CAR_Public/060830.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 30, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 172

                            Headlines
                       
ADVANCED MARKETING: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
AMERCO SECURITIES: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Deal
ARIZONA: Appeals Court Orders Review of English Program Rulings
BLOUNT INT'L: Recalls Lawnmower Blades that Could Possibly Break
COOPER COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Lake Granada Denied Certification

DRAM LITIGATION: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement
EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on Diet Pill
FANNIE MAE: Goldman, KPMG Named Defendants in D.C. Stock Suit
FANNIE MAE: Defense Attorney Asks OFHEO Documents in Stock Suit
HANAMINT CORP: Recalls Herrington Swivel Rockers for Fall Hazard

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Sewage Flooding in Michigan
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Awaits Appeals Court's Decision in "Poulos"
INTERNATIONAL GAME: "Miller" Remanded Back to Nev. State Court
KATUN CORP: Workers Who Paid Firm's Criminal Fines Seek Refund
LANDS' END: Recalls Kid's Backpacks with Lights, Reflective Trim

LOTO QUEBEC: 2007 Trial Scheduled for Suit Over Lottery Machines
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Court Says Decision Forthcoming in Bias Suit
MERCURY INSURANCE: Former Field Adjusters File FLSA Suit in Fla.
MERCURY INSURANCE: May 2006 Trial Date for "Goodman" Vacated
MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Sides with Female Students in MHSAA Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools to Get More than $4M Compensation
MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Consumer Suit Denied Class Certification
NEW JERSEY: Riverside Sued Over Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinance
NEW YORK: County Jail Enters $2M Settlement in Strip Search Suit
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch

POLYCHLOROPRENE RUBBER: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal
PRECISION BRAND: Tentative Settlement Reached in Ill. Muniz Suit
QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Continues to Face Pa. RESPA Violations Suit
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court to Hear Motions in Cal. Consumer Suit

SEI INVESTMENTS: Md. Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal in "Carey"
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Susman Godfrey Named Counsel in Stock Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLE COMPUTER: Facing Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California
IMAX CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Finkelstein, Thompson Announces Ga. Suit Filing


                            *********


ADVANCED MARKETING: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 16, 2006 at 10: 30 a.m. for
the proposed $6,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re
Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-00121 RTB (AJB)."

The hearing will be held before the Judge Roger T. Benitez at
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
Courtroom 3, 4th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San
Diego, California 92101.

Claim forms must be submitted by Dec. 19, 2006.  Objections must
be made until Sept. 20, 2006.

The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of AMS common stock
from Jan. 16, 1999 to Jan. 13, 2004, inclusive.

Based in San Diego, California AMS describes itself as a leading
global provider of customized wholesaling services to book
retailers, a major contract distribution service for select
publishers, and a custom publishing source for its book
publishing partners.  It was founded in 1982 and went public in
July 1987.

AMS primarily serves the membership warehouse club industry and
other specialty retailers.  The company ships more than 100
million books worldwide each year.  It also provides a variety
of advertising and marketing services to book publishers and its
retail clients.

The lawsuit arose out of AMS's announcement on Jan. 14, 2004
that it would restate its previously filed financial statements
for the prior five fiscal years.  The planned restatement
resulted from the company's ongoing review of its cooperative
advertising practices and related accounting, and relates
primarily to the timing and quantification of recognition of
revenue and reversal of accrued liabilities.

Following the announcement of the restatement, the price of
AMS's stock fell 15.2% from $11.97 to $10.15 per share.

Following the announcement of the restatement, AMS and certain
of its officers and directors were named as defendants in these
federal securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California:

      -- "Eastside Investors, LLP v. Advanced Marketing
         Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-00121 JM (AJB);"

      -- "Bowen v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04-CV-00139 H (JMA);" and

      -- "Anderson v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04-CV-00324 WQH (AJB)."

The lawsuits alleged that AMS and the individual defendants
either knowingly or recklessly made misstatements concerning the
company's reported financial results to artificially inflate the
price of AMS common stock.

On Feb. 24, 2004, the court consolidated the federal securities
actions into a single case.  On May 4, 2004, the court appointed
Detroit P&F, a public pension fund organized for the benefit of
current and retired police and fire personnel from the city of
Detroit, as lead plaintiff, and approved Detroit P&F's selection
of Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel.

In August 2005, the parties participated in a settlement
mediation session with the assistance of retired California
Court of Appeal Justice Charles S. Vogel.  

Following this mediation session, counsel for the parties
continued to discuss settlement.  In February 2006, the parties
reached agreement on the terms of settlement and executed a
Memorandum of Understanding.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator,
         P.O. Box 9000 #6443, Merrick, New York 11566-9000,
         Phone: 1(866) 590-0973, Web site:
         http://www.amssettlement.com;and

     (2) Blair A. Nicholas or Benjamin Galdston of Bernstein
         Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 12481 High Bluff
         Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, Phone: 1
         (888) 924-1888, Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com.


AMERCO SECURITIES: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 2, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
$7,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re AMERCO Securities
Litigation."

The court will hold the hearing at 130 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S.
Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Oct. 9, 2006.  Claim forms must be submitted by Nov. 20,
2006.

The case includes alls persons who purchased or acquired any
securities of AMERCO, including but not limited to common stock,
preferred stock and AMERCO 8.8% senior notes due 2005, between
Feb. 12, 1998 and Sept. 26, 2002.

AMERCO is a holding company for U-Haul International, Inc.,
AMERCO Real Estate Co., Republic Western Insurance Co. and
Oxford Life Insurance Co.

In February 2000, AMERCO issued $200 million of publicly traded
8.8% Senior Notes due 2005.  Plaintiffs brought this case as a
class action alleging that these Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Notes offering
misrepresented and omitted material facts that, inter alia, the
financial statements incorporated therein were materially false
and misleading in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

The financial statements contained in the offering plaintiffs
also allege defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omitted to disclose material information during the class period
concerning, inter alia AMERCO's:

     -- financial position,
     -- insurance policy loss reserves and earnings,
     -- failure to report on its debt covenants,
     -- use of other manipulative accounting practices,  
     -- equity investments, and
     -- compliance with GAAP

Plaintiffs alleged that investors purchased AMERCO securities,
including common stock, preferred stock and notes, during the
Class Period at prices artificially inflated as a result of
Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions, in
violation of the federal securities laws.

Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations or that they did
anything wrong.  Defendants also deny that the plaintiffs or the
class suffered damages or that the prices of AMERCO securities
were artificially inflated by reasons of alleged
misrepresentations, non-disclosures or otherwise.  Defendants
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which motions have not
been ruled on by the Court in light of the settlement.

For more details, contact:

     (1) AMERCO Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
         Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA
         94976-0990, http://www.gilardi.com;

     (2) Rick Nelson, Shareholder Relations of Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway,
         Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058
         or (800) 449-4900, Fax: (619) 231-7423, Web site:
         http://www.lerachlaw.com/;and

     (3) Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 555
         Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111,
         Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980, Web site:
         http://www.kaplanfox.com/.


ARIZONA: Appeals Court Orders Review of English Program Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated orders by U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins regarding
the state's program for students learning the English language.

