CAR_Public/060904.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 4, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 176

                            Headlines

ACE CASH: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
ACE CASH: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Ace Holdings Merger
ACE CASH: Stay Lifted in Fla. Litigation Over Check Cashing
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Chiropractors Drop Lawsuit Over Fees
ANCHOR GLASS: Objects to 127 WARN Act Claims by Pa. Employees

ANNTAYLOR STORES: Settles Various Labor-Related Suits in Calif.
BLACK & DECKER: Expands Recall of Cordless Electric Lawnmowers
CERUS CORP: Enters Agreements to Settle Calif. Securities Suit
COURT SOUTH: Fitness Centers Sued Over Membership Rule Changes
COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses Claim Over Private Placements

COWEN GROUP: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Arbinet-thexchange Suit
COWEN GROUP: "Focus" Lawsuits in N.Y. Enter Discovery Phase
COWEN GROUP: To Pay $1.7M to Settle Adelphia Stock Suit Claims
DANA CORP: SEIU Fund Files Lawsuit Against Dana Execs in Ohio
DILLARD'S INC: Court Grants Final Approval to Data Theft Suit

DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Status Sought for FLSA Violations Suit
EBAY INC: May Face Suit by Australian Traders Over Fee Increases
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Class Action in N.Y.
FUTURE FOOD: Expands Recall of Dips at Risk of Contamination
FUTURE MEDIA: Court Agrees to Name Silver & Freedman as Counsel

ITT WATER: Recalls Pumps to Check on Attachment of Certain Part
MERCK & CO: La. Court Throws Out Two Products Liability Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: Expects Cost to Settle Suits of Up to $1.7B
OHIO: Former Bengal Mulls Suit Over Police Arrest in July
PARMALAT SPA: To Appeal Against Inclusion in Stock Fraud Lawsuit

PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
RICART AUTOMOTIVE: Daimler to Help Pay Consumer Suit Settlement
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls Science Kits Posing Burn Risk to Kids
US TRUST: N.Y. High Court Certifies Suit Against Campbell Unit
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Faces Labor-Related Litigations in Calif.

YOUR FINANCIAL: Dismissed from Calif. Consumer Fraud Litigation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit
ZALE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set September 18


                            *********


ACE CASH: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Cash Express, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court for the city and county of
Alameda in California over meal periods and rest breaks.

On Nov. 10, 2005, Latoya Jackson filed a putative class action
against the company and some of its subsidiaries, alleging that
it failed to provide adequate meal periods and rest breaks to
employees as required under California law.

According to the company, because the suit purports to be class
action, the amount of damages for which the company might be
responsible is uncertain.  In addition, it said that any such
amount depends upon proof of the allegations and on the number
of persons who constitute the class of plaintiffs if permitted
by the court.

Irving, Texas-based ACE Cash Express, Inc. (NASDAQ: AACE) --
http://www.acecashexpress.com/-- is a retailer of financial  
services, including check cashing, short-term consumer loans and
bill payment services.


ACE CASH: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Ace Holdings Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Cash Express, Inc. is a defendant in a purported shareholder
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas in relation to a June 6 merger agreement with
Ace Holdings I, LLC.

The company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Ace Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company formed by JLL
Partners Fund V, L.P., and Ranger Merger Sub, Inc., a Texas
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings
(Merger Sub), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with
and into the company.  The company will continue as the
surviving corporation and be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ace
Holdings.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time
of the merger, each outstanding share of the company's common
stock will be converted into the right to receive $30.00 in
cash.

On June 21, The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust
filed a purported class action on behalf of itself and all of
the company's other public shareholders against:

     -- the company,
     -- Ace Holdings I, LLC,
     -- Mr. Shipowitz,
     -- Robert P. Allyn,
     -- J. M. Haggar, III,
     -- Marshall B. Payne,
     -- Michael S. Rawlings,
     -- Charles Daniel Yost,
     -- Raymond C. Hemmig, and
     -- Edward W. Rose III

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, honesty and fair dealing to the shareholders
because the consideration payable to the shareholders under the
merger is at an unfair price and is a result of unfair dealing.

In its complaint, the plaintiff requested that the court certify
the class.  In addition, the plaintiff seeks:

      -- to enjoin the company, Ace Holdings and the directors
         from proceeding with or consummating the merger;

      -- to invalidate and set aside the $15 million break-up
         fee;

      -- to rescind, set aside or award rescissory and/or
         compensatory damages to the class if the merger is
         consummated;

      -- punitive damages;

      -- costs and disbursements of the class action and
         reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and

      -- other relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust
v. Ace Cash Express Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01100," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge A. Joe Fish.

Representing the plaintiff are Roger L. Mandel and Martin
Woodward of Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite
750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4302 and 214/443-4304, E-
mail: rmandel@smi-law.com and mwoodward@smi-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld - Austin, 300 W Sixth St., Suite 2100,
Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512/499-6250, Fax: 512/499-6290, E-
mail: pbessette@akingump.com.


ACE CASH: Stay Lifted in Fla. Litigation Over Check Cashing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The stay has been lifted in a lawsuit against ACE Cash Express,
Inc. that was filed in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County,
Florida in relation to its deferred check cashing transactions.

On Aug. 19, 2004, Donna Reuter filed a putative class action
seeking damages against the company, one of its subsidiaries and
some of its current and former officers alleging, among other
things that certain deferred check cashing transactions
conducted by the company and its subsidiary at stores in Florida
prior to Oct. 1, 2002 violated Florida lending practices and
usury statutes, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.

The lawsuit is substantially similar to a lawsuit previously
filed by Wendy Betts and other individuals against the same
defendants in a different judicial district in Florida in which
the trial court granted summary judgment in the company's favor
and the district court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Ms. Betts filed a similar lawsuit against defendants unrelated
to the company, in the same judicial district as the current
lawsuit brought by Ms. Reuter, in which the trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the district
court of appeals reversed such ruling.

Because the decision of the district court of appeals in favor
of Ms. Betts was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and in
conflict with the prior decision in the company's favor, Ms.
Reuter and defendants agreed to stay her lawsuit against the
company until the Florida Supreme Court rendered a decision.

On April 27, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the decision
in favor of Ms. Betts.  As a result of the recent Florida
Supreme Court decision, the stay has been lifted.

Irving, Texas-based ACE Cash Express, Inc. (NASDAQ: AACE) --
http://www.acecashexpress.com/-- is a retailer of financial  
services, including check cashing, short-term consumer loans and
bill payment services.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Chiropractors Drop Lawsuit Over Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Two chiropractors who are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against
American International Group, Inc., voluntarily dismissed their
case, according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

Granite City, Illinois chiropractor Mark Eavenson and another
chiropractor, Andrew Morningstar, sued the insurer for
improperly reduced payouts for treatments of accident victims.

A motion to certify the suit as class action was supposed to be
heard before Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber on Sept. 21.  
Earlier, he signed an order to unseal two briefs that AIG filed
under seal in defending the suit.  Both sides opted to take
exception to the order.

On Aug. 25, the plaintiffs withdrew their case.  Richard Burke
of the Lakin firm, attorney for the plaintiff, wrote that the
dismissal was not a compromise or settlement, and plaintiffs did
not receive payment or compensation from defendants.

