CAR_Public/060831.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 31, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 173

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Still Faces Suits Over 1999 Reorganization
APPLE COMPUTER: Recalls Rechargeable Batteries for G4 Notebooks
ARVINMERITOR INC: Mich. Court Enjoins Firm from Pension Cutbacks
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Rice Contamination in Ark.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Farmers File Lawsuit Over Rice Contamination

BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Speed Buckle Harnesses Used for Climbing
CALIFORNIA: Group Sues Over Juvenile Rights in Sacramento County
CAMBREX CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
CINCINNATI BELL: Awaits Final Ruling on ERISA Suit Settlement
COLORADO: ACLU Amends Suit Over Prisoner Rights in Garfield Jail

DIGI INT'L: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
DINNER BELL: Recalls Beef Products for E. coli Contamination
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. Hearing Set for Calif. Labor Suit Deal
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Complaint
FAIR ISAAC: Calif. Court Mulls Motions in CROA Violations Suit

FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
FIRST HORIZON: Enters $36M Deal in Loan Origination Fees Suit
FORTUNE BRANDS: Continues to Face Suits Over Marketing Practices
FORTUNE BRANDS: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated Consumer Suit
GOTHAM ARCHITECTURAL: Recalls Light Fixtures to Secure Parts

HOMESTORE.COM INC: Dismissal of Defendants in Stock Suit Upheld
H&R BLOCK: Wins Final Approval for $39M RALs Lawsuit Settlement
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Review of Ill. Bias Suit Ruling Sought
IONATRON INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Ariz.
LAPINDO BRANTAS: Indonesian Firm May Face Lawsuit Over Mudflow

LEAR CORP: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in Mich.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyer Seeks to Stop Alcatel Merger Voting
MERRIMAN CURHAN: Suit Over Odimo-Related Offering Resolved
NELLCOR PURITAN: Continues to Face Calif. Consumer Fraud Suits
OUTOKUMPU OYJ: Finnish Firm Facing Price Fixing Suit in Tenn.

PACIFIC MARITIME: Reaches $12.9M Settlement in Longshoremen Suit
SL INDUSTRIES: N.J. Court Denies Class Status in Pollution Suit
STAAR SURGICAL: Sept. Hearing Set for Calif. Stock Suit Deal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ariz. Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls FYFGA Spring Water for High Bromate Level

WESTERN GAS: Continues to Face Kans. Natural Gas Purchasers Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KLA-TENCOR: Roy Jacobs Announces Stock Suit Filing in Calif.
PAR PHARMACETUICAL: Cohen, Milstein Files N.J. Securities Suit

                       
                            *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Still Faces Suits Over 1999 Reorganization
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Allstate Corp., is defending certain matters relating to its
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  

These matters include a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging
retaliation under federal civil rights laws, a class action
filed in August 2001 by former employee agents alleging
retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations, and
a lawsuit filed in October 2004 by the EEOC alleging age
discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of
agents affected by the agency program reorganization.  

The company is also defending a certified class action filed by
former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to
the agency program reorganization.  

These plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and ERISA
claims and are seeking actual damages including benefits under
Allstate employee benefit plans and payments provided in
connection with the reorganization, as well as punitive damages.  

In late March 2004, in the first EEOC lawsuit and class action,
the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting
the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at
the option of the release signer.  

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to the company "any and all benefits received by the
[agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The court also
"concluded that, on the undisputed facts of record, there is no
basis for claims of age discrimination."  

The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order.  The case remains pending.

Former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA,
including a worker classification issue, have also filed a
putative nationwide class action.  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and
are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors
treated as employees for benefit purposes.  

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in April 2005.  

In these matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief.  

Northbrook, Illinois-based The Allstate Corp. (NYSE: ALL) --
http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the holding company for  
Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is conducted principally
through Allstate Insurance, Allstate Life Insurance Co. and
their affiliates.  Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal
property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance,
retirement and investment products business.  It conducts its
business primarily in the U.S.


APPLE COMPUTER: Recalls Rechargeable Batteries for G4 Notebooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc., of Cupertino, California, in cooperation
with Sony Energy Devices Corp., of Japan and the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1.1 million
rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries with cells manufactured by
Sony for certain previous iBook G4 and PowerBook G4 notebook
computers only.  An additional 700,000 of these batteries were
sold outside the U.S.

The company said these lithium-ion batteries can overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Apple has received nine reports of batteries overheating,
including two reports of minor burns from handling overheated
computers and other reports of minor property damage.  No
serious injuries were reported.

The recalled lithium-ion batteries were used with these
computers:

     * 12-inch iBook G4,
     * 12-inch PowerBook G4, and
     * 15-inch PowerBook G4.  

Consumers should remove the battery from the computer to view
the model and serial numbers labeled on the bottom of the unit.

Computer model name       Battery model No.  Battery serial Nos.

12-inch iBook G4          A1061              ZZ338 through ZZ427
                                             3K429 through 3K611
                                             6C510 through 6C626

12-inch PowerBook G4      A1079              ZZ411 through ZZ427
                                             3K428 through 3K611

15-inch PowerBook G4      A1078 and A1148    3K425 through 3K601
                                             6N530 through 6N551
                                             6N601

No other Apple notebook computers are involved in this recall.

These rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries were assembled in
Japan, Taiwan and China and are being sold through Apple's
online store, Apple retail stores nationwide, and Apple
Authorized Resellers from October 2003 through August 2006 for
between $900 and $2300.  The batteries also were sold separately
for about $130.

Pictures of the recalled rechargeable, lithium-ion batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06245a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06245b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06245c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled batteries
immediately and contact Apple to arrange for a replacement
battery, free of charge.  After removing the recalled battery
from their iBook or PowerBook, consumers should plug in the AC
adapter to power the computer until a replacement battery
arrives.

For more information, contact Apple at (800) 275-2273 between 8
a.m. and 8 p.m. CT Monday through Sunday or log on to
http://support.apple.com/batteryprogramto check the battery's  
serial number and request a replacement battery.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Mich. Court Enjoins Firm from Pension Cutbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court granted a request by plaintiffs in a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan against ArvinMeritor, Inc. for preliminary
injunction enjoining the company from implementing changes to
retiree health benefits.

Three separate class actions were filed in the court against
ArvinMeritor and other defendants as a result of modifications
made by the company to its retiree health benefits.  

The company approved amendments to certain retiree medical plans
in fiscal years 2002 and 2004.  The cumulative effect of these
amendments was a reduction in the accumulated postretirement
benefit obligation of $293 million, which is being amortized as
a reduction of retiree medical expense over the average
remaining service period of approximately 12 years.  

The lawsuits alleged that the changes breach the terms of
various collective bargaining agreements entered into with the
United Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers at former
facilities that have either been closed or sold.  A companion
claim restated these allegations, seeking to bring them under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  On Dec.
22, 2005, the district court issued an order granting a motion
by the UAW for a preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 17, 2006, the district court:

     -- denied a motion by ArvinMeritor and the other defendants
        for summary judgment;
  
     -- granted a motion by the UAW for summary judgment;

     -- ordered the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs for
        out-of-pocket expenses incurred since the date of the
        earlier benefit modifications; and

     -- granted the UAW's request to make the terms of the
        preliminary injunction permanent.

The terms of the preliminary injunction had enjoined the company
from implementing the changes to retiree health benefits that
had been scheduled to become effective on Jan. 1, 2006, and had
ordered the company to reinstate and resume paying the full cost
of health benefits for the UAW retirees at the levels existing
prior to the changes implemented in 2002 and 2004.

The company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to
these actions and plans to appeal the district court's order
with respect to the UAW lawsuits to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.

The first identified complaint is "Int'l U Utd. Auto, et al. v.  
Arvinmeritor Inc, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-73872-NGE," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart M. Israel of Martens, Ice, (Royal Oak), 306 S.  
         Washington Suite 600, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Phone: 248-
         398-5900, E-mail: israel@martensice.com; and  

     (2) Daniel W. Sherrick, UAW International Union, Legal  
         Department, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI  
         48214, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5216.   