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  The order was part of a ruling in a
class action that was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of
Nogales Unified School District students and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that
guarantees equal opportunities in education.  The state was
fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways
to improve the program.  The fine was increased to $1 million,
resulting to a $21 million in total fines.  The fines were
stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to
revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in
March.

In April, Judge Collins ruled that the law still doesn't
adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out
the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the
basis for funding that it does provide.

The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San
Francisco on July 25.  Recently, the court vacated the orders
finding the state in contempt for missing a deadline to improve
the program.  One of the vacated orders prohibited the state
from requiring that English-learning students pass the AIMS test
to graduate from high school this year.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the
state's programs are adequate to consider changes in education
funding and related circumstances since the original 2000
ruling.

The appellate court did not rule directly on the latest law
regarding the program.  It sent the case back to Judge Collins.

The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.  

Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and
Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave.,
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790,
Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
jcardenas@lrlaw.com.   


BLOUNT INT'L: Recalls Lawnmower Blades that Could Possibly Break
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blount International Inc., of Kansas City, Missouri, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 94,000 units of Oregon and Silver Streak
Replacement Snapper lawnmower blades.

The company said when the lawnmower is operated, the replacement
blade can crack and pieces can break away, posing a serious
laceration hazard to consumers and bystanders.

Blount has received six reports of replacement blades either
cracking or breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled replacement lawnmower blades are intended for use
on Snapper riding lawnmowers.  The recalled blades are sold for
use as replacement parts under the Oregon and Silver Streak
brands only.  Original equipment blades on Snapper lawnmowers
and "Snapper" brand replacement blades are not included in this
recall.  

The recalled blades are red and marked "MADE IN USA," "GRASS
SIDE CX", "Oregon" or "SILVER STREAK."  The part number and date
code are engraved on one side of the blade.  The recalled blades
are part numbers: 99-111, 99-112, 99-113, 99-114, 99-117, 99-
118, 99-926, 99-930 and date codes: BL, BM, BN, BP, BQ, BR, BS,
BT, BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, BZ, CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CF, CG, CH, CJ,
CK, CL, CM, CN, CP.

These replacement lawnmower blades were manufactured in the U.S.
and are being sold at power or yard equipment dealers and
hardware stores nationwide from November 2002 through August
2006 for between $16 and $28.

Picture of the recalled replacement lawnmower blades:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06242.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the replacement
blades and return them to the store where purchased or any other
retailer that carries the Snapper Riding Lawnmowers for a free
replacement.

For more information, contact Blount at (866) 685-5449 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit:
http://www.blount.comor http://www.Oregonchain.com


COOPER COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Lake Granada Denied Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A judge refused to certify a lawsuit filed by a Lake Grenada,
Arkansas homeowner against Cooper Communities, Inc., and the Hot
Springs Village Property Owners' Association, according to the
Hot Springs Village Voice.

In February, Hot Springs Village property owners Jim and Phylis
Armogida asked the Saline County Circuit Court in Arkansas to
expand a suit they filed against developer Cooper Communities
into a class action (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006).

The suit, which the Armogida's filed with another couple, could
include some 90 other property owners.  It is seeking guaranteed
water supply to the man-made lake near the couple's property.

According to the report, the lawsuit accuses Cooper of deceit
and fraud in creating a 55-acre lake and selling lots and
shoreline homes around it in the late 1990s and early 2000s even
though it could not guarantee it would always be full of water.  
It doesn't ask for damages but wants Cooper ordered to come up
with a permanent solution to keeping the lake filled.  Lake
water could drop by seven feet in a dry year, and not two as
forecasted.

The Property Owners' Association was dragged to the lawsuit
after Cooper conveyed ownership of Lake Granada to the POA.


DRAM LITIGATION: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing Nov. 1, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Dynamic Random Access
Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Master File No: M-02-1486-
PJH (JCS), MDL No. 1486."

The hearing will be held before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, in
Courtroom 3, on the 16th Floor of the U.S. District Courthouse,
at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

Any exclusion from the settlement must be made by Oct. 3, 2006.

                        Case Background

The case is on behalf of all persons or entities that directly
purchased DRAM in the U.S. from April 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002
from the manufacturers listed below, or their subsidiaries:

      -- Micron Technology, Inc.,
      -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
      -- Crucial Technology, Inc.,
      -- Infineon Technologies AG,
      -- Infineon Technologies North America Corp.,
      -- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,
      -- Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.,
      -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
      -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
      -- Mosel-Vitelic Technology Corp.,
      -- Mosel-Vitelic Corp. (USA),
      -- Nanya Technology Corp.,
      -- Nanya Technology Corp. USA,
      -- Winbond Electronics Corp.,
      -- Winbond Electronics Corp. America,
      -- Elpida Memory, Inc.,
      -- Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and
      -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.

The plaintiffs are: Onshore, Inc., Internet Integration, Inc.,
Kevin Irwin d/b/a as Kevin's Computer and Photo, PC Doctor,
Inc., Advanced Technology, Inc., Network Business Solutions,
Inc., JEM Electronics Distributors, Inc., Daniel Clement, Web
Ideals, LLC, and 5207, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that, beginning at least as early as April
1, 1999 and continuing to June 30, 2002, the defendants engaged
in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
the prices of DRAM in the U.S. and/or to allocate among
themselves, major customers and accounts in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act, Title 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  Plaintiffs
allege that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy, they and
other members of the Class paid more for DRAM than they would
have paid absent the alleged conspiracy.

The defendants deny all of plaintiffs' allegations and have
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.  Defendants Infineon
Technologies AG, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc., and certain of their employees have pleaded
guilty to criminal violations of the federal antitrust laws.

                        Settlements

The three settlements represent compromises of disputed claims.
They do not mean that liability or damages would have been found
against any of the Settling Defendants.  The settling defendants
continue to deny any and all wrongdoing or liability.  Each
settlement is separate and independent from the other.

The settlement with Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon
Technologies North America Corp. requires the payment of
$20,750,000 in cash.  In addition, the settlement requires that
the Infineon defendants pay 10.53% of the amount, if any, by
which the sales of Infineon DRAM to settlement class members
exceeds $208,100,000.  Sales to settlement class members who
opt-out or who have previously settled or released their claims
are not included in this amount.

The settlement with Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. requires the
payment of $67,000,000 in cash.

The settlement with Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix
Semiconductor America, Inc. requires the payment of $73,000,000
in cash in two installments of $36,500,000 on May 22, 2006 and
July 3, 2006.  Both payments have been made.

Pursuant to the settlements, settling defendants have deposited
$160,750,000 into interest bearing accounts for the benefit of
settlement class members.

For more details, contact:

     (1) DRAM Antitrust Litigation c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
         P.O. Box 24657, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 866-
         483-9938, Web site:
         http://www.DramAntitrustSettlement.com;

     (2) Guido Saveri and R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri &
         Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 217-6810, Fax: (415)
         217-6813;

     (3) Steve W. Berman and Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman
         Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
         Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206)
         623-0594; and

     (4) Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler,
         Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: (212) 545-4600, Fax: (212) 545-4653.


EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on Diet Pill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver granted an
appeal from the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration to reinstate
the ban it placed on Ephedra diet pills, which was overturned by
a Utah judge, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

In a ruling, the three-judge panel said the FDA correctly
followed a mandate from congress to conduct a risk-benefit
analysis to determine if a product presents an "unreasonable
risk of illness or injury," and according to the FDA, no dosage
of ephedra is safe to sell to consumers.

But Loren Israelsen, executive director of the Utah Natural
Products Alliance, said the ruling could give the FDA broader
power to more easily yank products in cases where it believes
the risks outweigh the benefits.

A ban is proposed for these ephedra dietary products:

     -- Metabolife,      -- MetaboLift,
     -- Hydroxycut,      -- Herbalife,
     -- Herbalite,       -- Stackers,,
     -- Ripped Fuel,     -- Extreme Ripped Force,
     -- Diet Fuel,       -- GH Fuel,
     -- Herba Fuel,      -- ThermiCare,
     -- ETA Stack,       -- Xenadrine RFA-1,
     -- Ultimate Orange, -- Thermogenic Power, and
     -- BetaLean

Diet pills containing herbal ephedra and mahuang are legally
available again, but the FDA still wants the effective weight
loss herb removed from diet supplements.  Prescription weight
loss drugs cannot compete on a level playing field with ephedra
weight loss products.   

Numerous medical reports, studies, articles, and government
agencies have indicated that ephedra dietary products can cause
sudden cardiac complications, strokes and seizures, which could
be fatal.  Several organizations have already banned ephedra
such as the NCAA, the Olympic Committee and the National
Football League (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2003).

                        Ephedra Lawsuit

On Jan. 9, 2002, Canada banned all sales of ephedra.  On March
5, 2003, Suffolk County in New York was the first county to ban
ephedra.  

On April 21, 2003, Public Citizen, one of the nation's leading
consumer advocacy groups, asked the FDA to ban the sale of
dietary supplements containing the herbal stimulant ephedra.

In May 2003, manufacturers of ephedra dietary products faced a
nationwide class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Class Action Reporter, May 14,
2003).

Named defendants in the suit are:  

     * Metabolife International,   
     * Cytodyne Technologies,   
     * MuscleTech,   
     * NVE Pharmaceuticals,   
     * Twin Laboratories, and   
     * EAS, Inc.

The primary objectives of the suit were to:   

     (i) obtain a court order forcing defendants to cease and  
         desist from the manufacture and sale of ephedra dietary  
         products and issue a recall;   

    (ii) inform the public that consumers taking ephedra dietary  
         products are at an increased risk of sudden cardiac  
         complications, strokes, and seizures;   

   (iii) provide compensation to all victims for death and  
         personal injuries;   

    (iv) provide a fund for all users of ephedra dietary  
         products for medical monitoring; and   

     (v) reimburse monies paid for the ephedra dietary products   

Citing that the FDA needed proof that the herb was harmful if
taken as directed, a Utah judge overturned the FDA's ban on
April 2005.  


FANNIE MAE: Goldman, KPMG Named Defendants in D.C. Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro added Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
and KPMG LLP as defendants in an amended securities class action
complaint filed against Fannie Mae, according to Dow Jones
Newswires.

Mr. Petro's office received court permission on Aug. 11 to add
the new defendants, said Stanley Chesley, senior partner at
Waite, Schneider, Bayless, & Chesley, who is working with Mr.
Petro on the case.

Earlier, the attorney general and Fannie Mae's top regulator,
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, separately
discovered evidences to justify adding the two in the suit.

In the amended complaint filed Aug. 14, Goldman Sachs, as
underwriter, is accused of directly participating in financial
manipulations at the company.  KPMG, as auditor, is accused of
knowing or recklessly disregarding that its 2001, 2002 and 2003
audit opinions on Fannie were materially false and misleading.  

A May report by the OFHEO charges Fannie Mae executives of
manipulating accounting in order to trigger millions of dollars
in bonuses.  

The amended complaint stated that several Fannie Mae real estate
mortgage investment conduit transactions -- wherein Goldman
acted as dealer and underwriter -- were designed solely for the
purpose of shifting $107 million of the company's earnings into
future years and was part of the overall scheme to defraud
investors.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.

Mr. Downey is member at Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth
Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20005-5901,
Phone: 202-434-5000, Fax: 202-434-5029.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:

      (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
          (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
          617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
          info@bermanesq.com;  

      (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite
          500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:
          202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
          lawinfo@cmht.com; and

      (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513
          Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,
          Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax:
          513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com.


FANNIE MAE: Defense Attorney Asks OFHEO Documents in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for former top executives at Fannie Mae filed a
motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
to force the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to
produce documents related to a securities class action, Damian
Paletta of Dow Jones Newswires reports.

Fannie Mae shareholders, led by Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro,
is suing the company and former chief executive Franklin Raines
as well as former chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard.  
Both were forced out from the company in December 2004.

In May the OFHEO released a broad examination of the company,
finding that the former top officials improperly manipulated
accounting for years.  

Kevin M. Downey, attorney for Mr. Raines, is believed likely to
use in its defense the fact that the OFHEO continually
overlooked flaws on Fannie Mae's accounting systems from 1998
through 2003.  The company is accused of misstating its results
by $10.6 billion.

The defendants want copies of any records related to the
performance of Fannie Mae officers or directors from 1998
through Jan. 31, 2005, and all documents from 1995 through 2005
concerning OFHEO's evaluation of Fannie Mae's accounting,
according to the report.

The suit against Fannie Mae alleges that the company and certain
former officers and directors made false and misleading
statements in violation of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain accounting policies and practices.

Discovery was commenced in the consolidated shareholder class
action following the denial of the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

In addition the company is also a defendant in two related opt-
out cases that were filed by institutional investors seeking to
proceed independently of the putative class of shareholders in
the consolidated shareholder class action.

The court has consolidated the opt-out cases as part of the
consolidated shareholder class action, but the opt-out
plaintiffs have filed motions objecting to the consolidation of
the lawsuits.

On Apr. 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed an amended complaint that adds purchasers of
publicly traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put
options to the putative class, and extends the end of the
putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005.

The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon.

Mr. Downey is member at Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth
Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20005-5901,
Phone: 202-434-5000, Fax: 202-434-5029.

Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are:

      (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
          (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
          617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
          info@bermanesq.com;

      (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
          (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite
          500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone:
          202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail:
          lawinfo@cmht.com; and

      (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513
          Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street,
          Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax:
          513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com.


HANAMINT CORP: Recalls Herrington Swivel Rockers for Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanamint Corp. (Jiaxing), Inc., of China, in cooperation with LG
Sourcing Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100
units of Herrington Swivel Rockers.

The company said the recalled swivel rockers can be assembled
incorrectly, causing them to break at the base or tip over
backward easily.  This poses a fall hazard to consumers.

LG Sourcing received nine reports of injuries including bruises
and abrasions when the rocker broke or tipped over.  One
individual reported having a slight concussion.  All of the
reported injuries involved display models at Lowe's stores.