A hearing to decide whether to unseal the two attachments is set
Sept. 7.  


ANCHOR GLASS: Objects to 127 WARN Act Claims by Pa. Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Glass Container Corp. is party to several collective
bargaining agreements for its employees.  Under the CBAs, Anchor
Glass is required to provide its employees a 90-day notice
before closing a plant pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
Restraining Notification Act.

If the 90-day notice is not given, Anchor Glass must pay each
employee an amount equal to the pay and benefits for the balance
of the 90-day period, Robert A. Soriano, Esq., at Shutts & Bowen
LLP, in Tampa, Florida, relates.

On Nov. 4, 2004, Anchor Glass notified employees at its
Connellsville, Pennsylvania, plant that it was closing the
plant.  The plant ceased production that day, Mr. Soriano tells
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida,
and most of the plant employees never returned to work.  Some of
the employees continued to work closing down and securing the
plant and equipment, while other employees began receiving the
90-day notice pay and benefits.

Mr. Soriano states that notwithstanding Anchor Glass' compliance
with the CBAs, certain former employees at the Connellsville
Plant commenced a class action against Anchor Glass in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that Anchor Glass violated the WARN Act provisions.

The WARN Act Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to WARN
Act compensation after the completion of their 90-day
compensation under the CBAs.  Anchor Glass objected that the
WARN Act notice and the 90-day notice required by the CBAs ran
concurrently.

Furthermore, Anchor Glass asserted that it complied with the
WARN Act and has no liability to its former employees, Mr.
Soriano avers.

During the course of Anchor Glass' bankruptcy, the WARN Act
Plaintiffs have filed several claims against the Debtor.

Anchor Glass asserts that since it has complied with the WARN
Act requirements, it is not liable for the WARN Act Claims.  Mr.
Soriano notes that the WARN Act Claims assert general unsecured
statuses not entitled to priority.

Samuel M. Stricklin, the Alpha Resolution Trustee appointed
pursuant to the Second Amended Plan of Reorganization, supports
Anchor Glass' contention that it has complied with the WARN Act
requirements.

Accordingly, the Reorganized Debtor and the Alpha Resolution
Trustee assert ask the Court to disallow 127 WARN Act Claims.

A 3-page list of the 127 WARN Claims is available for free at:

       http://bankrupt.com/misc/warnactclaims_list.pdf

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, Anchor Glass Container
Corporation is the third-largest manufacturer of glass
containers in the U.S.  Anchor manufactures a diverse line of
flint (clear), amber, green and other colored glass containers
for the beer, beverage, food, liquor and flavored alcoholic
beverage markets.  The company filed for chapter 11 protection
on Aug. 8,2005 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 05-15606).

Anchor Glass emerged from Chapter 11 protection on May 3, 2006.
(Anchor Glass Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 29; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)


ANNTAYLOR STORES: Settles Various Labor-Related Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AnnTaylor Stores Corp. is working to settle labor-related class
actions that are pending in California courts, according to its
Aug. 25, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended July 29, 2006.

The company was served with three putative class actions in
California relating to how it classified certain of its
employees under California overtime laws and a putative class
action alleging that it denied its California employees earned
vacation pay through allegedly unlawful policies related to
vacation, personal days and floating holidays.  

On July 10, 2006, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
final approval of the class-wide settlement reached on Feb. 28,
2006 in two of the overtime putative class actions.  The
settlement in the third case became final upon final approval of
the settlement in the first two lawsuits.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, will result in a one-time pre-tax charge in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 of approximately $6.5 million, or
approximately $0.06 per diluted share (Class Action Reporter,
March 2, 2006).

On May 17, 2006, the company participated in a non-binding
mediation in the vacation putative class action matter.
Following the mediation, the parties reached a tentative
agreement to settle this matter, which is subject to final
documentation and court approval.  The preliminary approval
hearing on the class settlement is currently scheduled for Sept.
19, 2006.

AnnTaylor Stores Corp., (NYSE: ANN) -- http://anntaylor.com/--  
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates as a specialty
retailer of women's apparel, shoes and accessories that are sold
primarily under the Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Loft and Ann Taylor
Factory brands.  Its stores offer a range of career and casual
separates, dresses, tops, weekend wear, shoes and accessories.


BLACK & DECKER: Expands Recall of Cordless Electric Lawnmowers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 160,000 mowers units of Black & Decker and Craftsman brand
cordless electric lawnmowers.

The recall includes 140,000 of the Black & Decker and Craftsman
brand lawnmowers recalled in September 2002.

The company said an electrical component in the lawnmowers can
overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Black & Decker has received 10 additional reports of electrical
components overheating, including one additional report of a
fire extending beyond the mower.

The original recall involved 11 reports of electrical components
overheating.  One of these resulted in a minor hand burn and
nine resulted in reports of minor property damage extending
beyond the mower.

The mowers were sold under both the Black & Decker and Craftsman
brand names.  The recalled Black & Decker mowers have the model
CMM1000 or CMM1000R and are labeled as Type 1 through Type 4,
both of which are located on the silver and black label affixed
to the rear door of the mower.  Mowers labeled as Type 5 are not
included in this recall.  The Black & Decker mowers have either
an orange or green deck with a black motor cover.  The
Craftsman-brand mowers have model number 900.370520 and include
all date codes and types.  The model number is located on the
silver and black label affixed to the rear door of the mower.  
The Craftsman mowers have a dark green deck with a black motor
cover.

The recalled mowers were manufactured in the U.S. and Canada and
are being sold by Home center, hardware and discount stores, and
authorized Black & Decker dealers nationwide from February 1996
through December 2005 for between $360 and $450.  Craftsman-
brand mowers were sold at Sears and Orchard Supply Hardware
stores nationwide from January 1998 through December 2000 for
between $360 and $400.

Pictures of the recalled mowers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06232a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06232b.jpg

All consumers are advised to stop using the lawnmowers
immediately and call for information on receiving a free
inspection and repair if necessary.  Consumers who had their
mowers repaired as a result of the previous recall should have
their mowers again inspected and repaired, if necessary, as part
of this recall.

For additional information, consumers with Black & Decker mowers
should contact Black & Decker toll-free at (866) 229-5570
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.blackanddecker.com

Consumers with Craftsman-brand lawnmowers should call (888) 375-
9741 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday.


CERUS CORP: Enters Agreements to Settle Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cerus Corp. reached an agreement to settle a federal securities
class action that has been pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against certain of its
current and former directors and officers.

The company has also reached agreements to settle a related
shareholders' derivative lawsuit pending in the Superior Court
for the County of Contra Costa.

Under terms of the settlements, which are subject to court
approval, all claims against the company and other defendants
will be dismissed in their entirety without admission of
liability or wrongdoing by any party.

In connection with the settlement of the derivative litigation,
the company agreed to adopt certain corporate governance
measures.  The total cash settlements -- which was undisclosed -
- will be funded entirely by insurance carriers under the
company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policy
and will have no financial impact on Cerus.

On Dec. 8, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements regarding
the compound used in the company's red blood cell system.   

