---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 6, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 177

                            Headlines

AGIO INT'L: Recalls Steel Dome Fireplaces Posing Fire Hazard
BETONSPORTS PLC: Faces Complaint Over Lat Am Closure Statement
BOYKIN LODGING: Settles Lawsuits Over Braveheart Merger Plans
BRE-X MINERALS: Geologists' Lawyer Wants to Leave Inactive Suit
CANADA: Agent Orange Group Holds Public Hearing in Nova Scotia

CRUM & FORSTER: Continues to Face Policyholders' Suit in N.J.
DUKE CAPITAL: Faces Trading-Related Suits in Tenn., Kans., Colo.
E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Discovery Continues in Calif. Consumer Suit
EQUITY BROADCASTING: Faces Suit in Ark. Over Coconut Palm Merger
FDL INC: Recalls Thousands of Milano Counter, Bar Stools

FORD MOTOR: Requested Deposition in Ill. Consumer Suit Denied
HAWAII: $500T Award in Suit Over Child Support Checks Overturned
IDAHO: Community House Worker Sues City Over Retirement Benefits
IPAYMENT INC: Settlement Discussion Ongoing in "Fogazzo" Lawsuit
IPAYMENT INC: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit Over Merger Plans

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Suit Seeking to Stop Alcatel Merger
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles "AR Maley Trust" Shareholder Suit
MERCK & CO: French Products Liability Lawsuit Moved to France
MISSISSIPPI: Parish Joins Suit Against Army Corps Over MR-GO
OKLAHOMA: ACLU Challenges New State Laws for Sex Offenders

PENNSYLVANIA: Class Status Sought for Two Mile Landowners Suit
PETA: Australian Woolgrowers Drop Economic Claims in Lawsuit
RAMAR FOODS: Recalls Hot Dogs on Possible Listeria Contamination
ROYAL DUTCH: U.S. SEC Discontinues Investigation of Former Chief
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Parties Submit Briefs in Calif. Stock Suit

SOUTHEASTERN MEATS: Recalls Ground Beef for E.coli Contamination
TITAN CORP: U.S. Firms Accused of Conspiring to Violate RICO Act
TXU CORP: Circuit Court Mulls Appeal in Tex. ERISA Litigation
TXU CORP: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: Sept. 26 Hearing Set in "Brou" Suit Against FEMA

VIRGIN ISLANDS: St. George Villagers Suggest $5M Settlement
WILD PLANET: Recalls Pool Toys Posing Injury Risks to Children


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SUNTERRA CORP: Sept. 11 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Schatz & Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
ZORAN CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AGIO INT'L: Recalls Steel Dome Fireplaces Posing Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Agio International Co. Ltd. of China, in cooperation with L G
Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 33,800
Units of "Garden Treasures" steel dome fireplaces.

The company said touch-up paint used on the fireplace's exterior
can ignite during use, posing a fire hazard.  There have been
two reports of paint on the fireplace's exterior igniting.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled fireplace consists of a round fire bowl that rests
on four legs, with a chimney cap and hood.  The fireplace is
made of steel and is painted black.  They are about 3-feet tall
and 2-feet wide.  The item number, 91023, is printed on the
package materials.

These recalled steel dome fireplaces were manufactured in China
and are being sold at Lowe's stores exclusively nationwide from
August 2005 through July 2006 for about $100.

Picture of recalled steel dome fireplaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06249.jpg

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

For more information, contact L G Sourcing at (866) 284-9161
anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com


BETONSPORTS PLC: Faces Complaint Over Lat Am Closure Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Online gambling information portals The Online Wire and Gambling
911 have jointly filed a complaint with the Alternative
Investments Market Regulatory News Service against British
Internet gaming group BetonSports plc over alleged corporate
fraud, according to a report by Emily Swoboda of Interactive
Gaming News.

The complaint is directed at BetonSports' Aug. 11 announcement
that payments to its customers after the shutdown of its Costa
Rican and Antiguan operations are being held by banks and cash
processors.  

It was filed after the gaming portals learned in an e-mail
message from payment processor Neteller that BetonSports' funds
are not being withheld or frozen by his company.  The message
admitted that Nettelier halted all transfers to BetonSports.com
following the indictments by the U.S. Department of Justice
against BetonSports as part of a crackdown on online gambling,
but has continued to allow transfers from the company to
facilitate member payouts.  Transfers involving Easybets.com,
BoS's Asia-facing sports book, are reportedly operating as
usual.

The Online Wire and Gambling 911 accused BetonSports of false
corporate statements.  BetonSports Director of Communications
Kevin Smith denied that the company said specifically that
Neteller is holding its funds.

According to the report, Roberto Castiglioni, editor-in-chief of
The Online Wire, said the complaint is just the first step in a
long process toward filing a class action on behalf of
BetonSports customers who have not received their money since
the BetonSports Web site was shut down on July 19.

Mr. Castiglioni and Christopher Costigan, founder and president
of Gambling 911, have approached several law firms in the United
Kingdom regarding the planned class action.


BOYKIN LODGING: Settles Lawsuits Over Braveheart Merger Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boykin Lodging Co. and its directors entered into a memorandum
of understanding to settle purported shareholder class actions
pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The complaints are:

      -- "Delduco v. Adams, et al., Case No. CV 06 593403,"
         (filed June 6, 2006);

      -- "Armstrong v. Boykin, et al., Case No. CV 06 593497,"
         (filed June 7, 2006); and

      -- "Fink v. Boykin Lodging Co., et al., Case No. CV 06
         593603," (filed June 9, 2006).

The shareholder complaints were filed against the company and
each of its directors in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 19,
2006, among:

     * Braveheart Investors LP,
     * Braveheart II Realty (Ohio) Corp.,
     * Braveheart II Properties Holding LLC,
     * Braveheart II Properties Co. LLC,
     * the company, and
     * Boykin Hotel Properties, L.P.,

including the sales of the Pink Shell Beach Resort and Banana
Bay Resort to entities controlled by Robert W. Boykin, the
company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer. The
settlement will not affect the amount of merger consideration to
be paid in the merger.

In connection with the settlement, the company has agreed to
make certain additional disclosures to its shareholders, which
disclosures will be included in a proxy statement supplement
that will be mailed to shareholders of the company.

The memorandum of understanding is subject to customary
conditions including definitive documentation and court approval
following notice to the shareholders of the company and a
hearing.

If the merger is completed and final court approval of the
settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuits by the court with
prejudice is obtained in accordance with the definitive
settlement documentation, plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The defendants have reserved the right to oppose the application
in whole or in part, and the company or its successor will pay
the amount awarded by the court after an order awarding such
amount becomes final.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the shareholder complaints, and specifically
deny that any further supplemental disclosure is required under
any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.

However, to avoid the risk of delaying or otherwise imperiling
the merger, and to provide additional information to the
company's shareholders at a time and in a manner that would not
cause any delay of the merger, the defendants agreed to the
settlement described herein.

The defendants further considered it desirable that the actions
be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to
fully and finally resolve all of the claims that were or could
have been brought in the actions being settled.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Boykin Lodging Co. (NYSE: BOY) --
http://www.boykinlodging.com/-- is a real estate investment  
trust that owns interests in 21 hotels located throughout the
U.S.  Its hotel portfolio contains a total of 5,820 guestrooms
located in 13 states.


BRE-X MINERALS: Geologists' Lawyer Wants to Leave Inactive Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against the former chief geologist of Bre-X
Minerals Ltd. is in limbo, but the attorney representing him is
asking to leave the case should it become active again, it
emerged from a report by Richard Blackwell of the Globe and
Mail.

According to the report, Toronto attorney Joe Groia is
continuing to defend geologist John Felderhof in a separate suit
over illegal sales of shares in the company by his client.  In
late August, Mr. Groia presented final arguments on behalf of
Mr. Felderhof at his insider trading trial in the Ontario
Superior Court.