The rocker is part of the Herrington collection of patio
furniture.  The rocker is dark brown with a brown cloth seat,
has a swivel base and a cut out pattern on the metal backrest.  
The item number, 119178, is printed on the rocker's packaging
and on the assembly instructions.  The rocker came in two
sections, a base and a seat, and customers were required to bolt
the seat to the base.

These rockers were manufactured in China and are being sold
exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide from October 2005
through February 2006 for about $420 for a set of two rockers.

Picture of the recalled rockers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06187.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled rockers
immediately and return them to any Lowe's store for a full
refund.

For more information, contact Lowe's stores toll-free at (866)
259-8170 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com


INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Sewage Flooding in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insituform Technologies Inc. and the city of Pontiac in Oakland
County, Michigan face class action complaints filed on behalf of
residents whose homes were flooded with untreated sewage in May,
according to a report by Delores Patterson of The Detroit News.

The suit alleges that Insituform -- which was hired by the city
to repair sewers when the flood occurred -- improperly relined a
portion of the sewer line, resulting in the overflow of sewage
in as many as 80 homes.

A report by Diana Dillaber Murray of The Oakland Press in May
stated that some homeowners in the city have contacted Geoffrey
Fieger's law firm, which is joining with Macuga and Liddle, a
legal firm that specializes in class actions and has previous
experience with sewage backups.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Awaits Appeals Court's Decision in "Poulos"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action, "William H. Poulos vs. Caesar's
World, Inc., et al.," which names International Game Technology,
Inc. as one of the defendants, stipulated to dismiss with
prejudice the appeal for the case that is pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Along with a number of other public gaming corporations, the
company was named as a defendant in three class action that were
later consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada.  

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent and
misleading conduct by inducing people to play video poker
machines and electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs
concerning how the machines operate and the extent to which
there is an opportunity to win on a given play.  

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts
constituted violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, giving rise to claims for common law fraud
and unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special,
incidental and punitive damages of several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the consolidated amended complaint or that would have
stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  

In June 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  An appeal of that denial was filed timely with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The class
plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and proceeded with only
their individual claims.

Prior to the scheduled trial date on Sept. 7, 2005, the U.S.
District Court of Nevada granted the defendants' pending motions
for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court.

In June 2006, all parties stipulated to dismiss, with prejudice,
this appeal.

The suit is "William H. Poulos vs. Caesar's World, Inc, et al.,
Case No. 2:94-cv-01126-RLH-RJJ," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Roger L.
Hunt with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.  

Representing the Plaintiffs are:

     (1) Caryl Boies, Mary Boies and Karen C. Dyer of Boies,
         Schiller & Flexner, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200,
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, US, Phone: 954-356-0011,
         (914) 234-3700 and 407-425-7118, Fax: 954-356-0022,
         (914) 234-0929 and 407-425-7047; and

     (2) Michael Straus of Strauss & Boies, 1130 22nd Street
         South, Suite 4400, Birmingham, AL 35205, US, Phone:
         205-324-3800.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) William E. Cooper of Cooper Law Offices, 601 E.
         Bridger, Las Vegas, NV 89101, E-mail: wecooper@lvcm.com
         and

    (ii) Dennis L. Kennedy of Bailey Merrill, 8691 West Sahara
         Ave., Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89117-5830, Phone: 702-
         562-8820, Fax: 702-562-8821, E-mail:
         dkennedy@baileymerrill.com.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: "Miller" Remanded Back to Nev. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.,"
which names as defendant International Game Technology, Inc. and
Acres Gaming Inc., was remanded back to the Clark County, Nevada
District Court after being removed earlier to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada.

The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres and the company
and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among
other forms of relief.  

The other defendants named in the suit are:

     -- Floyd W. Glisson,
     -- Todd L. Bice,
     -- Roger B. Hammock,
     -- Richard Furash,
     -- David R. Willensky,
     -- Robert W. Brown,
     -- Ronald G. Bennett

On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from
voting on the merger.  On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned
the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to
enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger.  
The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on Sept. 25, 2003.  
The plaintiff's action also seeks damages.

On Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.  

On April 29, 2004, the court issued a ruling denying defendant's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On May 12, 2004
the court issued an order denying defendants motion to dismiss.  

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties on Aug. 13, 2004,
plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.  The court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

On April 7, 2006 defendant filed a Notice of Removal to U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.  Plaintiff sought to
remand this action to state court, which was granted in July
2006.

The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no.
P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court
under Judge Michelle Leavitt.  

Representing the lead plaintiff Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein,
while lawyer for the defendants is Paul R. Hejmanowski.


KATUN CORP: Workers Who Paid Firm's Criminal Fines Seek Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former and current employees of Katun Corp. are suing the
company to recover what they contributed to the company to help
it pay criminal fines in a mail and wire fraud scheme, David
Phelps of Star Tribune reports.

The suit came after a federal court ruling that released former
Katun chief executive Terence Michael Clarke from the
responsibility of contributing $1.7 million to pay $11 million
in criminal fines for the scheme as part of an indemnification
agreement.

The employees say the company should not have coerced them into
contributing pro-rated portions of the fines that the U.S.
government imposed on the company.  

The suit was filed in Hennepin County District Court in
Minnesota by 10 current and former Katun employees.  It seeks to
represent as many as 250 in a class action that could recoup as
much as $15 million.  It said plaintiffs paid the company
amounts ranging from $92,000 to $1,350.

One of the attorneys representing the employees is Greg McEwen.


LANDS' END: Recalls Kid's Backpacks with Lights, Reflective Trim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lands' End, of Dodgeville, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer and Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
400 units of Cool Blue Light-Up Backpacks.

The company said the backpack's battery pack can overheat
causing the battery case to melt, presenting a burn hazard if
touched.

Lands' End has not received any reports of injuries or
incidents.  The hazard was discovered during internal product
review.

This recall involves children's Cool Blue backpacks with lights
and reflective trim.  The backpacks were sold in seven colors:
dark blue, light blue, orange, red, green, maroon and purple.  
Style number 175732 is printed on a label attached to the left
side of the main compartment.  Backpacks sold after July 19,
2006 are not included in this recall.

Picture of recalled backpacks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06576.jpg

These backpacks were manufactured in China and are being sold
through Lands' End catalog and Web site: http://www.landsend.com
during July 2006 for about $80.

Consumers are advised to stop using these backpacks immediately.  
Consumers with the affected backpacks are being sent a
replacement backpack and battery pack with instructions to
return the original product.

For more information, consumers can contact Lands' End at (800)
200-6212 anytime.


LOTO QUEBEC: 2007 Trial Scheduled for Suit Over Lottery Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District of Quebec
has scheduled trial of the entire action against Loto Quebec to
commence in early 2007.

Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc. --
a wholly owned subsidiary of International Game Technology, Inc.
-- and another manufacturer of video lottery machines in October
2003 in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District
of Quebec, seeking indemnification for any damages that may be
awarded against Loto Quebec in a class action, also filed in the
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec.

The class action against Loto Quebec, to which neither
International Game nor any of its affiliates are parties, was
filed by Jean Brochu on behalf of himself and a class of other
persons who allegedly developed pathological behaviors through
the play of video lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec
in taverns and other public locations.  

