same
court: "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois
company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-
00537."  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.  

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and
that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable
for seniors age 65 and older.

On Mar. 3, 2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding Friou P. Jones as a named plaintiff and
adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  

This in effect has consolidated the two cases, and the original
Jones case will be dismissed.  A motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was filed on July 28, 2006.

The suit is "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co., Case No.
5:05-cv-04726-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Howard D. Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Krinsk, 501 West
         Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3593, Phone:
         619-238-1333, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail:
         fk@classactionlaw.com;

     (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
         Balint, P.C., 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000,
         Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-
         1199; and

     (3) John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619)
         231-7423, E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Thomas A. Doyle, James J. Dries
and Mark L. Karasik of Baker & McKenzie, LLP, 130 E. Randolph,
Drive, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-8000, Fax:
312-861-2899, E-mail: Thomas.A.Doyle@bakernet.com,
James.J.Dries@bakernet.com and Mark.L.Karasik@bakernet.com.


CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status for Calif. Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit "Cossack et al. v. Cross Country
Travelcorps, et al." are seeking class-action status for the
case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The suit also names Cross Country Nurses, Inc.,
subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. together with Cross
Country Travelcorps.

On Aug. 26, 2003, a purported class action, "Theodora Cossack,
et al. v. Cross Country TravCorps and Cross Country Nurses,
Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Orange.

Plaintiffs plead causes of action for:

      -- violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200, et. seq;

      -- violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et.
         seq;

      -- recovery of unpaid wages and penalties;

      -- conversion;

      -- breach of contract;

      -- common counts - work, labor, services provided; and

      -- common counts - money had and received.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated allege that defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  They specifically claim that defendants:

      -- failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by
         California law;

      -- failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which
         overtime hours are to be compensated;

      -- failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a
         workday;

      -- scheduled some of its employees on an alternative
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional
         compensation when those employees did not work such
         alternative workweek, as scheduled; and

      -- failed to pay employees for the minimum hours
         defendants had promised them.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the Superior Court of the state of California
granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add causes of
actions alleging defendant's failure to pay for missed meal
periods and rest breaks.

Although Cross Country Nurses, Inc. was previously dismissed
from the action upon defendants' motion for summary judgment
plaintiffs have erroneously included Cross Country Nurses, Inc.
in the caption and allegations of the amended complaint they
filed.

On Mar. 10, 2006, defendants removed this putative class action
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Orange County.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the case be remanded
to state court, which was granted on Apr. 28, 2006.  Defendants
previously said it would appeal the motion to the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit by May 5, 2006.    

Plaintiffs are seeking:

      -- an order enjoining defendants from engaging in the
         practices challenged in the complaint;

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies
         defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and
         their purported class);

      -- for pre-judgment interest; for certain penalties
         provided for by the California Labor Code; and

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The company intends to oppose the motion.
Discovery in this case is ongoing.

The suit is "Cossack et al. v. Cross Country Travelcorps, et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00266-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph Antonelli of Joseph Antonelli Law Offices, 1000
         Lakes Drive, Suite 450, West Covina, CA 91790, Phone:
         626-917-6228, E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com;

     (2) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670
         Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
         Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com;

Representing the defendants are, Enzo Der Boghossian, Arthur F.
Silbergeld and Michael H. Weiss of Proskauer Rose, 2049 Century
Park East, 32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206, Phone: 310-
557-2900, E-mail: asilbergeld@proskauer.com and
mweiss@proskauer.com.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines remains a defendant in a labor class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs
and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of
Emery Worldwide's airline operations and the shutdown of the
airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between Aug. 11 and
Aug. 15, 2001.  The WARN Act generally requires employers to
give 60-days notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of
notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site
of employment.

The estimated range for potential loss on this matter is zero to
approximately $8 million.

Emery Worldwide is a subsidiary of CNF, Inc. and the U.S. Postal
Service.

The suit is "Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H.
Rice.  

Representing the plaintiffs is David Gerard Torchia, Tobias &
Kraus - 1 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-241-
8137 Fax: 513-241-8137 E-mail: davet@tktlaw.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (1) Michelle R. Arendt and Thomas H. Barnard, Jr. Ulmer and
         Berne Penton Media Building 1300 E. Ninth Street Suite
         900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-931-6056 Fax: 216-
         931-6057 E-mail: marendt@ulmer.com; and

     (2) Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Cinergy Services, Inc. 139
         East Fourth Street 25ATII Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960
         Phone: 513-287-1238 Fax: 513-287-2996 E-mail:
         Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com.


