CAR_Public/060905.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 176

                            Headlines

ALLIANCE SANITARY: Parties Present Testimonies in Pollution Suit
BAYER CORP: Sept. Hearing Set for Rubber Chemicals Suit Deal
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Third Suit Over Ark. Rice Contamination
CHICO'S FAS: Settles Labor Suit in Calif.; Awaits Court Approval
CREATIVE CONTRACT: Recalls IGA Chicken Bouillon Over Soy Content

CREDIT SUISSE: Plans to Appeal Certification of "Newby" Lawsuit
CREDIT SUISSE: Denial of Class Status in N.Y. Lawsuit Appealed
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Over "Short Selling" Practice
CREE INC: Court Mulls Appeal on N.C. Securities Suit Dismissal
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Sept. Trial Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal

EDWARD JONES: Reaches 127M Deal to Settle Revenue Sharing Suits
FOOT LOCKER: Pension Plan Faces ERISA Violation Charges in N.Y.
GOOD KARMA: Recalls Organic Rice Products Over Undeclared Milk
HOT TOPIC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Customer Data Collection
HOT TOPIC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor-Related Litigation

INTERMIX MEDIA: Calif. Court Mulls Demurrers in Securities Suit
INTERMIX MEDIA: Former Executives Face Securities Suit in Calif.
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Mass.
MERIX CORP: Ore. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
NEWS CORP: Del. Court Approves Settlement in "Unisuper" Lawsuit

NEW YORK: City Ordered to Improve System of Helping Immigrants
PARMALAT SPA: Asks Dismissal of Bias Suit by Former Ga. Employee
SPRINT CORP: Benney-Lundberg Suit Settlement Hearing Set Sept.
STRAUSS-ELITE: Faces $2.8B Lawsuit Over Alleged Kashrut Fraud
ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY: Administrators Face RICO Violations Suit

TELSTRA CORP: Amended Claim Names Mr. Trujillo as Sole Defendant
UNION OF NEEDLESTRADES: Pa. Court Finds Privacy Act Violation
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
WEST LIBERTY: Oct. Hearing Set in Iowa Labor Suit Settlement
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Soy Cream Over Undeclared Milk Content


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Period Extended in Calif. Stock Suit
PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 15 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set


                            *********


ALLIANCE SANITARY: Parties Present Testimonies in Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Mazzoni in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania heard
testimonies in a lawsuit against the operation of Alliance
Sanitary Landfill and Waste Management Inc. on the border of
Taylor Borough, Old Forge Borough and Ransom Township.

Plaintiffs presented testimonies of four residents, including
Taylor resident James Cherundolo.

Defendants called in Oran Hughes, who lived on Center St. in
Taylor, to testify he has never been affected by the alleged
nuisance brought by the landfill in the area.  He admitted he
worked for Alliance Sanitary Landfill from 1990 until he was
laid off in 1993.  They also called in Gene Shimko, who lives on
Williams St. in Taylor.

The suit was filed by William and Cynthia Toman, of Old Forge,
and Joseph and Maureen Labrosky, of Taylor in September.  The
suit claims that the owner of the landfill "knowingly and
willfully caused public and private nuisances by allowing the
continuous release of noxious, gag-inducing odors into the area
surrounding the Alliance Landfill."

The families are bringing the suit on behalf of other residents
who live within a mile-and-a-half radius of the landfill.  They
are seeking class-action status for the case.

Representing the landfill and its owners is Robert Fox.

Representing the plaintiffs is George A. Reihner, member at
Wright & Reihner, P.C., 148 Adams Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania
18503 (Lackawanna Co.), Phone: 570-961-1166, Fax: 570-961-1199,
on the Net: http://www.wrightreihner.com.  


BAYER CORP: Sept. Hearing Set for Rubber Chemicals Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 12, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. for
Bayer AG and Bayer Corp.'s proposed $250 million settlement in
the matter, "In Re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL
Docket No. C-04-1648 (MJJ)."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom
11, 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

Objections to the settlement must be mailed no later than Aug.
7, 2006.  Deadline for submission of proof of claim is on Sept.
30, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities in
the U.S. and its territories, excluding government entities that
directly purchased rubber chemicals from any defendant at
anytime from May 1, 1995 through Dec. 31, 2001.

The first complaint in this action was filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2003.  
That case and several subsequently filed cases were consolidated
and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 3, 2003.  

On or about March 15, 2005, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants conspired to fix or maintain the prices of, and/or
allocate markets for rubber chemicals sold in the U.S. in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.  
It also alleges that, as a result of this conspiracy, members of
the class paid more for rubber chemicals than they otherwise
would have and, thus, were injured.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Gilardi & Co., LLC, 3301 Kerner Boulevard, San Rafael,
         CA 94901, Phone: 415-461-0410, Fax: 415-461-0412, E-
         mail: classact@gilardi.com, Web site:
         http://www.gilardi.com/php/all.php.

     (2) Richard A. Koffman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West,
         Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3964, Phone:
         202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, Web site:
         http://www.CMHT.com;and

     (3) Steven O. Sidener of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP,
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco,
         California 94105, (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-777-
         2230, Fax: 415-777-5189, Web site:
         http://www.gbcslaw.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Third Suit Over Ark. Rice Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rice farmers in Arkansas filed a suit in Lonoke County Circuit
Court against:

    -- Riceland Foods Inc.;
    -- Bayer Crop-Science LP;
    -- Bayer CropScience USA Holding II Inc.; and
    -- Bayer CropScience USA LP, as well as "unknown individuals
       or corporations A-P."

The case is before Judge Lance L. Hanshaw, according to The
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are:

     -- Randy Schafer,
     -- End of the Road Farms Inc.,
     -- Schafer Planting Co.,
     -- Wallace Farms,
     -- Robert E. Moery,
     -- Kyle Moery,
     -- Carter Farms Partnership,
     -- Petrus Farms Inc.,
     -- Robert Petrus,
     -- Petrus Seed & Grain Co. Inc.,
     -- Gosney Farms,
     -- Randall Amaden,
     -- R & B Amaden Farms,
     -- Randall J. Snider,
     -- S&R Farms,
     -- A.S. Kelly and Sons, and
     -- Neil Daniels Farms

The lawsuit notes that all the plaintiffs, except Wallace Farms
and Carter Farms Partnership, are farmer-members of the Riceland
cooperative.

The suit accuses the company of negligence after trace amounts
of unapproved, genetically engineered rice were found in long-
grain rice in Arkansas and Missouri. The lawsuits center on a
strain of rice known as LLRICE601, a rice that was tested by
Bayer between 1998 and 2001.  That strain contains a gene that
makes the rice resistant to the herbicide Liberty.

According to the complaint, Bayer was aware, or should have been
aware, that unless strict precautionary measures could be
implemented at all levels - from the farm level from planting
through the distribution, transportation, storage and disposal
chain - ... LLRICE601 would contaminate the entire U.S. rice
crop and infiltrate the general U.S. rice supply.

The farmers are asking for $75,000 each from both Bayer and
Stuttgart-based Riceland Foods Inc.

The suit came after the filing in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas of two similar complaints against
Bayer CropScience L.P. and several of its affiliates:

     -- "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; and

     -- 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.