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during the
period from Oct. 25, 2000 through Sept. 3, 2003.   

As is typical in this type of litigation, several other
purported securities class actions containing substantially
similar allegations have since been filed against the
defendants.

On May 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint abandons the allegations raised in
the original complaints.  

Instead, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants issued false
and misleading predictions regarding the initiation and
completion of clinical trials, submission of regulatory filings,
receipt of regulatory approval and other milestones in the
development of the INTERCEPT Blood Systems for platelets, plasma
and red blood cells.  The consolidated complaint retains the
same class period alleged in the original complaints.  

On June 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint substantially similar to the previous consolidated
complaint with additional allegations attributed to a
confidential witness.   

On July 20, 2004, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On Jan. 20, 2005, the court dismissed
the complaint with leave to amend within 60 days.   

On March 21, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, and on May 24, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a third amended consolidated complaint.   

The allegations of both the second and third amended
consolidated complaints were similar to those contained in the
previous amended consolidated complaint.  On July 8, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss this third amended consolidated
complaint.  

The suit is "In re Cerus Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:03-cv-05517-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel.   

Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and William  
S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine  
Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-
4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com or  
billl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Terri Garland and Raymond M.  
Hasu of Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco,  
CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415-268-7000, E-mail: rhasu@mofo.com or  
tgarland@mofo.com.


COURT SOUTH: Fitness Centers Sued Over Membership Rule Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Court South fitness club members initiated a lawsuit in Knox
County Chancery Court against the chain's new owners for failing
to honor "lifetime" memberships, The Knoxville News-Sentinel
reports.

Named defendants in the suit are:

    -- Steven Bowling with Court South Centres LLC and Court
       South Total Conditioning Clubs LLC; and

    -- John Captain with Court South Fitness Holdings Inc.

Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, compensatory
damages, treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

Joe and Marsha Hollingsworth, originally named defendants in the
suit, bought the bankrupt Court South 13 years ago, and honored
previously sold lifetime memberships.

On November 2005, the Hollingsworths sold three Court South
locations to National Fitness Center owners John and Helen
Captain.

According to Mr. Hollingsworth, as a condition of the November
sale, Mr. Captain was to honor all memberships as written.

The Hollingsworths are asking to be dismissed from the suit and
are expected to join with the plaintiffs, the report said.  They
are also suing to enforce the purchase agreement requiring all
memberships be honored in their entirety.

The Hollingsworths are calling on Mr. Captain to honor in
"total" all lifetime, month-to-month, one-year and three-year
memberships "both in ongoing length of time and with no limit to
any of the promised activities," according to the report.

At issue are about 600 lifetime memberships and an estimated
3,000 contracts with low renewal rates that are currently being
phased out, Mr. Hollingsworth said.

Court South has members who paid from zero to a few thousand
dollars in the 1980s and early 1990s for what they considered
lifetime memberships.

After signing, members thought all they would have to pay were
small yearly renewal fees of $10 or so for the duration of their
membership.

Court South fitness clubs are on Alcoa Highway, Merchants Center
Boulevard off Merchants Drive and Walbrook Drive in West
Knoxville.


COWEN GROUP: Ala. Court Dismisses Claim Over Private Placements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
dismissed the only claim against a predecessor of Cowen Group,
Inc. in a class action against HealthSouth Corp. over private
placements.

The company was named as defendant in a purported class action
over the involvement of the predecessor of Cowen as one of the
managing underwriters for certain HealthSouth private
placements.

The complaint alleges that the offering materials for each
private placement were deficient, in violation of federal
securities laws, by failing to disclose HealthSouth's
subsequently revealed accounting irregularities.

The predecessor company to Cowen participated as an "initial
purchaser" in only one of the private placements at issue -- the
March 1998 private placement of $567.75 million principal amount
of 31.4% Convertible Subordinated Debentures due 2003.

On June 8, 2006, the district court, among other things,
dismissed the claims arising out of the March 1998 private
placement -- the only claims against Cowen.  The dismissal is
not yet a "final" judgment from which plaintiffs may take an
appeal.

Cowen Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: COWN) -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is  
an investment bank that provides research, sales and trading,
and investment banking services to companies and institutional
investor clients in sectors, such as healthcare, technology,
media and telecommunications and consumer.


COWEN GROUP: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Arbinet-thexchange Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action "In
re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation," which names
Cowen Group, Inc. as one of the defendants.

The company is one of several named defendants in a putative
securities class action filed by plaintiffs seeking to recover
losses allegedly caused by misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the December 2004 initial public offering of
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., an electronic marketplace for trading,
routing and settling telecommunications capacity.

The lawsuit alleges that these misrepresentations and omissions
inflated the price of Arbinet's securities and that following
disclosure in May and June 2005 of the true state of Arbinet's
market and its business, Arbinet's securities lost more than 60%
of their value.

The underwriter defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and the briefing process is still underway, according
to the company's Aug. 24 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jose
L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) 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;
         and

     (2) J. Erik Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
         Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
         NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail:
         erik@blbglaw.com.


COWEN GROUP: "Focus" Lawsuits in N.Y. Enter Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in "focus" class actions that are pending
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Cowen Group, Inc. and other defendants.

The company is one of many financial institutions and
corporations named as defendants in a number of putative
securities class actions relation to numerous initial and other
public offerings of common stock from approximately 1998 through
2000.

The various complaints allege that a number of financial
institutions that were underwriters of initial public offerings,
including Cowen, made material misrepresentations and omissions
to purchasers of the stock sold in the initial public offerings,
and thereby inflated the value of the stock.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed
to disclose, among other things, the purported existence of
improper tie-in and compensation arrangements they had with
certain purchasers of the stock and alleged conflicts of
interest relating to research published by the underwriters, all
in violation of federal securities laws.

The district court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify certain
"focus" cases as class actions.  Cowen is defendant in four of
these "focus" cases.  

Cowen appealed the class certification decision to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on June 6,
2006.  In the meantime, discovery is ongoing in the "focus"
cases, according to the company's Aug. 24 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

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


COWEN GROUP: To Pay $1.7M to Settle Adelphia Stock Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SG Cowen Securities Corp., the predecessor of Cowen Group, Inc.
is paying approximately $1.7 million in the proposed $460
million settlement of the class action "In Re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation."

The company is named defendant in several litigations arising
out of the alleged fraud committed by members of the Rigas
family, which controlled cable company Adelphia Communications.  
The alleged wrongdoing was disclosed in 2002.  Adelphia filed
for bankruptcy in June of the same year.

As detailed in the pleadings, the Rigas family allegedly took
advantage of certain loans, or "co-borrowing facilities," which
allowed the family to borrow more than $3 billion for their
private use for which Adelphia was responsible to repay.

Cowen, which was a member of the underwriting syndicates -- but
not a lead manager -- is a defendant in four actions arising out
of those offerings, all of which are pending before the U.S
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints in each of these actions raise a variety of
claims arising out of the sale of Adelphia securities, including
claims under the federal securities laws.  

The district court granted the company's motion to dismiss in
the Adelphia class action.  Thereafter, the underwriter
defendants reached a settlement with the plaintiffs.