EQ RESOURCE: Suits Over 2005 Explosion May be Joined as One Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A circuit court has yet to rule on combining as a class action
suits arising from the explosion of flammable liquid at EQ
Resource Recovery plant on Van Born Road, Romulus, Michigan,
according to a report by Doug Guthrie of The Detroit News.

More than 2,500 people living near the plant have filed suits in
Wayne County Circuit Court seeking unspecified damages after a
file exploded on the facility in August 2005.

Elizabeth Thomson, a Southfield lawyer, represents 200
residents; Detroit attorney David Dubin represents 2,500 more
residents.

Ms. Thomson's clients said they want reimbursement for cleanup
costs, motel stays and compensation for loss of use and
enjoyment of their property.

The company used to blend liquid waste solvents to create fuel
used to fire industrial operations such as cement kilns.  After
the fire, the company reduced its operation to the production of
non-flammable recycled airplane de-icer.


EV3 INC: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
Ev3, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder class
action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in
relation to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro
Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action filed
purportedly on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority
shareholders was filed against Micro Therapeutics, Micro
Therapeutics' directors and the company challenging the
previously announced exchange offer.

The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted
a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.  It sought an
injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed,
rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with
Micro Therapeutics.

Minnesota-based ev3 Inc. (NASDAQ:EVVV) -- http://www.ev3.net/--  
is a global medical device company focused on catheter-based, or
endovascular, technologies for the minimally invasive treatment
of vascular diseases and disorders.


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Class in Suit Over Minivans
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a
decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott to certify a class
action filed against Ford Motor over sticking gas pedals on its
1999 and 2000 Mercury Villager minivans, The Enquirer reports.

The panel ruled that owners of 1999 and 2000 Mercury Villager
minivans belongs in a single, class-action trial and that class
litigation is the "superior method" of settling the dispute in
court.

"Permitting individual owners and lessees of 1999 or 2000
Villagers to litigate their cases is a vastly inferior method of
adjudication when compared to determining threshold issues of
contract interpretation that apply equally to the whole class,"
the court said.

In 2000, Pat Daffin of West Price Hill, owner of a 1999
Villager, filed suit against Ford Motor Co., alleging that
thousands of Ohioans bought or leased Villagers with throttle
body assemblies that can leave gas pedals stuck in acceleration.

Nearly 60 other Villager owners complained about balky gas
pedals in complaints filed with the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration as of mid-2004, according
to the report.

Nissan Motor Co. made the power plant for 1999 and 2000
Villagers and Nissan Quest minivans.

Representing the plaintiffs is John C. Murdock of Murdock
Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, L.P.A., 35 East Seventh Street,
Suite 600, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2446, Phone: 513-345-8291,
Fax: 513-345-8294, Website: http://www.mgsglaw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Arguments in "Turner" Suit Settlement Heard
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge heard on Aug. 21 arguments on the settlement of
the suit over defective General Electric Co. refrigerators, NBC2
reports.

Settlement hearing in the suit "William F. Turner v. General
Electric Co.," was set at the federal courthouse in downtown
Fort Myers, Florida (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2006).

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

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

List of model and serial numbers of affected refrigerators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. and its affiliates remain defendants in
a class action filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  

The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its
professional liability insurance through the company's Chicago
office of what is now HUB Midwest.  The suit claims that the
company received an undisclosed contingent commission with
respect to its policy.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the company denied this and the other allegations of the
complaint and said it intended to vigorously defend this case.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug. 8 form 10-Q regulatory filing for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "Marren Hogan v. Hub International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2005-CH-01355," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois under Judge Philip L. Bronstein.  Representing
the plaintiff is Nisen & Elliott, 200 W. Adams #2500, Chicago IL
60606, Phone: (312) 346-7800.  

Representing the company is Lowis & Gellen, 200 W. Adams St.,
#1900 Chicago IL, 60606 Phone: (312) 364-2500.


HUB INT'L: Still Faces N.J. Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. along with 29 other insurance brokers
and insurance companies remain defendants in a consolidated
antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants used the contingent
commission structure to deprive policyholders of "independent
and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open
competition in the market for insurance."

On Feb. 17, 2005, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred these and other class actions in which
the company were not named to the District of New Jersey.

In August 2005 and February 2006, amended complaints were filed
in the consolidated federal court proceedings pending in New
Jersey, captioned, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation."  

The case has now been divided into two cases, one for employee
benefits and the other for commercial insurance.  Certain of the
company's subsidiaries were named as additional defendants.  A
handful of allegations specifically pertaining to the company
were added, but remain vague.  

The judge in these actions permitted limited discovery to take
place, which is continuing, according to the company's Aug. 8
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge
Patty Shwartz.  