Representing the company are:  

     (1) Michael A. Alaimo and Leonard D. Givens of Miller,  
         Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W. Jefferson Avenue Suite  
         2500, Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone: 313-963-6420, E-
         mail: alaimo@millercanfield.com or  
         givens@millercanfield.com; and  

     (2) Charles S. Mishkind of Miller, Canfield, (Grand  
         Rapids), 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200, Grand  
         Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: 616-454-8656, E-mail:  
         Mishkind@MillerCanfield.com.   


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Rice Contamination in Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer CropScience is named defendant in a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for
negligently contaminating the U.S. long-grain rice supply with
genetically engineered rice that is not approved for human
consumption.

The suit, filed by Lonnie and Linda Parson, came after the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's August announcement that genetically
modified rice, developed and tested by Bayer, had been found in
samples taken from commercial long grain rice.  Bayer's
genetically modified rice has not been approved for human
consumption, according to a USDA Press Office Fact Sheet Release
No.0306.06.

Plaintiffs, who are rice growers in Lee County, Arkansas, allege
that they have suffered damages by an enormous drop and loss in
value of their rice product due to the contamination of the U.S.
rice supply the genetically engineered and unapproved rice.

According to the USDA, rice production in the U.S. is valued at
about $1.9 billion.  The market price of U.S. rice has dropped
approximately 10 percent since Bayer first announced that
unapproved rice had been found in the food chain.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?10af

The suit is "Parson et al. v. Bayer CropScience U.S. et al.,
Case No. 4:06-cv-01078-JLH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge J. Leon Holmes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

    (1) John G. Emerson of Emerson Poynter LLP - Houston, 830
        Apollo Lane, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 501-907-2555, E-
        mail: john@emersonpoynter.com; Scott E. Poynter of
        Emerson Poynter LLP - Little Rock, The Museum Center,
        500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 305, Little Rock, AR
        72201, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556, E-mail:
        Scott@emersonpoynter.com; and

    (2) Terry M. Poynter of Terry M. Poynter, P.A., Post Office
        Box 370, Mountain Home, AR 72654-0370, Phone: (870) 425-
        2196, E-mail: pgatty@mtnhome.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Farmers File Lawsuit Over Rice Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a
class action on behalf of rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and California against Bayer
CropScience for contamination of U.S. rice crop.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, came after the U.S. Department of
Agriculture announced that genetically modified rice, developed
and tested by Bayer, had been found in samples taken from
commercial long grain rice.  Bayer's genetically modified rice
has not been approved for human consumption.

The legal complaint alleges that Bayer failed to prevent their
unapproved rice from entering the food chain.  As a result of
Bayer's actions, Japan and the European Union have placed strict
limits on U.S. rice imports and the prices for U.S. rice have
dropped dramatically.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as an injunction requiring Bayer to clean up the
contamination from Bayer's genetically modified rice.

According to the USDA, Rice production in the U.S. is valued at
about $1.9 billion.  The market price of U.S. rice has dropped
approximately ten percent since Bayer first announced that
unapproved rice had been found in the food chain.

Richard S. Lewis, a partner and environmental legal expert with
the Cohen, Milstein firm, said, "Our clients feel that Bayer
should have taken stricter steps when growing this genetically
modified rice to prevent it from contaminating the commercial
rice market.  Bayer's actions have resulted in an unprecedented
price drop financially impacting all rice farmers."

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?10b0

The suit is "Geeridge Farm Inc. et al. v. Bayer CropScience LP,
Case No. 4:06-cv-01079-GH," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge George Howard.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ralph M. Cloar, Jr. of The Law Office of Ralph M.
         Cloar, Jr., Prospect Building, 1501 North University
         Avenue, Suite 640, Little Rock, AR 72207-5235, Phone:
         501-666-6682, E-mail: Rmcatt@aol.com; and

     (2) Richard S. Lewis, Victoria S. Nugent and James J.
         Pizzirusso all of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C. - DC, West Tower, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
         Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-
         4600, E-mail: rlewis@cmht.com or vnugent@cmht.com or
         jpizzirusso@cmht.com.


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Speed Buckle Harnesses Used for Climbing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Black Diamond Equipment Ltd., of Salt Lake City, Utah, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 18,000 units of Speed Buckle Harnesses used
during mountain and rock climbing.

The company said the harness could be threaded incorrectly.  If
threaded incorrectly, the webbing will easily slip when loaded.  
Incorrectly threaded buckles can loosen, which could cause
climbers to slip out of the harness and fall.  No injuries were
reported.

These Speed Buckle Harnesses were sold under the models:

     -- Gym Speed,
     -- Focus Speed,
     -- Momentum Speed,
     -- Vario Speed, and
     -- Wiz Kid

The names can be found on a tag sewn inside the waist belt of
the harnesses.  The harnesses are various colors and were sold
individually.  Only Black Diamond Equipment Speed Buckle
Harnesses with incorrectly threaded buckles are included in this
recall.

These Speed Buckle Harnesses were manufactured in the
Philippines and are being sold at rock climbing and
mountaineering specialty shops nationwide from December 2005
through July 2006 for between $40 and $75.

Pictures of the recalled Speed Buckle Harnesses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06234a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06234b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06234c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using recalled
harnesses and contact the firm for a free replacement harness.

For more information, call Black Diamond Equipment collect at
(801) 278-5533 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/,
http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/about/speed_harness_bulleti
n.ph  


CALIFORNIA: Group Sues Over Juvenile Rights in Sacramento County
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento County Juvenile Hall is facing a class action
filed by a prisoner rights group over conditions at the facility
and alleged mistreatments of teenagers, Associated Press
reports.

The suit is filed by San Quentin-based Prison Law Office at a
Sacramento County Superior Court.  It accuses the juvenile hall
staff members of routinely disciplining teens with pepper spray
and by grinding their faces into the ground.

It seeks to stop the facility's alleged practice of abuse and an
order for reforms that would include better food and education.

Prison Law Office on the Net: http://www.prisonlaw.com/.


CAMBREX CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's Aug. 8 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

In October 2003, the company was notified of a securities class
action filed against it and five former and current officers.  
Five class actions were later filed.

In January 2004, the court consolidated the cases, designated
the lead plaintiff and selected counsel to represent the class.

An amended complaint was filed in March 2004.  The suit has been
brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock from Oct. 21, 1998 through Jul. 25, 2003.  

The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose in
timely fashion the January 2003 accounting restatement and
subsequent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation, as well as the loss of a significant contract at
the Baltimore facility.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the suit in May 2004.  
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a reply brief.  In October 2005,
the court denied the company's motion to dismiss against the
company and two current company officers.

The suit is "Dodge v. Cambrex Corp., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-
04896-WJM-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge William J. Martini with
referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com;

     (2) Barry A. Knopf and Peter s. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland,
         Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, Park 80 Plaza, West One,
         Saddle Brook, NJ 07662, Phone: (201) 845 9600, E-mail:
         PSP@njlawfirm.com;

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

     (4) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-
         1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants is Alan E. Kraus of Latham &
Watkins, LLP, One Newark Center, 16th Floor, Newark, NJ 07101-
3174, Phone: (973) 639-7293 and 973-639-1234, E-mail:
alan.kraus@lw.com.


CINCINNATI BELL: Awaits Final Ruling on ERISA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to grant final approval to the settlement of the class
action, "In re Broadwing Inc. ERISA Class actions, (Kurtz v.
Broadwing Inc., et al.)," which names a subsidiary of Cincinnati
Bell, Inc. as one of the defendants.

Between Nov. 18, 2002 and March 17, 2003, five putative class
actions were filed against the company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Broadwing Inc., and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  Fidelity Management Investment
Trust Co. was also named as a defendant in these actions.

These cases, which purport to be brought on behalf of the
Cincinnati Bell Inc. Savings and Security Plan, the Broadwing
Retirement Savings Plan, and a class of participants in the
plans, generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by improperly encouraging the plan participant-
plaintiffs to elect to invest in the company stock fund within
the relevant plan and by improperly continuing to make employer
contributions to the company stock fund within the relevant
plan.

On Oct. 22, 2003, a putative consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.  The company filed its motion to dismiss on Feb. 6,
2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 2, 2004 and
the company filed its reply May 17, 2004.