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the
class damages of approximately CAD$578.7 million, representing
CAD$4,863 per class member, and CAD$119.0 million in punitive
damages.  

Loto Quebec's Plea in Defense in the main action was due in
February.  VLC's Plea in Defense in the warranty action was due
April.  The court has scheduled trial of the entire action
against Loto Quebec to commence in early 2007.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Court Says Decision Forthcoming in Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit informed all
parties that a decision is expected before the end of 2006 in
the federal race discrimination suit "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin
Industries."

An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination.  
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.  

In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that
certified a class for this case, which included all black
employees employed by the company from March 6, 1994, to the
present.

The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began
in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and
was completed in October 2004.  The only claims made at trial
were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  

The District Court also concluded that the discrimination
resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and
ordered that the company pay those employees back pay to remedy
such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the
amount of 5%.  

On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the backpay
award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4 million
-- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a formula
for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a
total not to exceed $2.5 million.  

In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court
enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered
the company to pay court costs and expenses.

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On Jan. 26, 2006, the Court of
Appeals notified the parties that the case had been docketed and
a decision is expected before the end of 2006.

The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.
9:97-cv-00063-HC," on appeals from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Howell Cobb.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Morris J. Baller, Teresa Demchak, Meetali Jain, Nina
         Rabin, Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen 300 Lakeside Dr
         Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800, Fax:
         15108351417 E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com, dem@gdblegal.com,
         mjain@gdblegal.com, nrabin@gdblegal.com;

     (2) Timothy Borne Garrigan, Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter
         2803 North Street PO Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-
         1902 Phone: 936/560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 E-mail:
         tbgstugar@cox-internet.com; and

     (3) Darci E. Burrell, Linda M. Dardarian, Joshua G.
         Konecky, Saperstein Goldstein Demchak & Baller 300
         Lakeside Dr Ste 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510/763-
         9800 Fax: 15108351417 E-mail: deb@gdblegal.com and
         jgk@gdblegal.com.

Representing the company are Christopher V. Bacon, Douglas
Edward Hamel and John H. Smither of Vinson & Elkins, 1001 Fannin
St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760, Phone: 713/758-2222,
Fax: 17136155014, E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com and dhamel@velaw.com.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Former Field Adjusters File FLSA Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Mercury General Corp. is
a defendant in a collective action, "Robert Dolan, et al. v.
Mercury Insurance Co., et al.," which was filed in April 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The plaintiffs, former field adjusters, claim they and the
members of the class they seek to represent were denied overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class
of field adjusters for a period of three years preceding the
filing of the action, and the recovery of overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Los Angeles, California-based Mercury General Corp. (NYSE: MCY)
-- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and its subsidiaries are  
engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in
California.


MERCURY INSURANCE: May 2006 Trial Date for "Goodman" Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California vacated the May
2006 trial for the class action, "Marissa Goodman, et al. v.
Mercury Insurance Co.," which was filed against Mercury
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Mercury General Corp.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2002.  It is challenging the
company's use of certain automated database vendors to assist in
valuing claims for medical payments.  

The suit's plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action
certification to include all of the company's insureds from 1998
to the present who presented a medical payments claim, had the
claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not
reach the policy limits for medical payments.  The hearing on
this motion, previously set for June 2, 2006, was continued
until Aug. 17, 2006.

The suit alleges that these automated databases systematically
undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds.
It thus seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance
carriers in the industry.  The case has been coordinated with
two other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating
to total loss claims.

The court denied the company's Motion for Summary Judgment
holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman
sustained any damages as a result of the company's handling of
her medical payments claim.  The original trial date of May 2006
has been vacated by the court and not rescheduled.  

Los Angeles, California-based Mercury General Corp. (NYSE: MCY)
-- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and its subsidiaries are  
engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in
California.


MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Sides with Female Students in MHSAA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed a ruling in favor of
female high school athletes in a class alleging discrimination
by the Michigan High School Athletic Association, the Niles
Daily Star reports.

Communities for Equity sued MHSAA in 1998 for alleged
discrimination between boys in girls in scheduling sports
events.  The group claimed the association narrowed the girls'
opportunities to be seen by college recruiters and to compete
for athletic scholarships, as well as garner awards and
recognition by holding only their sports in nontraditional and
less advantageous seasons.  It claims the act violated the girl
athletes' U.S. Constitution and Title IX rights.

The district court ruled in 2001 that MHSAA's scheduling of
girls' seasons violated Title IX, the U.S. Constitution, and
Michigan state law.

In 2004, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court on the
constitutional claim.  In 2005, the Supreme Court asked the
Sixth Circuit to determine whether the girls can sue under the
constitution in addition to Title IX.  

The Sixth Circuit said that plaintiffs may sue for violation of
their constitutional rights, and that MHSAA's conduct violated
both federal and state statutes and the Constitution.


MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools to Get More than $4M Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omaha Public Schools in Nebraska received notice that it is to
get $4,052,000.88 worth of computer hardware and software
vouchers in the settlement of a class action against Microsoft
Corp. over antitrust violations, the Omaha World-Herald reports.

In April 2005, Nebraska settled a class action that Microsoft
said could compensate consumers and businesses in the state up
to $22.6 million.  Under the settlement, Microsoft agreed to
give half of unclaimed vouchers to Nebraska's poorest schools.  

To qualify, schools should have at least 50 percent of students
eligible to receive free or reduced price school meals.  The
Millard Public Schools already received a voucher for $95,982 in
June.


MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Consumer Suit Denied Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court ruled that a lawsuit filed against
Milgard Manufacturing Inc. could not proceed as a class action,
lawyersandsettlements.com reports.

The court said common questions did not predominate as to any of
plaintiffs' claims.

The court also expressed concern that piecemeal resolution of
isolated manufacturing component issues through class actions
would further complicate traditional construction defect
litigation.

Seven homeowners tried to file a class action against Milgard, a
manufacturer of aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass and wood windows and
doors.  The lawsuit claimed that millions of aluminum windows
manufactured by Milgard and installed in tens of thousands of
California properties were defectively designed.


NEW JERSEY: Riverside Sued Over Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington, District of Columbia-based coalition filed a class
action against the Burlington County town of Riverside over an
ordinance aimed at persecuting illegal immigrants.

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders
filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey on
behalf of undocumented immigrants.  

Riverside has an ordinance banning hiring or renting to illegal
immigrants.  Employers and landlords face a fine of $1,000 for
each violation.  It also denies business permits and municipal
contracts and grants to employers of illegal immigrants,
according to the Inquirer.

As such, the suit said the ordinance gives rise to "national
origin discrimination."

The suit names as defendants the Township of Riverside and Mayor
Charles F. Hilton Jr.  Also named as plaintiffs are a Riverside
resident, and the Assembly of God Church.

A separate suit filed in U.S. District Court in Scranton,
Pennsylvania seeks to block the Sept. 11 implementation of the
Illegal Immigration Relief Act in Hazleton, Luzerne County.