Mr. Groia was last paid for his services in December, court
document reveals.  An arrangement provides that Mr. Felderhof's
legal expenses must be paid out of by a Cayman Islands bank
account that only his ex-wife has authority over.  She is
refusing to pay Mr. Groia's invoices.  Mr. Felderhof now resides
in Indonesia, according to the report.  

The arrangement was revealed in an affidavit filed by Mr. Groia
in May as part of an application to the court that he be
released as Mr. Felderhof's lawyer in a pending class action
against the geologist.  

Bre-X collapsed in 1997 after tests found that there was no gold
at its Busang mine site in Indonesia.

Mr. Groia plans to pursue the insider trading case to the end
even though he is not currently receiving payment for his
services.


CANADA: Agent Orange Group Holds Public Hearing in Nova Scotia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Agent Orange Association of Canada held a public meeting in
August to raise people's awareness of a class action launched
last year over herbicide spraying at a military base in New
Brunswick, reports say.  The public information session was held
in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

About 1,000 people have joined the lawsuit claiming the spraying
of herbicides between the mid-1950s and 1984 at Canadian Forces
Base Gagetown has left them with a variety of ailments, the
report said.

In 2005, a group of former soldiers and civilians who claimed
they've been exposed to Agent Orange and other defoliants at the
base launched a class action against Ottawa (Class Action
Reporter, July 14, 2005).

The suit was filed before the federal court of Canada.  It
claims people exposed to the chemical suffered illnesses ranging
from birth defects in children to cancer in adults.  The
ailments were allegedly caused by chemicals sprayed on the woods
near Oromocto, New Brunswick.  It claims that the government was
not fully truthful regarding the full extent of the spraying
operations that were conducted.  

The claimants allege that "over one million liters had been
sprayed between 1956 to 1984" as part of a testing program to
determine the effectiveness of the defoliants.

The claim seeks punitive and aggravated damages.

The case names Kenneth Dobbie, Charles McLeod, Stewart McLeod,  
Derrick Williams, John Williams and Mary Williams as claimants.  

Recently, the Merchant Law Group said it will file court papers
in Halifax naming Paul Thompson of Dartmouth as plaintiff (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2006). The filing will make Mr.
Thompson the first Nova Scotian to launch a class action against
Canada.

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

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


CRUM & FORSTER: Continues to Face Policyholders' Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. and U.S. Fire remain defendants in
a class action by policyholders alleging that they used a
contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of free
competition in the market for insurance.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  Plaintiffs seek certification of a
nationwide class consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26,
1994 and the date of the class certification engaged the
services of any one of the broker defendants and who entered
into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the insurer
defendants.

Morristown, New Jersey-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., is a
national underwriter of commercial property and casualty
insurance products.


DUKE CAPITAL: Faces Trading-Related Suits in Tenn., Kans., Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Capital, LLC, and certain of its affiliates are defendants
in several trading related litigation in either the federal or
state courts of New York, Tennessee, Kansas and Colorado.  The
New York action was recently settled.

                      New York Litigation

Beginning August 2003, plaintiffs filed three class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of entities who bought and sold natural gas futures and
options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange during the
years 2000 through 2002.  Duke Energy Trading and Marketing,
LLC, along with numerous other entities, is named as a
defendant.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the Commodity
Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading
information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses
to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek class action certification, unspecified damages
and other relief.

On Sept. 24, 2004, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims filed on behalf of Duke Energy and other
defendants, and on Sept. 30, 2005, the court certified the
class.

The company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in
these consolidated cases to resolve all issues and on Feb. 8,
2006, the court granted preliminary approval of this settlement.  
The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal were entered in May
2006.  

                     Tennessee Litigation

On Jan. 28, 2005, four plaintiffs filed suit in Tennessee
Chancery Court against Duke Capital affiliates and other energy
companies seeking class-action certification on behalf of
indirect purchasers of natural gas who allege that they have
been harmed by defendants' manipulation of the natural gas
markets by various means, including providing false information
to natural gas trade publications and unlawfully exchanging
information, resulting in artificially high natural gas prices
paid by plaintiffs in the State of Tennessee.  

Alleging that defendants violated state antitrust laws and other
laws, plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

                 Kansas & Colorado Litigation

On Aug. 8, 2005, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court in
Kansas against the company and Duke Energy, as well as other
energy companies.  On Sept. 26, 2005, a class action petition
was filed in state court in Kansas.  On May 19, 2006, another
class action petition was filed in Colorado state court.  

These cases were also filed against the company and Duke Energy,
as well as other energy companies.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective
plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation
of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing
false information to natural gas trade publications and entering
into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the
antitrust laws of the respective states.

Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.  

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Capital, LLC, --
http://www.duke-energy.com/-- (collectively with its  
subsidiaries, Duke Capital), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke
Energy Corp., is an energy company located in the Americas with
an affiliated real estate operation.  Duke Capital provides its
services through the business segments, which include Natural
Gas Transmission, Field Services, Duke Energy North America,
International Energy and Crescent Resources, LLC.


E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Discovery Continues in Calif. Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in an amended class action pending in the
Superior Court of Orange County, California that names E-
Commerce Exchange, Inc., a subsidiary of iPayment, Inc., as one
of the defendants.

On Feb. 2, 2005, Robert Aguilard and nine other named
plaintiffs, filed a suit in the Superior Court of Orange County,
against:

     -- E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.,
     -- A-1 Leasing LLC (third party), and
     -- Duvera Billing Services (third party)

The civil action No.05CC02794 was filed as a class action.  The
complaint alleges a single cause of action for "unfair
competition," arising out of certain alleged transactions
relating to alleged marketing activities of E-Commerce Exchange
in providing various credit card processing services and
products to merchants for "Internet" commerce business and
related lease transactions allegedly marketed by the company
under the names "Quick Commerce" and "Wonderpay."

Plaintiffs assert that the alleged marketing activities are
"unlawful," "fraudulent" and "unfair" and seek an injunction to
restrain defendants from continuing to engage in such actions
and an order requiring defendants to provide restitution of
profits, plus other costs and expenses, including attorney fees.

In response, E-Commerce Exchange and Duvera each filed a
Demurrer and Motion to Strike, and A-1 Leasing filed a Motion to
Quash.  In a hearing held in January 2006, the court denied both
of the Motions to Strike as well as both Demurrers.

E-Commerce Exchange subsequently filed its answers denying the
allegations.  On April 10, 2006, plaintiffs amended its current
complaint, adding as defendants:

     -- Commerce Technologies Corp., Inc.,
     -- Vandalay Venture Group, Inc., and
     -- Applied Merchant Systems, Inc. as

Discovery is ongoing.  No trial date has been set at this time.

IPayment -- http://www.ipaymentinc.com/-- based in Nashville,  
Tennessee is a provider of credit and debit card-based payment
processing services to small merchants.


EQUITY BROADCASTING: Faces Suit in Ark. Over Coconut Palm Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Broadcasting Corp. and each member of its board of
directors were named as defendants in a purported class action
filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas in
relation to the merger agreement between the company and Coconut
Palm Acquisition Corp.

On April 7, 2006, Coconut Palm entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Equity Broadcasting, and certain Equity
Broadcasting shareholders, pursuant to which Equity Broadcasting
will merge with and into Coconut Palm with it remaining as the
surviving corporation.

On June 14, 2006, Max Bobbitt, an Equity Broadcasting
shareholder filed the lawsuit, which seeks to represent all
shareholders in the class, provided the class is certified by
the court.

The complaint makes various allegations against Equity
Broadcasting and its board with respect to the merger and other
matters.

In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the
plaintiff also requested injunctive relief to enjoin Equity
Broadcasting annual shareholder meeting and the vote.

An injunction hearing was not held before the Equity
Broadcasting annual meeting regarding the merger so the meeting
and shareholder vote proceeded as planned and the Equity
Broadcasting shareholders approved the merger.

On Aug. 9, 2006, Equity Broadcasting's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit was denied.  

Little Rock, Arkansas-based Equity Broadcasting Corp. --
http://www.ebcorp.net-- is America's ninth largest broadcasting  
company, according to BIA Financial Network, Inc.