On or about June 30, 2005, at the suggestion of a federal judge,
various parties to the class action agreed to participate in
mediation to resolve the pending litigation.  The various
parties selected Judge Daniel Weinstein, a retired judge, to
serve as the mediator.  

Pursuant to the court's directives, lead plaintiffs' counsel and
counsel for the defendants entered into extensive negotiations
under the supervision of Judge Weinstein.  As a result of such
discussions and their involvement in the extensive negotiation
process, lead plaintiffs agreed to the settlements with the
defendants.

The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired securities issued by Adelphia Communications
Corp. or its subsidiaries between Aug. 16, 1999, and June 10,
2002.  

It consists of two separate settlements:

       -- the $210,000,000 Deloitte & Touche Settlement; and

       -- the $250,000,000 Banks Settlement.

The banks included in this settlement are:

      -- ABN AMRO Inc.,
      -- ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
      -- Banc of America Securities, LLC,
      -- Bank of America, N.A. (successor by merger to Fleet
         National Bank),
      -- Bank of Montreal,
      -- Barclays Capital, Inc.,
      -- Barclays Bank, PLC,
      -- BNY Capital Markets, Inc.,
      -- The Bank of New York Co., Inc.,
      -- The Bank of New York,
      -- CIBC World Markets Corp.,
      -- CIBC, Inc.,
      -- Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a SSB
         Inc.),
      -- Citibank, N.A.,
      -- Citicorp U.S.A., Inc.,
      -- Calyon Securities (USA) Inc. (f/k/a Credit Lyonnais
         Securities (USA) Inc.),
      -- Calyon New York Branch (successor by operation of law
         to Credit Lyonnais, New York Branch),
      -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a Credit
         Suisse First Boston LLC),
      -- Credit Suisse, New York Branch (f/k/a Credit Suisse
         First Boston, New York Branch),
      -- Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (f/k/a Deutsche Bank
         Alex. Brown Inc.),
      -- Deutsche Bank AG,
      -- Fleet Securities Inc.,
      -- Harris Nesbitt Corp. (f/k/a BMO Nesbitt Burns Corp.),
      -- JPMorgan Securities, Inc.,
      -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
      -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
      -- PNC Capital Markets, Inc.,
      -- PNC Bank Corp.,
      -- PNC Bank, National Association,
      -- Scotia Capital (USA), Inc.,
      -- The Bank of Nova Scotia,
      -- SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
      -- Societe Generale,
      -- SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc. (f/k/a SunTrust
         Equitable Securities),
      -- SunTrust Bank,
      -- TD Securities (USA) LLC (f/k/a TD Securities (USA)
         Inc.),
      -- Toronto Dominion (Texas) LLC (f/k/a Toronto Dominion
         (Texas) Inc.),
      -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a Wachovia
         Securities, Inc.), and
      -- Wachovia Bank, National Association.

On June 15, 2006, the district court preliminarily approved the
settlement, and a fairness hearing on the settlement has been
scheduled for Nov. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Adelphia Claims c/o Valley Forge Administrative
         Services, One Aldwyn Center, P.O. Box 220, Villanova,
         PA 19085-0220, Phone: 877-965-3300, E-mail:
         info@adelphiasettlement.com, Web site:
         http://www.adelphiasettlement.com;

     (2) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 1-888-529-4787;
         and

     (3) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Phone: 1-800-
         889-3701.


DANA CORP: SEIU Fund Files Lawsuit Against Dana Execs in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, The West Virginia Laborer's
Pension Trust Fund, and The Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Dana
Corp.'s publicly traded securities between April 21, 2004, and
Oct. 7, 2005, have brought a lawsuit before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western
Division against:

     -- Michael Burns, Dana's chief executive officer, and
     -- Robert Richter, Dana's chief financial officer.

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, represents
the Pension Funds.

The Pension Funds allege that Messrs. Burns and Richter caused
Dana to issue false financial statements during 2004 and 2005.  
According to the Pension Funds, during the class period, the
executives caused Dana to issue press releases and to file
quarterly and annual reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which misrepresented the profitability of Dana's
operations and the adequacy of Dana's internal controls.

Darren J. Robbins, Esq., at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins, LLP, in San Diego, California, asserts that the
executives caused Dana to use a variety of accounting
manipulations to falsify the company's financial results during
the class period, including:

   -- improperly recognizing revenue;

   -- improperly valuing inventory; and

   -- failing to properly account for expenses related to asset
      sales, executive bonuses and increased steel costs.

Specifically, according to Mr. Robbins, Messrs. Burns and
Richter:

   -- caused Dana to report gross margin, earnings per share and
      net income numbers that were overstated by as much as 70%;

   -- knew but failed to disclose that their decision to
      transfer certain U.S. operations to plants in Europe was
      causing Dana to incur millions of dollars in unaccounted
      for shipping costs;

   -- entered into secret "price agreements" with Dana  
      customers, including Kenworth, Navistar, Peterbilt,
      PACCAR, Ford, GMC and Chrysler, which were not properly
      included on Dana's financial statements;

   -- provided artificially inflated EPS forecasts that they
      knew were not attainable; and

   -- assured investors that they had conducted thorough
      evaluation of the effectiveness of the company's
      "disclosure controls and procedures".

The Executives purposefully kept investors in the dark
concerning Dana's actual operating performance, Mr. Robbins
says, in order to:

   (i) avoid having to write down millions of dollars of the
       company's deferred tax assets;

  (ii) generate upward movement in Dana's stock price;

(iii) induce the rating agencies to upgrade Dana's credit
       rating;

  (iv) induce key employees to remain with the company;

   (v) meet the net income amounts forecasted by defendants in
       order to trigger defendants' bonus-related compensation;

  (vi) permit the company to raise $450,000,000 from the sale of
       debt securities; and

(vii) avoid Board liability for having rejected an $18 per
       share offer made by Arvin Meritor in late 2003.

The truth about Dana's actual operating performance began to
reach the market by September 2005 and as a result, the price of
Dana's securities dropped precipitously.  Thereafter, the
defendants were compelled to admit that Dana's results for
fiscal year 2004 and the first quarter and second quarter of
2005 had been falsified, Mr. Robbins notes.  The defendants have
further admitted that quarterly net income reported by Dana
during the class period was overstated by as much as 70% and
that Dana's assets were overstated by as much as $1,000,000,000.

The Pension Funds argue the Executives violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the accounting manipulations
and the secret agreements with vendors.

As a direct and proximate result of the Executives' wrongful
conduct, the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class
suffered damages in connection with their purchases of Dana
securities during the Class Period, Mr. Robbins avers.

In February 2006, the SEC commenced formal investigation into
Dana's accounting practices.

                    Class Action Allegations

During the Class Period, Dana had more than 149,000,000 shares
of stock outstanding, and more than $450,000,000 of debt
outstanding.

Mr. Robbins contends that the members of the Class are so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  "The
disposition of their claims in a class action will provide
substantial benefits to the parties and the Court."  Moreover,
common questions of law and fact affect the members of the
Class, Mr. Robbins adds.