The suits 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.

Arkansas produced nearly half of the nation's 2005 rice crop,
valued at $1.8 billion, 80 percent of which was long-grain
varieties.  Ninety-four percent of the state's production that
year was long grain.

Riceland said last week that it began investigating in January
an export customer's complaint about genetically engineered
material found in a long-grain rice shipment, the report said.

In January, an export customer of Riceland Foods Inc. asked for
an explanation of genetically engineered material discovered in
a shipment.  Lab results showed trace amounts of a Bayer
CropScience gene, but cannot determine the origin.

In May, Riceland collected samples from several storage
locations.  A significant number from Riceland's operating area
of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas test
positive.  Riceland asked Bayer for an explanation the following
month.

In July, Bayer confirmed the presence of its herbicide-resistant
trait and reports its findings to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The USDA began its investigation, there after.

At an Aug. 18 press conference, USDA revealed a bioengineered
rice in the food supply.  Bayer CropScience's office in Research
Triangle Park, N.C., confirms the presence of LLRICE601 in
commercial samples of U.S. rice.

On Aug. 28, two lawsuits are filed in federal court in Little
Rock accusing Bayer CropScience L.P. of negligence.

On Aug. 29, Riceland was named defendant in a lawsuit filed in
Lonoke County Circuit Court under Judge Lance L. Hanshaw.

Representing the plaintiffs is Paul Byrd of Hare, Wynn, Newell &
Newton, 2025 3rd Avenue N., Suite 800, Birmingham, AL 35203,
Phone: (501) 225-5500 or (877) 225-6312 (Toll Free), Fax: (501)
225-5501.


CHICO'S FAS: Settles Labor Suit in Calif.; Awaits Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. continues to wait for the court's decision
regarding the settlement it reached in a labor-related class
action pending against it in the Superior Court for the state of
California, County of San Bernardino.

The complaint, "Carol Schaffer v. Chico's FAS, Inc., et al.,"
alleges that the company violated California law by failing to:

      -- pay overtime wages,

      -- permit rest periods, and

      -- timely pay separation wages.

Although the company believed it had strong defenses to the
allegations in this case, the company agreed to participate in a
voluntary private mediation on Mar. 16, 2006.  The company
reached a settlement at that mediation, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the court.

Notice of the settlement will also be sent to all class members,
who will be given the opportunity to partake in, opt out of, or
object to the settlement.  The settlement, if approved by the
court, will have no material adverse effect on the company's
financial statements taken as a whole.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug. 23 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended July 29, 2006.

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a specialty retailer of private-label,
casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, complementary accessories
and other non-clothing gift items.  The company offers these
products under the Chico's, White House/Black Market, Soma by
Chico's and Fitigues brand names.


CREATIVE CONTRACT: Recalls IGA Chicken Bouillon Over Soy Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Creative Contract Packaging Corp. is recalling 3.33 oz. plastic
bottle containers of IGA Chicken Flavored Bouillon because it
may contain beef bouillon with a soy ingredient, which can be an
allergenic to certain consumers.   People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

A total of 121 cases of the affected code date of IGA Chicken
Bouillon were distributed nationwide.  Only one code date of
this product is involved in this action.  

The code date is located on the lid of the container and it
reads as:

Name of Product          Code Date            UPC Code on Label
IGA Chicken Flavored     Best by JAN 2008     0 41270 00958 4
Bouillon                 V06066

Upon awareness of this issue, notification was provided to the
customers receiving shipments of IGA Chicken Flavored Bouillon.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased packages of this product with the
code date stated above (Best by JAN 2008 V06066) are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may call the company at 1-800-945-5566.


CREDIT SUISSE: Plans to Appeal Certification of "Newby" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, a subsidiary of Credit
Suisse (USA), Inc., along with other defendants appealed the
certification of a class in the consolidated lawsuit "Newby, et
al. v. Enron Corp., Case No. No. 01-cv-3624," to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The suit is a consolidated class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against 69
defendants purportedly on behalf of the purchasers of Enron
Corp.'s publicly traded equity and debt securities from Oct. 19,
1998 to Nov. 27, 2001.

On June 26, 2006, CS Securities filed a motion for summary
judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas to dismiss the putative class action filed by purchasers
of Enron securities alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  

The district court certified a class in that action on July 5,
2006.  On July 18, 2006, CS Securities and other defendants
petitioned for leave to appeal the class certification ruling to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  

New York-based Credit Suisse (USA), Inc., -- http://www.credit-
suisse.com/us/en -- is part of Swiss banking powerhouse Credit
Suisse Group.  The company is one of the top U.S. investment
banks, offering securities underwriting and trading, mergers and
acquisitions advice, research, private equity investment, and
derivative and risk management products.  It also provides asset
management and financial advisory services to high-net-worth
individuals and corporate investors.


CREDIT SUISSE: Denial of Class Status in N.Y. Lawsuit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a court decision to deny class
certification to the consolidated class action, "In re Issuer
Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 00 CV 7804," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Credit Suisse (USA),
Inc. and other leading securities firms.

Initially, several purported class actions were filed on behalf
of issuer plaintiffs asserting antitrust claims based upon
allegations that 7.0 percent underwriters' discounts violate the
Sherman Act.

These purported class actions were consolidated by the district
court as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23,
2001.  They seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001.  The district court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on Sept. 30, 2002.

Defendants filed a motion to certify the order for interlocutory
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
Oct. 15, 2002.  

On March 26, 2003, a motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity was also filed in connection with this action.  The
court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting
memorandum of law on Sept. 16, 2004.  Class discovery concluded
on April 11, 2005.  Defendants filed their brief in opposition
to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 25, 2005,
and plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2005.  

Defendants filed a surreply brief in opposition to class
certification on Nov. 15, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a summary
judgment motion on liability on Oct. 25, 2005.

The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its
Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006.  The order further
requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14
days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of
purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect
of recovery of money damages.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the
denial of class certification on May 1, 2006.  The court granted
their request that the response to plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on
the 23(f) application or the Second Circuit rules on the appeal,
whichever is later.

The suit is "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Lawrence M. McKenna with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randall Keith Berger of Kirby, McInerney & Squire,
         L.L.P., 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 371-6600; and

     (2) Francis S. Chlapowski of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison,
         LLP, 1633 Broadway, 47th Floor, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212) 237-2571, E-mail:
         fchlapowski@morganlewis.com.  

Representing the company is Jeremy Goldman Epstein of Shearman &
Sterling, LLP, (New York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212 848-4169, Fax: 646 848-4169, E-mail:
jepstein@shearman.com.


CREDIT SUISSE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Over "Short Selling" Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, a subsidiary of Credit
Suisse (USA), Inc. is a defendant in two purported class actions
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
over the practice of "short selling."

In April 2006, two putative class action complaints were filed
against numerous investment banks, including CS Securities,
alleging that the bank defendants charged their prime brokerage
customers fees, commissions, and/or interest payments for
covering short positions when, in fact, the defendants did not
cover them and also conspired not to effect buy-ins on delivery
failures relating to short sales.  