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Applied Medical's Lawsuit Goes to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson, along with its wholly owned Ethicon and
Ethicon Endo-Surgery subsidiaries, are defendants in several
federal suits pending in California, New York and Texas relating
to endo-mechanical devices contracts.

Three federal antitrust actions challenging suture and endo-
mechanical contracts with group purchasing organizations and
hospitals in which discounts are predicated on a hospital
achieving specified market share targets for both categories of
products.  

In each case, plaintiffs seek substantial monetary damages and
injunctive relief.  These actions are:

      -- "Applied Medical v. Ethicon Inc., et al.," (C.D.CA,
         filed Sept. 5, 2003);  

      -- "Conmed v.  Johnson & Johnson, et al.," (S.D.N.Y.,
         filed Nov. 6, 2003); and

      -- "Genico v.  Ethicon, Inc., et al.," (E.D. TX, filed
         Oct. 15, 2004).

Trial in the Applied Medical case commenced July 11, 2006.  

In December 2005, two purported class actions were filed on
behalf of purchasers of endo-mechanical instruments.  These
actions -- both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California -- are:

      -- "Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson &
         Johnson et al.;" and

      -- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center v. Johnson &
         Johnson, et al."

New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) --
http://www.jnj.com/-- through its more than 230 operating  
companies is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company operates in three
segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and
Diagnostics.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Nears for Wholesale Drug Pricing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suits accusing Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries of
reporting inflated Average Wholesale Price for drugs it sold
could go to trial before the end of the year.

Johnson & Johnson and its pharmaceutical subsidiaries, along
with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are defendants in
a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving
allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain
pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise
actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies
allegedly reported an inflated AWP for the drugs at issue.  

Most of these cases, both federal actions and state actions
removed to federal court, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in a multidistrict litigation in federal district court
in Boston, Massachusetts.

Plaintiffs in these cases include classes of private persons or
entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs
at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made
Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.  In the
MDL proceeding in Boston, plaintiffs moved for class
certification of all or some portion of their claims.  

On Aug. 16, 2005, the trial judge certified Massachusetts-only
classes of private insurers providing "Medi-gap" insurance
coverage and private payers for physician-administered drugs
where payments were based on AWP.

The judge also allowed plaintiffs to file a new complaint
seeking to name proper parties to represent a national class of
individuals who made co-payments for physician-administered
drugs covered by Medicare.  

The Court of Appeals declined to allow an appeal of those issues
and in January 2006, the court certified the national class.  A
trial of some or all of the issues in the Massachusetts or the
national class actions could occur before the end of 2006.

New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) --
http://www.jnj.com/-- through its more than 230 operating  
companies is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company operates in three
segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and
Diagnostics.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson remains a defendant in an employment
discrimination litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the company in 2001.

In September 2004, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all
African American and Hispanic salaried employees of the company
and its affiliates in the U.S., who were employed at any time
from November 1997 to the present.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the period 1997 through the
present (including punitive damages) and equitable relief.  The
company filed its response to plaintiffs' class certification
motion in May 2005.  The company disputes the allegations in the
lawsuit and is vigorously defending against them.

The company reported no material development on the case at its
Aug. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended July 2, 2006.

New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) --
http://www.jnj.com/-- through its more than 230 operating  
companies is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company operates in three
segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and
Diagnostics.


MEADOW GOLD: Recalls Choco Ice Cream with Undeclared Egg Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meadow Gold Dairies, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, is voluntarily recalling all cartons of Meadow
Gold Hook'd on Chocolate ice cream.  The recall was initiated
because the product contains egg, which is not listed on the
label.

The company said individuals with allergies to eggs run the risk
of a serious or life threatening reaction if they consume this
product.

The recalled ice cream was packed in 56 oz. cartons.  It was
processed at the Meadow Gold plant in Orem, Utah and distributed
to retailers in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and Utah.

Meadow Gold employees and retailers are removing the product
from store shelves.  Consumers can return the product to their
place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions can contact the company at 877-234-
0022.


MEDSTAFF INC: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Medstaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare Inc.
remains a defendant in a purported class action filed on Feb.
18, 2005 in the Superior Court of California in Riverside
County.  

The lawsuit, "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v. MedStaff,
Inc.," relates to MedStaff corporate employees.  It alleges,
violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid
wages and penalties.  

MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in
California.  Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda
purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege that MedStaff:

      -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period
         and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods
         and rest breaks;

      -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours
         worked;

      -- failed to compensate the employees for working
         overtime; and

      -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of
         time worked

Plaintiffs seek:

      -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the
         practices challenged in the complaint;

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies
         MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their
         purported class;

      -- for interest;

      -- for certain penalties provided for by the California
         Labor Code; and

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuit has not yet been certified by the court as a class
action, according to the Cross Country's Aug. 7 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2006.

Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CCRN) -- http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a  
provider of healthcare staffing services in the U.S.  Its
healthcare staffing business segment is comprised of travel and
per diem nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as
clinical research trials staffing.  Cross Country's brands
include Cross Country TravCorps and MedStaff.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Pa. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court affirmed the dismissal by the New York
Superior Court in New York County of the lawsuit filed against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and MetLife, Inc. on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of the settlement class in the
Metropolitan Life sales practices class action.  

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved the sales practices suit settlement in December 1999.

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs challenged the treatment
of the cost of the sales practices settlement in the
demutualization of Metropolitan Life and asserted claims of
breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment.  

In an order dated July 13, 2005, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the action and the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  On June 26, 2006, the appellate court
affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the action.

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: Ruling in D.C. Pension Fund Lawsuit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed by former employees of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. are appealing the decision by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant
the company summary judgment in the case.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of former
company employees, or their surviving spouses, who are receiving
deferred vested annuity payments under the company's retirement
plan and who were allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc
pension increases awarded in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1992, 1996 and
2001, as well as increases awarded in earlier years.

The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees
(i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement
benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available
to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose
spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible
for an immediate retirement benefit.  

In September 2005, the company's motion for summary judgment was
granted by district court in Columbia.  Plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration.  Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The suit is "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., case
no. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Tas Coroneos, 5801 Highland
Drive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531, Phone: (301) 656-1124, Fax:
(301) 656-1460.  

Representing the company are Emmett Boaz Lewis, Mark J. Rochon
and Anthony F. Shelley of Miller & Chevalier, 655 Fifteenth
Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-
6090, Fax: (202) 628-0858, E-mail: elewis@milchev.com,
mrochon@milchev.com and ashelley@milchev.com.  


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California vacated a hearing on the motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action against Molina
Healthcare, Inc.  Instead the judge took the motion under
submission.

Beginning on July 27, 2005, a series of securities class action
complaints were filed on behalf of persons who acquired
company's stock between Nov. 3, 2004 and July 20, 2005.

The class action complaints were consolidated into a single
consolidated action, Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS (SHx), and a lead
plaintiff later appointed.

On March 13, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
complaint.  The consolidated complaint purports to allege claims
against the company, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, and Joseph
W. White for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 arising out of the company's announcement of its
guidance for the 2005 fiscal year.

On May 1, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and the motion has been fully briefed by
the parties.

On July 27, 2006, the federal court judge vacated the hearing on
the motion and took the motion under submission.  

The suit is "William G. Hunt v. Molina Healthcare Inc., et al.,
Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS (SHx)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge S. James
Otero with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher Kim and Lisa J. Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim,
         1055 W. 7th St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017,
         Phone: 213-955-9500, E-mail: lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com         
         and christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com;

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706; and

     (3) Tricia L. McCormick of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         triciam@lerachlaw.com.


MORTGAGEIT HOLDINGS: Faces Stockholder Suit in N.Y. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
stockholder class action filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York.

On July 13, 2006, a purported stockholder of the company filed a
complaint seeking class-action status against the company and
several of its directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value with regard to the proposed acquisition of the
company by DB Structured Products.

The complaint seeks a court order enjoining the company and its
directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger,
compensation for the plaintiff and members of the class for all
losses and damages suffered and the payment of attorneys',
accountants' and experts' fees.  

New York-based MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: MHL) --
http://www.mortgageitholdings.com/-- is a residential mortgage  
lender operating in the U.S.  


NEW YORK: Attorney Plans Suit Over Parking Meters in Bellerose
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bellerose attorney Gary Rosen is planning to file a class action
against the city to complain over village parking meters that
run fast, according to a report by Andrew Strickler of
Newsday.com.

A recent comprehensive test on the meters showed that almost
one-third of the 98 meters in the village were running faster
than they should.  

The 11 faulty 12-hour meters near a Long Island Rail Road
station ran between eight and 10 minutes fast.  None of the
meters ran slow, according to a report conducted by Parking
Products Inc. of Pennsylvania.  The report said all faulty
meters were fixed last month.

According to the Newsday, Mr. Rosen said the result proves the
village reaped profits from unfair tickets.  But he would
consider dropping the planned suit if the village could offer to
fix the problem permanently.  