The suit is "Assembly Of God Church Riverside, New Jersey et al.
v. Township of Riverside et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-03842-RMB-
AMD," filed in the U.S. District of New Jersey under Judge Renee
Marie Bumb with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.


NEW YORK: County Jail Enters $2M Settlement in Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County jail officials reached a $2 million agreement
to settle a class action filed by people strip searched in jail
while facing minor charges.  

In April, U.S. District Judge David Hurd found that Montgomery
County Jail's routine of requiring inmates charged with minor
crimes to strip and shower in front of a guard was "tantamount
to a strip search" and unconstitutional.  He issued a permanent
injunction barring the jail's "change out" procedure.

Under the settlement, county officials admitted no wrongdoing.  
The county's insurance company will cover the settlement.  The
county will also have to issue a new jail admissions policy by
Sept. 15 reflecting the judge's April order.  

Attorney E. Robert Keach of Albany filed the suit on behalf of
Barbara Davis, Paul Marriott and Andy Rivera in 2003.  It is
expected that Ms. Davis will receive $15,000; Mr. Marriott
$12,500; and Mr. Rivera, $7,500.  Attorneys are to receive
$600,000.

Eligible claimants are people strip searched between April 29,
2000 and March 25, 2005 for charges of misdemeanors, violations,
traffic infractions, probation or parole violations or other
minor crimes and civil matters.

Mr. Keach's contact information: 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O.
Box 70, Amsterdam, New York 12010 (Montgomery Co.), Phone: 518-
434-1718, Telecopier: 518-770-1558.

The suit is "Marriott v. County of Montgomery, et al. (5:03-cv-
00531-DNH-DEP)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York under Judge David N. Hurd with
referral to Judge David E. Peebles.   

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas W. Hyland at Wilson, Elser Law Firm - NY Office,  
         150 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10017-5639, Phone: 212-
         490-3000 Fax: 212-490-3038, E-mail: hylandt@wemed.com;
         and  

     (2) Theresa B. Marangas, Wilson, Elser Law Firm - Albany
         Office, 677 Broadway - 9th Floor, Albany, NY 12207-2996
         Phone: 518-449-8893, Fax: 518-465-2548, E-mail:
         marangast@wemed.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

     (1) Elmer R. Keach, III at the Office of Elmer R. Keach,
         III, 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. Box 70, Amsterdam, NY
         12010, Phone: 518-434-1718, Fax: 518-770-1558, E-mail:
         bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com;  

     (2) Gary E. Mason and Charles A. Schneider at Mason Law
         Firm, 1225 19th St., N.W. Suite 500, Washington, DC
         20036, Phone: 202-429-2290, Fax: 202-429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com and cschneider@masonlawdc.com;
         and  

     (3) Bruce E. Menken and Jason J. Rozger at Beranbaum,
         Menken Law Firm, 3 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004,   
         Phone: 212-509-1616, Fax: 212-509-8088, E-mail:
         bmenken@bmbblaw.com, jrozger@bmbblaw.com.  


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, on behalf
of a 34-year-old woman who was diagnosed with a severe pulmonary
embolism after using the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch for less
than two years.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

According to Parker & Waichman, on Aug. 24, 2004, the injured
victim was taken to the emergency room at Eastern Idaho Regional
Medical Center after experiencing headaches, shortness of breath
and right anterior pleuritic chest pain.  Diagnostic tests taken
at the hospital revealed large pulmonary embolus in right upper
lobe involving a secondary order vessel that extended into two
third order vessels.  The woman was hospitalized for six days to
receive anticoagulant therapy.  It is likely that the injured
woman will need anticoagulant medication for a protracted period
of time, potentially for the remainder of her life.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the
increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra.  In
the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time that
women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more
estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a
birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen.  The patch is
only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen.

For more information on Ortho Evra lawsuits, visit:

             http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.com

The suit is "Sipiran v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-03925-KSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden, with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jason Mark, Esq. and Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. both of Parker & Waichman, LLP, 111 Great Neck,
NY 11201-5402, Phone: 516-466-6500, E-mail:
mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com or jparker@yourlawyer.com, Website:
http://www.yourlawyer.com


POLYCHLOROPRENE RUBBER: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 7, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $15,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re:
Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litigation Docket No. 3:05
MD 1642 (PCD)."

The court will hold a hearing at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Courtroom No. 1, 141 Church Street, New
Haven, Connecticut.

Any exclusions form the settlement should be made by Sept. 22,
2006.  Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on Nov. 30,
2006.

The case involves all persons and entities in the U.S. and its
territories, excluding government entities, who directly
purchased polychloroprene rubber or "CR" from any of the
following companies at any time from Jan. 1, 1999 through
Dec. 31, 2003:

      -- Bayer AG,
      -- Bayer Corp.,
      -- Bayer MaterialScience, LLC (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC),
      -- DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC,
      -- LANXESS AG,
      -- LANXESS Corp.,
      -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A. (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl),
      -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc. (f/k/a EniChem Americas,
         Inc.), and
      -- Syndial S.p.A. (f/k/a Enichem S.p.A.)

In April 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
defendants in the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia
alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws by the
defendants with respect to the sale of CR.

A settlement was reached between plaintiffs and DuPont. Judge
Henry Kennedy granted final approval of that settlement with on
Nov. 22, 2004.

Shortly after the initial complaint was filed against DuPont,
other class action complaints alleging violations of the federal
antitrust laws by major manufacturers of CR were filed in
multiple federal District Courts.

A motion was made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to centralize the cases in a single court to promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

On Feb. 4, 2005, the JPML entered a Transfer Order centralizing
the cases, other than the settled DuPont action, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut and recommending
that they be assigned to the Judge Peter C. Dorsey for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In a May 20, 2005 order, Judge Dorsey appointed class counsel to
conduct the litigation on behalf of the class.  Plaintiffs filed
their Consolidated Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in
this action, on April 7, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Bayer and other defendants and their
co-conspirators engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain and/or stabilize the price of, and/or allocate markets
and customers for CR in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy,
they and other purchasers of CR have paid more for CR than they
would have paid absent the conspiracy.

On Sept. 21, 2005, the court approved the plaintiffs' settlement
with Syndial and its predecessors for up to $5,290,000.  Under
the Syndial Settlement, Syndial has cooperated with class
counsel in their prosecution of claims against the remaining
defendants.

The Action has been vigorously litigated.  Class Counsel have
analyzed hundreds of thousands of documents produced by the
defendants and DuPont.  They have also conducted an independent
investigation of the facts and analyzed the sales and pricing
data produced by the defendants and DuPont.  

They have obtained cooperation from both DuPont and Syndial
pursuant to plaintiffs' settlement agreements with these
respective defendants.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on or
about Nov. 18, 2005.  In connection with that filing, plaintiffs
submitted a detailed expert report as to why, from an economic
point of view, the class certification motion should be granted.  
That motion was pending when a settlement with Bayer, in
principal, was reached.

While the plaintiffs believe they have meritorious claims
against the Bayer Defendants, the Bayer Defendants have asserted
that they have meritorious defenses, which would serve to
undercut their liability and economic exposure to the Class.