On Oct. 6, 2004, the judge issued a Scheduling Order in these
matters.  According to the Scheduling Order, discovery was
permitted to commence immediately and was to have been completed
by Nov. 15, 2005.  The trial was tentatively scheduled to take
place in May 2006.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement of ERISA Actions providing for the
settlement of the consolidated case with no finding or admission
of any wrongdoing by any of the defendants in the lawsuit.

Under the agreement, defendants are oblige to pay $11 million,
which payment will be made on their behalf by their insurers, to
a fund to settle the claims of, and obtain a release of all
claims from, the class members.

On March 13, 2006, the court issued an order giving preliminary
approval of the agreement and scheduled a settlement fairness
hearing on June 22, 2006.  

The fairness hearing took place as scheduled on June 22, 2006.
The parties are currently awaiting a final order from the court,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2006 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Broadwing Inc. ERISA Class actions, (Kurtz v.
Broadwing Inc., et al.), Case No. C-1-02-857," filed in U.S
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge
Michael H. Watson with referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Willie Charles Briscoe of Provost Umphrey Law Firm,
         LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue, Sutie 700, Dallas, TX 75204,
         Phone: 214-744-3000, Fax: 214-744-3015, E-mail:
         provost_dallas@yahoo.com;

     (2) David A. Futscher of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks,
         PSC, 128 East Second Street, PO Box 2618, Covington, KY
         41012-2618, Phone: 859-291-9000, E-mail:
         dfutscher@pdfslaw.com; and

     (3) Ann Louise Lugbill, 2406 Auburn Avenue, Cincinnati, OH
         45219, Phone: 513-784-1280, E-mail:
         alugbill@choice.net.

Representing the defendants is Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost
Brown Todd, LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th Street, Cincinnati,
OH 45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745, E-mail:
gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


COLORADO: ACLU Amends Suit Over Prisoner Rights in Garfield Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union added two claims to a class
action against Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario over
treatment of prisoners at the county jail, according to a report
by Dennis Webb of Summit Daily News.

The organization amended its suit on Aug. 1 to include
allegations that the sheriff denies mental health care to
indigent county jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline
without due process.

In July, ACLU filed the original class action complaint in U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado (Class Action
Reporter, July 21, 2006).  It brought the suit on behalf of
prisoners in the Garfield County Jail who were subjected to
widespread excessive force by deputies' misuse and abuse of
pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and
electroshock belts.

Defendants in the suit are Mr. Vallario and Jail Commander Scott
Dawson.  

Plaintiffs representing the class of current and future
prisoners are Clarence Vandehey, William Langley, Samuel
Lincoln, and Jared Hogue.

The ACLU suit alleges that the jail's use of the devices
violates widely accepted standards of law enforcement and
corrections professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and
vendors' training and recommendations for safe and appropriate
use.

It claims that prisoners shot with pepperballs or drenched with
pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair-
sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to
decontaminate.

Court documents claim that prisoners going to court are often
forced to wear a remote-controlled electroshock belt during
transport to court and during hearings.  With a push of a
button, a deputy can deliver an incapacitating and painful
eight-second-long electric shock of 50,000 volts.  

The suit alleges that deputies deliberately taunt prisoners to
heighten their anxiety while they are wearing the electroshock
belt by playing "mind games" and suggesting that the prisoners
are about to be shocked.

It notes that electroshock weapons, pepper spray, and restraint
chairs have all been associated with a number of in-custody
deaths, and that the jail's unregulated use of these devices in
combination poses especially serious risks to prisoners' safety.  

Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health
problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated
requests for mental health care.   They have been reportedly
strapped into the restraint chair a total of 12 times between
them, sometimes for over six hours.  

In the amended complaint, ACLU contends that prisoners asking
for psychiatric help are denied the service when they don't have
the required $100 in their accounts.  They said the policy
violates U.S. and Colorado constitutions and Colorado law,
requiring that serious mental health needs of prisoners should
be treated even when they don't have money.  

The county waives the $100 requirement in cases in which the
prisoner asking psychiatric help is hallucinating or suicidal,
according to the report.

Mr. Vallario and Mr. Dawson have until late September to file a
response to the suit, the report said.

The original complaint is available at:

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b  
  
The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa.

Representing the plaintiffs are Taylor Scott Pendergrass and
Mark Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union - Colorado,
400 Corona Street, Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482,
Fax: 303-777-1773, E-mail: tpendergrass@aclu-co.org and
msilver2@att.net.


DIGI INT'L: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Digi International, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 8,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York asserting claims relating to the initial public
offering of NetSilicon and approximately 300 other public
companies.

The complaint names as defendants the company, NetSilicon,
certain of its officers and certain underwriters involved in
NetSilicon's IPO, among numerous others, and asserts, among
other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration
statement violated federal securities laws because they
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding
the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating
shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers.

The company believes that the claims against the NetSilicon
defendants are without merit and has defended the litigation
vigorously.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named
officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on
Oct. 9, 2002.

In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon
obtaining approval by the court.  On Sept. 1, 2005, the court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to
class members.

Thereafter, the court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006,
at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard.  
After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The suit is "In re Digi International, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


DINNER BELL: Recalls Beef Products for E. coli Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Dinner Bell Meat Products, Inc. of Lynchburg, Virginia, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service, is recalling approximately 909
lbs. of beef that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The products subject to recall are:

     -- 10-pound bags of "Dinner Bell Ground Beef."  The
        products were produced between July 31 and Aug. 17,
        2006;

     -- 10-pound box of "Dinner Bell Cubed Steak."  The product
        was produced on Aug. 9, 2006; and

     -- 80-pound box of "Dinner Bell Boneless Beef."  The
        product was produced on Aug. 14, 2006.

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 7440" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The problem was discovered through company testing.  FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
this product.

The products were distributed to retail establishments and a
distributor in southern Virginia.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

Media with questions about the recall may contact company owner
G.D. Gilliam at (434) 847-7766.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact the
company HACCP coordinator Maggie Hancock at (434) 847-7766.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. Hearing Set for Calif. Labor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 22, 2006 final approval hearing was scheduled for the
$15 million settlement of the employment-related class action,
"Hasty v. Electronic Arts, Inc."

The suit was filed on Feb. 14, 2005 in the San Mateo Superior
Court in California.  It alleges that the company improperly
classified "engineers" in California as exempt employees.  It
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.

On May 16, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement pursuant to which the company agreed to make a lump
sum payment of approximately $15 million, to be paid to a third-
party administrator, to cover:

      -- all claims allegedly suffered by the class members;

      -- plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, not to exceed 25% of the
         total settlement amount;

      -- plaintiffs' costs and expenses;

      -- any incentive payments to the named plaintiffs that may
         be authorized by the court; and

      -- all costs of administration of the settlement.

The hearing for the court to consider its final approval of the
settlement is set for Sept. 22, 2006.

Redwood City, California-based Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ:
ERTS)) -- http://www.ea.com/-- develops, markets, publishes and  
distributes interactive software games titles.  It publishes
interactive software games for multiple platforms.  It makes
investments in facilities and equipment that allow the company
to create and edit video and audio recordings that are used in
its games.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss the amended complaints briefing
in the consolidated securities fraud class action pending
against Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2006 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class actions against the company and certain of
its current and former officers, alleging violations of certain
federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading
public statements made during this period by the company and its
officers.

The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought.  

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases as, "Aviva Partners v. Exide
Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."  

On March 24, 2006 Judge Cooper appointed the Alaska Hotel &
Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund and Lakeway Capital
Management co-lead plaintiffs for the putative class of former
Exide stockholders and appointed the law firms of Lerach
Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. as co-lead counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated the claims described
above but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who
purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004 and May 17,
2005.

Discovery is currently stayed pursuant to the discovery-stay
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaints Briefing.  The
motion is to be completed on or about Sept. 6, 2006, and
defendants expect a ruling on the motion some time thereafter.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper,
with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov
Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277,
Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail:
procco@lawssb.com.

Representing the defendants is Edward T. KOLE of Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs., 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
- Box 10, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958, Phone: (732) 636-8000, E-
mail: ekole@wilentz.com.