The complaint includes claims for violation of antitrust law,
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

New York-based Credit Suisse (USA), Inc., -- http://www.credit-
suisse.com/us/en -- is part of Swiss banking powerhouse Credit
Suisse Group.  The company is one of the top U.S. investment
banks, offering securities underwriting and trading, mergers and
acquisitions advice, research, private equity investment, and
derivative and risk management products.  It also provides asset
management and financial advisory services to high-net-worth
individuals and corporate investors.


CREE INC: Court Mulls Appeal on N.C. Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action against Cree, Inc.

Between June 16 and Aug. 18, 2003, certain alleged purchasers of
the company's stock filed 19 purported class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  The
lawsuits name the company, certain of its officers and current
and former directors as defendants.

The court subsequently entered an order consolidating these
actions and appointing a lead plaintiff for the consolidated
cases.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which
the court later dismissed although it allowed the plaintiff to
file a further amended complaint.

As finally amended in October 2004, the consolidated complaint
asserted, among other claims, violations of federal securities
laws, including violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, and
violations of Section 20(a) and Section 18 of the U.S. Exchange
Act against the individual defendants and also asserted claims
against certain of the company's officers under Section 304 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The complaint alleged that the company made false and misleading
statements concerning its investments in certain public and
privately held companies, its acquisition of the UltraRF
division of Spectrian Corp., its supply agreement with
Spectrian, and its agreements with Charles & Colvard and that
its financial statements did not comply with the requirements of
the securities laws during the class period.

The complaint requested certification of a plaintiff class
consisting of purchasers of the company's stock between Aug. 12,
1998 and June 13, 2003 and sought, among other relief,
unspecified damages and disgorgement of profits by the
individual defendants, plus costs and expenses, including
attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and did not satisfy the pleading requirements under
applicable law.

In August 2005, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs thereafter appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The appeal is
currently pending, according to the company's Aug. 24, 2006 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 25, 2006.

The suit is "In re Cree, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
03-CV-549," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Cauley Geller Bowman Coates &
         Rudman, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100; and

     (2) Reginald F. Combs of Blanco Tackabery Combs &
         Matamoros, P.A., POD 25008, Winston-Salem, NC 27114-
         5008, Phone: 336-293-9000, Fax: 336-293-9030, E-mail:
         rfc@btcmlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Carl N. Patterson, Jr. of Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
         Mitchell & Jernigan, POB 2611, Raleigh, NC 27602-2611,
         Phone: 919-821-6647, Fax: 919-821-6800, E-mail:
         cpatterson@smithlaw.com; and

    (ii) Nicholas I. Porritt of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
         Rosati, P.C., Two Fountain Sq., Reston Town Ctr., 11921
         Freedom Dr., Ste. 600, Reston, VA 20190-5634, Phone:
         703-734-3107, Fax: 703-734-3199, E-mail:
         nporritt@wsgr.com.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Sept. Trial Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------  
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York  
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 12, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. for  
the proposed $24 million settlement in the matter, "The  
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System et al.  
v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 2:04-cv-00621-LDW-AKT."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler  
at the Long Island Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip,  
NY 11722

On Feb. 12, 2004, lead plaintiffs, filed the securities suit on  
behalf of themselves and other persons and entities that
purchased Symbol Technologies, Inc. common stock between March  
2, 2000, and Oct. 17, 2002.

In the complaint, lead plaintiffs allege violations of Section  
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.   

Specifically, they allege that during the class period, Deloitte  
& Touche, acting as Symbol's auditor, made materially false  
statements and/or omissions regarding Symbol's financial  
statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 1999, 2000, and 2001.  
  
The suit was designated as a "Related Case" with the  
consolidated class action commenced in March 2002 against Symbol  
and certain of its officers and directors, captioned, "In re  
Symbol Technologies Litigation, Master File Docket No. 02-CV-
1383 (LDW)."   
  
For more details, contact:
  
     (1) Jeffrey C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco,  
         Burt, et al., One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA  
         02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: (617) 542-8300, E-
         mail: jblock@bermanesq.com; and

     (2) Daniel Lawrence Berger, Victoria Odette Wilheim of  
         Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP, 1285  
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-
         554-1406 and 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-mail:  
         dan@blbglaw.com and victoria@blbglaw.com.


EDWARD JONES: Reaches 127M Deal to Settle Revenue Sharing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Financial-services firm Edward Jones signed a tentative
agreement to settle nine class actions pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in
connection with the firm's mutual fund revenue sharing
practices.

The settlement specifies $55 million cash and $72.5 million non-
cash components.  It will compensate purchasers and holders of
any preferred fund family from Jan. 1, 1999, through Dec. 31,
2004.

The suits were filed more than two-and-a-half years ago in
connection with the firm's revenue sharing arrangements and
sales practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that Edward Jones failed to adequately
disclose details of the agreements, a claim the firm disputed.

"We believe the 2004 settlement agreement with regulators
addressed all the relevant concerns regarding this issue," said
James D. Weddle, managing partner of Edward Jones.  "However,
because we do not believe our clients, our associates or our
firm would benefit from a prolonged legal battle we've decided
to settle the class actions."

The issues that prompted the class action are the same ones that
led the firm in 2004 to sign an agreement with the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of Missouri, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange Group, Inc.,
and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

The class action settlement agreement calls for $72.5 million to
be allocated over a three-year period to current Edward Jones
clients in the form of vouchers.  Another $55 million cash
payment will cover the plaintiffs' legal fees and compensation
for former Edward Jones clients.

The distribution plan details will be part of the final
agreement, expected to be presented to the court this month.

Edward Jones -- http://www.edwardjones.com-- is headquartered  
in St. Louis, Missouri.

For more information contact: Mary Beth Heying or John Boul both
of Edward Jones at +1-314-515-3260 or +1-314-515-3265.


FOOT LOCKER: Pension Plan Faces ERISA Violation Charges in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker Inc. is named defendant in a class action filed in a
federal court in New York alleging that the company's U.S.
pension plan violated the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, the company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission stated.

Specifically, the suit contends that the company's pension plan
violated the ERISA of 1974, including, without limitation, its
age discrimination provisions, as a result of the company's
conversion of its defined benefit pension plan to a defined
pension plan with a cash balance feature.

ERISA sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established
pension and health plans in private industry to provide
protection for people enrolled in such plans.

According to the company, a final outcome cannot be determined
at this time, as this matter is in the preliminary stages of
proceedings.


GOOD KARMA: Recalls Organic Rice Products Over Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Good Karma Food Technologies, Inc. of Glendale, California is
recalling Good Karma Organic Rice Cream Mudd Pie, Good Karma
Organic Rice Cream Mint Chocolate Chip and Good Karma Organic
Rice Cream Chocolate Peanut Butter Fudge, all lot codes, because
they may contain undeclared milk proteins.  

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The products distributed across the U.S. may have reached
consumers at natural foods retail and mass market retail grocery
stores nationwide.  The Mudd Pie product can be identified by a
label that reads "Good Karma Organic Rice Cream Mudd Pie."  This
item comes in a pint, blue package with dark brown lid band and
a banner that reads Mudd Pie.  It has a UPC Code of 2946270102.