Mayor Donna Sherrer reportedly said the village will install
more reliable digital meters as part of a planned renovation of
the Bellerose business district.


OSCEOLA FARMS: Fla. Court Dismisses Sugarcane Cutters' Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida dismissed
a protracted lawsuit filed by 1,600 former migrant sugarcane
cutters against Osceola Farms Co., citing a lack of
jurisdiction, The Associated Press reports.

In his 12-page decision, Judge James Cohn said that the workers'
case against the nation's largest sugar producers over more than
$5 million in back wages was "a mere breach of contract claim,
inappropriate for resolution in federal court."

The decision issued Aug. 21 concludes 17 years of legal
wrangling.  The group originally filed the lawsuit in state
court and sought class-action status, which it later lost.

The lawsuit, which stems from pay disputes going back to 1987,
seeks to recover more than $5 million in back wages.  Greg
Schell, the workers' attorney, has said the amount owed to the
workers could be more than $10 million when interest was added.

Mr. Schell, an attorney with Florida Legal Services Inc.'s
Migrant Farmworker Justice Project in Lake Worth, said that his
clients were considering their options, but they will likely
take the case back to state court.  He notes that through the
discovery process in the federal case, he had obtained "clear,
written evidence" that the company sought to cheat the workers.

The company -- represented by attorney Joseph Klock Jr. in the
federal case -- is a subsidiary of Flo-Sun Inc., one of the
nation's largest sugar producers.

Plaintiffs were mostly laborers from the Caribbean who came to
the U.S. as temporary agriculture workers.  They claim that
between 1987 and 1992, the company underpaid what was promised
in their contracts and then falsified the number of hours they
worked in documents filed with the U.S. Department of Labor.  

Those documents were required as part of the visa program
allowing foreign laborers to work in the U.S. if domestic
workers can't be found to do a particular job.

For more details, contact Florida Legal Services, Inc., 2425
Torreya Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32303, Phone: (850) 385-7900,
Fax: (850) 385-9998, Web site: http://www.floridalegal.org/.


POZEN INC: Discovery Starts in N.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Pozen, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina.

Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class
actions in 2004, alleging violations of securities laws.  These
actions were filed as a single consolidated class action
complaint on Dec. 20, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims,
violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company
and a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.

On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss was denied on Aug. 30,
2005.  The case is now in discovery phase.

The suit is "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 04-
CV-505," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James E. McGovern, Steven J. Toll, Matthew K. Handley,
         Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste.
         500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax:
         202-408-4699, E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com and
         dsommers@cmht.com;  

     (2) Harry H. Albritton, JR. and Marvin Key Blount, JR., The
         Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C., POD 58, GREENVILLE, NC
         27835-0058, Phone: 252-752-6000, Fax: 252-752-2174, E-     
         mail: harry@theblountlawfirm.com and
         deborah@theblountlawfirm.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King Of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-822-0247.

Representing the defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA,
Phone: 919-755-2100 and 919-755-2135, Fax: 919-755-6067, E-mail:
pmillen@wcsr.com.


REWARDS NETWORK: Allowed to Ask Review of Ruling in "Bistro"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted Rewards Networks, Inc.'s motion to certify an issue for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case, "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards
Network Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc.," according
to EventX/Knobias.com.

The court ruling entitles the company to petition the Ninth
Circuit to grant appellate review of the district court's
application of judicial estoppel in ruling on plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment.

                         Case Background

On May 25, 2004, Bistro Executive, Westward Beach Restaurant
Holdings, LLC and MiniBar Lounge filed a complaint in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against the company and its
subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs were all participants in the company's
dining credits Purchase Plan (Dining Plan), and their respective
owners.

The complaint was brought as a putative class action and alleges
that amounts paid by the company under the Dining Plan
constituted loans in violation of California usury laws and the
California Unfair Competition Law.  

The suit seeks, among other relief, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief, including disgorgement of all purported
"interest" and profits earned by the company from the Dining
Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a significant
portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and treble
damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year prior
to the filing of the complaint.

On June 25, 2004, the action was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted certifying two classes as:

     (1) all California restaurants which, from May 25, 2000 to
         May 25, 2004, participated in the Dining Plan and which
         took a cash advance from the company pursuant to its    
         California Dining Plan agreements, and

     (2) all persons who, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004,
         guaranteed payment of cash advances underlying the
         company's California Dining Plan agreements.