FAIR ISAAC: Calif. Court Mulls Motions in CROA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on certain motions on a putative consumer class
action filed against Fair Isaac Corp. over alleged violation of
the Credit Repair Organizations Act.  

In the suit, "Christy Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and MyFICO
Consumer Services, Inc.," plaintiff claims that the company sold
credit score-related products in violation of the CROA.

The plaintiff is also claiming that the defendants violated
certain procedural requirements of CROA, and violated the
antifraud provisions of CROA, with respect to the sale of credit
score products on the company's myFICO.com website.

The plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated the
California Credit Services Act and were unjustly enriched.  The
plaintiff has sought certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased credit score products from the company
on the myFICO.com website in the five year period prior to the
filing of the Complaint on Jan. 18, 2005.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and denied any liability or wrongdoing and has denied that
class certification is appropriate.

On April 22, 2005, the company brought a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.  On June 27, 2005, the court granted the
company's motion, in part, by dismissing certain of the
plaintiff's claims under the CSA.  The plaintiff has brought
motions for summary judgment and for class certification.

The suit is "Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
00257-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Sabrina S. Kim, Michael C.
Spencer and Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, Phone: 213-617-1200, 212-594-5300 and 213-617-
1200, Fax: 213-617-1975, 212-868-1229 and 213-617-1975, E-mail:
skim@milbergweiss.com and jwesterman@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the defendants is Frederick Brown and Rebecca
Justice Lazarus of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, One Montgomery
St., Montgomery Tower, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-393-8204 and 415-393-8296, E-mail:
fbrown@gibsondunn.com and rjustice@gibsondunn.com.


FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Lawsuit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Isaac Corp. remains a defendant in a putative consumer
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The suit is "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc.
and Fair Isaac, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM."  It was filed
on Nov. 19, 2004, and asserts that defendants have jointly sold
the company's Score Power credit score product in violation of
certain procedural requirements under the Credit Repair
Organizations Act.  

Plaintiff contends that Equifax Consumer Services and the
company are "credit repair organizations" under CROA and that
the transaction by which he purchased Score Power was in
violation of CROA and fraudulent.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased such services from defendants within
the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.  They
also seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2005, the district court denied defendants' partial
motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered,
denying all liability or wrongdoing.

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

The suit is "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Beverly B.
Martin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H.
         Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood,
         925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road,
         N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E-
         mail: efile@pmkm.com;  

     (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall
         225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278; and

     (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Craig Edward Bertschi, Audra Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn
         Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree Street,
         Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-
         6500, E-mail: cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com,
         adial@kilpatrickstockton.com,
         chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

    (ii) Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP,
         Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610,
         Phone: 312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-mail:
         kliebardk@howrey.com or mclawhornt@howrey.com.  


FIRST HORIZON: Enters $36M Deal in Loan Origination Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corp. entered into a verbal agreement in
principle after a mediation, to settle a class action over loan
origination fees that has been pending against it since 2000.

The case generally concerned the charging of certain loan
origination fees, including fees permitted by Kansas and federal
law but allegedly restricted or not permitted by Missouri law,
when First Horizon Home Loans or its predecessor, McGuire
Mortgage Co., made certain second-lien mortgage loans, most of
them in the Kansas City market, which straddles Kansas and
Missouri.

In connection with this settlement, First Horizon would agree to
pay, under agreed circumstances using an agreed methodology, an
aggregate sum of up to approximately $36 million.  First Horizon
anticipates that it will accrue a pre-tax charge to earnings of
approximately $21 million for the third quarter in connection
with the settlement.  The settlement is subject to documentation
and to approval by the court.

The anticipated third-quarter accrual reflects an estimate of
the amount that ultimately would be paid under the settlement.

The difference between the maximum amount possible under the
settlement and the amount accrued reflects the company's view,
among other things, of the number of purported class members
that probably will participate in the settlement.  

"We continue to believe that neither our predecessor, McGuire
Mortgage, nor we acted contrary to applicable law.  However, we
agreed to this settlement to avoid the risks, and to end the
ongoing expense, associated with this protracted litigation,"
said Peter F. Makowiecki, president of mortgage banking for
First Horizon.

"Although litigation matters never can be predicted with
certainty, we believe that the McGuire fact pattern, involving
our merger acquisition of a non-bank mortgage lender in a multi-
state market, is unlikely to result in other similar claims."

The Superior Court of Jackson County, Missouri had set a
tentative November 2006 trial for the class action (Class Action
Reporter, June 2, 2006).


FORTUNE BRANDS: Continues to Face Suits Over Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fortune Brands, Inc., its Spirits and Wine business and numerous
other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine
remain defendants in several purported class actions pending in
Michigan, New York and West Virginia.

The suits are seeking damages and injunctive relief regarding
alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal
purchase age for alcohol.

The suits are:

     -- "Alston v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.,"
        which was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court for
        the Third Judicial Circuit, Michigan;  

     -- "Sciocchetti v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et
        al.," which was filed Feb. 16, 2005 in the Supreme
        Court, Albany County, New York.  The company and its
        Spirits and Wine business have not yet been served with
        the New York lawsuit; and

     -- "Bertovich v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.,"
        which was filed Feb. 17, 2005 in the Circuit Court
        of Hancock County, West Virginia, and was later removed
        to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
        West Virginia on May 22, 2005.  The plaintiffs
        voluntarily dismissed the company from the Bertovich
        matter without prejudice on April 21, 2006.

The suits are similar in that each alleges that the defendants
engaged in deceptive marketing practices and schemes targeted at
people under the legal purchase age, negligently marketed their
products to the underage and fraudulently concealed their
alleged misconduct.  

They seek the disgorgement of unspecified profits earned by the
Co.'s Spirits and Wine business in the past and other
unspecified damages and equitable relief.

Other purported class actions are pending against other
producers of alcoholic beverages for alleged marketing to
persons under the legal purchase age.  

The company denies that its Spirits and Wine business markets
beverage alcohol products to persons under the legal purchase
age and denies that the advertising practices of its Spirits and
Wine business are illegal or in violation of industry codes
concerning responsible marketing practices.

Deerfield, Illinois-based Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO) --
http://www.fortunebrands.com/-- is a holding company with  
subsidiaries engaged in the manufacture, production and sale of
home and hardware products, spirits and wine, and golf products.


FORTUNE BRANDS: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit the dismissal of the purported consolidated class action
"Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., et al.," which names as
defendants Fortune Brands, Inc., its Spirits and Wine business
and numerous other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits
and wine.

The suit was filed Sept. 15, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio.  It seeks damages and injunctive
relief regarding alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to people
under the legal purchase age for alcohol.

It alleges that the defendants have engaged in deceptive
marketing practices and schemes targeted at people under the
legal purchase age, negligently marketed their products to the
underage and fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.  

Plaintiffs ask the disgorgement of unspecified profits earned by
the company's Spirits and Wine business in the past and other
unspecified damages and equitable relief.  

On Feb. 6, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed the entire case.  Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The suit is "Eisenberg et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01081-DCN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge Donald C. Nugent.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy D. Battin Staus & Boies, LLP, 10513 Braddock
         Road, Fairfax, VA 22032, Phone: 703-764-8700, Fax: 703-
         764-8704; and

     (2) John S. Chapman, 300 Hoyt Block, 700 West St. Clair
         Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: 216-241-8172, Fax:
         216-241-8175, E-mail: jchapman@jscltd.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Robert N. Rapp of Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Ste. 1400,
         800 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-
         622-8288, Fax: 216-241-0816, E-mail: rrapp@calfee.com;
         and

    (ii) David S. Cupps and Anthony J. O'Malley of Vorys, Sater,
         Seymour & Pease, Phone: 614-464-6400 and 216-479-6159,
         Fax: 614-464-6350 and 216-479-6060, E-mail:
         dscupps@vssp.com and ajomalley@vssp.com.


GOTHAM ARCHITECTURAL: Recalls Light Fixtures to Secure Parts
------------------------------------------------------------
Gotham Architectural Lighting division of Acuity Lighting Group
Inc., of Conyers, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,700 units of
Gotham 8-inch APR/APRH down lighting fixtures.