Company address: 1 Shackleford Dr., Ste. 400, Little Rock AR
72211-2545, U.S., Phone: (501) 219-2400 Fax: (501) 221-1003


FDL INC: Recalls Thousands of Milano Counter, Bar Stools
--------------------------------------------------------
FDL Inc., of Kokomo, Indiana, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,800
units of Milano counter and bar stools.

The company said the recalled stools can be unstable due to
missing screws, loose screws or wrongly sized screws, posing a
fall hazard to consumers.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled stools have four legs, are made of wood, and have
dark brown or black seats.  The counter stool is 24 in. tall and
the bar stool is 30 in. tall.  The stools have item numbers
202448 and 118136, which can be found on the packaging material.

These recalled counter and bar stools were manufactured in the
U.S. and are being sold at Lowe's stores nationwide from Oct.
28, 2005 through May 23, 2006 for about $40.

Pictures of the recalled counter and bar stools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06247a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06247b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the stools immediately, look
for missing or loose screws, and if the stools are unstable
consumers should return them to any Lowe's store to receive a
full refund.

For more information, contact Lowe's stores toll-free at (866)
284-9160 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com


FORD MOTOR: Requested Deposition in Ill. Consumer Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian denied a request by
Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law Firm to depose Ford Motor Co.
boss William Clay Ford Jr., The Madison Record reports.

In 1999, the Lakin firm filed the suit against Ford Motor Co. on
behalf of owners of 1989-1996 model year vehicles that have
experienced paint peeling (Class Action Reporter, March 10,
2006).

Plaintiffs contend that their paint is defective in two
respects.  First, they allege that, because the company did not
use spray primer between the high-build electro coat and the
color coat in some models, the color coat lost adhesion to the
HBEC after extended exposure to ultraviolet radiation from
sunlight.  Second, they allege that the clearcoat on some models
deteriorated prematurely.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and interest, and compensatory damages in an amount to cover the
cost of repainting their vehicles and to compensate for alleged
diminution in value.

In 2003, Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis certified Elaine Phillips,
a secretary of the firm, as representative of two nationwide
classes of plaintiffs.

After Judge Kardis retired, the case was assigned to Judge
Matoesian.

In March, Ford Motor moved to decertify the class action, based
on last year's Illinois Supreme Court decision in Avery v. State
Farm, and Ms. Phillips chose to drop out as class representative
of the case.

Mr. Schmieder filed a new complaint for two plaintiffs from
Madison County, two from St. Clair County and one from Missouri.

Ford Motor moved to stay discovery pending a ruling on the
decertification motion, but Judge Matoesian ruled Aug. 18 that
discovery on decertification issues could continue.

On the same day, Mr. Schmieder sent a letter to Ketrina Bakewell
at Bryan Cave LP, the law firm representing Ford, identifying 12
former Ford employees he wanted to depose.  He believed he could
extract sworn testimony from Mr. Ford

Mr. Schmieder moved Aug. 24 to compel discovery and for
sanctions against Ford Motor for "improper refusal" to produce
its employees.

Ford Motor attorney Peter Herzog of Bryan Cave in St. Louis
moved the same day to quash the Ford deposition. He renewed his
motion to stay discovery.

But Judge Matoesian's Aug. 29 hearing did not turn out as Mr.
Schmieder expected.  The judge denied the motion to depose Mr.
Ford.

Judge Matoesian set a Sept. 22 hearing on the rest of the
discovery dispute.

Representing Ford are Peter Herzog of Bryan Cave LLP, One
Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis,
MO 63102-2750, Phone: 314/259-2000, Fax: 314/259-2020; and
Ketrina Blakewell of Bryan Cave LLP, 161 North Clark, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL  60601-3315, Phone: 312/602-5000, Fax: 312/602-5050

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law
Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095,
Phone: (618) 254-1127, Fax: (618) 254-0193.


HAWAII: $500T Award in Suit Over Child Support Checks Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hawaii Supreme Court overturned a $500,000 judgment in 2003
that declared the state's Child Support Enforcement Agency tardy
in sending child support checks to custodial parents.

The ruling partially overturns a 2003 judgment on a class action
by Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna, according to a report by
Nelson Daranciang of Star Bulletin.  The case is now dismissed.

In 2003, Judge McKenna declared the state had an obligation to
track down recipients of child support payments, and that it had
failed to do so.  The ruling was handed down in a lawsuit filed
by one parent Ann Kemp on behalf of all the other parents who
were not getting their support payments.

But the Attorney General's office argued, and the Supreme Court
sided with him, saying while the child support agency is legally
required to disburse child-support payments on a timely basis,
it cannot be held responsible in cases where parents either
failed to cash their child support checks or did not provide the
agency with a current mailing address.

About $3 million had not been reportedly paid to thousands of
custodial parents.  This was after the CSEA switched to a new
computer system to keep track of and locate delinquent parents
in 1998.  When the agency failed to find some addresses, it
placed the support payments into "un-cashed check" or "bad
address" accounts.

The recent high court ruling also voids Judge McKenna's awarding
of attorney fees to the plaintiffs, which plaintiffs' attorney
Frank O'Brien said amounted to $0.5 million.  

The high court also found Mrs. Kemp inadequate to represent a
class.


IDAHO: Community House Worker Sues City Over Retirement Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Boise is facing a suit filed by a worker at the
Community House shelter who alleges he was denied retirement and
other benefits, Fox 12 reports.

Reverend William Brown, who worked in the shelter, claims the
city stopped making contributions to the Public Employees
Retirement System of Idaho when his job responsibilities
changed.  He and his attorneys expect the case to grow into a
class action on behalf other employees in similar situations.

During the late 1980s Boise, Idaho, experienced a population
increase that also increased the number of homeless families and
individuals in the city.  In response, the Boise City-Ada County
Coalition for the Homeless was formed and began to develop a
plan for providing coordinated services and facilities for
homeless persons through a continuum of care model.


IPAYMENT INC: Settlement Discussion Ongoing in "Fogazzo" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, "Fogazzo Wood Fired Ovens
and Barbecues, LLC v. iPayment, Inc., Case No. BC342878," which
is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, state of
California, are currently engaged in negotiations aimed at
settling the case.

On Nov. 10, 2005, plaintiff Fogazzo Wood Fired Ovens and
Barbecues, LLC on its own behalf and as a "class action" filed a
lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, naming iPayment,
Inc. as the sole defendant.  

The complaint as amended, adds an individual plaintiff, and
asserts seven causes of action, claiming that in connection with
advertising the company's services and providing merchant card
services to plaintiffs and other merchants we made certain false
representations, violated the plaintiff's merchant processing
contract, and engaged in certain wrongful conduct that
constitutes "unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business acts and
practices."

The plaintiffs seek an injunction to restrain the company from
continuing to engage in such actions, for imposition of a
constructive trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs, for
unspecified monetary damages, for restitution of profits, plus
other costs and expenses, including attorney fees.

A status conference was held on July 10, 2006, at which time
counsel for plaintiff informed the court that he had not yet
filed an amended complaint because the parties were discussing
resolution.

As a result, the court ordered the parties to participate in a
settlement mediation conference, which the court ordered to be
conducted by the end of August.

The court also scheduled a further status conference for Sept.
6, 2006, in the event that the parties are unable to resolve the
dispute at mediation.  The parties are currently engaged in
settlement discussions, but no settlement understanding has been
reached yet, according to the company's Aug. 21 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2006.

IPayment Inc. --http://www.ipaymentinc.com/-- based in  
Nashville, Tennessee, is a provider of credit and debit card-
based payment processing services to small merchants.


IPAYMENT INC: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit Over Merger Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
IPayment, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a shareholder
litigation over a plan to merge the company with iPayment
MergerCo.