The suit is "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards Network
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with referral to Judge James W.
McMahon.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John S. Purcell, Kenneth R. Chiate, Daniel L. Brockett,
         James E. Doroshow, Chandra L. Gooding of Quinn Emanuel
         Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th
         Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543, Phone: 213-624-7707
         and 213-443-3000, Fax: 213-624-0643 and 213-443-3100,
         E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com; and

     (2) Anat Levy of Anat Levy and Associates, 8840 Wilshire
         Boulevard, Third Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone:
         310-358-3138, E-mail: alevy96@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are, Scott M. Pearson, Daniel A.
Rozansky and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock Stroock & Lavan,
2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086,
Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-556-5959, E-mail:
lacalendar@stroock.com.


SANDS REGENT: Agrees to Settle Nev. Lawsuit Over Herbst Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sands Regent agreed in principle to settle a putative
shareholder class suit challenging the company's acquisition by
Herbst Gaming Inc., Knobias reports.

As part of the proposed lawsuit settlement, Sands Regent agreed
to pay $345,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and
expenses.

In May, Sands Regent was named defendant in a purported
stockholder class action pending in the Second Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe
over the May 16, 2006 merger agreement (Class Action Reporter,
July 4, 2006).

The suit was filed on behalf of the holders of the company's
common stock.  It names the company and its board of directors
as defendants, and alleges that the board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement and
approving the merger.  

The complaint sought for an injunction preventing the completion
of the merger, invalidating the merger agreement, and directing
the board of directors to obtain a higher per share price for
the company's common stock.  

It further sought for the immediate disclosure of the company's
quarterly results for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
imposition of a constructive trust, and other unspecified costs
and damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other
expert fees.


SPIN MASTER: Recalls Toy Planes with Batteries That Can Overheat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spin Master Toys, of Toronto, Canada, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
7,500 units of Air Hogs RC Skywinder radio-controlled airplanes.

The company said the rechargeable battery pack inside the toy
airplane can overheat posing a burn hazard.  It has received 15
reports of the toy airplane's rechargeable battery pack
overheating including two reports of minor skin burns.

The recalled radio-controlled toy airplane is lightweight, made
of silver or black Styrofoam, and measures 19 inches from
wingtip to wingtip.  "Air Hogs Skywinder" is printed on the
plane's wings.  "2003 Spin Master Ltd." is printed on the right
propeller mount.  The airplane comes with a controller unit and
a charger.  Rechargeable batteries are preinstalled in the
plane's fuselage.  A date code beginning with 06XXXXHM is
located under the plane's propeller, on the outside of the
controller unit and inside the controller's battery compartment,
and on the charger unit's stand.

The recalled RC toy planes were manufactured in China and are
being sold exclusively at Toys R Us from April 2006 through June
2006 for about $40.


TELLIUM INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for N.J. Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness haring on Sept. 7, 2006 for the proposed $5.5 million
settlement in the matter, "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
in the Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse,
402 East State St., Trenton, New Jersey 08608.  

On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003,
numerous class action securities complaints were filed against
Tellium.

On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing
all of the actions was filed.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the company and its then-current directors
and executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements
or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating
to the securities offered in its initial public offering.

The amended complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of the company between May 17, 2001
and July 1, 2002.

The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or
intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or
omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including
compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law
or equity.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Analytics
         Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2004,
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004, Phone: 1-800-673-7845, Web
         site: http://telliumsecuritieslitigationsettlement.com;

     (2) Beth A. Kaswan of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119,
         (New York Co.), Phone: 212-594-5300; and

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East, 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330 and
         (877) 247-4292, Fax: (212) 983-9331, Web site:
         http://www.faruqilaw.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Anti-Smoking Groups Urge Filipinos to Sue
-------------------------------------------------------------
American law professor, Dr. Richard Daynard, is calling on
Filipinos to file a class suit against cigarette manufacturers
for not printing the statutory warning against smoking on their
packets as required by a 2003 law, the Gulf News reports.

Dr. Daynard, who went to Manila in the Philippines to help anti-
smoking groups step up their anti-cigarette campaigns, said
cigarette manufacturers in the country failed to meet the
deadline to warn everyone on the dangers of smoking on packages
of their products.

Meanwhile, the government had extended the deadline of
compliance from July 1, 2006, until year-end, requiring all
cigarette manufacturers to provide statutory warnings on their
packets such as "Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health",
"Cigarettes are Addictive", "Tobacco Smoke Can Harm Your
Children".


TORCHMARK CORP: Oct. Trial Set for Vesta Insurance Suit in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 2, 2006 trial was slated for the class action, "In re
Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 98-AR-1407-S," which names Torchmark Corp. as one of the
defendants.