The Mint Chocolate Chip product can be identified by a label
that reads "Good Karma Organic Rice Cream Mint Chocolate Chip."  
This item comes in a blue package with green lid band and a
banner that reads Mint Chocolate Chip.  It has a UPC Code of
2946270106.

The Chocolate Peanut Butter Fudge product can be identified by a
label that reads "Good Karma Organic Rice Cream Chocolate Peanut
Butter Fudge."  This item comes in a blue package with a light
brown lid band and a banner that reads Chocolate Peanut Butter
Fudge.  It has a UPC Code of 2946270105.

The recall was initiated after it was revealed thru testing that
the chocolate chips contained in these products contained
undeclared levels of milk protein.  Packages with a Best If Used
By Date of July 27, 2007 or earlier should not be consumed.

There have been no reports of illness or injury associated with
the product.  No other Good Karma Organic Rice Cream products
are part of the recall, and there is no health risk for
consumers who are not allergic to milk.

Production of these products has been suspended until the FDA
and Good Karma are certain that these products are back in
compliance and the problem has been corrected.

All of Good Karma's Distributors, Customers and Brokers have
been notified about this issue and have been advised to pull the
product off the shelf.  Consumers who have purchased Pint
containers of the Good Karma Organic Rice Cream: Mudd Pie, Mint
Chocolate Chip and Chocolate Peanut Butter Fudge products with
the Best If Used By Date of July 27, 2007 or earlier are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.   
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-550-
6731.


HOT TOPIC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Customer Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Topic, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in California
alleging violation of California Civil Code Section 1747.08.

In April 2006, a California resident filed the lawsuit against
the company.  The case was filed as a purported class action.

Specifically, the law in question regulates when a retailer is
permitted to take down certain customer information in
connection with credit card transactions.  

In May 2006, the company answered the complaint and denied all
liability.

City of Industry, California-based Hot Topic, Inc. --
http://www.hottopic.com/-- is a mall-based specialty retailer  
that operates 663 Topic and 120 Torrid store concepts in the
U.S.  Hot Topic stores sell a selection of music/pop culture-
licensed and music/pop culture-influenced apparel, accessories
and gift items.  Torrid stores sell apparel, lingerie, shoes and
accessories designed for various lifestyles for plus-size
females between the ages of 15 and 29.  The company also sells
merchandise on two Websites that reflect the Hot Topic and
Torrid store concepts and carry merchandise similar to that sold
in their respective stores.


HOT TOPIC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County in California gave
final approval to the settlement of a labor-related class action
against Hot Topic, Inc. and one of its Torrid stores.

On Sept. 17, 2004, a former Torrid store employee filed a
lawsuit against the company on behalf of a purported class.  It
asserted claims for failure to provide adequate meal or rest
breaks, improper payment of overtime wages, failure to timely
pay wages at end of employment and unfair business practices.

The lawsuit sought compensatory damages, statutory penalties,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  

On Oct. 21, 2004, the company filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  

In June 2006, the court gave final approval to a settlement
agreement between the plaintiff, on behalf of the purported
class, and the company.  

City of Industry, California-based Hot Topic, Inc. (NASDAQ:
HOTT) -- http://www.hottopic.com/-- is a mall-based specialty  
retailer that operates 663 Topic and 120 Torrid store concepts
in the U.S.  Hot Topic stores sell a selection of music/pop
culture-licensed and music/pop culture-influenced apparel,
accessories and gift items.  Torrid stores sell apparel,
lingerie, shoes and accessories designed for various lifestyles
for plus-size females between the ages of 15 and 29.  The
company also sells merchandise on two Websites that reflect the
Hot Topic and Torrid store concepts and carry merchandise
similar to that sold in their respective stores.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Calif. Court Mulls Demurrers in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles has
yet to rule on demurrers filed by defendant in the consolidated
class action that named Intermix Media, Inc. as one of the
defendants.

Shareholders who filed two class actions against officers who
oppose the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of
News Corp., recently filed a consolidated amended complaint.    

On Aug. 26, 2005 and Aug. 30, 2005, these purported class
actions were filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Los Angeles:

      -- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and

      -- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."

Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent
members of the Intermix Media Board, including Mr. Rosenblatt,
Intermix' former chief executive officer, and certain entities
affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former major
Intermix stockholder.

The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive and
approving the related merger agreement, the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix stockholders by,
among other things, engaging in self-dealing and failing to
obtain the highest price reasonably available for Intermix and
its stockholders.

The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own interests.  The Fox
Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated and, on Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, known as "Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation."  

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various forms
of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs.

The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all
claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were
heard by the court on July 6, 2006.  The court reserved
decision.  

Loa Angeles, California-based Fox Interactive Media (FIM) --
http://www.fox.com/-- oversees the Internet business operations  
of media giant News Corp., including fox.com, foxnews.com, and
foxsports.com.  It also coordinates with local TV stations owned
by FOX Broadcasting to distribute content and sell advertising
on their Web sites.  Since FIM's formation in 2005, News Corp.
has been has been snapping up Internet properties at a rapid
pace to add to the fold.  Newly acquired Web firms include
Intermix Media (and its social networking site MySpace.com), as
well as video game fan site IGN Entertainment (and its movie
site Rotten Tomatoes).


INTERMIX MEDIA: Former Executives Face Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several former officer and director of Intermix Media, Inc. were
named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit, "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed on
June 14, 2006.  In it, plaintiff asserts claims for alleged
violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as
control person liability under Section 20a.  

Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants disseminated false and
misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions:

     -- on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder
        vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and
        ratification of financing transactions with certain
        entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former
        large stockholder of Intermix; and

     -- on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote
        on the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of
        News Corp.

The complaint names as defendants certain Vantage Point related
entities and the members of the Intermix Board who were
incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements.

Intermix Media is not named as a defendant, but has certain
indemnity obligations to the former officer and director
defendants in connection with these claims and allegations.  

The suit is "Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-03731-JFW-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter with
referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christy W. Goodman of Goodman
Sheridan and Roff, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350, San Diego, CA
92101, US, Phone: 619-241-4860, E-mail: cgoodman@gsrllp.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Moriarty of Hogan and Hartson, 1999 Avenue
         of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310-785-4600, E-mail: eamoriarty@hhlaw.com, Web site:
         http://www.hhlaw.com;ands

     (2) Stephen M. Knaster of Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe,
         Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759, Web
         site: http://www.orrick.com.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss consolidated complaint in the
securities class action against Investors Financial Services
Corp. and several of its officers.  

On or about Aug. 4, 2005, Aug. 15, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005,
several complaints were filed against the company.  The
complaints filed on Aug. 4, 2005 and Aug. 15, 2005 assert that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period Oct. 15, 2003
until July 15, 2005.  The complaint filed on Sept. 30, 2005
asserts that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period July 16,
2003 until July 15, 2005.

The allegations in the complaints predominantly relate to the
company's October 2004 restatement of its financial results, and
the company's July 2005 revision of public guidance regarding
its future financial performance.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.

On Feb. 3, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint against the company and seven of its current and
former officers.   

Among other things, the consolidated complaint asserts that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period April 10, 2001
until July 15, 2005.  