In May and June 2005, immediately following the announcement of
an acquisition proposal, and before any decision of the Special
Committee was taken, these purported class actions were filed:

      -- "Teresita Fay, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated v. Gregory S. Daily, et al., Case
         No. 051250-I;"
      
      -- "Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement
         System, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
         Similarly Situated v. iPayment Inc., et al., Case No.
         051258-I;" and

      -- "Seth Blumenfeld, Individually and On Behalf Of All
         Others Similarly Situated v. iPayment, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 05-1495-II."

The three complaints have been consolidated in the Chancery
Court for the State of Tennessee, Twentieth Judicial District,
Davidson County (Lead Case No. 05-1250-I).

The consolidated complaint alleges that the proposed transaction
under the agreement and plan of merger resulted from an unfair
process and the merger consideration constitutes an unfair
purchase price, and asserts that the Individual Defendants
breached fiduciary duties in connection with their evaluation
and approval of the proposed merger, purportedly aided and
abetted by iPayment.

The consolidated complaint sought:

      -- a declaration that the then proposed merger is
         unenforceable;

      -- an injunction against consummation of the then proposed
         merger or rescission of the transaction and imposition
         of a constructive trust;

      -- a direction that defendants comply with their fiduciary
         duties; and

      -- an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 28, 2006, all parties to the above-referenced
litigation agreed to a compromise and settlement of the
litigation and executed a Stipulation of Settlement.  

The Stipulation did not affect the consideration paid to the
stockholders of iPayment in the merger of iPayment MergerCo,
Inc. with and into the company pursuant to the agreement and
plan of merger, dated as of Dec. 27, 2005, among the company,
iPayment Holdings, Inc. (buyer) and iPayment MergerCo, Inc.  The
Stipulation is not an admission of liability by the defendants.

The Stipulation describes the company's consideration and
implementation of certain comments by plaintiffs' counsel with
respect to the provisions of the Merger Agreement and the
disclosures in the related proxy statement on Schedule 14A, all
of which was undertaken by the parties during the course of
settlement negotiations.

The Stipulation also includes an agreement that would, subject
to certain conditions and limitations, require the Buyer to pay
to plaintiffs a portion of certain profits realized from a sale
of 50% or more of the company or its assets within nine months
following the closing of the transaction.

The company has agreed to pay plaintiffs' counsel attorneys'
fees and expenses of $1.3 million in connection with the
settlement.  The settlement remains subject to court approval.

Nashville, Tennessee-based iPayment Inc. (iPayment) --
http://www.ipaymentinc.com/-- is a provider of credit and debit  
card-based payment processing services to small merchants.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Suit Seeking to Stop Alcatel Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a purported class action, "Resnick v.
Lucent Technologies Inc.," pending in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Union County.

The settlement will be subject to customary conditions including
court approval and consummation of the merger.  The terms of the
settlement is yet undisclosed.

On April 2, 2006, the company and Alcatel entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lucent and
Alcatel will combine their businesses through a merger.  Under
the terms of the agreement, each company share will be converted
into a right to receive 0.1952 of an American Depository Share
of Alcatel, with each Alcatel ADS representing one ordinary
share of Alcatel (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).

Filed on April 3, 2006, the suit proposes to represent a class
of the company's public shareholders and claim that, among other
things, a proposed merger with Alcatel is the product of
breaches of duty by the company's board of directors in that
they allegedly failed to maximize shareholder value in the
transaction (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006).

Along with other relief, the complaint seeks an injunction
against the closing of the proposed merger.  

On Aug. 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
discovery and for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
vote of Lucent's shareowners on the proposed merger with Alcatel
scheduled for Sept. 7, 2006.

During a conference with the court on Aug. 23, 2006, the
plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the
court scheduled a hearing for Sept. 6, 2006, to consider whether
to grant an injunction to postpone the Lucent shareowners
meeting.

The terms of the memorandum of agreement mean that the Sept. 6
court hearing has been cancelled.

Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:
LU) -- http://www.lucent.com/-- engages in the design and  
delivery of systems, services, and software that enable
converged communications for service providers, enterprises,
governments, and cable operators.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles "AR Maley Trust" Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the purported class action, "AR Maley
Trust v. Lucent Technologies Inc., et al.," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The settlement will be subject to customary conditions including
court approval and consummation of the merger.  The terms of the
settlement is yet undisclosed.

On April 2, 2006, the company and Alcatel entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lucent and
Alcatel will combine their businesses through a merger.  Under
the terms of agreement, each company share will be converted
into a right to receive 0.1952 of an American Depository Share
of Alcatel, with each Alcatel ADS representing one ordinary
share of Alcatel (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).

On May 12, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the
company and the current members of its board of directors over
the merger agreement.  The first amended complaint was filed on
June 23, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006).   

The named plaintiff proposes to represent a class of the
company's public shareholders and claims that, among other
things, the proposed merger with Alcatel constitutes a breach of
duty in that defendants allegedly failed to maximize shareholder
value with the transaction.  

Along with other relief, the complaint seeks an injunction
against the closing of the proposed merger.  

The suit is "AR Maley Trust v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03647-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C.
Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs is William Bernard Federman of
Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City,
OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.


MERCK & CO: French Products Liability Lawsuit Moved to France
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  
District of Louisiana ruled that a class action filed by
plaintiffs from France over Merck & Co.'s anti-inflammatory drug
Vioxx should be pursued in France, Les Echos reports.

The judge ruled that the legal process would be simpler, quicker
and cheaper than if carried out in the U.S.

"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 (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
4, 2006).

"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," Mr. Mayer added.

In all, Merck has received 16,000 complaints about the drug,
which was withdrawn after it was discovered that it could have
serious cardio-vascular side-effects, according to the report.

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.


MISSISSIPPI: Parish Joins Suit Against Army Corps Over MR-GO
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Bernard Parish government leaders said the parish has
officially joined a class action holding the agency that
supervises the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet responsible for the
flooding that occurred after Hurricane Katrina, Bob Warren of
The Times-Picayune reports.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is facing a class action filed
by residents of St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans' 9th Ward
(Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

The suit is seeking the closure of the waterway to prevent it
from directing floodwaters into their homes and businesses; the
appointment of a panel of scientific experts to study the
dangers posed by the channel and recommend ways to address them;
and the appointment of a special master to preside over the
experts' work and monitor implementation of any remedial
measures ordered by the court.

It accuses the Army Corps of ignoring federal and state laws
requiring studies of the environmental effects of the channel
before it was dug up in 1956.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit filed in July are St. Bernard
Councilman Mark Madary and New Orleans City Councilwoman Cynthia
Willard-Lewis, who represent the 9th Ward and eastern New
Orleans.  They are joined by residents Charles Savoy and Gerald
Nevle of St. Bernard; Pam Nevle, a former member of the St.
Bernard Coastal Zone Advisory Board; Lower 9th Ward resident Pam
Dashiell; and Shawn and Nga Tran.

The suit was brought by 12 law firms from Louisiana,
Mississippi, Florida and California, including attorney Pierce
O'Donnell of O'Donnell Shaeffer Mortimer LLP --
http://www.osmlaw.com-- 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000, Los  
Angeles, California 90071 (Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 213-532-
2000, Facsimile: 213-532-2020.


OKLAHOMA: ACLU Challenges New State Laws for Sex Offenders
----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma initiated a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma challenging the enforcement of
residential restrictions for sex offenders, The Associated Press
reports.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Tulsa County sex offenders,
claims that hundreds of people on Oklahoma's sex-offender
registry are being forced to move from their homes, leave their
jobs and stop attending their churches as a result of recently
enacted state laws.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry,
     -- Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Drew Edmondson,
     -- Tulsa County Dist. Atty. Tim Harris,
     -- Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz,
     -- Tulsa Police Chief Dave Been, and
     -- several state officials

According to the lawsuit, "the plaintiffs have been convicted of
crimes - some for crimes that did not warrant any prison time -
but they have paid the price and today live law-abiding lives as
productive members of the community.  Now they are being
punished again."

Oklahoma's Sex Offender Registration Act was amended, in this
year's legislative session, barring sex offenders from living
within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, playground,
park or licensed child-care center.