On March 15, 1999, the company was named as a defendant in
consolidated derivative securities class action litigation, "In
re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 98-AR-1407-S," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The amended consolidated complaint in this litigation alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by the defendants Vesta, certain present and former
Vesta officers and directors, KPMG, LLP (Vesta's former
independent public accountants) and Torchmark and of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain former Vesta officers and
directors and Torchmark acting as "controlling persons" of Vesta
in connection with certain accounting irregularities in Vesta's
reported financial results and filed financial statements.
Unspecified damages and equitable relief are sought on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of Vesta equity securities
between June 2, 1995 and June 29, 1998.  

A class was certified in this litigation on Oct. 25, 1999.  In
September 2001, Torchmark filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was denied by the District Court on Jan. 10, 2002.

On April 9, 2003, the District Court issued an order denying the
class plaintiffs' motion to strike certain of Torchmark's
affirmative defenses, holding that Torchmark cannot be held
jointly and severally liable with Vesta under the securities law
without an affirmative jury determination that Torchmark
knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws.

Vesta, its officers and directors, its insurance carriers and
KPMG settled their portions of the litigation with class
plaintiffs in 2001; Torchmark did not.  Subsequently, in May
2003, Torchmark instituted separate litigation against KPMG,
which was resolved in March 2006.  

In April 2006, class plaintiffs in Vesta Insurance Group
Securities Litigation filed a motion in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama renewing their claims against
Torchmark based upon an allegation of control person liability.
This matter has been set for trial in the District Court on Oct.
2, 2006.

TOYOBO: Mass. Police Gets Payout in $29M Zylon Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Orleans Police Department in Cape Cod, Massachusetts will
receive $3,212 under a $29 million settlement of a class action
over bulletproof vests made using the textile Zylon, The Cape
Codder reports.  The amount is compensation for four vests
purchased by the police department.

Massachusetts' attorney general filed a lawsuit against Second
Chance Body Armor Inc., and Toyobo Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of
Zylon in November 2003.  He sought replacement vests or full
restitution for those police departments, organizations and
individuals using the defective vests.

Lawsuits were brought against Second Chance and Toyobo after a  
California police officer was shot and killed in 2003 while
wearing a vest made with Zylon.  Second Chance recalled more
than 100,000 vests made with the material after finding that  
Zylon body armor are prone to failure.  Also named as defendant
in the suit is Toyobo America, Inc.

Overall, 1,366 Massachusetts departments received at total of
$970,437.43 in this round of funding, the report said.  Another
round of payouts is scheduled for later in the summer, state
Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office told the Cape Codder.  
The local department in Yarmouth has already received $29,000
for 40 vests they purchased.

Zylon is sold under the trade names ULTIMA, ULTIMAX and
TRIFLEX. The lawsuit alleged that these vests fail to meet the
performance characteristics for which they were warranted, that
the vests are unfit for their intended purpose, and that the
allegedly defective condition of the vests was withheld from the
marketplace.

On Sept. 23, the District Court for Mayes County, in Oklahoma
approved a settlement of the class action.  The agreement
provided for a settlement fund of $29 million, a replacement
vest option in which class members can purchase a replacement
vest from Armor Holdings Products at deeply discounted prices
and an option to receive a voucher from Armor Holdings in the
amount of a class member's pro rata share of the settlement fund
plus 10%.   

In order to receive payments, claimants were required to
register by Sept. 9, 2005.  That deadline was extended and late
registrations were accepted until July 1.

Class members who registered their contact information by Nov.
21, 2005 were mailed an Election of Benefits Form on Nov. 28,
2005, according to a statement from Zylon Vest Class Action Web
site.  Proceeds from the Settlement were mailed the week of  
April 17, 2006 to all registrants who timely filed an Election
of Benefit Form, the statement said.

The first round of the lawsuit parties that had purchased vests
were reimbursed $730, the report said.  The amount of
reimbursement for second-round participants has yet to be
determined, according to Cindy St. Amant of the New Orleans-
based law firm Kanner and Whiteley, which led the lawsuit with
various co-counsels.

The suit is "Lemmings v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc." Cir.  
Ct. Mayes City. OK #CJ-2004-62.  

For more information, visit Zylon Vest Class Action Web site:  

            http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.


VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the securities class action
filed against Visteon Corp. and of its current and former
officers Peter Pestillo, Michael Johnston, Glenda J. Minor,
Daniel R. Coulson, and James Palmer.

The shareholder suit was first filed in February 2005.  In July
2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was
appointed as lead plaintiff in the matter.  

In September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which alleges, among other things, that the company
and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of
material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.  

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period between
June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005.  Class action status has not
yet been certified in this litigation (Class Action Reporter,
March 23, 2006).  