The allegations in the consolidated complaint predominantly
relate to:

      -- the company's October 2004 restatement of its financial
         results, and

      -- its July 2005 revision of public guidance regarding the
         company's future financial performance.  

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
fees, and costs.  

On May 14, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the consolidated complaint.  The motion is
currently pending before the court.

The first identified complaint is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Support Fund, et al. v. Investors Financial Services Corp., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-11627," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay,
with referral to Judge Judith G. Dein.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Pavel Bespalko of Law Office of Joel Eigerman, 50
         Congress Street, Suite 200, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-818-1982, Fax: 617-523-5612, E-mail:
         pavel@bespalko.com; and

     (3) Joel Z. Eigerman of Joel Z. Eigerman, Attorney-at-Law,
         Suite 200, 50 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-523-3050, Fax: 617-523-3050, E-mail:
         joel@eigerman.com.

Representing the defendants is Jason D. Frank of Bingham
McCutchen, LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-951-8153, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
jason.frank@bingham.com.


MERIX CORP: Ore. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
consolidated securities class action against Merix Corp.

Four proposed plaintiffs who purchased securities in the
company's January 2004 public offering filed class action
complaints against the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors in the first quarter of fiscal 2005.

The complaints were consolidated in the second quarter of fiscal
2005 in a single action, "In re Merix Corp. Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-MO," in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon.

On March 3, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint for failure to identify with
sufficient specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to
have been false and why the statements were either false when
made or material.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court granted that motion without
prejudice and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  
On Nov. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the company's January 2004 public offering.

The initial purchaser was one of the underwriters of the
company's January 2004 public offering and is one of the
defendants in this case.

The company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check,
         Sean M. Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
         dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com and
         azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and

     (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154,
         Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax: (206) 839-0728, E-mail:
         lfeldman@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch
         St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503)
         727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
         baumr@perkinscoie.com; and

    (ii) Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L. Berenstain and Douglas W.
         Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201 Third Ave.,
         Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: (206) 359-
         8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax: (206)
         359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail:
         jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com
         and DGreene@perkinscoie.com.


NEWS CORP: Del. Court Approves Settlement in "Unisuper" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an order
and a final judgment approving the settlement in the shareholder
class action against News Corp.

In October, 13 professionally managed investment funds that own
the company's stock filed a complaint against the company and
its individual directors.

The complaint, "Unisuper et al. v. News Corp., C.A. No. 1699-N,"
raised claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty
relating to the policy of the board concerning the company's
stockholder rights plan, and the August 2005 decision of the
board to extend the expiration of the existing stockholder
rights plan until Nov. 8, 2007.

On April 13, 2006, the company announced that it had entered
into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.  Under the
terms of the settlement agreement, the trial and all remaining
proceedings in the litigation will be postponed pending a
stockholder vote on a rights plan to be held at the company's
annual stockholders meeting in October 2006.

If stockholders vote in favor of the rights plan, the litigation
will be dismissed.  If stockholders vote against the rights
plan, the company has the right to treat the vote as advisory
and proceed with the litigation.

At the company's 2006 annual meeting of stockholders, the
company's stockholders will be asked to approve an extension of
the existing rights plan to October 2008, with the company
having the right to extend the rights plan for one year if the
situation with Liberty Media Corp., which led to the adoption of
the rights plan, remains unresolved.

If the stockholders vote in favor of the rights plan, then at
the expiration of the existing rights plan or any other rights
plan, the company may adopt subsequent rights plans of one-year
duration without stockholder approval, subject to interim
periods of nine months between rights plans.

If during or prior to any interim period, any stockholder:

      -- acquires 5 percent or more of the company's voting
         stock;

      -- offers to purchase voting stock or assets that would
         result in their owning 30 percent or more of the
         company's voting stock or assets; or

      -- in certain other circumstances, the company may
         immediately adopt a new rights plan of one-year
         duration.

The company may, of course, also adopt new rights plans or
extend existing rights plans of unlimited duration with
stockholder approval.  The provisions discussed in this
paragraph shall be in effect until the 20th anniversary of the
annual meeting.

The terms of the settlement agreement are not intended to limit,
restrict or eliminate the ability of the company's stockholders
under applicable Delaware law to amend the company's certificate
of incorporation in any manner.  As part of the settlement, the
company has agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses in the litigation.

On April 18, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
scheduling order, preliminarily approving the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of the class set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement and setting the date for a hearing for the purposes
of:

      -- determining whether the action should be certified as a
         class action;

      -- determining whether the terms of the proposed
         settlement are fair, reasonable and in the best
         interests of the class; and

      -- considering the application of plaintiffs' counsel for
         an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The settlement hearing was held on May 23, 2006.  Liberty Media
Corp. filed an objection to the settlement.  Before approving
the settlement, the court instructed the parties to clarify the
terms of the releases that they were providing each other in
order to make them easier to read, and to make express that
claims against the parties based on future conduct were not
being released.

On June 1, 2006, the court issued its order and final judgment
approving the settlement.

The suit is "Unisuper Ltd., et al. v. News Corp., et al., C.A.
No. 1699-N," filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

For more details, contact Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Chase Manhattan Centre,
Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7070 and (302) 622-7000,
Fax: (302) 622-7100, E-Mail: sgrant@gelaw.com.


NEW YORK: City Ordered to Improve System of Helping Immigrants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan certified
the class action, "M.K.B. v. Eggleston" and ordered an
injunction to stop the city of New York from illegally denying
financial aid to immigrants, reports say.

The suit was filed in December by the New York Legal Assistance
Group and the Legal Aid Society on behalf of battered women
immigrants.

In February, the court granted partial injunction and held
hearings in the case.  The city fixed some deficiencies in
determining immigrants' eligibility for public benefits, but the
judge wrote that problems persisted because of inadequate
training, poor computer design and faulty directives.  As such,
the judge said, he will be highly likely to find officials
liable for "deliberate indifference" to violations of the
plaintiffs' federal and state rights.

The judge called the violations "the direct results of the
flawed design of the city's computer system, the pervasive
errors in the city's training materials and policy directives,
and the widespread worker ignorance resulting from inadequate
training of the city's employees."

In a 45-page decision, the judge also wrote that the state was
"vicariously liable" because it supervises the city's provision
of public aid and had failed to change its own programming
problems and faulty directives.

The suit is "M.K.B. et al. v. Eggleston et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-10446-JSR."

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ronald Abramson, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, One Battery
         Park Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212)-837-6404,
         Fax: (212)-299-6404, E-mail:
         abramson@hugheshubbard.com;

     (2) Steven R. Banks, The Legal Aid Society (NYC), 199 Water
         Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10038, Phone: 212-577-
         3277, Fax: 212-509-8432, E-mail: SBANKS@LEGAL-AID.ORG;
         and

     (3) Caroline Jane Hickey, New York Legal Assistance Group,
         450 West 33rd Street, 11th Flr., New York, NY 10001,
         Phone: (212)-613-5077, Fax: (212)-750-0820, E-mail:
         chickey@nylag.org.

Representing the city is Robert Lewis Kraft, Office of the
Attorney General, New York State, 120 Broadway, New York, NY
10271, Phone: 212-416-8632, Fax: 212-416-6075, Fax:
robert.kraft@oag.state.ny.us.