Accordingly, the Pension Funds ask the Ohio Court to:

   (a) determine that their action is a proper class action and
       certify them as class representatives under Rule 23 of
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (b) award compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiffs and
       the other Class members against all Defendants in an
       amount to be proven at trial; and

   (c) award them and the Class their reasonable costs and
       expenses incurred in the class action, including counsel
       fees and expert fees.

A full-text copy of the SEIU Pension Complaint is available for
free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1036  

                      About Dana Corporation

Toledo, OH-based Dana Corp. -- http://www.dana.com/-- designs  
and manufactures products for every major vehicle producer in
the world, and supplies drivetrain, chassis, structural, and
engine technologies to those companies.  Dana employs 46,000
people in 28 countries.  Dana is focused on being an essential
partner to automotive, commercial, and off-highway vehicle
customers, which collectively produce more than 60 million
vehicles annually.  The company and its affiliates filed for
chapter 11 protection on Mar. 3, 2006 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No.
06-10354).  (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 19;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc., 215/945-7000
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/).


DILLARD'S INC: Court Grants Final Approval to Data Theft Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lauren Thomasson of the San Joaquin County Superior Court
in California gave final approval to Dillard's Inc.'s proposed
settlement of a class action filed against it for allegedly
putting customers at risk of identity theft, The Record reports.

According to James Lindsay, the Sacramento attorney who brought
the suit on behalf of Stockton resident April Castaneda and
others, the court approved the settlement based upon its
fairness and the fact that there were very few class members
that excluded themselves from the settlement and none that
objected to the settlement.

Legal notices would be published in newspapers in the affected
communities providing information about how others covered by
the class-action settlement may file claims.

In July, Judge Bob McNatt of the San Joaquin County Superior
Court in California gave preliminary approval to Dillard's
Inc.'s proposed settlement (Class Action Reporter, July 24,
2006).

Under the settlement, Dillard's department store customers who
used a non-Dillard's credit card at the Stockton store between
July 4 ,2004, and July 8, 2005 and were asked for their
telephone numbers are eligible for a $20 gift card.

The suit cropped up in 2005, when Stockton resident April
Castaneda swiped her credit card through the store's card reader
and was prompted to punch in her telephone number.

According to Mr. Lindsay, Dillard's was utilizing that
information, the telephone number, to find home addresses so
they can market products or do whatever they wanted to do with
that information.

California law prohibits merchants from requesting and recording
personal identification information from customers, or using
forms with blank spaces for that information, in credit card
transactions, according to Mr. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs is James M. Lindsay of Lindsay &
Stonebarger, Forum Building, 1107 9th Street, Suite 1020,
Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: (916) 446-0032, Fax: (916)
446-0034, E-mail: jlindsay@lindstonelaw.com.

For more information on the settlement, call (800) 345-5273 or  
E-mail: claimform@dillards.com.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Status Sought for FLSA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the case, "Richter et al. v. Dolgencorp
Inc. et al.," filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to certify a nationwide class
of current and former managers of Dollar General Corp.,
MarketWatch reports.

The suit alleges that current and former store managers of
Dollar General have been improperly classified as exempt
employees to avoid paying them overtime, a violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Under the executive exemption of the FLSA, companies are allowed
to pay store managers a set salary and avoid paying them
overtime in the event a store manager works more than 40 hours.  
However, the exemption also mandates that managers must actually
do management duties as their "primary duty" as opposed to
"manual labor."  

Dollar General claims that their store managers have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA, thus it
is planning to oppose the motion to certify a class filed by
lead plaintiff Cynthia Richter.

The suit is "Richter v. Dolgencorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:06-
cv-01537-LSC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge L. Scott Coogler.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jere L. Beasley, W. Daniel Miles,
III and Roman A. Shaul all of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Protis
& Miles PC, PO Box 4160, Montgomery, AL 36103-4160, Phone: 1-
334-269-2343, E-mail: jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com or
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com or roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com.


EBAY INC: May Face Suit by Australian Traders Over Fee Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebay, Inc. faces a possible class action by Australian traders,
which closed business after the company increased merchant and
other fees in the country, according to Michelle Wiese Bockmann
of The Australian.

Ebay increased the cost to list an item for sale from 10 cents
to 50 cents for goods sold over $50, and the commission charged
on sales up to $75 from 5.25 per cent to 10 percent.  This is to
reduce listings for online stores, and services that advertise
products for sale when buyers search online in order to lessen
competition with items sold on auction.  

An estimated 500,000 global online storeowners are affected.  An
online forum lists at least 250 Australian-based Internet stores
that have closed after the decision, the report said.
The increases do not affect traditional auction listings.

"The [] traders could sue for unconscionable conduct under the
Trade Practices Act," trade practices barrister Neville Rochow
told The Australian.

"People have invested a great deal of trust in eBay and its cost
structure and may have been induced into using the site on that
basis," he said.


ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York

On March 30, 2006, a purported securities class action
complaint, "Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The Estee Lauder Cos.
Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants made statements during
the period April 28, 2005 to Oct. 25, 2005 in press releases,
the company's public filings and during conference calls with
analysts that were materially false and misleading and that
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock.  

The complaint alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint also
asserted that during the class period, certain executive
officers and the trust for the benefit of a director sold shares
of the company's Class A Common Stock at artificially inflated
prices.  

Three additional purported securities class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York containing similar allegations.  

On July 10, 2006, the court consolidated these actions under the
caption, "In re: Estee Lauder Cos. Securities Litigation,"
appointed lead plaintiff, and approved the selection of lead
counsel.  

A consolidated amended complaint is to be filed on or before
Sept. 8, 2006.  

The suit is "In re: Estee Lauder Cos. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-02505-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
     (1) James Henry Glavin of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail:
         jhglavin@ssbny.com;

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

     (3) Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: (310) 201-9150; and

     (4) Marc I. Gross of Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman &
         Gross, L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York,
         NY 10017, US, Phone: (212) 661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-
         8665.


FUTURE FOOD: Expands Recall of Dips at Risk of Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Future Food Ltd. of Dallas, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, is expanding its Aug. 11, 2006
recall of Krab Dip Supreme and Supreme Krab Dip to include these
additional products that bear either the use-by date of Aug. 23,
2006 and the lot code 06186 or the use-by date of Aug. 23, 2006
and the marking A4, B4 or C4:

     -- Krab Log;
     -- Cajun Smoked Salmon Flavored Spread;
     -- Krab Artichoke Spinach Dip;
     -- Krab Dip, Cajun Krab Dip;
     -- Jalapeno Krab Dip;
     -- Cajun Crawfish Salad; and
     -- Smoked Salmon Flavored Spread.

These products were sold under the brand names of Salads of the
Sea, Hen House, Southern Home and Fisherman's Market.

The recall is being expanded because these products have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes, an
organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may
suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea.     
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
revealed that a package of Krab Dip Supreme, which was recalled
on Aug. 11, 2006, contained Listeria Monocytogenes.  Future Food
has no evidence that the products in this expanded recall are
contaminated; however, because all of the products in this
expanded recall were produced by the same manufacturer, on the
same day and on the same equipment as the products recalled on
Aug. 11, Future Food is expanding the recall as a precaution.