In December 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, and oral arguments on
that motion were held in May 2006.  No ruling has been made on
such motion, according to the company's 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 "Ley v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Robert H. Cleland with referral to
Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) E. Powell Miller and Marc L. Newman of Miller Shea
         (Rochester) 950 W. University Drive Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail:
         emiller335@aol.com; and

     (2) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway (Radnor) 280 King
         of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E.
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:  
         312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail:
         maduffy@kirkland.com;

    (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and

   (iii) Thomas P. Bruetsch, Bodman (Troy), 201 W. Big Beaver
         Road, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084, Phone: 248-743-6000,
         E-mail: tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com.


VISTEON CORP: Settlement Talks Continuing in Mich. ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Negotiations are ongoing in a bid to settle a consolidated class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against Visteon Corp. over allegations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations.

In March and April 2005, the company and a number of current and
former employees, officers and directors were named as
defendants in three class actions brought under ERISA in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  

In September 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that: the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA during
the class period by among other things:

     -- continuing to offer the Company stock as an investment
        alternative under the Visteon Investment Plan;

     -- failing to disclose complete and accurate information
        regarding the prudence of investing in the Visteon
        stock;

     -- failing to monitor the actions of certain of the
        defendants; and

     -- failing to avoid conflicts of interest or promptly
        resolve them.

The consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of a named
plaintiff and a putative class consisting of all participants or
beneficiaries of the Plans whose accounts included Visteon stock
at any time from July 20, 2001 through May 25, 2005.  Class-
action status has not yet been certified in this litigation.

In November 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.  Settlement
negotiations are currently ongoing in this matter, according to
the company's 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 "Skiles v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
71205-AC-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn with referral to
Judge Donald A. Scheer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback (Phoenix), 3101 N.
         Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600,
         Phone: 602-248-2822, E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com;
         and

     (2) Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S.
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail:
         esimon@esimon-law.com.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Gabor Balassa and Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis,
         Phone: 312-861-2186 and 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200
         and 312-861-2200, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com;  

    (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and

   (iii) Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. of Steptoe & Johnson
         (Washington), 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington,
         DC 20036-1795, Phone: 202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902,
         E-mail: pondrasik@steptoe.com.


YORK BARBELL: Recalls Weightlifting Bars with Defective Sleeve
--------------------------------------------------------------
York Barbell Co. Inc., of York, Pennsylvania, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 3,300 units of Olympic weightlifting bars.

The company said due to a defect in the sleeve mechanism, the
bar can break under the pressure of significant weight, which
could injure consumers and by-standers.

York Barbell has received two reports of bars breaking under the
pressure of significant weight.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves all 7' Int'l Hard Chrome 1000 lb. and 1500
lb. test Olympic bars with model number 32012 and 32013, 7'
Int'l Black Oxide 1000 lb. and 1500 lb. test Olympic bars with
model number 32020 and 32021, 7' International Men's Olympic
Needle-bearing bars with model number 32010 and 6 1/2
International Women's Olympic Needle-bearing bars with model
number 32011.  The bars have split sleeves and YORK is printed
on the sleeve assemblies of each bar.

These weightlifting bars were manufactured in China and are
being sold at fitness wholesalers and retailers nationwide from
November 2005 through July 2006 for between $200 and $500.

Picture of recalled weightlifting bars:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06243.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled bars
immediately and return them to York Barbell for a full refund.

For more information, contact York Barbell Co. at (800) 358-9675
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
company's Web site: http://www.yorkbarbell.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky announces that a class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against Parlux Fragrances Inc.

The complaint alleges that the company's insiders took advantage
of materially misleading statements to sell millions of dollars
of Parlux stock to unsuspecting members of the investing public.
The claims stated in the complaint arise under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 and is brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons
who purchased Parlux stock during the period from Feb. 8, 2006
through Aug. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Jeffrey S. Abraham Abraham Fruchter &
Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119,
Phone: (212) 279-5050, E-mail: Jabraham@aftlaw.com.  


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set October
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. reminds investors of Parlux Fragrances, Inc.
that Oct. 16, 2006 is the deadline to ask the court to appoint
you as lead plaintiff for the class.

The initial complaint in this action was filed by Saxena White
P.A. and has now been assigned to the Judge Paul Huck, Case No.
06-61250, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Parlux securities
from Feb. 8, 2006 through and including Aug. 10, 2006. Based in
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Parlux is a manufacturer and
distributor of fragrances and beauty products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Maya Saxena and Joseph White of Saxena
White P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257, Boca Raton,
FL 33431, Phone: (561) 394-3399 or (800) 361-5096, Fax: (888)
782-3081, E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com or
jwhite@saxenawhite.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  * * *