PARMALAT SPA: Asks Dismissal of Bias Suit by Former Ga. Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Dairies LLC and Flagship Atlanta Dairy, LLC, ask the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to
dismiss complaints of Age Discrimination in Employment Act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act against:

     -- Farmland Dairies, LLC,
     -- Parmalat Atlanta Dairies,
     -- Parmalat USA Corp., and
     -- Flagship Holdings, Inc.

In January, George H. Ferguson, III, asks the district court to
find that defendants violated the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act in
terminating employees on the basis of age and their perceived
disabilities.

Mr. Ferguson brought the suit on behalf of himself and all
employees aged 40 and above, at Farmland's Atlanta, Georgia
facilities, who were laid off in May 2005.   

Mr. Ferguson, who was Farmland's director of Human Resources for
the Atlanta Region, was terminated following the sale of
Farmland's Atlanta business to Flagship.

Mr. Ferguson tells District Court Judge Jack T. Camp that his
layoff was the result of Farmland's application of age-neutral
selection rules or rules that had the effect of screening out or
tending to screen out individuals with disability, those
perceived to have a disability, or those with a record of
disability.

Mr. Ferguson also relates that Flagship officials doing due
diligence for the sale of the Atlanta operations bragged that
they were going to have everyone terminated and then rehire only
the ones that they wanted.

Mr. Ferguson notes that management was aware that he was over 40
years old and has diabetes.  Mr. Ferguson also tells the Court
that he could and still can perform all the essential functions
of his position.

Victoria L. Helms, Esq., at Helms & Greene, LLC, in Atlanta,
Georgia, contends that Farmland's and Flagship's unlawful
actions were deliberate, wanton, willful and reckless.

Mr. Ferguson seeks reinstatement of the laid-off employees and
payment of back pay, benefits, and punitive and compensatory
damages.

Mr. Ferguson also asks the District Court to certify the class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

                 Defendants Want Action Dismissed

Farmland Dairies LLC and Flagship Atlanta Dairy, LLC, ask Judge
Camp to dismiss the complaint.

J. Larry Stine, Esq., at Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &
Schneider, P.C., in Atlanta, Georgia, on Farmland's behalf,
points out that:

    (1) The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
        can be granted;

    (2) Class actions pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure are not permitted for actions under
        the ADEA;

    (3) Adverse impact is not a viable theory since all the
        Farmland employees in the Atlanta dairy operations were
        terminated effective with the sale of the Atlanta dairy
        operations;

    (4) Mr. Ferguson was terminated for reasons other than his
        age and alleged disability;

    (5) Mr. Ferguson was terminated from his employment for
        legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons;

    (6) Some or all of the monetary damages sought by Mr.
        Ferguson may be barred by his failure to mitigate
        damages;

    (7) Some or all of the claims asserted by Mr. Ferguson may
        be barred by the statute of limitations;

    (8) Farmland acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds
        for believing that its actions were not in violation of
        ADEA or ADA;

    (9) Mr. Ferguson's allegations do not rise to the level
        sufficient for a claim of punitive damages; and

   (10) Mr. Ferguson released Farmland from all liability for
        valuable consideration.

Mr. Stine tells the court that the action is frivolous and has
no basis in fact or law.  Mr. Stine adds that Parmalat Atlanta
Dairies is not a legal entity and Parmalat USA is no longer in
existence.

Flagship raised similar arguments.  Flagship also notes that Mr.
Ferguson sued a non-existent party, Flagship Holdings, Inc.

Flagship is represented in the suit by Ronald G. Polly, Jr.,
Esq., at Hawkins & Parnell, LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia (Parmalat
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 76; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 215/945-7000, http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/).


SPRINT CORP: Benney-Lundberg Suit Settlement Hearing Set Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 29th Judicial District of Wyandotte County, Kansas, will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 12, 2006, beginning at 1:30
p.m., for the proposed settlement in the matter:

      -- "Tom Lundberg, et al. v. Sprint Corp., et al.,
         Case No. 02CV-4551;" and

      -- "Greg Benney, et al., v. Sprint International
         Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 05CV-1422."

The Benney settlement class involves all current and former
Sprint-branded (Sprint or Sprint PCS) wireless telephone
customers in the U.S. who fall within one of these subclasses:

      -- Benney Subclass 1: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date, who were subscribers during any
         part of the period from Dec. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2003;

      -- Benney Subclass 2: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who became subscribers after May
         31, 2003;

      -- Benney Subclass 3: all former sprint subscribers as of
         the effective date who were subscribers during any part
         of the period from Dec. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2003; and

      -- Benney Subclass 3: all former sprint subscribers as of
         the effective date who became subscribers after May 31,
         2003.

The Lundberg settlement class consists of all current and former
Sprint wireless customers in the U.S. who were customers any
time during the period Jan. 1, 1997 to the Effective Date, and
who have or could have asserted claims relating to directory
assistance calls, Sprint's practice of rounding minutes up to
the next whole minute, or Coverage and Capacity Issues.  They
are divided into these subclasses:

      -- Lundberg Subclass 1: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who were subscribers anytime
         prior to June 1, 2003;

      -- Lundberg Subclass 2: all current sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who became subscribers on June 1,
         2003, or later;

      -- Lundberg Subclass 3: all former sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who were subscribers anytime
         prior to June 1, 2003; and

      -- Lundberg Subclass 4: all former sprint subscribers as
         of the effective date who became subscribers June 1,
         2003, or later.

In both Benney and Lundberg, plaintiffs brought these suits as
class actions under Rule 60-223 of the Kansas Rules of Civil
Procedure.  

In Benney, Plaintiffs allege that:

      -- defendants violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
         and similar laws in other states, by making misleading
         and deceptive statements regarding regulatory fees,
         which defendants have charged their customers in the
         U.S.;

      -- defendants breached contracts with class plaintiff and
         the class members by charging the regulatory fees and
         by hiding a "rate increase" in the monthly billing
         statement;

      -- defendants were unjustly enriched by collecting the
         regulatory fees; and

      -- defendants committed fraud based upon their charges for
         directory assistance calls and descriptions of the
         regulatory fees.

In Lundberg, plaintiffs allege that defendants committed fraud,
violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, and similar laws in
other states, and were unjustly enriched, based upon their
charges for directory assistance calls and descriptions of the
regulatory fees:

      -- by making misleading and deceptive statements regarding
         the practice of rounding minutes up to the next whole
         minute without fully disclosing this practice; and

      -- by offering wireless phone service without properly            
         disclosing limitations on the coverage, capacity, and
         geographic scope of the Sprint wireless network
         (including, but not limited to, the availability or
         claimed necessity of software upgrades to phone
         handsets), as well as dropped customer calls or the
         alleged failure or inability to connect customer calls;
         and that as to California customers, defendants
         violated the:

         * California Business and Professions Code,
           Section 17200 et seq., and

         * California's Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Act,
           Cal. Rev. & Tax Code Section 41020(a)-(b).     

In both Benney and Lundberg, plaintiffs allege that defendants
are liable for compensatory, statutory, and related damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under various
statutory and common law theories, and seek injunctive relief
concerning defendants' practices.