The products were distributed in Florida, South Carolina,
Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma,
Michigan, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, Washington,
Oregon, Colorado, California, and Lousiana.

Products are packaged in a variety of sizes, including plastic
7-oz. and 12-oz. round and rectangular containers, 16-oz. round
packaging, and plastic 5 lb tubs.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased packages of these products either
with lot code 06186 or a use-by date of Aug. 23, 2006 are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or
they may discard it.  Consumers with questions can call the
company at 1-800-318-7229.


FUTURE MEDIA: Court Agrees to Name Silver & Freedman as Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Geraldine Mund of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Central District of California in San Fernando Valley
authorized Future Media Productions, Inc., to employ Silver &
Freedman, PLC, as its special employment and labor law counsel.

Daniel Dealba filed a complaint against the company, David L.
Neale, Esq., at Levene, Neale, Bender, Rankin & Brill, LLP, told
the court.  The alleged class action results from the company's
alleged failure to give requisite notice in conjunction with the
termination of the employment of the class members.

The company selected Silver & Freedman's services for the
purpose of responding to and dealing with the alleged class
action.

Silver & Freedman will:

   a) advise the company and Levene Neale with regard to the
      alleged class action and the issues raised;

   b) advise the company and Levene Neale in connection with any
      proofs of claim filed by putative class members or former
      employees of the company;

   c) repond to the complaint that initiated the alleged class
      action and any amendments;

   d) assist the company and Levene Neale in preparing
      objections to proofs of claim filed by putative class
      members or former employees of the company;

   e) advise the company and Levene Neale with regard to any
      proposed settlements of the alleged class action or proofs
      of claim filed by putative class members or former
      employees of the company;

   f) represent the company in all aspects of litigation related
      to the alleged class action or objections to proofs of
      claim filed by putative class members or former employees
      of the company;

   g) prepare all pleadings, correspondence, discovery and
      documents related to a settlement or litigation of the
      alleged class action or objections to proofs of claim
      filed by putative class members or former employees of the
      company; and

   h) perform any other services which may be appropriate in
      Silver & Freedman's representation of the company in the
      alleged class action or in regard to objections to proofs
      of claim filed by putative class members or former
      employees of the company.

The firm's professionals bill:

        Professional                  Hourly Rate
        ------------                  -----------
        Maria C. Rodriguez, Esq.         $365
        Allison M. Holtzman, Esq.        $260
        Michelle C. Cuena, Esq.          $240

Ms. Rodriguez assured the court that her firm does not represent
any interest adverse to the Debtor or its estate.

Headquartered in Valencia, California, Future Media Productions,
Inc. -- http://www.fmpi.com/-- provides CD and DVD replication  
and packaging services on the West Coast.  The company filed for
chapter 11 protection on Feb. 14, 2006 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. Case
No. 06-10170).  David I. Neale, Esq. at Levene, Neale, Bender,
Rankin & Brill, LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuring
efforts.  Jeremy V. Richards, Esq., and Hamid R. Rafatjoo, Esq.,
at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub LLP represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  When the Debtor
filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $12,370,783
in total assets and $30,650,669 in total debts.  (Troubled
Company Reporter Vol. 10, No. 208).


ITT WATER: Recalls Pumps to Check on Attachment of Certain Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Water Technology Inc., of Auburn, New York, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 18,300 units of Goulds Pumps, Bell & Gossett and Red
Jacket Water Products brand pumps for fire suppression systems.

The company said a mechanical part on these pumps was not fully
tightened, which can lead to the pump failing during use.  If
pumps sold with fire suppression systems fail, the risk of fire
damage increases.  The pump itself does not pose a fire hazard.

ITT Water Technology Inc. has received one report of a pump
failing to start during a system test.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled pumps are general in purpose, but are sometimes
used in fire suppression systems.  The pumps were sold under the
Goulds Pumps, Bell & Gossett and Red Jacket Water Products
brands.  The pumps can be identified by having Model NPE, NPO,
MCC, MCS, SM or Series 3530 on their nameplate.

Recalled pumps were manufactured between December 2005 and July
26, 2006.  They have date code M05, A06, B06, C06, D06, E06, F06
or G06.  The date code is the first three digits of the serial
number on the pump nameplate.

The recalled pumps were manufactured in the U.S. and are being
sold at pump distributors nationwide from December 2005 through
July 2006 for about $800.

Pictures of the recalled pumps:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06244f.jpg

Installers of fire suppression systems will be contacted by ITT
Water Technology Inc. to schedule an inspection and replacement.  

For more information, call ITT Water Technology Inc. at (800)
984-9199 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.goulds.comor http://www.bellgossett.com


MERCK & CO: La. Court Throws Out Two Products Liability Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted a motion to dismiss two Vioxx
class action claims filed by plaintiffs from France and Italy.

Merck had requested a dismissal arguing that France and Italy
have appropriate legal systems in which citizens may pursue
their allegations and that those plaintiffs should not have
their claims heard in the U.S.

The order granting Merck's request indicated that a written
decision explaining the ruling would follow.

"Both France and Italy have perfectly appropriate judicial
systems," said Ted Mayer, Merck's outside counsel with the law
firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP.  "In fact, France and Italy
courts are more appropriate than the U.S. because the plaintiffs
live there, they were prescribed the medicine there, they
ingested it there, they were treated there, their medical
records are there, and their physicians live there."

In addition, the regulatory agencies overseas operate under
their own regulatory rules, not those of the U.S., and their
regulatory regimes are different from those in the U.S.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting
patients first.  Established in 1891, Merck currently discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines to
address unmet medical needs.

Representing the defendant is Theodore V. H. Mayer of Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, One Battery Park Plaza, New York, N.Y.
10004-1482, Phone: (212) 837-6000, Fax: (212) 422-4726, E-mail:
mayer@hugheshubbard.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Expects Cost to Settle Suits of Up to $1.7B
-----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. estimates that the total cost to resolve
antitrust, unfair competition, and overcharge class actions over
certain of its products that were pending in various courts
throughout the U.S. will range between $1.5 billion and $1.7
billion.

Initially, a large number of antitrust and unfair competition
class actions have been filed against the company in various
state and federal courts on behalf of variously defined classes
of direct and indirect purchasers of the company's personal
computer operating system and certain software applications
products.

The federal cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for Maryland.  These cases allege that the company
competed unfairly and unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for
operating systems and certain software applications, and they
seek to recover alleged overcharges for these products.

To date, courts have dismissed all claims for damages in cases
brought against the company by indirect purchasers under federal
law and in 18 states.  Ten of those state court decisions have
been affirmed on appeal.  There was no appeal in five states.  

In addition, courts in two states refused to certify classes,
essentially bringing the litigation to a close.  Claims under
federal law brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have been
dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have all
claims brought on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive relief
under federal law.

The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the
federal claims of indirect purchasers were appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, together with a ruling
denying certification of certain proposed classes of U.S. direct
purchasers.

On April 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court
decision dismissing the indirect purchaser claims.  Courts in 18
states have ruled that indirect purchaser cases may proceed as
class actions.  

In 2003, the company reached an agreement with counsel for the
California plaintiffs to settle all claims in 27 consolidated
cases in that state.