The state law also bars sex offenders from being within 300 feet
of schools, child-care facilities, playgrounds or parks.  In
combination, the provisions render "virtually all of the city of
Tulsa uninhabitable for plaintiffs" and effectively banish them
from the community, according to the suit.

On June 7, Gov. Henry approved the changes, which took effect
immediately.

American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation attorney
Tina Izadi wrote in the lawsuit that plaintiffs who have lived
in their homes for a substantial number of years were informed
in August in letters from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
that they are in violation of a "zone of safety" provision in
state law.  Those who received the letters were told that within
30 days "they must move or face arrest and prosecution of a
felony."

Ms. Izadi asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order
as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping
enforcement of the state laws and to declare them
unconstitutional.

The suit is "Doe et al. v. Parish et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00457-CVE-FHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District Court of Oklahoma under Judge Claire V. Eagan,
with referral to Judge Frank H. McCarthy.

Representing the plaintiffs is Tina Lynn Izadi of ACLU of
Oklahoma Foundation, 3000 Paseo Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73103,
Phone: 405-525-3831, Fax: 405-524-2296.


PENNSYLVANIA: Class Status Sought for Two Mile Landowners Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing some of the original landowners of the
Two Mile Run County Park asked the court to grant class-action
status to a suit filed against park operators, according to a
report by Erin Schattauer of The Derrick.com.

The suit claims that the Venango County failed to get the
approval of the General Assembly when it transferred ownership
of the park property in the late 1960s.

Donald Plumer and Richard Burgert, two of the original
landowners of the park, gave testimonies during a hearing on
Aug. 31.

The suit was filed by:

     * Donald M. Plumer Jr. and Joyce S. Plumer of Oil City, and
     * Richard A. and Annette K. Burgert of Myerstown

in Venango County Court of Common Pleas in 2004.  It was brought
on behalf of all those who were granted land for the 2,700-acre
park in Oakland Township and Sugarcreek Borough.  The suit named
as defendants:

     * the Venango Park and Natural Resources Authority, and
     * Parks Unlimited, the firm owned by Marty and Ann
       Rudegeair, which has managed the park since 1998.  

The suit requests:

     -- a permanent injunction voiding the transfer of the park     
        property to the authority or a ruling invoking the
        penalties for improper transfer of Project 70 lands;

     -- that all "commercial activities" associated with oil,
        gas, and timbering operations be prohibited at the
        park;

     -- that the use of the gate and gate fees be prohibited;
        and

     -- attorney's fees and costs.

Judge H. William White is presiding over the case and two others
filed against the Venango Park and Natural Resources Authority.
One suit was filed in December 2004 by Ray Beichner against the
Venango Park and Natural Resources Authority and Parks
Unlimited.  It claims the park's cabin rentals and proposed tree
house project pose unfair competition to existing businesses
such as Beichner's Turtle Bay Lodge.  It asks permanent
injunction against the provision of such overnight
accommodations at the park.

Representing the Plumers and Burgerts is lawyer Michael Hadley
of 420 Meadowlark Rd., Santa Ynez, California, (Santa Barbara
Co.).  

The operators of Two Mile Run County Park are represented by
lawyer Jim Greenfield.


PETA: Australian Woolgrowers Drop Economic Claims in Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The 103 woolgrowers supporting a lawsuit filed by Australian
Wool Innovation have revised their case against the People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals, according to ABC Rural.

The woolgrowers no longer allege in their federal case that they
suffered direct economic loss as a result of a PETA campaign
against the practice of mulesing.  They had alleged that the
negative publicity and misinformation about the wool industry
and mulesing by PETA reduced sales of wool.

Les Targ, from Australian Wool Innovation, says the growers are
still involved in other parts of the class action, but they
abandoned the claims of "direct economic loss because of the
difficulties of proving" it.

Australian Wool Innovation on the Net: http://www.wool.com.au/
PETA on the Net: http://www.peta.org/


RAMAR FOODS: Recalls Hot Dogs on Possible Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramar Foods Corp. of Pittsburg, California, in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is recalling approximately 5.25 pounds of hot dogs that
may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The recalled hotdogs are in 12-ounce packages of "Orientex
Manila Style Hot Dogs."  Each package bears the establishment
number "Est. 17480" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well
as the product code, "065000717."

The hot dogs were produced on July 17, 2006 and were distributed
to a retail outlet in San Leandro, California.

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

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.  
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  However,
listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as
infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or
undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Quality Control Manager Edith Mendoza at (925)
432-4267.


ROYAL DUTCH: U.S. SEC Discontinues Investigation of Former Chief
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dropped its
investigation of former chief executive Sir Philip Watts over
the company's overstatement of oil reserves, The Times reports.

In November, the Financial Services Authority reached the same
decision.  In June 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice ended
its investigation with no action being taken against Shell.  
Both U.S. authorities have concluded that no case can be made
against Sir Philip, who was dismissed from the company in March
2004.  Sir Philips and two other former executives remain
defendants in a class action that has been filed against shell
in the U.S.

Royal Dutch and Shell Transport are the parent companies of the  
Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Cos., a group of energy companies
with operations in approximately 145 countries.  Royal Dutch has
a 60% interest in the Group and Shell Transport has a 40%
interest in the Group.  Shares in the parent companies are
traded on stock exchanges in Europe and the U.S.

Beginning on Jan. 9, 2004, the group made a series of
announcements concerning the restatement of approximately 4.47
billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of proved hydrocarbon
reserves, or 23% of its proved reserves for 2002.  In November,
2004, the group announced that it expected to reduce its 2003
proved reserves by an additional 900 boe.

Two separate actions were filed in the U.S. on behalf of foreign
and U.S. shareholders:

     * One was brought by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP and 25  
       other Dutch public pension funds in January; and

     * the other is a separate consolidated class action  
       filed in 2004 and led by Pennsylvania State retirement  
       funds.

                Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel        

On June 30, 2004, Chief Judge John W. Bissell of the U.S.  
District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed  
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP clients:

     * the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, and  
     * the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement  
       System (collectively, the PA Funds),  

as lead plaintiffs in the Royal Dutch/Shell Transport securities
fraud class action.   

The lead plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the
defendants overstated the group's proved reserves by billions of
boe, overstated the group's reserves replacement ratio, and
overstated the Group's future cash flows by over $100 billion.   
As a consequence of the foregoing, defendants made materially
false and misleading statements to the investing public that
caused the price of the companies' securities to be artificially
inflated.  When the truth was fully disclosed in March 2004, the
companies lost billions of dollars in market value.

The court also granted the PA Funds' motion to appoint Bernstein  
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP as sole Lead Counsel for the class of
Royal Dutch/Shell Transport securities holders.   

The Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, which is a
public pension fund system organized for the benefit of the
current and retired public employees of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, has total assets of approximately $25 billion.   
The Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System,
which is a public pension fund system organized for the benefit
of the current and retired public school employees of the  
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has an investment portfolio of
approximately $52 billion, and a membership of more than 248,000
active school employees and 150,000 retirees.  

              Amended Class Action Names PwC, KPMG

Bernstein Liebhard filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on Sept. 13, 2004, against the Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., the "Shell" Transport and Trading Co., plc, several current
and former senior executives of the Cos., and the Cos.' outside
auditors, which include, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and KPMG  
Accountants N.V.  

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased Royal Dutch ordinary shares and Shell
Transport ordinary shares and American Depository Receipts
during the class period April 8, 1999 through and including  
March 18, 2004.

For more information, contact Stanley D. Bernstein, Keith M.  
Fleischman, Jeffrey M. Haber, U. Seth Ottensoser, Mark T.  
Millkey at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St.  
New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414.


SALESFORCE.COM INC: Parties Submit Briefs in Calif. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action pending
against salesforce.com, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit have filed briefs in the case.

On July 26, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Morrison
v. Salesforce.Com, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, against the
company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
1934 Act), purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
salesforce.com common stock between June 21, 2004 and July 21,
2004, inclusive.