On the Net: http://www.sprintclassactionsettlement.com/


STRAUSS-ELITE: Faces $2.8B Lawsuit Over Alleged Kashrut Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli food company Strauss-Elite Ltd. is facing a lawsuit
filed with the Tel Aviv District Court over the gelatin in the
company's Milky and other products, the Israel Business Arena
reports.

Also named defendants are Israel's Chief Rabbinate who issues
kashrut certificates to companies in the country, and the
Rabbinate of Nahariya in the north district.

The suit seeks for class certification and a $691 (NIS3,000) per
person compensation, which totals $2.8 billion (NIS12.3
billion).

Tova Nagler of Givat Shmuel and her daughter Revital Nagler-Mann
of the city of Bnei Brak filed the suit on behalf of 1.4 million
kosher-keeping consumers of Milky in 1999-2004, and 500,000
consumers of Daniela, Sky dairy products.

Plaintiffs alleged that in 2003, Strauss misled and defrauded
consumers by including gelatin from cow bones in its products.

The plaintiffs claim that the products including imported
gelatin cannot be kosher, unless the raw material has a kashrut
certificate from the Chief Rabbinate.

Even though no such certificate was issued, they allege that
Strauss continued to sell products that contained this gelatin,
while presenting kashrut certificates issued by the Chief
Rabbinate.


ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY: Administrators Face RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Thomas University School of Law of Miami is facing a federal
class action complaint over allegations it is illegally
accepting and expelling students in a scheme to boost its bar
passing rates, Leigh Jones of The National Law Journal reports.

The complaint was filed by a former law student Thomas Joseph
Bentey in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in
July.   It alleges that the law school has unlawfully dismissed
more than 25 percent of its first-year class.  Mr. Bentey and as
many as 80 students were not allowed to pursue their law course
because they failed to maintain a 2.5 grade point average.

The action further alleges that in 2003, the school began a
scheme to accept large numbers of students only later to dismiss
or pressure the withdrawal of almost 30 percent of its first-
and second-year students.  It specifically names as defendants:

     -- Franklyn Casale, the university's president;
     -- Robert Butterworth, the law school's dean; and
     -- other administrators

The administrators are accused of violating federal anti-
racketeering laws.   

Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is the American Bar
Association Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar,
which allegedly failed to adequately oversee the school by not
detecting the alleged scheme and by not taking the steps
necessary to make sure the school was meeting its standards.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages.  Mr.
Bentey is asking $25,800 in tuition fees, $20,000 for residency
and occupancy expenses, $35,000 for loss of earnings while in
law school, and damages for personal embarrassment.

The suit is "Bentey et al. v. St. Thomas University School of
Law et al.," filed under Judge Peter G. Sheridan with referral
to Ronald J. Hedges.  

Representing the plaintiff is Michael Francis Lombardi, at
Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., 1862 Oak Tree Road, P.O. Box 2065
Edison, NJ 08818-2065, Phone: (732) 906-1500, E-mail:
michaell@lombardiandlombardi.com.


TELSTRA CORP: Amended Claim Names Mr. Trujillo as Sole Defendant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telstra Corp., Inc. chief executive Sol Trujillo is the only
remaining top executive named in the securities class action
filed in federal court over last year's plunge in the company's
share price.

A new statement of claim "abandoned the whole of the case other
than that against the chief executive," Telstra counsel Richard
McHugh told the court, according to a report by Vanda Carson of
the Townsville Bulletin.

Mr. Trujillo is accused of breaching company law and stock
exchange rules by failing to disclose the true financial status
of the company.  The alleged breaches relate to Mr. Trujillo's
knowledge of billions of dollars in underinvestment by the
company and declining earnings.  Senior executives close to Mr.
Trujillo was also previously accused of being party to the
alleged cover-up.

The suit is being brought on behalf of anyone who bought Telstra
shares between Aug. 11 and Sept. 7.  The suit claimed the
company made selective disclosures by first briefing the
journalists and the government, about its financial woes last
year before informing the Australian stock exchange.  Telstra is
51.8% owned by the government.

Earlier this year, Sydney federal court Justice Murray Wilcox
ordered Telstra Group to hand over documents to lawyers
representing shareholders of the company (Class Action Reporter,
April 10, 2006).  The documents referred to are messages and
directives sent by Mr. Trujillo from July 1, 2005, the day he
assumed the post at Telstra.

Judge Wilcox said any communications touching on the secret
briefing to the government should be given to the shareholders'
lawyers.  

He also ordered that lawyers be given any communications between
members of the company's transition team, which was deployed to
help Mr. Trujillo in his new role.  

Headquartered at Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia, Telstra
Corp. -- http://www.telstra.com.au/-- is an Australian  
telecommunications and information services company.  Telstra
offers a full range of services and compete in all
telecommunications markets throughout Australia, providing more
than 10.3 million Australian fixed line and more than 6.5
million mobile services.

Shareholders are represented by law firm Slater & Gordon.  On
the Net: http://www.slatergordon.com.au/.


UNION OF NEEDLESTRADES: Pa. Court Finds Privacy Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas Corp. employees who
filed a class suit against the Union of Needlestrades,
Industrial & Textil Employees AFL-CIO (UNITE) for unlawfully
violating their privacy.

The court ruled that UNITE violated the federal Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act by illegally obtaining access to their
confidential motor vehicle information.

Further, the court ordered UNITE to pay $2,500 to each of the
Cintas employees who brought the original lawsuit.  The court
will also determine whether to award punitive damages and
compensation to approximately 2,000 additional Cintas employees
at future proceedings.  The total amount that UNITE will be
ordered to pay may run into the millions of dollars.

The privacy ruling marks the second time this year that UNITE
was found guilty of unlawful activities in conjunction with its
corporate campaign tactics.

In addition to the ruling in favor of Cintas employees, a
California jury found that UNITE acted with "fraud, malice or
oppression" in another corporate campaign that significantly
affected Sutter Health facilities on the west coast.  The
healthcare network was awarded $17.3 million following the
verdict a few weeks ago.

Several Cintas employees filed the Drivers' Privacy Protection
case in 2004.  The employees became concerned after they -- or
their family and friends -- began receiving unannounced,
uninvited visits at home from union representatives who obtained
their personal contact information by using license plate
numbers to access DMV records.

The suit is "Pichler et al. v. UNITE (Union of Needlestrades,
Industrial & Textil Employees AFL-CIO) et al., Case No.2:04-cv-
02841-SD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart Dalzell, with
referral to Judge Jacob P. Hart.