Under the settlement, class members will be able to obtain
vouchers that entitle the class members to be reimbursed up to
the face value of their vouchers for purchases of a wide variety
of platform-neutral computer hardware and software.

The total value of vouchers issued will depend on the number of
class members who make a claim and are issued vouchers.  Two-
thirds of the value of vouchers unissued or unredeemed by class
members will be made available to certain schools in California
in the form of vouchers that also may be redeemed for cash
against purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer
hardware, software, and related services.

The company has also reached similar agreements to settle all
claims in a number of other states.  The settlements in these
states are structured similarly to the California settlement,
except that, among other differences, one-half of the value of
vouchers unissued to class members will be made available to
certain schools in the relevant states.

The maximum value of vouchers to be issued in these settlements,
including the California settlement, is approximately $2.5
billion.  The actual costs of these settlements will be less
than that maximum amount, depending on the number of class
members and schools who are issued and redeem vouchers.

The settlements in Arizona, California, the District of
Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia have
received final court approval.

The company estimates that the total cost to resolve all of
these cases will range between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion,
with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as
the quantity and mix of products for which claims will be made,
the number of eligible class members who ultimately use the
vouchers, the nature of hardware and software that is acquired
using the vouchers, and the cost of administering the claims
process.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) --
http://www.microsoft.com/-- develops, manufactures, licenses  
and supports a range of software products for various computing
devices.


OHIO: Former Bengal Mulls Suit Over Police Arrest in July
---------------------------------------------------------
A former Cincinnati Bengal plans to sue the city Police
Department for alleged use of excessive force when he was
arrested in July for illegal parking, WKRC reports.

Matthias Askew was recently found not guilty of resisting
arrest, obstructing official business in relation to the parking
incident.  Cincinnati police said he struggled with officers
trying to handcuff him.  They used a taser on him when he
refused to move his vehicle.

Attorney Ken Lawson says Mr. Askew had heart problems after
being hit with the taser.  Mr. Askew wants to have the suit
declared a class action on behalf of others who have been stung
by a taser.  The suit could be in the figure of $50,000,000,
according to the report.


PARMALAT SPA: To Appeal Against Inclusion in Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Enrico Bondi, in his capacity as Extraordinary Administrator
of the reorganized Parmalat and its affiliates inform the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York that they
will take an appeal from the District Court order permitting
plaintiffs in the securities fraud action to name the
reorganized Parmalat as defendant.

The appellants will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to review the District Court's order, dated July 26,
2006, insofar as the order:

   -- modified or dissolved the injunctive relief that had been
      granted pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code; or

   -- denied injunctive relief pursuant to Section 304.

In July 2006, the District Court allowed class plaintiffs of the
"Parmalat Securities Litigation" to file a third amended
complaint, which includes [the new] Parmalat SpA among the
defendants.  Said class action is pending in the District Court.  

Other defendants in the class action are Deloitte & Touche
(and, as an individual, Mr. James Copeland), Grant Thornton,
Citigroup (including Buconero, Vialattea, Eureka
Securitization), Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Banca Nazionale
del Lavoro, Banca Intesa, Morgan Stanley, the law offices of
Pavia Ansaldo and of Zini Associates, and number of individuals.

The defendants were allowed to conduct discovery with respect to
the class certification until Sept. 21, 2006.

A full-text copy of the District Court Order is available for
free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f6c

                          About Parmalat

Headquartered in Wallington, New Jersey, Parmalat USA
Corporation -- http://www.parmalatusa.com/-- generates more  
than 7 billion euros in annual revenue.  The Parmalat Group's
40-some brand product line includes milk, yogurt, cheese,
butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and
vegetable sauces, soups and juices and employs over 36,000
workers in 139 plants located in 31 countries on six continents.  
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 24, 2004
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  The U.S. Debtors emerged
from bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.  (Parmalat Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 76; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/)

U.S. holders of Parmalat bonds filed a securities fraud
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against a number of Parmalat banks and auditors
claiming that during the class period -- Jan. 5, 1999 through
Dec. 18, 2003, prior to the Extraordinary Administration, --
those individuals, along with Old Parmalat's banks and
accounting firms, structured and participated in a panoply of
fraudulent schemes designed to hide Old Parmalat's growing debts
to third parties and artificially inflate its assets, revenues
and ultimately, the market prices of its securities.  

The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:04-md-01653-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with
referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman.

Law firms representing the plaintiffs, include:

     (1) Joshua Seth Devore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500,
         Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax:
         (202)-408-4699, Web site: jdevore@cmht.com; and

     (2) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, (DE), Chase
         Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington,
         DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100,
         E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com.   

Law firms representing the defendants, include:

     (1) Christopher Moore Brubaker of Kittredge Donley Elson  
         Fullem & Emb (PA), 400 Market Street, Suite 200,   
         Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215)-829-9900, Fax:   
         (215)-829-9888, E-mail: cbrubaker@kdefe.com; and
   
     (2) Donald C. Moss of Moss & Moss, L.L.P., 170 East 61st   
         Street, New York, NY 10021, Phone: (212) 644-1000.


PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against the company.

In April 2005, the company and certain senior company officers
were named as defendants in several purported class actions
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers
of the company's stock during the period Nov. 18, 2004 to April
14, 2005, and allege that during such period the defendants
misrepresented the company's financial position and that the
plaintiff and the purported class of purchasers during that
period were damaged in unspecified amounts by paying
artificially and falsely inflated prices for the company's
stock.

In October 2005, a consolidated complaint was filed extending
the class period from Aug. 18, 2004 to Aug. 25, 2005, adding
additional but similar causes of action, and naming additional
defendants, including other senior company officers, several
former and current members of the company's Board of Directors,
and two former stockholders of the company.

On Aug. 1, 2006 the court issued its order granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court
dismissed the claims against the former stockholders and certain
officers and directors and certain of plaintiffs' alleged
operational misrepresentation claims, but denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to the alleged accounting misrepresentation
claims made against the company and certain of its directors and
senior officers.

It is expected that discovery will commence shortly after a
discovery conference currently anticipated for September.  

The suit is "In re: PETCO Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-cv-00823-H-RBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Marilyn L. Huff with
referral to Judge Ruben B. Brooks.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren Jay Robbins of Rudman and Robbins, 655 West
         Braodway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         231-1058;

     (2) Edward M. Gergosian of Gergosian and Gralewski, 550
         West C. Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         (619) 230-0104, Fax: (619) 230-0124.

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160.

Representing the defendants is Timothy Alan Horton of Latham and
Watkins, 600 West Broadway, Suite 700, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: (619) 236-1234.


RICART AUTOMOTIVE: Daimler to Help Pay Consumer Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Insurance Co. agreed to pay its dealer Ricart
Automotive $3.6 million plus legal fees to help it pay the cost
to settle a consumer class action, according to a report by Paul
Wilson of The Columbus Dispatch.

In March 2004, Ricart settled a class action over allegations it
misled customers into buying vehicle-window etchings as a theft
deterrent.  It denied wrongdoing but agreed to pay $21.8 million
to more than 120,000 customers.  It paid 86,097 customers about
$3.5 million.  It also agreed to pay $18.4 million to 36,768
customers of its used-car affiliate, Pay Days, which has been
closed (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2004).