The company said the reflector/trim pieces may not be properly
attached to each other.  The lower portion of the reflector/trim
assembly could detach and fall from the ceiling, striking
consumers.

Acuity Lighting Group has received three reports of the
fixture's reflector parts falling.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled lighting fixtures have clear, black, pewter, wheat,
umber, gold or champagne gold finishes on the trim.  Only models
APR incandescent and APRH high-intensity discharge down lights
with 8-inch openings are included in this recall.

These lighting fixtures were manufactured in the U.S. and are
being sold at lighting and electrical supply distributors
between March 2005 and June 2006 for between $85 and $220.

Picture of the recalled lighting fixture:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06575.jpg

Gotham Lighting is directly contacting facility managers and
business owners to schedule an inspection and free repair.  
Contact Gotham Lighting if you have not been contacted yet.

For more information, call Gotham Lighting at (800) 315-4982
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.gothamlighting.com


HOMESTORE.COM INC: Dismissal of Defendants in Stock Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a district
court's dismissal of secondary actors from a securities fraud
class action filed against online company, Homestore.com Inc.

The court ruled that the complaint did not allege that the third
parties were primary violators who participated in a scheme to
defraud.

Shareholders sued Homestore.com for violations of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that Homestore entered into fraudulent transactions
with various third parties in order to falsely inflate its
revenues.

The shareholders named AOL Time Warner, Cendant Corp., and
officers from both companies for aiding and abetting Homestore
in its fraudulent transactions.

In 2003, the U.S. District Court in California dismissed AOL and
Cendant, finding that Section 10(b) did not allow claims for
aiding and abetting.  However, the district court noted that
secondary actors may be liable as primary violators if all
elements of Section 10(b) are met as to the secondary actors.  

The shareholders appealed. ... In order for a secondary actor to
be liable as a primary violator of Section 10(b), the defendant
must have engaged in conduct that had the principal purpose and
effect of creating a false appearance of the fact in furtherance
of the scheme.  The defendants' mere involvement in a fraudulent
transaction is insufficient.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the shareholders'
claims against AOL and Cendant, ruling that the pleading failed
to allege that the secondary actors were liable as primary
violators of Section 10(b).

                         Case Background

Several suits were commenced after the company's December 2001
announcement that the Audit Committee of the company's board of
directors was conducting an inquiry of certain of its accounting
practices and that the results of the inquiry to date determined
that its unaudited interim financial statements for 2001 would
require restatement.  In February 2002, the company also
announced that it would restate its financial results for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2000.

In connection with the restatement, in March 2002, the company
filed an amended Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, and
in March 2002, the company filed amended an Form 10-Qs for each
of the first three quarters of 2001.  Following the December
2001 announcement of the discovery of accounting irregularities,
approximately 20 lawsuits claiming to be class actions and three
lawsuits claiming to be brought derivatively on the company's
behalf were commenced in various courts against the company and
certain of former officers, directors and employees by or on
behalf of persons purporting to be the company's stockholders
and persons claiming to have purchased or otherwise acquired
securities issued by the company between May 2000 and December
2001.

The California State Teachers' Retirement System has been named
lead plaintiff in the consolidated shareholder lawsuits against
the company.

The class period in the suit is May 4, 2000 to Dec. 21, 2001.  

The first identified complaint is "T. Jeffrey Simpson, et al v.
Homestore.com, Inc., et al."  The reference complaint is "In Re:
Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
11115," filed under Judge Gary A. Feess.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego,
         CA) 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
         92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
         blbg@blbglaw.com;

     (2) Cotchett Pitre & Simon, San Francisco Airport Office
         Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA,
         94010, Phone: 650.697.6000;

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com; and

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, Fax:
         support@milberg.com.


H&R BLOCK: Wins Final Approval for $39M RALs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Illinois granted final approval to a $39 million
settlement of a class action over H&R Block Inc.'s use of refund
anticipation loans, reports say.

In April, plaintiff class representative Lynne A. Carnegie
reached an agreement with H&R Block Inc. and Beneficial National
Bank that would settle a 1998 Chicago class action related to
RALs (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006).  

The proposed $39 million settlement, which would be paid equally
by Beneficial National Bank and H&R Block, was filed April 19 in
the suit "Carnegie v. Household International, Inc., et al."  

The proposed settlement would cover refund anticipation loans
that had been funded by Beneficial National Bank and offered
through an H&R Block office from April 8, 1994 through Dec. 31,  
1996.  Overall, the proposed nationwide settlement would make
available cash payments to approximately 1.7 million class
members who made approximately 2 million individual RAL
transactions.  It also calls for payment of an estimated
$850,000 covering six months of interest.

The proposed settlement makes at least $30 million cash
available to the class.  Deadline for claims filing is the end
of October.  Those eligible would be paid about $78 for each of
their loans.  

The settlement includes $2 million for notifying some 1.7
million customers that they are eligible to receive money, Judge
Bucklo said.

The suit was filed April 8, 1998.  Plaintiffs in the RAL Cases
alleged, among other things:  

     -- that disclosures in the RAL applications were
        inadequate, misleading and untimely;  

     -- that the RAL interest rates were usurious and
        unconscionable;  

     -- that the company did not disclose that it would receive
        part of the finance charges paid by the customer for
        such loans;  

     -- that company breached state laws on credit service
        organizations;  

     -- that the company committed a breach of contract, unjust
        enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and
        violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
        Act; and  

     -- that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty
        to its customers in connection with the RAL program.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Chicago attorney Ronald Futterman
at Futterman & Howard, Suite 1850, 122 S. Michigan Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-3600, Fax:  (312) 427-1850.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Review of Ill. Bias Suit Ruling Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a federal case accusing International Business
Machines Corp. of discrimination filed a petition asking the 7th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear "en banc" a recent
decision that favored the company.

The plaintiffs said the review is necessary because the
appellate decision confused federal laws governing traditional
pension plans and newer models such as 401(k) plans, according
to The Journal News.

Early in August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court in "Cooper,
Kathi v. IBM Pension Plan, Case No. 05-3588," which is a class
action that alleges discrimination by International Business
Machines Corp. against older workers through its adoption of a
cash-balance pension plan (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10,
2006).  The court remanded the suit with directions to enter
judgment in IBM's favor.

Plaintiffs in the class action had contended that IBM's plan
violates a subsection of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act that prohibits age discrimination.  The suit relates to
amendments the company made to switch a traditional plan to a
cash-balance plan, which is generally thought to benefit younger
workers.  Several age-discrimination lawsuits were filed
nationwide, causing the Internal Revenue Service to stop
approving them in 1999.

In 2003, the district court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, and
proceedings continued as the parties debated how much IBM owes,
and how it must change its plan in future years, as a remedy.

IBM reached a partial settlement in the case in 2004, agreeing
to pay up to $1.4 billion if its appeal failed.

In the recent court ruling, the appeals court said: "Like a
defined contribution plan, a cash-balance plan removes the
backloading of the pension formula; older workers (accurately)
perceive that they are worse off under a cash-balance approach
than under a traditional years-of-service-times final-salary
plan.  But removing a feature that gave extra benefits to the
old differs from discriminating against them."

"Replacing a plan that discriminates against the young with one
that is age-neutral does not discriminate against the old."

The suit was filed by Kathi Cooper against IBM Personal Pension
Plan and IBM Corp.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f31  

The suit is "Cooper, Kathi v. IBM Pension Plan, Case No. 99-829-
GPM" on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy.

Representing the plaintiff is William K. Carr at Law Offices of
William K. Carr, 2222 East Tennessee Avenue, Denver, CO 80209,
Phone: 303-296-6383; and John H. Evans at Hill & Robbins, 1441
18th Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-296-8100,
E-mail: johnevans@hillandrobbins.com.

Representing the defendants are Jeffrey G. Huvelle and David H.
Remes at Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-662-6000, E-
mail: jhuvelle@cov.com or dremes@cov.com.


IONATRON INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ionatron, Inc. is a defendant in purported securities class
actions filed against the company and its founders in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

In July 2006, George Wood and Raymond Veedon filed two purported
class action complaints.  Each of the class actions allege,
among other things, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the
company issued false and misleading statements concerning the
development of its counter improvised explosive device (IED)
product.