The claims were based upon allegations that defendants failed to
disclose an allegedly declining trend in its revenues and
earnings.  

Subsequently, four other substantially similar class action
complaints were filed in the same district based upon the same
facts and allegations, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Section 11 and Section 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The actions were later consolidated under the caption, "In re
salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009
JSW (N.D. Cal.)."

On Dec. 22, 2004, the court appointed Chuo Zhu as lead
plaintiff.  On Feb. 22, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated and amended class action complaint.

The consolidated and amended complaint alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased salesforce.com common stock
between June 23, 2004 and July 21, 2004, inclusive.  

As in the original complaints, the claims in the consolidated
and amended complaint were based upon allegations that
defendants failed to disclose an allegedly declining trend in
its revenues and earnings.  On April 14, 2005, defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the CAC.  On April 15, 2005, the court
granted lead plaintiff leave to file an amended/superseding
complaint.

On April 22, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a Corrected and
Superceding [sic] first amended class action complaint.  As in
the consolidated and amended complaint, the first amended
complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the 1934 Act, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased salesforce.com common stock between June 23, 2004 and
July 21, 2004, inclusive.

The claims in the first amended complaint were based upon
allegations that defendants failed to disclose an internal
forecast that earnings for fiscal year 2005 would decline from
the prior fiscal year.

On April 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
first and amended complaint.  On Dec. 22, 2005, the court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, with
prejudice, and directing the clerk to close the file.

On Jan. 23, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration, as well as a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

On Jan. 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit entered a time schedule
order for the appeal, requiring, inter alia, lead plaintiff to
file his opening brief on May 11, 2006, and defendants to file
their responsive brief on June 12, 2006.

On Jan. 27, 2006, defendants filed a motion to strike as
untimely lead plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration.

On or about Feb. 2, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion with the
Ninth Circuit requesting a stay of appellate proceedings pending
the district court's determination of lead plaintiff's motion
for leave and defendants' motion to strike.  Defendants opposed
that motion.

On Feb. 9, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied the lead plaintiff's
motion for a stay of appellate proceedings, without prejudice to
making a motion for limited remand.

On March 1, 2006, the district court denied the lead plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and
defendants' motion to strike on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Also on March 1, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a motion with
the district court seeking certification for limited remand from
the Ninth Circuit.  Defendants opposed this motion, which was
denied by the district court on April 3, 2006.

The lead plaintiff filed his opening brief with the Ninth
Circuit on May 25, 2006 and the company filed its answering
brief on July 17, 2006.  The lead plaintiff's reply brief was
due Aug. 17, 2006.  

The suit is "In re salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. C-04-3009 JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S.
White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (1) Trevor Borum of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
          Prussia, LLP, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706;

      (2) Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
          Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600,
          San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:
          415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com; and

      (3) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market
          Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
          415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
          RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.

Representing the defendants is Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com.


SOUTHEASTERN MEATS: Recalls Ground Beef for E.coli Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Meats, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is recalling approximately 4,337 pounds of
ground beef that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The products subject to recall are:

     -- 10- pound boxes of "Ground Beef Patties, Southeastern
        Meats, Inc.";

     -- 5- and 10- pound bags of "Ground Beef, Southeastern
        Meats, Inc."; and

     -- 10- pound bags of "Taco Beef Mix, Ingredients Beef and
        Beef Parts, Southeastern Meats, Inc."

Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 7953" inside
the USDA mark of inspection and the case code, "07 31 06" or "08
01 06."

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

The ground beef was produced on July 31 and Aug. 1, and was
distributed to retail establishments and institutions in Georgia
and Tennessee.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Vice President John Shoocraft at (423) 892-6024.


TITAN CORP: U.S. Firms Accused of Conspiring to Violate RICO Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Constitutional Rights and the Philadelphia law
firm of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of persons detained by U.S. authorities in
Iraq, against:

     -- Titan Corp. of San Diego, California;

     -- CACI International of Arlington, Virginia and its
        subsidiaries;

     -- Stephen Stephanowicz of CACI, Inc.;

     -- Adel Nahkla of Titan Corp.; and

     -- Titan subcontractor John Israel.

The suit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.  It claims that the two U.S.
corporations conspired with U.S. officials to humiliate, torture
and abuse persons detained by U.S. authorities in Iraq.

Specifically, the lawsuit charges that three individual
defendants directed and participated in illegal conduct at the
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  CACI and Titan were hired by the
U.S. to provide interrogation services in Iraq.

Further, it alleges that the companies engaged in a wide range
of heinous and illegal acts in order to demonstrate their
abilities to obtain intelligence from detainees, and thereby
obtain more contracts from the government.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs in the case suffered
at the hands of defendants and their co-conspiring government
officials.  

Plaintiffs allegedly endured:  

     * being hooded and raped;
     * being forced to watch their father tortured and abused
       so badly that he died;
     * repeated beatings, including beatings with chains, boots
        and other objects;
     * being stripped naked and kept in isolation;
     * being urinated on and otherwise humiliated; and
     * being prevented from praying and otherwise abiding by
       their religious practices.

According to the complaint, beginning in January 2002, and
continuing to the present, the two companies began providing
services ranging from interrogation and interpretation to
intelligence gathering and security.  The complaint reveals that
both companies were increasingly dependent on government
contracts for revenue.

"We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to
torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money,"
said Susan Burke of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, an
attorney for the plaintiffs.   "It is patently clear that these
corporations saw an opportunity to build their businesses by
proving they could extract information from detainees in Iraq,
by any means necessary.  In doing so they not only violated a
raft of domestic and international statutes but diminished
America's stature and reputation around the world."

Jeffrey E. Fogel, Legal Director of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, said, "CACI and Titan perpetrated brutal
human rights abuses to obtain information, a practice that is
not only barbaric but leads to false confessions.  The modern
way to describe this is outsourcing torture; in the old days
we'd call these people mercenaries."

Barbara Olshansky, Deputy Legal Director of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, said, "There is no excuse for delaying an
investigation into the actions of corporations acting overseas
on behalf of our government.  Those involved in these human
rights abuses must be immediately called to account for their
immoral and illegal actions."   

Shereef Hadi Akeel of Melamed, Dailey & Akeel, said, "America is
about accountability, and this lawsuit is intended to hold
accountable those who are responsible for the wrongs they
committed against our clients."

Also representing the plaintiffs in this action are: attorneys
Michael Ratner, Jennifer Green and Judith Chomsky and human
rights fellow Steven Watt of the Center for Constitutional
Rights, and  Joyce S. Meyers of Montgomery, McCracken

The suit is "Al Rawi, et al. v. Titan Corp., Case No. 04-CV-
1143," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge John S. Rhoades with referral
to Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William J. Aceves, 225 Cedar Street, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 515-1589, Fax: (619) 696-9999;

     (2) Susan L. Burke and Joyce Meyers both of Montgomery,
         McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, 123 South Broad
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19109, Phone: (215) 772-7514,
         Fax: (215) 772-7620;

     (3) Barbara Olshansky, Michael Ratner, Jefrey Fogel,
         Jennifer GReen, Judith Borwn Chomsky and Jules Lobel
         all of the Center for Constitutional Rights, 666
         Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012, Phone: (212)
         614-6439, Fax: (212) 614-6499;

     (4) Shereef Hadi Akeel of Melamed, Dailey & Akeel, PC,
         26611 Woodward Ave., Huntington Woods, MI 48072-2026,  
         Phone: (248) 591-5000, Fax: (248) 541-9456;

     (5) Joseph Margulies and Locke Brown both of MacArthur
         Justice Center, University of Chicago Law School, 1111
         East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, Phone: (773) 702-
         9560, Fax: (773) 702-0771; and

     (6) Susan Feathers of University of Pennsylvania Law
         School, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-
         6204, Phone: (215) 898-0459.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Ari S. Zymelman, Joseph E. Fluet, Francis Q. Hoang, F.
         Greg Bowman and F. Whitten Peters all of Williams &
         Connolly, 725 12th Street, North West, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: (202) 434-5029, Fax: (202) 434-5929;

     (2) William E. Grauer of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate
         Mall, San Diego, CA 92121-9109, Phone: (858) 550-6420,
         Fax: (858) 550-6000;

     (3) Robert D. Rose of Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-
         3598, Phone: (619) 234-3815, Fax: (619) 338-6500;

     (4) Adam L. Rosman of Zuckerman Spaeder, 1201 Connecticut
         Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-8106,
         Fax: (202) 778-1859;

     (5) Raymond J. Coughlan, Jr. of Coughlan Semmer and Lipman,
         501 West Broadway, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101-3544,
         Phone: (619) 232-0107, Fax: (619) 232-0800; and

     (6) John F. O'Connor, J. William Koegel, Jr. of Steptoe and
         Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC
         20036-1704, Phone: (202) 429-3902, Fax: (202) 429-3000.