Ricart sued DaimlerChrysler to make compel it to shoulder part
of the settlement and attorneys' fees.

After filing several claims and counterclaims, the two struck a
settlement in July.  Ricart had sought between $3 million and $7
million from DaimlerChrysler, said Larry H. James, Ricart's
attorney.  


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls Science Kits Posing Burn Risk to Kids
---------------------------------------------------------------
School Specialty Publishing, of Columbus, Ohio, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 43,000 units of "Ideal" and "Brighter Child" brand science
kits.

The company said the battery case in the science kit can
overheat, posing a thermal burn hazard.  It has received one
report of the battery case overheating, which resulted in a
young boy receiving minor burns to his fingers.

The recall involves Ideal and Brighter Child-brand science kits.
Models included are "All About Electricity," "All About
Magnets," "The Science Search Lab: Electricity," and "The
Science Search Lab: Light."  The kits were sold in brightly
colored 11 3/4-inch by 12-inch boxes with a plastic window and
door flap on the front.

The recalled science kits were manufactured in South Africa and
are being sold at educational stores and bookstores nationwide,
and the schoolspecialty.com Web site, from July 2004 through May
2006 for between $16 and $24.

Picture of the recalled science kits:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06240.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the science kits
and return them to the place of purchase or School Specialty for
a refund.

For more information, contact School Specialty toll-free at
(800) 253-5469 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.schoolspecialtypublishing.com


US TRUST: N.Y. High Court Certifies Suit Against Campbell Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Richard B. Lowe III of the Supreme Court of the State of
New York denied the motion for summary judgment of breach of
fiduciary duty claims against investment managers at the
Campbell Cowperthwaite Division of U.S. Trust.

The class action was filed on behalf of all persons for whom
Campbell Cowperthwaite, through its Large Cap Growth management
team, managed plaintiffs' and class members' assets through
Prudential Securities Managed Assets Consulting Services (MACS)
program from Jan. 29, 2000 through Sept. 30, 2001.

Plaintiff's and the class's claims for breach of fiduciary duty
allege that defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to
plaintiff and the class by:

     -- failing to properly manage and oversee the assets of the
        investment accounts;

     -- failing to pursue a prudent investment strategy; and

     -- over-concentrating the portfolio in certain volatile
        industry sectors and stocks and by failing to eliminate
        conflicts of interest.

Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties because defendants' selection, monitoring and
continuation of investment strategies and alternatives were
negligently planned, performed and monitored.

The action seeks recovery of money damages on behalf of the
class representing the amount of money that they lost as a
result of the defendants' breach of fiduciary duty during the
class Period.

The Court has certified this action to proceed as a class action
pursuant to Article 9 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules of
the State of New York.

However, the prosecution of the action, including the forwarding
of notice to class members, has been stayed by the court pending
the outcome of U.S. Trust's appeal of the court's decision to
grant class certification.

The court has appointed as lead class counsel Lee Squitieri,
Esq. of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32 East, 57th Street, 12th
Floor, New York, New York 10022, Phone: (212) 421-6492, E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com.


VICORP RESTAURANTS: Faces Labor-Related Litigations in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICORP Restaurants, Inc. was served with two labor-related class
actions in California.

The first complaint asserts a series of claims, which allege
that the company misclassified California Bakers Square managers
as exempt from overtime compensation from Feb. 1, 2005, through
the present.

The second complaint asserts a series of claims, which alleges
that the company's vacation policy violated California law.  The
putative class in the second complaint includes all former and
current California Bakers Square employees from April 11, 2002,
through Dec. 31, 2005.

Both complaints seek monetary damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees in unspecified amounts.

VICORP Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.vicorpinc.com/--  
operates and franchises about 400 family-style, medium-priced
restaurants in the U.S. -- mainly in Arizona, California,
Florida, the Rocky Mountain region, and the upper Midwest.  Its
restaurant chains include Village Inn, known primarily for its
breakfast menu and pies, and Bakers Square, serving lunch and
dinner and emphasizing fresh-baked pies.


YOUR FINANCIAL: Dismissed from Calif. Consumer Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your Financial Resource, Inc., was dismissed without prejudice
as defendant in the class action, "Goins, et al. v. Your
Financial, et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

Perseveranda Goins, Marie Aficial and Antonia Torres filed a
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the state of California for the
County of San Diego on June 1, 2005, alleging, among other
things, that the defendants violated various California state
law requirements with respect to the making of short-term
consumer loans to the plaintiffs by, among other things, failing
to make proper disclosures to the plaintiffs and assessing
plaintiffs' insufficient funds fees in excess of the statutory
cap.

On July 1, 2005, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

In December 2005, Your Financial Resource, Inc. filed for
bankruptcy protection and was subsequently dismissed from the
lawsuit by the plaintiffs, without prejudice, according to Ace
Cash Express, Inc.'s Aug. 29, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Goins, et al. v. Your Financial, et al., Case No.
3:05cv1340," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Thomas J. Whelan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Frank J. Fox, Majors and Fox LLP,
401 West A Street, Suite 2350, San Diego, CA 92101-7921, Phone:
(619) 234-1000.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael L. Kirby, Post Kirby Noonan and Sweat, 600 West
         Broadway, Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101-3302, Phone:
         (619) 231-8666.

     (2) Bradley Rodriquez Bohrer of Blanchard Krasner and
         French, 800 Silvarado Street, Second Floor, La Jolla,
         CA 92037, Phone: (858) 551-2440, Fax: (858) 551-2434.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Parlux Fragrances,
Inc. from Feb. 8, 2006 through Aug. 10, 2006.

The complaint charges Parlux and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that increased advertising costs and decreased sales
         were negatively impacting the company's financial
         results;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
   
      -- that, as a result of the above, defendants' statements
         concerning Parlux's financial performance were lacking
         in any reasonable basis when made.

On June 29, 2006, Parlux announced that it would delay filing
its Form 10-K for a second time because management had not yet
completed its assessment of the internal controls and reporting
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

On this news, shares of Parlux shed $0.31, or 3.1 percent, to
close, on June 30, 2006, at $9.69 per share.  On Aug. 10, 2006,
after the market closed and despite previous assurances that the
company had resolved its internal controls and Sarbanes-Oxley
reporting issues, Parlux stunned investors when the company
announced that it would delay filing its quarterly report with
the SEC.

Additionally, Parlux reported that its earnings for the quarter
would be lower than previous guidance suggested due to decreased
sales to U.S. department stores and significantly increased
advertising and promotional costs.

On this news, shares of Parlux plummeted $3.38, or 41.4 percent,
to close, on Aug. 11, 2006, at $4.78 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

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


ZALE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set September 18
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, is encouraging persons who
purchased the common stock of Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005
and May 5, 2006 to contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP
at 1-800-711-6483 or via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or
their counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests
as potential class members in the shareholder class action
recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Sunterra Corp. and certain of its
officers and directors.

The lawsuit alleges that Zale Corp. violated federal securities
laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market.

The firm reminds investors that they have until Sept. 18, 2006
to file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.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  * * *