Representing the plaintiffs Bruce Bellingham, Joyce B. Link,
David B. Picker and Paul R. Rosen all of Spector Gadon & Rosen
PC, Seven Penn Center, 1635 Market St., 7th Fl, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-241-8872 or 215-241-8870 or 215-241-8888, Fax:
215-241-8844, E-mail: jlink@lawsgr.com or prosen@lawsgr.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark Featherman and Laurence M. Goodman both of Willig
         Williams & Davidson, 1845 Walnut St., 24th FL,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-656-3600, E-mail:
         mfeatherman@wwdlaw.com or lgoodman@wwdlaw.com;

     (2) Susan M. Jennik and Thomas M. Kennedy both of Kennedy,
         Jennik & Murray, PC, 113 University Place, 7th Floor,
         New York, NY 10003, Phone: sjennik@kjmlabor.com or
         tkennedy@kjmlabor.com;

     (3) Irwin Rochman of Rochman Platzer Fallick Sternheim Luca
         & Pearl, LLP, 666 Third Avenue, 17th FL, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: 212-697-4090; and

     (4) Dennis Torreggiani, 113 University Place, 7th FL, New
         York, NY 10003, Phone: 212-358-1500.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of all claims in the consolidated securities class
action against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly ICN
Pharmaceuticals.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions were filed against
the company and some of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California.  

The suits alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the company's stock.

Lawsuits generally claim that the company issued false and
misleading statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales
figures (based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its
operations in Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings
and sales of the company's Photonics division.  

Plaintiffs generally seek to recover compensatory damages,
including interest.

All actions were later consolidated to the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California.  On Jun. 24, 2004, the court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as to the "channel
stuffing" claim.  

The plaintiffs then stipulated to a dismissal of all the claims
against the company and filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On June 16, 2006, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the claims.

The suit is "In Re: ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-00701," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Abraham & Associates of One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New
         York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.714.244, Fax: 212.279365,
         E-mail: Larryl@abrahamlaw.com; and

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Carl Alan Roth, Eric S. Waxman
and Peder Kristian Batalden of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom, 300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144,
Phone: 213-687-5000, E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com.


WEST LIBERTY: Oct. Hearing Set in Iowa Labor Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
An Iowa district court will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 30,
2006 at 10 a.m. for the proposed $690,000 settlement of a class
action against West Liberty Foods.

The suit was brought on behalf of people who worked for:

     -- the Iowa Turkey Growers Cooperative (a/k/a Sigourney
        Foods at any period from July 31, 2000 to April 30,
        2004;

     -- West Liberty Foods at any period from July 31, 2000 to
        April 30, 2004; and

     -- Mount Pleasant Foods at any time prior to Dec. 31, 2004.

This litigation involves claims raised in two lawsuits filed by
hourly non-clerical employees of West Liberty Foods.  These
lawsuits claim that West Liberty Foods violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and other legal obligations by improperly failing
to correctly pay overtime, certain unpaid on-the-clock time, and
unpaid off-the-clock time to certain employees.

The hearing will be at the Keokuk County Courthouse, 101 South
Main Street, Sigourney, Iowa 52591.  Deadline to file for
exclusion and objection is Oct. 10, 2006.  Deadline to file
claims is Jan. 30, 2007.

The West Liberty Foods Litigation Settlement Administrator: P.O.
Box 91186 Seattle, WA 98111-9286, Phone: 1-866-881-7512, on the
Net: http://www.westlibertyfoodssettlement.com/.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph R. Gunderson at Gunderson,
Sharp & Walke, LLP, Des Moines, Iowa (Polk Co.).

Representing the companies is Gene R. La Suer, member at Davis,
Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C., The Financial Center, 666
Walnut Street, Suite 2500, Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3993 (Polk
Co.), Phone: 515-288-2500, Fax: 515-243-0654.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Soy Cream Over Undeclared Milk Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market of Austin, Texas is recalling 365 Everyday
Value Soy Cream Chocolate and 365 Everyday Value Soy Cream
Vanilla, all lot codes, because it may contain undeclared milk
proteins.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The product, distributed by Whole Foods Market, may have reached
consumers at all stores nationwide.  The product can be
identified by a label that reads "365 Everyday Value Soy Cream
Chocolate."  This item comes in half gallon, yellow package with
gold and white lettering inside a red box.  It has a UPC Code of
9948241414.  The other product can be identified as "365
Everyday Value Soy Cream Vanilla."  This item comes in half
gallon, white package with gold and white lettering inside a
blue box.  It has a UPC Code of 9948241415.

After the report of a confirmed allergic reaction, random
company testing was done and the recall was initiated.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Whole Foods Market
has contacted its locations holding stocks of this product and
has directed Store/Facility Team Leaders to remove this product
from the shelves and destroy it until a new supply of this
product becomes available.  The recall does not affect any other
Whole Foods Market product.

For more information, please contact Whole Foods Market Private
Label Customer Service at 512.477.5566 ext. 20020.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Period Extended in Calif. Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP announces that the
class period in the class action against Juniper Networks, Inc.
has been extended.

Pomerantz has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
Northern District of California against the company and certain
officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
company during the extended class period from April 10, 2003 to
Aug. 10, 2006.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Juniper is a Delaware corporation, which maintains its principal
executive office in California.  The company designs and sells
products and services that together provide its customers with
Internet protocol (IP) network solutions.

The complaint alleges that stock options awarded to Juniper's
executives were priced at below the stock's fair market value,
which resulted in executives receiving an instant gain.  In May
2006, the investing public slowly started to learn the truth
when the Center of Financial Research and Analysis profiled
Juniper as a "high-risk" company with possible backdating of
options.

A few days afterwards, an analyst from JP Morgan issued a report
suggesting that Juniper's dating of its options were suspicious.
By the end of that trading week, the stock cumulatively fell
nearly 11%.

On May 22, 2006, Juniper announced that it had received a
request for information from the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York related to its stock option grant
practices.

The company also announced that its audit committee was
reviewing historical stock option granting practices. In
response to these revelations, the stock fell an additional 15%.

On Aug. 10, 2006, after the market closed, the company revealed
that its audit committee concluded "that the actual measurement
dates for financial accounting purposes of certain stock option
grants issued in past differ from the recorded grant dates of
such awards."  On Aug. 11, 2006, Juniper stock fell close to
5.4%, and closed at $12.20, reaching a new low.

Interested parties have until Sept. 15, 2006 to seek for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com.  


PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 15 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors of
a Sept. 15 deadline for investors of Par Pharmaceutical Cos. to
file for appointment as lead plaintiff.

Recently, the firm filed a class action against the company and
certain of its officers in U.S. District Court District of New
Jersey.  The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of the company during the period from April 29,
2004 to July 5, 2006.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Par, headquartered in New Jersey, develops, manufactures and
markets more than 110 generic drugs and innovative branded
pharmaceuticals for specialty markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants reported earnings that were materially inflated as a
result of accounting errors including an understatement of
accounts receivable reserves.

The company has now admitted that the overstatement of its
revenues has resulted in Par overpaying its business partners in
various profit sharing arrangements.

As a result of the company's internal review of its trade
accounts receivable balances, the company has decided to restate
its previously reported financial statements for fiscal year
2004 and 2005 and the first quarter of 2006.

In addition, Par announced it will write-off inventory in an
amount up to $15 million due to flawed physical inventory
procedures.

In response to these revelations, on July 6, 2006, Par stock
fell $4.78 per share, losing nearly 26% of its value in one day
on extremely high volume of over 9 million shares traded, to
close at $13.47 per share.

Additionally, the company has been informed by a letter from the
staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, dated July 7,
2006, that the SEC is conducting an informal investigation of
the company related to the Restatement.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.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  * * *