The parties entered into the settlement to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation.  The class counsel has
determined that settling the claim against the Bayer Defendants
is in the best interest of the class.

The settlement provides an immediate and substantial cash
benefit to the class members and avoids the risk of a trial
relating to liability and damages.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re CR Antitrust Litigation (Bayer) c/o Gilardi &
         Co., LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte
         Madera, CA 94976-1110, Web site:
         http://www.crantitrustlitigation.com/;

     (2) Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
         & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, D.C. 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-4600 and
         (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web site:
         http://www.cmht.com/;and  

     (3) Paul F. Bennett, Esq. of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener,
         LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Phone: 800-778-1822, E-mail:
         pbennett@gbcslaw.com.


PRECISION BRAND: Tentative Settlement Reached in Ill. Muniz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Brand Products, Inc. along with other defendants and
plaintiffs in the class action "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp.,"
reached a tentative agreement to resolve the suit.

Filed on April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, the suit is alleging that the company and
the other defendants caused diminution in property values of
nearby homes and put the residents at an increased risk of
contracting cancer.  It was brought by and on behalf of area
residents.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.  The court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class on liability
issues, but not on damages.

The parties are engaged in mediation, as a group, and have
recently reached a tentative agreement on conceptual terms,
subject to finalization by the parties and court approval.

Notwithstanding any settlement that may be reached with the
plaintiffs by the defendants as a group, the cost ultimately to
be borne by each defendant is subject to allocation among the
defendants based on their relative responsibilities for the
contamination, to be determined by future sampling and analysis
of the soils and groundwater.

The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Myron Milton Cherry of Myron M.
Cherry & Associates, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100, E-mail:
mcherry@cherry-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Alan Bruce White of Karaganis,
White & Magel, Ltd., 414 North Orleans, Suite 810, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: (312) 836-1177.


QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on QC Holdings, Inc.'s motion to enforce arbitration in
a putative consumer fraud class action filed in the Superior
Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, will be put on hold
pending the outcome of the appeal in the three other similar
cases in the state.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
its chairman of the board and chief executive officer, were sued
in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a
putative class action filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben
Hubert Cline.  The two were customers of a Delaware state-
chartered bank for whom the company provided certain services in
connection with the bank's origination of payday loans in North
Carolina, prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina
branches in fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

It also alleged that the company made the payday loans to the
plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if
the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of
the payday loans, the company's services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.  They have not sued the bank
in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint
that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks
to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates
as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law.  This case is in the preliminary
stages.

There are three similar purported class actions filed in North
Carolina against Advance America and two other companies
unrelated to the company.  In December 2005, the judge in those
cases:

     -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
        class actions and to compel arbitration in
        accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions
        contained in the consumer loan contracts;

     -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
        loan contracts are valid; and

     -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company' have appealed that ruling.  The judge handling the
lawsuit against the company in North Carolina is the same judge
who issued these three orders in December.

The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions
by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case.
There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the
outcome of the appeal in the other three North Carolina cases
concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in
the consumer contracts.

Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to
enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of
that appeal.  

Overland Park, Kansas-based QC Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCCO) --
http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer  
loans, known as payday loans.  As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company
operated 532 branches in the U.S.  It also provides other
consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing
services, title loans, credit services, money transfers and
money orders.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Continues to Face Pa. RESPA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Residential Capital Corp. remains a defendant in
a purported class action filed on June 2002 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Specifically, plaintiffs assert violations of Section 8(b) of
RESPA based on the alleged collection of "unearned fees for
settlement services" comprised of an $85 tax service fee, a $20
flood certification fee, and a $250 funding fee.

The putative nationwide class consists of "all persons who, on
or after Jan. 1, 1995 . . . paid fees for tax service, flood
certification, and/ or underwriting."  

In September 2003, the district court dismissed plaintiffs'
causes of action under RESPA as to all three fees for failure to
state a claim.  

Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal as to an alleged
overcharge concerning the funding fee, but reversed the district
court's dismissal as to alleged additional charges associated
with the flood certificate and tax service fees.

The court of appeals remanded plaintiffs' remaining claims to
the district court to determine whether the subsidiary provided
sufficient ancillary services to justify any such additional
charges and for further proceedings, including discovery and
motions, on both of these RESPA issues and ancillary state law
claims.  No class has yet been certified.

The subsidiary has filed an answer to the claims denying the
allegations and has provided some preliminary discovery in
conjunction with court-supervised mediation.

Residential Capital Corp. -- https://www.rescapholdings.com --
is a leading real estate finance company, focused primarily on
the residential real estate market in the U.S., Canada, Europe
and Latin America.  Its diversified businesses cover the
spectrum of the U.S. residential finance industry, from
origination and servicing of mortgage loans through their
securitization in the secondary market.  It also provides
capital to other originators of mortgage loans, residential real
estate developers, resort and timeshare developers and
healthcare companies.  The company is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of General Motors Acceptance Corp.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court to Hear Motions in Cal. Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in San Diego County, California
is set to hear the motions for summary judgment in a putative
class action against a subsidiary of Residential Capital Corp.

The case was filed in December 2004, alleging misleading and
wrongful conduct in connection with the company's servicing of
residential mortgage loans.

This complaint reflects numerous similar actions filed against
other industry participants.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege
that the company's subsidiary imposed unwarranted and improper
fees, intentionally or recklessly failed to credit payments in a
timely fashion, misapplied payments in order to improperly
benefit itself, referred accounts prematurely to collections and
foreclosure, wrongfully force placed insurance, and failed to
provide borrowers with timely or clear information about the
timing and amount of payments owed.  

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class consisting of all
borrowers serviced by the company's subsidiary from December
2000 to present, demanding declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages.

The subsidiary has filed an answer to the complaint denying the
allegations and discovery is proceeding.  The court recently
granted its motions for summary judgment against two of the six
named plaintiffs.  

Motions for summary judgment against two additional named
plaintiffs are to be heard by the court in September, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

Residential Capital Corp. -- https://www.rescapholdings.com --
is a leading real estate finance company, focused primarily on
the residential real estate market in the U.S., Canada, Europe
and Latin America.  Its diversified businesses cover the
spectrum of the U.S. residential finance industry, from
origination and servicing of mortgage loans through their
securitization in the secondary market.  It also provides
capital to other originators of mortgage loans, residential real
estate developers, resort and timeshare developers and
healthcare companies.  The company is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of General Motors Acceptance Corp.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Md. Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal in "Carey"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has not yet
ruled on a proposal to dismiss SEI Investments Distribution Co.,
or SIDCO, a subsidiary of SEI Investments Co., in the
consolidated class action, "Stephen Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter &
Associates, Ltd., et al."

The PBHG Complaint is purportedly made on behalf of all persons
who purchased or held PBHG mutual funds from Nov. 1, 1998 to
Nov. 13, 2003 and relates generally to various market timing
practices allegedly permitted by the PBHG Funds.  

The suit names as defendants some 36 persons and entities,
including various persons and entities affiliated with Pilgrim
Baxter & Associates, Ltd., various PBHG Funds, various alleged
market timers, various alleged facilitating brokers, various
clearing brokers, various banks that allegedly financed the
market timing activities, various distributors/underwriters and
others.  