TXU CORP: Circuit Court Mulls Appeal in Tex. ERISA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit Court has yet to
rule on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action against TXU Corp. that alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

In November 2002 and February and March 2003, three lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas asserting claims under ERISA on behalf of a putative
class of participants in and beneficiaries of various employee
benefit plans of TXU Corp.

These ERISA lawsuits have been consolidated, and a consolidated
complaint was filed in February 2004 against:

     -- TXU Corp.,

     -- the directors of TXU Corp. serving during the putative
        class period, as well as

     -- members of the TXU Thrift Plan Committee comprised of:

        * Peter B. Tinkham,
        * Kirk R. Oliver,
        * Biggs C. Porter,
        * Diane J. Kubin,
        * Barbara B. Curry, and
        * Richard Wistrand

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of participants in such
employee benefit plans during the period between April 26, 2001
and Oct. 11, 2002.

They filed an initial motion for class certification and, after
class certification discovery was completed, the court denied
plaintiffs' initial class certification motion without prejudice
and granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs' second try at class certification was filed on the
basis of their amended complaint and was also denied and the
case was ordered dismissed without prejudice on Sept. 29, 2005.

They have filed an appeal of the dismissal to the U.S Circuit
Court for the Fifth Circuit.

The suit is "Hargrave v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-
02573," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary B. Lawson of Godwin Pappas Langley Ronquillo -
         Dallas, 1201 Elm St., Suite 1700, Dallas, TX 75270-
         2084, Phone: 214-939-4870, Fax: 214-760-7332, E-mail:
         glawson@godwinpappas.com; and

     (2) Jeffrey W. Chambers of Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers
         America Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston,
         TX 77019, Phone: 713-659-6400, Fax: 713-659-6262.

Representing the defendants:

     (i) David P. Poole of TXU Legal Dept., 1601 Bryan St., 21st
         Floor, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-812-6001, Fax: 214-
         812-6032, E-mail: dpoole@txu.com; and

    (ii) Robert K. Wise of Hunton & Williams - Dallas, 1601
         Bryan St., 30th Floor, Dallas, TX 75201-3402, Phone:
         214-979-3071, Fax: 214-880-0011, E-mail:
         bwise@hunton.com.


TXU CORP: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the purported securities
fraud class action filed against TXU Corp.

On Sept. 6, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in against the company and
C. John Wilder.  It asserts claims on behalf of the plaintiffs
and a putative class of owners of certain TXU Corp. securities
who tendered such securities in connection with a tender offer
conducted by TXU Corp. in 2004.

The complaint alleged violations of the provisions of Sections
14(e), 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
purported to assert a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary
duty.

An amended complaint dropped the claim for breach of fiduciary
duty.  The allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in
September and October 2004 for certain equity-linked securities
in which it was expressly disclosed that TXU Corp. management
was evaluating whether it should recommend to the TXU Corp.
board of directors that the board reevaluate TXU Corp.'s
dividend policy.

After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the
disclosure, TXU Corp. management did make a recommendation to
the board to reevaluate TXU Corp. dividend policy and the board
elected to increase the quarterly dividend.  

Plaintiffs in the litigation contend that such disclosure in
connection with the tender offer was inadequate.  

A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants is currently pending
before the court.

The suit is "Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund
Incorporated, et al. v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-
01784," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael C. Dodge of Dodge & Associates, 3710 Rawlins
         Suite 1600, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: 214-273-3280, Fax:
         214-273-3281, E-mail: miked@texasatty.com;

     (2) Francis J. Balint, Jr. of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
         Balint, 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ
         85012, Phone: 602-274-1100, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com;
         and

     (3) Rosemary J. Shockman of Shockman Law Offices, 8170 N
         86th Place, Suite 102, Scottsdale, AZ 85258-4308,
         Phone: 480-596-1986, E-mail: rshock@aol.com.


Representing the defendants is Richard S Krumholz of Fulbright &
Jaworski, Texas Commerce Bank Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800,
Dallas, TX 75201-2784, Phone: 214-855-8000, Fax: 214-855-8200,
E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com.


UNITED STATES: Sept. 26 Hearing Set in "Brou" Suit Against FEMA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
will hold on Sept. 26, 2006 at 9 a.m. a fairness hearing in the
settlement of the class action, "Brou et al. v. Federal
Emergency Management Agency et al, Case No. 2:06-cv-00838-SRD-
DEK."

The class consists of all individuals who:

     -- as of Aug. 29, 2005, resided in Louisiana or
        Mississippi in areas declared to be Federal Disaster
        Areas as a result of Hurricane Katrina; or as of
        Sept. 24, 2005, resided in Louisiana in areas
        declared to be Federal Disaster Areas as a result of
        Hurricane Rita;

     -- were displaced from their pre-disaster primary residence
        or whose pre-disaster primary residences have been
        rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage caused by
        Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita;

     -- are in receipt of, or who qualify or will qualify for,
        direct assistance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
        5174(c)(1)(B); and

     -- are persons with disabilities and have informed or will
        inform defendants of their need for a unit that
        accommodates their disabilities, but who have not
        received a unit with the requested accessibility
        features."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, in the courtroom of the Honorable
Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Sept. 15, 2006.  

On Feb. 17, 2006, individual plaintiffs Claire Brou, Darlene
Crosby, Willie Foster, Donna Graffagnino, Carla Hagler, Angela
Breaux Hardy, Robert Thomas Harris, Eugene Johnson, Victoria
Sumrall, Terry West, and Anita Wilson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed the instant lawsuit
against FEMA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael
Chertoff in his official capacity as Secretary of DHS, and David
Paulison in his official capacity as Director of FEMA.

The complaint charged defendants with disability discrimination
in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 794(a); the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604;
and the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5170 et seq., in FEMA's
direct temporary housing assistance program, by their alleged
delay and/or failure to provide accessible trailers, and alleged
delay and/or failure to modify trailers to make them accessible
to people with disabilities.

The proposed settlement provides that FEMA will:
     
     -- mail and distribute to print media, radio stations, and
        TV stations a notice explaining what is meant by
        "disability," notifying class members that accessible
        trailers and accessibility modifications are available,
        and describing the procedures class members must follow
        to have FEMA address any unmet accessibility needs;

     -- establish a special toll-free number for class members
        to call and provide information to help FEMA determine
        whether Class Members need an accessible trailer,
        whether modifications can be made to a FEMA trailer they
        already have to make it accessible, what type of
        accessibility features they need; and whether they need
        financial assistance to pay for a hotel or some other
        type of temporary housing unit an accessible trailer can
        be provided.