Tucson, Arizona-based Ionatron, Inc. (NASDAQ: IOTN) --
http://www.ionatron.com/-- develops and markets directed energy  
weapon products and other products incorporating its Laser
Induced Plasma Channel and related technologies.

The company and the U.S. Government have entered into several
contracts for products and services, as well as co-operative
research and development agreements for joint research on LIPC-
based directed energy weapons.

Its LIPC technology is designed as a line of sight weapon, which
enables the propagation of various forms and quantities of
electrical energy to be aimed and directed at a target or
between two points.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, it
developed a counter improved explosive device (IED) vehicle for
use in Iraq called the Joint IED Neutralizer (JIN).


LAPINDO BRANTAS: Indonesian Firm May Face Lawsuit Over Mudflow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several groups are planning to file a class action against
Indonesian oil and gas company Lapindo Brantas Inc., which is
being pointed out as responsible for the mudflow disaster in
East Java, Indonesia.

According to The Jakarta Post, although the exact cause of the
mudflow is not yet known, all parties are blaming Lapindo for
the catastrophe.  Its partner in the Brantas block is reportedly
accusing Lapindo of "gross negligence."

The mudflow that had submerged rice fields and four villages in
Porong, Sidoarjo is being blamed on drilling activities in the
area.  It started as a small leak late in May, but had blown up
into a gushing of 50,000 cubic meters of hot mud a day.

The police named nine suspects in the disaster.  They include
Imam Agustino, the president of Lapindo; Nur Rochmat Sawulo,
drilling share service vice president of PT Energi Mega Persada,
a shareholder in Lapindo; and Yenny Nawawi, the president of PT
Medici Citra Nusa, a contractor of Lapindo.  The other six are
drilling executive staff.

Several organizations, including the country's largest Muslim
organization, Nahdlatul Ulama, and the East Java office of the
Indonesian Forum, are now planning to sue on behalf of the
victims.

Nahdlatul Ulama leaders had reportedly received money from the
Bakrie family, which essentially owns Lapindo.  Lapindo has
spent billions of rupiah on efforts to solve the problem and
compensate the victims.


LEAR CORP: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corp. is a defendant in a purported consolidated class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan that alleges violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act.

In April 2006, a former employee of the company filed a
purported class action against the company, members of its board
of directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee and
certain of its human resources personnel alleging violations of
ERISA with respect to the company's retirement savings plans for
salaried and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the company was served with three
additional purported ERISA class actions, each of which
contained similar allegations against the company, its board of
directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee and
certain of its members of senior management and its human
resources personnel.

The complaints allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants in connection with the
administration of those plans.  

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from 2000 to the present and seek to recover losses
allegedly suffered by the plans.  The complaints do not specify
the amount of damages sought.  

No determination has been made that a class action can be
maintained, and there have been no decisions on the merits of
the cases.  

In June 2006, the court entered an order consolidating these
four lawsuits.  The company intends to vigorously defend the
consolidated lawsuit.

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge John Corbett O'Meara with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen F. Wasinger of Stephen F.
Wasinger, PLC, (Royal Oak), 32121 Woodward Avenue, 300 Balmoral
Centre, Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999, Phone: 248-554-6306, E-mail:
sfw@sfwlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Thomas G. McNeill of Dickinson
Wright, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI 48226-3425,
Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail: TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyer Seeks to Stop Alcatel Merger Voting
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. lawyer for a class action against Lucent Technologies
told Reuters he is seeking to stop shareholders from voting on a
proposed merger with France's Alcatel.

Shareholders are set to vote on the merger on Sept. 7, a day
after a New Jersey court is set to hear an injunction.  Kenneth
Vianale, an attorney at Vianale & Vianale, said he has asked the
court to halt the voting pending the outcome of the class action
filed in April against Lucent's board.

On April 2, 2006, Lucent and Alcatel entered into an agreement,
pursuant to which Lucent and Alcatel will combine their
businesses through a merger.  Under the terms of the agreement,
each Lucent share will be converted into a right to receive
0.1952 of an American Depository Share of Alcatel, with each
Alcatel ADS representing one ordinary share of Alcatel.

A putative class action was filed against Lucent Technologies
Inc. and members of its board of directors in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County on April 3 (Class
Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).

The plaintiffs propose to represent a class of Lucent's public
shareholders.  They claim that, among other things, the firm's
proposed merger with Alcatel is the product of breaches of duty
by Lucent's board of directors in that they allegedly failed to
maximize shareholder value in the transaction.  Along with other
relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the closing of
the proposed merger.  

The suit is "Resnick v. Lucent Technologies Inc., et al."

Lucent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.lucent.com-- is engaged  
in the design and delivery of systems, services, and software
that enable converged communications for service providers,
enterprises, governments, and cable operators.

Mr. Vianale's contact information: Vianale & Vianale, 2499
Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 (Palm Beach
Co.), Phone: 561-392-4750, Fax: 561-392-4775.


MERRIMAN CURHAN: Suit Over Odimo-Related Offering Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------
Merriman Curhan Ford & Co., a broker-dealer subsidiary of MCF
Corp., said that a purported class action brought in connection
with a registered offering involving Odimo Inc. where the
company served as co-manager, has been resolved.

The complaint, filed in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court for
Broward County in Florida on Sept. 30, 2005, alleged violations
of federal securities laws against Odimo and certain of its
officers as well as the company's underwriters, including the
company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement.

Recently, similar cases were consolidated and lead plaintiff's
counsel was assigned.  Thereafter, an amended complaint was
filed and the underwriters, including Merriman Curhan Ford &
Co., were not named as defendants.  This matter is now resolved.

San Francisco, California-based MCF Corp. (AMEX: MEM) --
http://www.merrimanco.com/-- is a financial services holding  
company that provides capital markets services, including
institutional sales and trading, research and investment
banking, as well as asset management, wealth management and
corporate and venture services through its operating
subsidiaries, Merriman Curhan Ford & Co., MCF Asset Management,
LLC and MCF Wealth Management, LLC.

Merriman Curhan is a securities broker dealer and investment
bank focused on fast growing companies and growth-oriented
institutional investors.  It is a broker-dealer and is a member
of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and
Securities Investor Protection Corp.  MCF Asset and MCF Wealth
produce fee-based, recurring revenue streams to complement the
cyclical nature of the investment banking and institutional
sales and trading revenue businesses.


NELLCOR PURITAN: Continues to Face Calif. Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc., a subsidiary of Tyco
International Ltd., remains a defendant in 12 consumer class
actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The suits are:

     -- "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco
        International, Ltd." filed in Aug. 29, 2005;

     -- "Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare
        Group, LP, and Mallinckrodt, Inc.," filed on Aug. 29,
        2005;

     -- "Scott Valley Respiratory Home Care v. Tyco Healthcare
        Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc.," filed on Oct. 27,
        2005;

     -- "Brooks Memorial Hospital et al. v. Tyco Healthcare
        Group LP," filed on Oct. 18, 2005;

     -- "All Star Oxygen Services, Inc. et al. v. Tyco
        Healthcare Group, et al.," filed on Oct. 25, 2005;

     -- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, et al. v. Tyco
        Healthcare Group LP," filed on Oct. 28, 2005;
       
     -- "Nicholas H. Noyes Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Healthcare
        and Mallinckrodt," filed on Nov. 4, 2005;

     -- "North Bay Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, et
        al.," filed on Nov. 15, 2005;

     -- "Stephen Skoronski v. Tyco International Ltd, et al.,"
        filed on Nov. 21, 2005;

     -- "Abington Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Int'l. Ltd., Tyco
        Int'l (U.S.) Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc., Tyco Healthcare
        Group LP," filed on Nov. 22, 2005;

     -- "South Jersey Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco International,
        Ltd., et al.," filed on Jan. 24, 2006; and

     -- "Deborah Heart and Lung Center v. Tyco International,
        Ltd., et al.," filed on Jan. 27, 2006.

In all complaints, the putative class representatives, on behalf
of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they
allege they paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by Nellcor in violation of the federal
antitrust laws.

Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) -- http://www.tyco.com/--  
is a diversified manufacturing and service company.  It operates
in four business segments: Fire and Security, which designs,
manufactures, installs, monitors and services electronic
security and fire protection systems; Electronics, which
designs, manufactures and distributes electrical and electronic
components; Healthcare, which designs, manufactures and
distributes medical devices and supplies, imaging agents,
pharmaceuticals, and adult incontinence and infant care
products, and Engineered Products and Services, which designs,
manufactures, distributes and services engineered products, and
provides environmental and other industrial consulting services.


OUTOKUMPU OYJ: Finnish Firm Facing Price Fixing Suit in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finnish metals group Outokumpu Oyj is facing a class action
complaint filed this month in the U.S. district court in
Memphis, Tennessee over alleged anti-competitive practice,
according to Reuters.  

The suit was filed by Ottorino Pasian against the company,
Outokumpu's former rival, Mueller Industries, Wieland Werke AG,
Europa Metalli AG and Trefimetaux S.A.

Outokumpu said it knew of least four other cases filed against
it.  At its annual accounts statement in February, Outokumpu
Copper (USA), Inc. said it was served with a complaint in a case
filed in Federal District Court in Memphis, Tennessee, by
plaintiff American Copper & Brass, Inc. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 6, 2006).  The complaint alleges claims and damages under
the U.S. antitrust laws and purports to be a class action on
behalf of all direct purchasers of copper plumbing tubes in the
U.S. from 1988 to March 31, 2001.

Outokumpu in Finland is one of a group fined EUR79 million
($101.4 million) in 2003 by the European Union for price fixing
and marking out territories for copper pipes.  The company has
denied any wrongdoing in the U.S. market.

The latest lawsuit says the industrial copper tube makers cartel
had a wider scope and fixed prices and shared customers in the
U.S. as well.

Outokumpu Oyj on the Net: http://www.outokumpu.com.


PACIFIC MARITIME: Reaches $12.9M Settlement in Longshoremen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $12,946,413.00 settlement was reached in the case "Wisniewski
v. Pacific Maritime Association" that was initially filed by the
law firm of Mower, Carreon and Desai, LLP on April 1, 2003.  The
suit is a class action brought on behalf of all casual
longshoremen in the State of California to recover unpaid and
unlawfully withheld wages.

The defendant, Pacific Maritime Association is an organization
of steamship, stevedoring and terminal companies employing
casual longshoremen and doing business along the Pacific Coast.
Plaintiffs action was brought on behalf of those non-union
longshoremen, also classified as identified casuals and
unidentified casuals, who worked in the California from April 1,
1999 to June 16, 2006.

The case relates to denied compensation for travel time from
dispatch halls to the docks and illegal deductions of time from
the paychecks of casual longshoremen.  "Although the travel time
issue encompassed the biggest damage component, it was the
slashing of time from these non-union payrolls that agitated me
and got me into the case.  The slashing issue was the original
issue brought to me by the longshoremen," said Patrick Carreon.

The case encompassed three distinct claims on behalf of
plaintiffs that formed the basis of recovering unpaid and
unlawfully withheld wages, liquidated damages and statutory
penalties as money owed to plaintiff casual longshoremen
employed by defendants.

Pacific Maritime's 25 steamship, stevedoring and terminal
companies constitute the "PMA Member Companies."  This
organization is bound by PMA bylaws and its Board of Directors
who manage the business and affairs of the company.  PMA
allocates labor to its "Member Companies."  

It provides for the use of both "registered" (union) and
"unregistered" (non-union) longshoremen.  All longshoremen fall
under one of four classifications:

     -- fully registered or Class A,
     -- limited registered or Class B,
     -- identified Casuals, and unidentified casuals

Plaintiffs' action was brought on behalf of those non-union
longshoremen who worked in the latter two classifications in
California from April 1, 1999 to June 16, 2006.  

The class consisted of approximately 12,000 casual longshoremen
separated into four sub-classes.  Plaintiffs' lead counsel,
Patrick Carreon, argued that all classes of casual longshoremen
were denied compensation for their post-dispatch travel time
from their respective dispatch halls to the docks.

It was his position that this time encompassed hours worked
while under the control of the employer and that defendants'
denial of compensation was in violation of California Labor Code
Section 510, 1194, I.W.C. Wage Orders 4-2001, 9-2001 and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

Additionally, he argued that the Long Beach/Los Angeles class of
casual longshoremen was subject to illegal payroll deductions by
defendants at a rate of 2% per paycheck to pay for the operation
of the "Casual Dispatch Hall" in violation of California Labor
Code Section 221-223, 2802 and 2804.  

Finally, he argued that defendants had an illegal policy of
"slashing" time from the payroll of Long Beach/Los Angeles
Casual longshoremen in primarily 15 and 30-minute increments in
violation of California law.  Defendants denied all allegations.   
They took the position that time spent by casual longshoremen
traveling from the Dispatch Hall to the docks and ultimately to
that day's foreman, constituted an "ordinary commute" pursuant
to California case law and was therefore noncompensable.  

Defendants further allege that a 2% deduction from the paychecks
of the Long Beach/Los Angeles Casual longshoremen was allowable
and an exception to state wrongful deduction statutes because
they constituted "Union dues."  

Finally, defendants asserted that any "slashing" of time from
the payroll of Long Beach/Los Angeles casual longshoremen was
the result of late-arriving labor and thus allowable under
California law.  

In June of 2005, after two years of extensive discovery and
litigation, the parties were at a stalemate, entrenched in their
respective positions.  Plaintiffs and defendants agreed to
enlist the nationally renowned mediator, retired Judge Lawrence
Irving in an attempt to resolve the case.  

Class counsel Patrick Carreon, together with the class
representatives Mark Wisniewski, Michael D. Olvera and Michael
Plante attended the first mediation session in July of 2005 at
Judge Irving's offices in San Diego.  

For more information, contact Patrick Carreon, Phone: 949-474-
3004, E-mail: carreon@mocalaw.com.


SL INDUSTRIES: N.J. Court Denies Class Status in Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden County denied class-
action status in a lawsuit against SL Industries, Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, SL Surface Technologies, Inc.
(SurfTech) over contamination of Pennsauken's water supply.

SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating facility in Pennsauken,
New Jersey.  Substantially all of the operating assets of
SurfTech were sold in November 2003.  

The company and SurfTech are currently two of approximately 39
defendants in this action.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the plaintiffs suffered personal injuries as a
result of consuming water distributed from Puchack Wellfield in
Pennsauken, which supplies Camden, New Jersey.

The suit also alleges that SurfTech and other defendants
contaminated ground water through the disposal of hazardous
substances at industrial facilities in the area.

On June 30, 2006, the Superior Court denied class certification
in this action.  The company expects the court's ruling to
stand.  With the denial of a class certification, the lawsuit
will proceed as 12 individual claims.

Mt. Laurel, New Jersey-based SL Industries Inc. (AMEX: SLI) --
http://www.slpdq.com/-- designs, manufactures and markets power  
electronics, motion control, power protection and specialized
communication equipment which are used in a variety of medical,
aerospace, computer, datacom, industrial, telecom,
transportation and electric power utility equipment
applications.


STAAR SURGICAL: Sept. Hearing Set for Calif. Stock Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 25, 2006 final approval hearing was scheduled for the
settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
STAAR Surgical Co. and one of its officers, which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Since Sept. 1, 2004, multiple class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and
the District of New Mexico on behalf of all persons who acquired
the company's securities during various periods between April 3,
2003 and Sept. 28, 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  

On Dec. 15, 2004, the court ordered consolidation of the
complaints that had been filed in California and directed that
the plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint as soon as
practicable.  The New Mexico action was voluntarily dismissed on
Jan. 28, 2005.

A consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs on
April 29, 2005 generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing false and misleading statements regarding the prospects
for the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the company's
implantable lens VISIAN ICL, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs generally seek to recover compensatory damages,
including interest.

On May 30, 2006, the court filed an order preliminarily
approving a Stipulation of Settlement, which the parties had
filed with the court on March 23, 2006.  The court has set Sept.
25, 2006 as the date for a final hearing to approve the
settlement and authorize notice to the class of the settlement
terms.