The PBHG Complaint alleges that the company was the named
distributor/underwriter from November 1998 until July 2001 for
various PBHG funds in which market timing allegedly occurred
during that period.  It generally alleges that the prospectus
for certain PBHG funds made misstatements and omissions
concerning market-timing practices in PBHG funds.  

The PBHG Complaint also alleges that the company violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and that the company breached its fiduciary
duties, engaged in constructive fraud and aided and abetted the
breach by others of their fiduciary duties.  

It does not name the company or any of its affiliates as a
market timer, facilitating or clearing broker or financier of
market timers.   The PBHG Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution.  

In 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed form of order
dismissing SIDCO from the action, but the court has not yet
acted on the proposed order.  The company had not made any
provision relating to this legal proceeding.

The suit is "Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01151-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge J. Frederick Motz.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin and
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
16106677706, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail: mtopaz@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and
         Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., New York, NY 10119-
         0165, Phone: 12125945300;

     (2) Stephanie Glaser Wheeler of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,
         125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004, Phone: 12125587384,
         Fax: 12125583354, E-mail: wheelers@sullcrom.com; and

     (3) Susan R. Gross of Law Offices of Bernard Gross, PC,
         1515 Locust St., Second Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19102,
         Phone: 12155613600, Fax: 12155613000.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Susman Godfrey Named Counsel in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
granted plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of the law firm
of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as additional co-lead counsel and class
counsel to the case, "In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case
No. 02-CV-72-SPF-FHM."

The suit is being brought on behalf of those who purchased
Williams Communications Group securities from July 24, 2000
through April 22, 2002.  

In April 2006, defendants filed motions for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have filed their
opposition to the motions, and the court has not yet ruled on
the motions.  The court has scheduled a hearing on Oct. 31, 2006
for oral argument on the summary judgment motions.

Trial of the lawsuit is currently scheduled to begin on Jan. 16,
2007.

There has been no expression of opinion by the court concerning
the merits of the action.  There has not been a settlement of
the class's claims in the action.

                         Case Background

On and after Jan. 29, 2002, securities holders of WilTel  
Communications, previously an owned subsidiary known as Williams  
Communications, filed multiple securities fraud class actions
were filed against the company and co-defendants, WilTel and
certain corporate officers.

The defendants were accused of acting jointly and separately to
inflate the stock price of both companies.  

Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public
offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS
offering.   

These cases were also filed in 2002 against the company, certain
corporate officers, all members of its board of directors and
all of the offerings' underwriters.  WilTel is no longer a
defendant as a result of its bankruptcy.  

These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued
requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The
underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and
defense from these cases.  

The company said that if it grants the requested
indemnifications to the underwriters, any related settlement
costs will not be covered by its insurance policies.  The
company is currently covering the cost of defending the
underwriters.   

The suit is "In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-
CV-72-SPF-FHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot with
referral to Judge Frank H. McCarthy.  

On the net: http://www.wcgsecuritieslitigation.com/index.html

Representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan Bridges, Esq. of Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., 901 Main Street, Suite 5100, Dallas, TX  75202.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Burck Bailey and Warren Franklin Bickford both of
         Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens (OKC), 100
         N Braodway Ste., 1700, Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820,
         Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax: 405-232-9659, E-mail:
         bbailey@fellerssnider.com or
         wbickford@fellerssnider.com;

     (2) Vance L. Beagles, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (Dallas),
         200 Crescent Ct, Ste 300, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-
         746-7700, Fax: 214-746-7777, E-mail:
         vance.beagles@weil.com;

     (3) Sally J. Berens of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Palo
         Alto), 1881 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
         650-849-6300, Fax: 650-849-5333, E-mail:
         sberens@gibsondunn.com;

     (4) Timothy James Bomhoff of Ryan Whaley Coldiron and
         Shandy PC, 119 N Robinson, Rm 900, Oklahoma City, OK
         73102, Phone: 405-239-6040, Fax: 918-239-6766, E-mail:
         tbomhoff@ryanwhaley.com; and

     (5) Ethan J. Brown of Latham & Watkins, 633 W. Fifth
         Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
         485-1234, Fax: 213-891-8763, E-mail:  
         ethan.brown@lw.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 1-2, 2006
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
  
November 2-3, 2006
LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com   

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APPLE COMPUTER: Facing Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman announces that a class action
was filed on Aug. 24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased securities and/or sold put options of Apple Computer,
Inc. between Dec. 1, 2005 and Aug. 11, 2006.

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

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

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

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

In addition, the company's Proxy Statement for its annual
shareholder meeting held in 2006 was materially false and
misleading because it contained statements concealing Apple's
practice of backdating stock options.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of defendants'
actions, plaintiffs and the class were damaged.

Interested parties have until Oct. 24, 2006 to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman, Esq., at Kantrowitz,
Goldhamer & Graifman, Phone: 800-660-7843 and 845-356-2570, E-
mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com.


IMAX CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing  
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of IMAX Corp. between Feb.
17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against IMAX
and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning IMAX's
financial health and future business prospects.

During February and March 2006, IMAX issued a series or press
releases describing its financial successes as well as its
intention to explore strategic alternatives.

On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was being investigated
by the SEC with respect to its accounting, in particular,
revenue recognition issues. Shares reacted negatively to the
news, falling from $9.63 per share to $5.73 per share, a decline
of 40.5%.

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

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


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased securities of Juniper Networks, Inc. and is seeking to
represent investors who purchased Juniper between April 10, 2003
and Aug. 10, 2006, inclusive.  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the company's financial performance and practices in
connection with stock option grants, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Juniper securities.  No class has yet
been certified in the above action.

Interested parties have until Sept. 15, 2006, in which to move
for lead plaintiff status.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888)
638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site:
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.  


WITNESS SYSTEMS: Finkelstein, Thompson Announces Ga. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran announces that
a lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Georgia against Witness
Systems Inc. and certain of its officers and directors on behalf
of purchasers of Witness Systems' securities between April 23,
2004, and Aug. 11, 2006.

The lawsuit alleges that Witness Systems violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements
regarding its financial results for the period between February
2000 through August 2002, that the company omitted to disclose
that it was engaging in the backdating of stock option grants to
executives and other employees, and that its financial
statements violated generally accepted accounting principles.
The complaint further alleges that various executives and
officers engaged in suspicious insider trading activity.

On July 27, 2006, the company announced that it was reviewing
its stock option grants.  On Aug. 9, 2006, the company issued a
press release announcing that it had formed a special committee
to investigate its stock option grants because it had
"identified a number of different deficiencies in the company's
practices, procedures and documentation."

Witness Systems estimated that it would take a non-cash charge
of approximately $10 million and disclosed that its financial
statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
should no longer be relied upon.

The market reacted sharply to this news with Witness Systems'
share price dropping from a close of $18.19 on July 27, 2006 to
a close of $13.48 on Aug. 10, 2006.

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

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran,
Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail: bjw@ftllaw.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  * * *