     -- require that a minimum of 10% of all mobile homes or
        travel trailers ordered on or after June 1, 2006 for use
        as temporary housing for victims of Hurricane Katrina or
        Hurricane Rita shall comply with the Uniform Federal
        Accessibility Standards (UFAS);

     -- hire a separate contractor for the exclusive purpose of
        providing all materials, labor, equipment and support
        services such as required permitting and local
        inspections for installation of UFAS compliant
        manufactured homes and travel trailers;

     -- require that the contractor selected by FEMA use its
        best efforts to provide accessible mobile homes or
        travel trailers within 90 days and to make any necessary
        modifications to make an existing trailer accessible
        within 60 days after a Class Member contacts FEMA (30
        days for installation of external ramps, steps, or grab  
        bars);

      -- ensure that the common areas and at least 5% of mobile
         homes or travel trailers in group sites operated by
         FEMA for Class Members in Louisiana or Mississippi are
         accessible to persons with disabilities;

      -- appoint an ombudsperson to work to resolve complaints
         and to monitor and recommend improvements to FEMA's
         procedures for meeting the needs of people with
         disabilities; and

      -- pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of
         $310,000.

In support of their claims, plaintiffs argue that FEMA has
failed to provide evacuees with disabilities with meaningful
access to its programs.

Defendants deny any liability and maintain that they have
administered their programs in a lawful manner.

It is uncertain whether plaintiffs would prevail at trial, and
even if they prevailed, it is not certain what relief would be
ordered by the court.  Continuing with the litigation would
incur additional delay, risk, and increasing expenditure.

The plaintiffs and defendants believe that the settlement
agreement creates an effective system for determining and
meeting the needs of evacuees with disabilities for accessible
temporary housing, and that it provides benefit and certainty to
the class now instead of prolonging the disagreement.

A copy of the preliminary approval of the settlement is
available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1120

The suit is "Brou et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00838-SRD- DEK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge
Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., with referral to Judge Daniel E.
Knowles.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Melissa Losch Boudreaux of The Advocacy Center, 2704
         Wooddale Blvd., Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70805, Phone:
         225-925-8884, E-mail: mlosch@advocacyla.org; Ellen
         Bentley Hahn of The Advocacy Center for the Elderly &
         Disabled, 600 Jefferson St., Suite 812, Lafayette, LA
         70501, Phone: 337-237-7380, E-mail:
         nhahn@advocacyla.org;

     (2) Marc Cohan, Caroline LaCheen and Cary LaCheen all of
         The Welfare Law Center, Inc., 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite
         1506, New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-633-6967; and

     (3) Peter Asplund and Robert Cohen both of Kirkland & Ellis
         (New York), 153 East 53rd St., New York, NY 10022-4575.

Representing the defendants is Diane Kelleher of The Dept. of
Justice, Federal Programs Branch (DC), P.O. Box 883, Washington,
DC 20044, Phone: 202-514-4775, E-mail: Diane.Kelleher@usdoj.gov.


VIRGIN ISLANDS: St. George Villagers Suggest $5M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The attorney for St. George Villas homeowners testified before
the Legislative chambers regarding the condition of the houses
that the state's Housing Finance Authority built in the 1990s
that is now the subject of a class action.

Attorney Lee Rohn urged senators to set aside $5 million in the
fiscal year 2007 budget to settle the suit against the HFA and
avoid a lengthy legal proceeding.  The suit was filed in 2003.

She told the Senate Housing, Sports and Veteran Affairs
Committee that 61 homes built through an HFA affordable housing
program in the early 1990s were inherently defective.  The
residents of 61 modular homes making up the Estate St. George
Villas development complained of cracking on the interior and
exterior walls, termite infestation and uneven and squeaking
floors.

The houses were manufactured in Florida and shipped to St.
Croix, then assembled on-site between 1991 and 1993 by a local
company called Capital Development Corp., Ms. Rohn said.

Capital Development filed for bankruptcy shortly after residents
began to complain.

Two companies hired in 2000 and 2003 to study and evaluate the
conditions at St. George Villas reported that the fill dirt that
had been placed on the lots before construction was improperly
compacted.

According to Ms. Rohn, if successful, the lawsuit could result
in an award amounting at least $60 million.  It is therefore
advantageous for the government to enter into the proposed $5
settlement.  Ms. Rohn said the $5 million is the cost of new
homes, the cost of repairs, inflation and the administrative and
management costs of overseeing the project.  She said the
homeowners would drop the lawsuit if the legislature ensured
that the settlement was funded.  

After hearing the testimony, HFA Executive Director Clifford
Graham, who was not with the agency at the time the homes were
built, said the board is expected to call a special meeting to
discuss Ms. Rohn's proposal.

Ms. Rohn said she was hired pro bono to represent the
homeowners, but she requested that $10,450 go toward expenses
paid to hire Chesapeake Engineering and Design Inc-Accident
Analysis Inc., which was asked by the homeowners in 2003 to
perform the second study.  The first study was done in 1998 by
the HFA hired Maguire Group Inc. at the request of HFA.


WILD PLANET: Recalls Pool Toys Posing Injury Risks to Children
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Planet Toys Inc., of San Francisco, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 273,000 units of Jet Streamers water blasters
pool toys.

The company said when partially filled with water, the pool toy
can stand upright on the pool floor with the rigid narrow end
pointed upward, posing an impalement risk.

Wild Planet has received one report of an impalement injury to
an 8-year-old girl who landed seat first onto a Jet Streamer
left in a swimming pool and received a puncture wound.

The Jet Streamers Outdoor Antics! Pump-Action Water Blasters are
straight squirt guns for the pool.  The Jet Streamers measure 9-
inches long with a bulbous water reservoir at one end and a
rigid tapering handle containing a small water intake hole at
the other end.  The tapering handle is gray while the bulbous
water reservoir varies in colors of white/green, blue/yellow and
orange/silver. Tiny raised lettering on the Jet Streamers'
handles state, "2002 Wild Planet Toys, San Francisco, CA, USA,
Made in China."  

The toys were sold as a 2-pack set, in packages with other pool
toys, such as dive balls and magnet dive gloves, and with boys'
swim trunks.  The product packaging is labeled "Jet Streamers,"
"Wild Planet" and is for children ages five and older.

These water blasters pool toys were manufactured in China and
are being sold by Target, Kohl's, Internet retailers, discount
department stores and toy stores nationwide from February 2003
through August 2006 for between $6 and $13 a set.

Picture of the recalled water blasters pool toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06248.jpg

Customers are advised to immediately stop using the Jet
Streamers and contact Wild Planet for a replacement product.  
The replacement product has an angled handle that prevents the
handle of the toy from standing upright.

For additional information, contact Wild Planet Toys at (800)
247-6570 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday,
visit http://www.wildplanet.com/jetstreamersor e-mail:  
help@wildplanet.com


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 1-2, 2006
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 2-3, 2006
LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SUNTERRA CORP: Sept. 11 Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until Sept.
11, 2006 to seek appointment by the Court as Lead Plaintiff in
the class action filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of
purchasers of Sunterra Corp. stock during the period from April
15, 2003 through June 22, 2006.  The Rosen Law Firm filed the
first securities class action against the company.

The complaint charges that Sunterra and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act by issuing materially false and
misleading financial results for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31,
2002 to Sept. 30, 2005 and the first quarter ended Dec. 31,
2005. As a result, the complaint alleges that the company's
stock has declined nearly 50%.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060
and (917) 797-4425, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Schatz & Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Parlux Fragrances, Inc. between Feb. 8, 2006 and
Aug. 10, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Parlux and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements.

Specifically, defendants' highly positive statements created the
impression that Parlux's revenues were growing and that the
company was well positioned to generate strong profits.
Beginning in June 2006, the truth about the company's declining
sales and accounting issues was revealed in a series of
disclosures indicating that:

      -- Parlux's sales were declining materially, including
         sales to related parties; and

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

During the Class Period, while Parlux stock traded at over $37
per share (prior to a stock split), defendants and company
insiders sold over $13 million worth of their Parlux holdings.

On Aug. 10, 2006, the company announced that Parlux's profit for
the quarter ended June 30, 2006 would be far less than investors
had been led to believe, due mainly to lower sales to U.S.
department stores and related parties. On this news, Parlux
stock plunged from $8.16 a share to $4.78, a drop of over 40%.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 16, 2006 to request
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


ZORAN CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Aug. 10, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Zoran Corp.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from July 1, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2001.

Interested parties may no later than Oct. 9, 2006 to request the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.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  * * *