The class of potential plaintiffs includes purchasers of STAAR's
securities between Oct. 6, 2003 and Jan. 5, 2004.

The suit is "In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities Litigation, No.
CV 04-8007S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge James Otero.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Avi N. Wagner of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150.  

Representing the company are Dan Marmalefsky and Mark R.
McDonald of Morrison & Foerster, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los
Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: 213-892-5200, E-mail:
mmcdonald@mofo.com.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ariz. Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed
plaintiffs' claims with prejudice in the consolidated securities
class actions filed against Swift Transportation Co., Inc.

Beginning in November 2004, three putative shareholder class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
directors and officers, alleging:

     * violations of federal securities laws related to
       disclosures made by the company regarding driver pay,
       depreciation, fuel costs and fuel surcharges;

     * the effects of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
       Administration (FMCSA) revised hours-of-service
       regulations;

     * the effects of a purported change in the company's FMCSA
       safety rating; Swift's stock repurchase program; and

     * certain stock transactions by two of the individual
       defendants.

The suits are:

     -- "Davidco Investors LLC v. Swift Transportation Co.,
        Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04cv02435;"

     -- "Greene v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case
        No. 2:04cv02492;" and

     -- "Tuttle v. Swift Transportation Co. Inc., et al., Case
        No. 2:04cv02874."

The complaints sought unquantified damages on behalf of the
putative class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between Oct. 16, 2003 and Oct. 1, 2004.  

On April 29, 2005, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases as, "In re Swift Transportation Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No., CV-04-2435-PHX-NVW."

On June 8, 2005, the court appointed United Food and Commercial
Workers Local 1262 and Employers Pension Plan as lead plaintiff.  
Thereafter, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on Aug. 19, 2005.

The consolidated amended complaint sought unquantified damages
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Swift's
common stock between Oct. 16, 2003 and Sept. 15, 2004.

The allegations in the consolidated amended complaint are
substantially similar to those in the previously filed
complaints.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Oct. 21, 2005.  Both lead plaintiffs' opposition to
that motion and defendants' reply brief have been filed.

Oral arguments were heard on Feb. 17, 2006 on defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint.  On March 26, 2006, the court issued
an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint with
leave to amend, except as to certain of plaintiffs' allegations,
which were dismissed with prejudice.

The parties stipulated and agreed that the plaintiffs would
dismiss their remaining claims with prejudice, and that each
party would bear its own costs.  The district court entered the
corresponding order dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
on May 1, 2006.

The suit is "In re Swift Transportation Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-2435-PHX-NVW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Neil V.
Wake.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. of Bonnett Fairbourn
         Friedman & Balint, PC, 2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000,
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-
         274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com;

     (2) Reuben A. Guttman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 1920 L. St. NW, Ste. 400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: (202) 783-6091; and

     (3) Mark Hanna of Davis Cowell & Bowe, LLP, 1701 K. St. NW
         Ste. 210, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 223-2620.

Representing the defendants is Vaughn Eric Bunch of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA
94304, Phone: 650-849-3231, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
vbunch@wsgr.com.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls FYFGA Spring Water for High Bromate Level
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all sizes of
Wegmans Food You Feel Good About (FYFGA) Spring Water, produced
for Wegmans by Mayer Brothers, located in West Seneca, New York.  
All use-by dates on or before Aug. 8, 2008 are affected by this
recall.

Wegmans' decision to recall the products was made after they
received test results on the level of bromate in the bottled
product.  The Food and Drug Administration has set 10 ppb as the
maximum allowable level of bromate in bottled water.  Some tests
results showed no detectable levels of bromate in Wegmans FYFGA
Spring Water, while other tests showed levels that exceed the
maximum.  The results range from zero to 25 ppb.

"Until we receive conclusive test results that verify these
products meet FDA regulations and the company's own quality
standards, we felt it was best to issue a voluntary recall,"
said Jo Natale, Wegmans' director of media relations.  "We are
hopeful that we will resolve this matter quickly and can once
again offer these products to our customers with total
confidence."  In the meantime, Wegmans will offer other brands
of bottled spring water to meet customer demand for the product.

Customers are encouraged to return the products to Wegmans for a
full refund.  Consumers who have questions or concerns about
this recall should contact Wegmans Consumer Affairs Department
at 585-464-4760 (in Rochester) or toll free at 1 (800) WEGMANS
(934-6267) Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.

Size              Description                 UPC (bar code)

24 pack/16.9 oz.  Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 10082
32 pack/16.9 oz.  Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 14649
2.5 gallon        Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 10127
20 oz.            Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water
                  with fluoride               77890 11003
20 oz.            Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 46226
6 pack/16.9 oz.   Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 67496
12 pack/16.9 oz.  Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 10085
1 liter           Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 82589
1 gallon          Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water
                  with fluoride               77890 59318
1 gallon          Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 10358
3 pack/1 gallon   Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 34247
12 pack/1 liter   Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 10088
5 gallon          Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 26316
24 pack/20 oz.    Wegmans FYFGA Spring Water  77890 21849

Wegmans Distilled Water (1 ga.) and Wegmans Distilled Baby Water
(1 gal.) are not affected by this recall.

All of the products referred to in this release were sold only
at 71 Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. located in New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland.  Visit
http://www.wegmans.comand click on "food safety" for Wegmans'  
list of product recalls.


WESTERN GAS: Continues to Face Kans. Natural Gas Purchasers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Gas Resources, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed against Oneok, Inc. in the District Court of
Wyandotte County, Kansas.  

On Nov. 4, 2005, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed an amended petition for
damages, joining the company and other defendants to this
action.  

The petition claims that the defendants violated the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act by reporting allegedly "misleading or
knowingly inaccurate reports concerning trade information" to
trade publications that compile and publish indices of natural
gas prices for natural gas trading hubs throughout the U.S.

The complaint asserted that the allegedly anticompetitive effect
of the defendant's actions was to artificially inflate the
prices paid by the plaintiffs for natural gas.

The plaintiffs are bringing the action as a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in Kansas who made direct
purchases of natural gas, for their own use and or consumption,
from Jan. 1, 2000 to Oct. 31, 2002.  

They are seeking judgment for the full consideration of their
purchases of natural gas purchased during such time period,
together with costs of litigation including attorney's fees.

The suit was filed by Learjet, Inc., Cross Oil Refining &
Marketing, Inc. Topeka Unified School District 501, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated direct purchasers of
natural gas in the state of Kansas.

The suit is Civil Action No. 05-CV-1500.

Denver, Colorado-based Western Gas Resources, Inc. --
http://www.westerngas.com/-- explores for, produces, gathers,  
processes and treats, transports and markets natural gas and
natural gas liquids.  In the company's upstream operations, it
explores for and produces natural gas reserves primarily in the
Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. and Canada.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


KLA-TENCOR: Roy Jacobs Announces Stock Suit Filing in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or acquired publicly traded securities of KLA-Tencor Corp.
between Feb. 13, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

The complaint charges KLA-Tencor and its top executive officers
and directors pf violating the federal securities laws by
failing to account properly for stock options made to KLA-Tencor
employees. The complaint charges that KLA-Tencor improperly
expensed stock options, thereby falsely inflating the company's
reported financial performance during the class period.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


PAR PHARMACETUICAL: Cohen, Milstein Files N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly
situated purchasers of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
between April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006.  Defendants include Par
and certain of its senior officers.

The action alleges that during the class period, defendants
reported financial results that were materially inflated as a
result of accounting errors.

These errors included a $55 million understatement of customer
credits and uncollectible customer deductions, which had the
effect of inflating Par's reported revenue and operating
profits.

Additionally, Par has announced that it will write-off
approximately $15 million in inventory due to flawed physical
inventory procedures.

As a result of its internal review, Par has announced it will be
restating its previously reported financial results for the
fiscal years 2004, 2005, and the first quarter of 2006.  On this
news, on July 6, 2006, shares of Par fell $4.78 per share,
losing approximately 26% of its value to close at $13.47 per
share.

On July 24, 2006 Par filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission stating that it had been informed by the
SEC that the SEC is conducting an informal investigation of Par
related to Par's restatement of its financial statements.

Interested parties may, no later than Sept. 15, 2006, request
that the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this class
action.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 1-888-240-0775, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *