---

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

           Thursday, September 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 178

                            Headlines

AUTOBYTEL INC: Oct. Hearing Set for $6.75M Securities Suit Deal
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Vacates Dismissal of Dunlap Claim
CALIPER LIFE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
CAREMARK RX: Ala. Court Consolidates Appeals in Securities Suits
CAREMARK RX: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit

CAREMARK INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Tenn. ERISA Litigation
CAREMARK RX: Opposes Transfer of PBM Antitrust Cases to E.D. Pa.
CAREMARKPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Against Arbitration of "Bellevue"
CORNELL COMPANIES: Still Faces N.Mex. Inmate's Strip Search Suit
CORNELL COMPANIES: Tex. Court Approves $7M Stock Suit Settlement

CUSHENBURY MINE: Meeting Held in Suit Over Alleged Mismanagement
DEERE & CO: Recalls John Deere X300 Select Series Lawn Tractors
EGL INC: Continues to Face "P&D" Drivers' Lawsuit in Calif.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Told to Refund $115M in Service Charge Suit
GENESEE & WYOMING: High Court Remands Outremont Rail Yard Case

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Sept. Trial Set in N.Y. Securities Suit Deal
INTER-CON SECURITY: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
IOWA: Rock Island Woman Sues Over Traffic Cameras in Davenport
KPNQWEST NV: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 4

KVH INDUSTRIES: Hearing Set on Class Status of R.I. Stock Suit
MEMBERS MORTGAGE: Sept. Hearing Set for Mass. Consumer Suit Deal
MIRANT CORP: "Comer" Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Claims
NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Discovery Continues in N.Y. TCPA Litigation
NETOPIA INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit

NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque City Drivers Sue Over STOP Ordinance
PFIZER INC: Faces Several Suits Over Cholesterol-Lowering Drug
POST PROPERTIES: Shareholder Seeks Court Review of Ga. Suit Deal
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Sept. 20 Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Deal
TOBACCO WHOLESALERS: Aussie Court Stops Retailers Suit Over Fees

TRIZEC PROPERTIES: Amends Merger Plan to Settle Securities Suits
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Settles Lawsuit Over "Facility Fee"
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
VIRGINIA MEDICAL: Feb. Hearing Date Set in Facility Fee Suit
WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Water Containers for High Bromate Level

WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Enters $1.4M Settlement in Styrene Leak Suit
WYETH INC: Pempro Products Liability Trial Commences in the U.S.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IMAX CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
IMAX CORP: Sutts, Strosberg Files $200M Stock Suit in Canada
RELATIONSERVE MEDIA: Cohen & Malad Files Securities Suit in Fla.
SCOTTISH RE: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Suit Filing


                            *********


AUTOBYTEL INC: Oct. Hearing Set for $6.75M Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 30, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $6,750,000 settlement in the suit (Case No. CV 04-
8987 CAS (JWJx)) filed by Scott Tanne, et al. against:

     -- Autobytel, Inc.,
     -- Michael Fuchs,
     -- Jeffrey Schwartz,
     -- Hoshi Printer, and
     -- Amit Kothari

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los
Angeles, California, in Courtroom 5.

Any objections must be made by Oct. 12, 2006.  Proof of claim
forms must be submitted by Nov. 21, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired, directly or indirectly, the common stock of Autobytel
between July 24, 2003 and Oct. 21, 2004.

On Oct. 29, 2004, the first of five class action complaints was
filed against the defendants on behalf of a class of public
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Autobytel during the class period.

By an order dated Jan. 28, 2005, the court consolidated all five
cases.  On March 14, 2005, the court appointed the lead
plaintiff, and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLP as lead counsel.

A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June
30, 2005.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
Autobytel and the individual defendants issued false and
misleading financial statements, press releases and other
statements regarding Autobytel's financials, business operations
and future prospects during the class period.

The complaint alleged that defendants' conduct artificially
inflated the price of Autobytel's common stock, injuring
Autobytel's shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock at inflated prices during the class period.

On Aug. 1, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on Nov. 2, 2005, and defendants filed a reply brief in
support of the motion to dismiss on Feb. 17, 2006.

In the midst of these filings, the parties agreed to submit this
matter to mediation and met before the Judge Daniel Weinstein
(Ret.) on Sept. 9, 2005.

The parties did not come to a resolution at the mediation, but
settlement negotiations continued.  In or around March 2006 the
basic terms of the settlement were reached.  The defendants'
motion to dismiss was pending at the time the parties reached
the proposed Settlement.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc. et al. Securities Litigation,
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator,
         P.O. Box 9000 #6423, Merrick, NY, 11566-9000, Phone: 1-
         800-382-2630, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;
         and

     (2) Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-
         7706, Fax: (610) 667-7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Vacates Dismissal of Dunlap Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Court of Appeals Division Three vacated a Superior
Court order dismissing a complaint in a class action filed
against Bank of America for labor code violations, Steven
Cischke of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

Former Bank of America employee Omar Dunlap filed a class action
against his employer alleging the bank violated requirements of
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act that it immediately
pay an employee's wages upon discharge or resignation.  

Bank of America filed a motion to strike the portions of the
complaint relating to claims for statutory penalties on the
ground that Mr. Dunlap failed to exhaust administrative remedies
as required by the PAG act.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Judith C. Chirlin granted the
motion to strike the portion of the complaint.

Mr. Dunlap argued that the PAG act section that are subject to
the exhaustion requirements does not include Labor Code Sec. 218
enacted in 1937, which allows an employee to sue directly to
recover wages or penalties due to the employee under Article 1,
Sec. 200 et seq., of the Labor Code.

In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals said statutory
penalties were recoverable by employees under the Labor Code
prior to the adoption of the PAG Act.  The PAG act, Sec. 2698 et
seq., was adopted in 2004.

Therefore, Mr. Dunlap "was not required to comply with the PAG
Act's administrative prerequisites to filing suit before
pursuing statutory penalties . . . ." Presiding Justice Joan
Dempsey Klein, writing for the Court of Appeal said.

The court thus ordered Judge Chirlin to vacate her order
granting Bank of America's motion to strike portions of Mr.
Dunlap's complaint, and to enter a new order denying the motion.

The case is "Dunlap v. Superior Court (Bank of America, N.A.),
06 S.O.S. 4586."

Mark Yablonovich, Marc Primo and Shawn Westrick of the
Initiative Legal Group -- http://www.initiativelegal.com/--  
represented Mr. Dunlap.

M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Stephen P. Sonnenberg and Christopher M.
Bissonnette of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker --
http://www.paulhastings.com-- represented the bank.


CALIPER LIFE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 9,
2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Commencing on June 7, 2001, Caliper and its officers and
directors:

     -- David V. Milligan,
     -- Daniel L. Kisner, and
     -- James L. Knighton

were named as defendants in three securities class actions filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The cases have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Caliper Technologies Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 01 Civ. 5072 (SAS) (GBD)."

Similar complaints were filed against approximately 300 other
public companies that conducted initial public offerings of
their common stock during the late 1990s.

On Aug. 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District
of New York.  Together, those cases are denominated, "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)."

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
alleging claims against Caliper and the individual defendants
under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

the consolidated amended complaint also names certain
underwriters of Caliper's December 1999 initial public offering
of common stock as defendants.

The complaint alleges that these underwriters charged excessive,
undisclosed commissions to investors and entered into improper
agreements with investors relating to aftermarket transactions.
It seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

Caliper and the other issuers named as defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits moved on July 15, 2002, to dismiss all claims on
multiple grounds.  

By Stipulation and Order dated Oct. 9, 2002, the claims against
Messrs. Milligan, Kisner and Knighton were dismissed without
prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted Caliper's motion to dismiss
all claims against it.  Plaintiffs were not given the right to
replead the claims against Caliper.  The time to appeal the
dismissal has not yet expired.

In May 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuers and their insurers setting forth
the terms of a settlement that would result in the termination
of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the issuers and
individual defendants named in the IPO Lawsuits.

On July 7, 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Caliper
board of directors approved the settlement terms described in
that Memorandum of Understanding, which was subsequently set
forth in a definitive settlement agreement among the settling
parties.

On Feb. 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to certain
modifications.  

The parties agreed to those modifications and on Aug. 31, 2005,
Judge Scheindlin issued an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement as modified and certifying settlement classes.

The fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement was
held on April 24, 2006.  As of Aug. 9, 2006, Judge Scheindlin
had not issued any order regarding the court's decision with
respect to the final approval of the settlement.

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


CAREMARK RX: Ala. Court Consolidates Appeals in Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court consolidated the issues raised in the
appellate proceedings of the class actions, "McArthur v.
Caremark Rx, et al.," and "Lauriello v. Caremark Rx, et al.,"
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

                       Lauriello Litigation

In October 2003, Caremark Rx was served with a putative class
action filed by John Lauriello in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama.

This lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported class of persons
who were participants in the 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
Rx and others.

Also named as defendants are several insurance companies that
had provided coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the
settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment
approving the 1999 settlement.  After the court overruled the
defendants' joint motion to dismiss in July 2004, the defendants
filed their answers, which, among other things, denied all of
the material allegations of the complaint.  The parties then
filed pleadings setting out their respective positions as to how
this case should proceed.

In January 2005, the court signed an order on class
certification that, among other things, held that this case will
proceed as a class action and set out a schedule for challenging
the adequacy of John Lauriello to serve as class representative,
as well as the appointment of Mr. Lauriello's lawyers to act as
class counsel.

The defendants have filed papers with the Alabama Supreme Court
seeking immediate appellate review of the trial court's order.
The Alabama Supreme Court has consolidated the issues raised by
the parties to the appeal in "Lauriello" with those raised by
the parties to the appellate proceedings involving the McArthur
plaintiffs.

                     McArthur Litigation

In November 2003, a second putative class action was filed by
Frank McArthur in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
Rx and others.

This lawsuit was also filed on behalf of a purported class of
persons who were participants in the 1999 settlement, and named
as defendants Caremark Rx, several insurance companies that had
provided coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the
settlement, and a number of lawyers and law firms involved in
negotiating and securing the approval of the 1999 settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

In December 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the lawsuit,
filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss, abate or
stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a duplicative,
later-filed, class action complaint.

In January 2004, Caremark Rx and the other defendants filed
their own motion to dismiss, abate or stay the lawsuit as a
later-filed class action that is substantially similar to the
Lauriello lawsuit.

The defendants' motion to stay was granted by the court, and the
lawsuit was transferred to an administrative docket where it is
reviewed every 90 days.

In February 2005, the plaintiffs in the stayed McArthur case
filed motions in the Lauriello case seeking to intervene in that
litigation and asking for the right to challenge the adequacy of
John Lauriello as class representative and his lawyers as class
counsel.  The court denied the McArthur plaintiffs' motion to
intervene.

The McArthur plaintiffs have appealed the trial court's order,
and, as referenced above, the issues raised in that appeal have
been consolidated with the issues raised in the Lauriello
appeal.

Nashville, Tennessee-based Caremark Rx, Inc. (NYSE: CMX) --
http://www.caremark.com/-- is a pharmaceutical services company  
that conducts its operations through its subsidiaries, Caremark
Inc. CaremarkPCS (CaremarkPCS).  Its pharmaceutical services are
referred to as pharmacy benefit management services, and involve
the design and administration of programs aimed at improving the
safety, effectiveness and convenience of prescription drug use.  
The company dispenses prescription drugs to participants in its
customers' benefit plans through its seven automated mail
service pharmacies and its 21 regional mail service pharmacies.
Its customers are primarily sponsors of health benefit plans,
such as employers, unions, government employee groups, insurance
companies and managed care organizations, and individuals
located throughout the U.S.


CAREMARK RX: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the class action, "Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:02-cv-02197-VEH," according to the company's
Aug. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.  

With the decision the company is now seeking to renew its motion
to dismiss a related case, "Dolan v. Caremark, Inc., Case No.
2:03-cv-00003-CLS."

                       Bickley Litigation

In April 2002, Caremark Rx was served with a putative private
class action that was filed by Roland Bickley, purportedly on
behalf of the Georgia Pacific Corp. Life, Health and Accident
Plan, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California
alleging that Caremark Rx and Caremark each act as a fiduciary
as that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income
Security and that Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA.  In August 2002, this
case was ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Alabama.  

                         Dolan Litigation

Caremark Rx subsequently was served in May 2002 with a virtually
identical lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations,
which was filed by Mary Dolan, purportedly on behalf of Wells
Fargo Health Plan, and also filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  In December 2002, this case
also was ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

Both of these lawsuits were amended to name Caremark as a
defendant, and Caremark Rx was dismissed from the second case
filed.  These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

Caremark Rx and Caremark, as applicable, filed motions seeking
the complete dismissal of both of these actions on various
grounds.

In December 2004, the court presiding over the Bickley matter
entered an order dismissing that case in its entirety with
prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing, had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that Caremark
was not a fiduciary under ERISA as to the plaintiff.

Mr. Bickley then filed a motion to alter or amend the court's
order, which was denied by the court in February 2005.  

In June 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Bickley case with
prejudice.  

The Dolan suit had been stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit's
decision in Bickley, and the company intends to reinstate its
motion to dismiss this case.

Caremark Rx, Inc. --http://www.caremark.com/-- based in  
Nashville, Tennessee, is a pharmaceutical services company that
conducts its operations through its subsidiaries, Caremark Inc.
and CaremarkPCS.  Its pharmaceutical services are referred to as
pharmacy benefit management services, and involve the design and
administration of programs aimed at improving the safety,
effectiveness and convenience of prescription drug use.  The
company dispenses prescription drugs to participants in its
customers' benefit plans through its seven automated mail
service pharmacies and its 21 regional mail service pharmacies.
Its customers are primarily sponsors of health benefit plans,
such as employers, unions, government employee groups, insurance
companies and managed care organizations, and individuals
located throughout the U.S.


CAREMARK INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Tenn. ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action, "Moeckel v. Caremark
RX, Inc., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee against Caremark, Inc. and
Caremark Rx, Inc.  

In July 2004, Caremark Rx and Caremark were served with a
putative private class action filed by Robert Moeckel,
purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits
Plan.  

The suit alleged defendants each acting as a fiduciary breached
certain purported fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

In August 2005, Caremark Rx was dismissed from the action.
Caremark's motion to dismiss the case and motion to transfer
venue were denied by the court, and discovery in the lawsuit is
ongoing, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.  

The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Rebecca Cothran Blair and John A. Day of Branham & Day,
         P.C., 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300, Brentwood, TN
         37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880, E-mail:
         rblair@branhamday.com and jday@branhamday.com; and

     (2) Mike Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, 1129
         Fifth Avenue South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107-
         1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166, E-mail:
         mmiller@solberglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Paul Savage Davidson, Joseph A. Woodruff and Jennifer
         L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville
         City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville,
         TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, Fax: (615) 244-6380 E-
         mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com,
         joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com and
         jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com; and

    (ii) Frank E. Pasquesi of Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three
         First National Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602-4283, Phone:
         (312) 977-4400.


CAREMARK RX: Opposes Transfer of PBM Antitrust Cases to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc. is opposing a motion before the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Pharmacy Benefit
Manager Antitrust Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In April 2006, plaintiffs in the class action brought by:

     * Brady Enterprises, Inc.,
     * Charlotte J. Lopacki, d/b/a Budget Drug,
     * Heritage Pharmacy,
     * the Pharmacy Freedom Fund, and
     * the National Community Pharmacists Association

                 against

     * Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and
     * Merck & Co., Inc.

in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed a motion before the JPMDL, seeking to have a
number of cases in other courts brought by other plaintiffs and
against different defendants transferred to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The two cases against the company that are subject to the motion
are:

      -- "N. Jackson Pharm Inc., et al. v. Caremark RX Inc., et
         al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;
         and

     -- "Bellevue Drug Co., et al. v. Advance PCS, et al., Case
         No. 2:03-cv-04731-ER," filed in the U.S District Court
         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company has filed a response in opposition to this motion.

Caremark Rx, Inc. --http://www.caremark.com/-- based in  
Nashville, Tennessee, is a pharmaceutical services company that
conducts its operations through its subsidiaries, Caremark Inc.
and CaremarkPCS.  Its pharmaceutical services are referred to as
pharmacy benefit management services, and involve the design and
administration of programs aimed at improving the safety,
effectiveness and convenience of prescription drug use.  The
company dispenses prescription drugs to participants in its
customers' benefit plans through its seven automated mail
service pharmacies and its 21 regional mail service pharmacies.
Its customers are primarily sponsors of health benefit plans,
such as employers, unions, government employee groups, insurance
companies and managed care organizations, and individuals
located throughout the U.S.


CAREMARKPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Against Arbitration of "Bellevue"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a second appeal of its decision compelling
arbitration in the class action filed by Bellevue Drug Co. and
others against Advance PCS, now CaremarkPCS.

The suit was filed by:

     -- Bellevue Drug Co.,
     -- Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy, and
     -- Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4,

purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association.

The suit alleges antitrust violations under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act arising from the company's establishment of network
rates for retail pharmacies.  

The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the purported class three
times actual monetary damages and injunctive relief enjoining
the alleged antitrust violations.  The court granted a motion
filed by the company to compel arbitration of any claims between
it and the plaintiffs pursuant to the pharmacy services
agreements it has with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court's decision
or to have the decision certified for an immediate appeal, which
motion was denied.

The plaintiffs moved again for relief from the court's decision
to stay, indicating that they do not intend to arbitrate under
the terms of the arbitration agreement in issue.  The motion is
pending, according to Caremark Rx, Inc.'s Aug. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Bellevue Drug Co. et al. v. Advance PCS, Case No.
2:03-cv-04731-ER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Eduardo C. Robreno.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael J. Freed of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,
         Ament & Rubenstein, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800,
         Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-521-2000, E-mail:
         mfreed@muchshelist.com; and

     (2) Jerome M. Marcus of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
         St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax:
         215-875-5804, E-mail: jmarcus@bm.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Steven E. Bizar of Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., 11 Penn
         Center, 1835 Market Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia,
         PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-8700, E-mail:
         bizarse@bipc.com; and

    (ii) Erik F. Dyhrkopp of Bell Boyd & Lloyd, LLC, 70 West
         Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-372-1121,
         E-mail: edyhrkopp@bellboyd.com.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Still Faces N.Mex. Inmate's Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Cos., Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action filed by a detainee at the Lincoln County Detention
Center in the U.S. District Court of New Mexico in Santa Fe.

The lawsuit relates to the former LCDC policy that required
strip searches for all detainees and inmates and alleges that
such policy violates a detainee's Fourth Amendment right.  The
lawsuit was filed as a putative class action brought on behalf
of all inmates who were searched at the facility from May 2002
to July 2005.  This lawsuit is in its early stages and no
discovery has been conducted.

As of June 30, 2006, the company has estimated its range of
additional exposure to be approximately $0.3 million.  The
company has insurance coverage in the event its actual exposure
exceeds the company's estimated exposure.

In addition, in connection with the company's acquisition of the
LCDC facility, certain amounts were placed in escrow to offset
any undisclosed liability relating to such acquisition.

The company has given notice to the prior owner of LCDC that it
will seek to recover from the escrow any losses it may incur as
a result of this litigation.  

Houston, Texas-based Cornell Companies, Inc. (NYSE: CRN) --
http://www.cornellcompanies.com/-- provides the integrated  
development, design, construction and management of facilities
to governmental agencies in the U.S. within three operating
segments: adult secure institutional services; juvenile justice,
educational and treatment services, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment services.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Tex. Court Approves $7M Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division gave its approval to the $7 million settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against
Cornell Companies, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

In March and April 2002, the company, former president and chief
executive officer Steven W. Logan, and former chief financial
officer John L. Hendrix, were named as defendants in four
federal putative class actions:

     -- Graydon Williams et al. v. Cornell Cos., Inc, et al.,
        case no. H-02-0866, in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of Texas, Houston Division;

     -- Richard Picard et al. v. Cornell Cos., Inc., et al.,
        case no. H-02-1075, in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of Texas, Houston Division;

     -- Louis A. Daly et al. v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
        case No. H-02-1522, in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division;
        and

     -- Anthony J. Scolaro et al. v. Cornell Cos., Inc., et al.,
        case No. H-02-1567, in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The lawsuits were putative class actions brought on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's common stock between March 6,
2001 and March 5, 2002 and relate to the company's restatement
in 2002 of certain financial statements.  

The lawsuits involved disclosures made concerning two prior
transactions executed by the company:

      * the August 2001 sale-leaseback transaction, and
      * the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.  

These four lawsuits were consolidated into the Graydon Williams
action and Flyline Partners, LP was appointed lead plaintiff.  
As a result, Flyline Partners, LP, filed a consolidated
complaint.  Richard Picard and Anthony Scolaro were also named
as plaintiffs.  

Since then, the court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933
and/or Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other things,
restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees
and expert fees.

In an order entered April 1, 2005, the court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' securities fraud
claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  The court denied the motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims covering the company's secondary offering
in 2001.  

Parties agreed to settle this matter.  Under the proposed
agreement, the company has not admitted any wrongdoing.  
Settlement in the amount of $7 million will be funded through
the company's directors' and officers' liability insurance.  
During the fourth quarter of 2005, the company recorded the
settlement charge of $7.0 million and the related reimbursement
of $7.0 million from the director's and officer's liability
insurance.  

In February 2006, the court approved the settlement of this
matter.  Funds were disbursed from the trust account to
plaintiffs' counsel's escrow account upon court approval of the
settlement in February 2006.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Cornell Cos., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-00866," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger B. Greenberg of Schwartz Junell, et al., 909
         Fannin, Ste. 2700, Houston, TX 77010, Phone: 713-752-
         0017, Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
         rgreenberg@schwartz- junell.com; and

     (2) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000
         Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com.

Representing the defendants are:
    
     (i) Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump, et al., 300 W. 6th St.,
         Ste. 2100, Austin, TX 78746, Phone: 512-499-6200, Fax:
         512-499-6290, E-mail: pbessette@akingump.com; and

    (ii) Timothy R. McCormick of Thompson & Knight, Ste. 3300,
         1700 Pacific St., Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-969-
         1103, Fax: 214-880-3253, E-mail:
         timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com.


CUSHENBURY MINE: Meeting Held in Suit Over Alleged Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A town-hall meeting to discuss the class action over alleged
mismanagement of the Cushenbury Mine Trust that provides
benefits to retired Kaiser Steel worker was held at the National
Orange Show Events Center in San Bernardino, California on Aug.
29, according to the San Bernardino County Sun.

Cushenbury Mine Trustees Virginia Mulloy, Thomas Rabone and
Michael Urbanek, and the trusts' attorney, Alfred B. Fowler are
facing a lawsuit seeking class-action status for alleged
mismanagement (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006).  The suit
was filed on July 28 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.  

The trust has been providing benefits to the Kaiser worker since
the company closed its Fontana plant in 1984 and went bankrupt
in 1988.  The Cushenbury Mine in Lucerne Valley was valued at
$15 million in the mid-1990s according to the suit.

The trustees are accused of failing to sell the mine and to
distribute the proceeds of the sale to living retired Kaiser
workers as planned.  

To support its claim of mismanagement, the suit cited
allegations by a former trustee regarding the acceptance by
former trustees of some $65,000 unreported payments from the
trust fund in 2003.  Those trustees have since been replaced.

The current trustees are also accused of failing to take
reasonable steps to protect the trust assets by removing Frank
Bitonti, one of the three former trustees accused of
mismanagement, from the current record title holder of the
Cushenbury Mine property.

The suit is asking the court to appoint a neutral trustee.  
Plaintiffs in the suit are Jeanette Barton, Fred Delgado, Jimmy
Elliott and William Walborn.  They are proposing to represent at
least 1,500 Kaiser Steel retirees and their spouses.

At the meeting, people asked how long should the retirees be
able to get their money.  The estates of deceased Kaiser
employees are not eligible for the benefits, according to
plaintiff attorney Richard McCune of Welebir & McCune.

According to the report, Mr. McCune is trying to put the lawsuit
on the fast track in the court system and plans to file a
preliminary injunction.  He said he hopes to have the court rule
on the issues in three to six months.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1135

The suit is "Elliott et al. v. Board of Trustees and Trust
Attorney for the Kaiser Steel Corp. Retirees Benefit Trust and
the Cushenbury Mine Trust et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04716-JSL-
CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge J. Spencer Letts with referral to
Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the plaintiffs are Jae Kook Kim and Richard D
McCune, Jr. at Welebir and McCune, 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite
215, Redlands, CA 92374 U.S., 909-335-0444, E-mail: JKK@wmtrial-
law.com or ece@wmtrial-law.com


DEERE & CO: Recalls John Deere X300 Select Series Lawn Tractors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Co. of Moline, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 16,000
units of John Deere X300 Select Series Lawn Tractors.

The company said a problem in the manufacturing process could
cause damage to the circuit in the interlock module.  If the
interlock module fails, the mower blades will be able to run
with no operator on the tractor seat.  Consumers could suffer
injuries from contact with operating blades.  No incidents or
injuries have been reported.

These John Deere X300 Select Series lawn tractors are green with
yellow seats and wheels.  These model and serial numbers can be
found on the serial number plate on the tractor's frame, which
is located just above the front wheel axle on the right side of
the tractor:

                   Model    Serial Number Ranges

                   X300     M0X300A012380 - 012875
                   X300     M0X300C020339 - 024949
                   X300     M0X300D011842 - 012375
                   X304     M0X304A013047 - 013964
                   X320     M0X320A017344 - 020858
                   X324     M0X324A012658 - 013220
                   X340     M0X340A012667 - 013498

These recalled lawn tractors were manufactured in the U.S. and
are being sold at authorized John Deere dealers nationwide from
April 2006 through May 2006 for between $2,800 and $5,000.

Picture of the recalled lawn tractor:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06577.jpg

The company is directly notifying those consumers who purchased
an affected tractor.  Consumers should contact a John Deere
dealer for a free repair.

For more information, contact John Deere's Customer Contact
Center at (800) 537-8233 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday and 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Saturday, or at the
John Deere Web site: http://www.deere.com


EGL INC: Continues to Face "P&D" Drivers' Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
EGL, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed
by one former and two current independent contractor pickup and
delivery (P&D) drivers of the company on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated drivers in California.  

The suit alleges various causes of action based on their theory
that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors.  

Filed in California state court on Sept. 12, 2005, the complaint
requests:

      -- the matter be designated as a class action on behalf of
         all independent contractor P&D drivers working for EGL
         in California;

      -- a declaratory judgment that EGL has violated the law;

      -- an equitable accounting and an unspecified amount of
         damages; and

      -- restitution in the form of business expenses, unpaid
         overtime, meal period compensation, unlawful deductions
         from wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'
         fees and costs.

The company removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and the parties agreed to focus
only on the individual claims of the three named defendants in
the first phase of the proceedings.  

In the event one or more of the plaintiffs' claims survive the
summary judgment phase, the next phase would focus on whether
the action is maintainable as a class action.  

The suit is "Narayan et al. v. EGL, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:05-
cv-04181-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral
to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lorraine Grindstaff and Jules Sandford of Patten Faith
         and Sandford, 635 West Foothill Blvd., Monrovia, CA
         91016-2097, US, Phone: 626-359-9335, Fax: 626-303-2391,
         E-mail: lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com and
         jsandford@pfslaw.com; and

     (2) Aaron D. Kaufmann of Hinton, Alfert & Sumner, 1646 N.
         California Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596,
         Phone: (925) 932-6006, Fax: (925) 932-3412, E-mail:
         kaufmann@hinton-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Karen J. Kubin of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104-1036, Phone: 415-765-9522, Fax: 415-765-
9501, E-mail: kkubin@akingump.com.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Told to Refund $115M in Service Charge Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court Judge Jay M. Bloom ordered Farmers
Insurance Exchange and Farmers Group Inc. to pay back more than
$115 million in "service charges" tacked on to consumers'
insurance policy premiums.

The judge found that the charges were "above and beyond" the
premiums specified in the policies and ordered that Farmers pay
back the charges.

The court determined that Farmers' "service charge" breached the
insurance contract by requiring consumers to pay more than they
had agreed to pay for the insurance.

The total amount of service charges collected by Farmers since
2000 is $115,556,827.00.

"These service charges were just additional premiums with a
different name," said Timothy G. Blood of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, attorney for the plaintiffs in the
class action.  "It's like going to the grocery store to buy a
gallon of milk and then finding out at the register that in
addition to the advertised $3 for the milk, you have to pay an
additional service charge, while receiving no additional
benefit."

"For most consumers this charge was an annoyance, but over time
it added up, and for Farmers it added up to millions of
dollars," Mr. Blood added.

Consumers who bought car insurance through Farmers Insurance
Exchange were given the option of buying a one-month policy, but
if they took this option they were charged a $60 or $96 per year
"service charge" in addition to the premium.

                        The Class Action

Farmers was named a class action defendant in 2004 as part of a
wave of lawsuits nationwide challenging insurance company
premium payment options, disclosure and service fees for both
life and property and casualty insurers.

Members of the class action are all the people who bought
insurance policies issued by Farmers in California or Nevada
between Oct. 6, 2000 and Aug. 26, 2005, paid on a monthly basis,
and were charged one or more "service charges" in addition to
their premiums.

Other insurance companies are now receiving judgments for the
same type of lawsuit.  Many of the lawsuits have become class
action seeking small payments to consumers and multi-million
dollar fees to plaintiff attorneys.

               Farmers Insurance to Oppose Ruling

Farmers Insurance Exchange said in a statement it will oppose
the decision.

"This legal ruling erroneously interprets fees for our billing
options as insurance premium payments, which they are not.  
There was no dispute over the fees charged -- the ruling said we
had the right information on the wrong piece of paper.  We
cannot agree with this decision," said Jeff Beyer, Farmers
senior vice president and chief communications officer.

The company statement stated that the lawsuit did not dispute
that a fee can be charged for the billing options, and there was
no dispute over the amount of fees charged.  The only dispute
was as to the location of where the fee is shown.

It further said that in the 44 years that a monthly payment
billing option has been offered to Farmers customers in
California and Nevada, Farmers has not shown the billing service
fee on the policy declarations page because it has never been
considered part of the premium.

It cited a recent nationwide survey whose result showed that the
vast majority of insurance consumers polled said they were aware
that a fee would be charged for the convenience of paying on a
monthly basis.  Farmers also found that 43% of those polled
would not do business with an insurance company that did not
offer a monthly payment option.

The premium payment plan involved in this lawsuit has been
offered since 1961, the company said.
  
Headquartered in Los Angeles, the Farmers Insurance Group(R) --
http://www.farmers.com-- comprise the nation's third-largest  
personal lines property & casualty insurance group -- helping to
restore the lives of over 15 million customers when the
unexpected happens.

For more information, contact Timothy G. Blood of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 619-231-1058,
E-mail: timb@lerachlaw.com.


GENESEE & WYOMING: High Court Remands Outremont Rail Yard Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an application for leave
and remanded back to the Quebec Superior Court the purported
class action against subsidiaries of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc.

On February 2002, an individual living adjacent to the Outremont
rail yard filed a motion for authorization of class
certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in
connection with a claim against:

     -- two of the company's subsidiaries:
        
        * Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming Canada
          Inc., and

        * Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc.; and
   
     -- Canadian Pacific Railways, which owns the rail yard.  

The individual alleged that the noise emanating from the
Outremont rail yard causes significant nuisance problems to the
residents who live near the rail yard.  The rail yard has a part
of it leased to and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway.

The plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all
owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined
section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which is
adjacent to the rail yard.

Plaintiff requested the issuance of an injunction in order to
limit the hours when the rail yard may operate.  The plaintiff
has not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the
damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover
for his "trouble and inconvenience" as well as for "potential
devaluation of the value of his property."

On May 27, 2004, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the
plaintiff's request to institute the class action, and the
plaintiff filed an appeal with Quebec Court of Appeal.

On Nov. 11, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the
Quebec Superior Court's finding a class could not be certified,
but noted the proposed class could only include owners and
tenants within the defined geographic area since 1999.

This case was remanded back to the same judge who previously
dismissed the plaintiff's request to institute a class action.
On Jan. 9, 2006, Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., Quebec-Gatineau
Railway and CP filed applications for leave to the Supreme Court
of Canada with respect to the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision
to allow the class action to proceed.

On May 18, 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its
decision, rejected the application for leave and remanded the
matter back to the Quebec Superior Court, where the class action
will be heard in accordance with the ruling of the Quebec Court
of Appeal.

The plaintiff published notices of the class action in local
newspapers on June 7, 2006, but has not yet commenced
proceedings on the merits of the underlying claim.

Greenwich, Connecticut-based Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (NYSE: GWR)
-- http://www.gwrr.com/-- is an owner and operator of short  
line and regional freight railroads in the U.S., Canada, Mexico,
Australia and Bolivia.  In addition, the company provides
freight car switching and rail-related services to industrial
companies in the U.S.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
class action pending against Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

From Jan. 10, 2006 through Feb. 28, 2006, six purported class
action complaints were filed against the company and its senior
officers and all but one of its directors (Class Action
Reporter, April 13, 2006).  

The plaintiffs in the suits are:

     -- Earl Schriver, Jr. (filed Jan. 10, 2006),
     -- Jeff Dayton (filed Jan. 13, 2006),
     -- Joseph Mathieu (filed Jan. 18, 2006),
     -- Fred Safir and Wilma Libar (filed Jan. 26, 2006),
     -- Ronald Kelner (filed Feb. 1, 2006), and
     -- Miroslav Bardos (filed Feb. 9, 2006).

The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who acquired
the company's common stock during the period of May 13, 2005
through Aug. 9, 2005.  

The plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants for
violations under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  They also claim against the
individual defendants of violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and
misleading statements related to the company's financial
condition and future prospects and that the individual
defendants improperly sold holdings.

The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants' actions, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

On May 1, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California approved the consolidation of the federal
securities class actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed in this action on
July 24, 2006.

The suit is "In Re Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case no. 8:06-cv-00031-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com;

     (2) David Goldberger of Scott and Scott, 600 B. Street,
         Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-233-
         4565; and

     (3) Lynda J. Grant of Labaton Sucharo and Rudoff, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-907-0857.

Representing the defendants is Peter W. Devereaux of Latham &
Watkins, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA
90071-2007, Phone: 213-485-1234, E-mail: peter.devereaux@lw.com.


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Sept. Trial Set in N.Y. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2006 at 9:15 a.m. for
the proposed $3.8 million settlement in the matter, "Imperial
Chemical Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03cv2457 (NRB)."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Naomi Reice
Buchwald in the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
N.Y.

Deadline for submission of a proof of claim is on or before Oct.
18, 2006.  Any objections and exclusions to and from the
settlement must be made on or before Aug. 28, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC American Depository
Shares Listed on the New York Stock Exchange during the period
from Aug. 1, 2002 through and including March 24, 2003.

Lead plaintiffs allege that in the spring of 2002, ICI's
subsidiary, Quest, attempted to implement a new supply chain
management software system, Q-Star.  This implementation
compounded existing supply chain and manufacturing process
problems at Quest.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2002, and periodically thereafter during
the class period, defendants issued statements which were
materially false and misleading with respect to the scope and
impact of the problems with Q-Star and also omitted material
facts regarding Q-Star which should have been disclosed.

Additionally, another ICI subsidiary, National Starch, failed to
disclose material facts regarding its supply of raw materials.

On March 24, 2003, ICI issued a profit warning stating that due
in part to a loss of business at Quest and increases in raw
material prices at National Starch, ICI's results for the first
quarter of 2003 would be lower than the same quarter for the
prior year.  

As a result of this announcement, the price of ICI ADS fell from
$9.60 on March 24 to a close of $6.05 on March 25, 2003.

For more details, contact

     (1) Imperial Chemical Securities Litigation, c/o Rust
         Consulting, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post Office Box
         24644, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: (888) 285-
         7847, E-mail: Imperial@CompleteClaimSolutions.com, Web
         site: http://imperialchemicalsettlement.com.

     (2) George A. Bauer III, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165,
         Phone: 212.946.9310, Fax: 212.273.4386, E-mail:
         gbauer@milbergweiss.com; and

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100, Fax:
         (631) 367-1173.


INTER-CON SECURITY: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former security officers of Inter-Con Security
Services Inc., protecting Kaiser Permanente hospitals and other
sites throughout California, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California over
alleged violation of federal and state labor laws by the
company.

Plaintiffs allege that Inter-Con unlawfully requires its
security guards to attend 15-min. security briefings prior to
each eight-hour shift, without paying them.

"If the briefing is part of our job -- and it is -- then we
should be paid for it," said Ed Hall, a plaintiff and Inter-Con
security officer working at Kaiser Stockton since 1999.  "Inter-
Con calls it mandatory but when it comes down to our paychecks
they consider it voluntary.  It's really overtime and we
shouldn't be forced to work it for free."

Plaintiff Roy Adams has worked as a security guard protecting
the South San Francisco Kaiser hospital since June 2004.

Mr. Adams stated, "I'm bringing this suit to ensure that my
coworkers and I get paid properly for all the work we do.  I've
been in security and law enforcement for many years, and I like
knowing that I'm helping protect my neighbors.  But we can't
afford to work for free."

The overtime pay withheld from employees amounts to
approximately $1,000 per year, per employee, a considerable
amount for officers who earn an average annual income of
$24,000.

Inter-Con employs more than 25,000 workers globally to provide
"a full range of physical security services," including security
guard services at Kaiser Permanente hospitals, other healthcare
facilities, government buildings, and other sites.

The proposed class of plaintiffs includes approximately 2,000
security officers throughout California, and possibly many more
as Inter-Con security officers protect healthcare workers,
patients, and their families at Kaiser's 230 hospitals and other
buildings nationwide.

Plaintiffs request the court to issue an injunction requiring
Inter-Con to properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked,
and they are seeking compensation for all current and former
employees who were denied overtime pay in California.

Inter-Con Security Services is also facing charges filed with
the National Labor Relations Board of intimidating,
interrogating and retaliating against security officers seeking
to form a union with Service Employees International Union.

The suit is "Adams et al. v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-05428-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District Court of California under Judge
Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barbara Jane Chisholm and Michael Rubin both of
         Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, 177 Post
         Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone:
         (415) 421-7151, Fax: (415) 362-8064, E-mail:
         bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com or
         mrubin@altshulerberzon.com;
  
     (2) James M. Finberg and Jahan C. Sagafi both of Lieff
         Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275 Battery Street,
         Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Phone: 415-
         956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail: JFinberg@lchb.com
         or jsagafi@lchb.com; and

     (3) Micha Star Liberty of Liberty Law Office, 78 First
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-896-1000,
         Fax: 415-896.2249, E-mail: micha@libertylawoffice.com.


IOWA: Rock Island Woman Sues Over Traffic Cameras in Davenport
--------------------------------------------------------------
A woman from Rock Island County filed a suit in Scott County
District Court challenging the legality of Davenport's speed and
red light cameras, according to a report by Dustin Lemmon of The
Quad-City Times.

Monique Rhode, who was reportedly caught speeding at the
intersection of Kimberly Road and Harrison Ford, claims the
cameras violate Iowa state laws.  

Unlike a speeding or red light ticket issued by a law
enforcement officer, the camera-generated citations are
considered a civil infraction, not a criminal offense, according
to the report.

Attorney Richard Davidson of Lane & Waterman and Cartee &
Clausen said turning a civil infraction, not a criminal offense
is inconsistent with the Iowa Code.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of thousands of
people who have received similar citations.  It also asks for
the return of speeding fines previously collected.

In July, a Scott County magistrate ruled in favor of the city in
a class action filed by a Quad-City man over the use of the
traffic camera in catching speeders.  The plaintiff alleged his
constitutional rights were violated because the city ordinance
puts the burden or proof on the accused and that there was no
proof he was driving when a camera caught his car speeding.  The
suit was filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties
Union.

Mr. Davidson's contact information: Lane & Waterman LLP, 224
18th Street, Suite 500, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (Rock Island
Co.), Phone: 309-786-1600, Fax: 309-786-1794.


KPNQWEST NV: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold on Jan. 4, 2007 a hearing for the proposed settlement
of the class action "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951."

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in the courtroom of Judge Peter K.
Leisure.

The class consists of all investors who bought shares of Dutch
phone company KPNQWest N.V. between Nov. 9, 1999, and May 31,
2002.  

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 19, 2006.  
Deadline to file claims is Dec. 28, 2006.

KPNQwest filed for creditor protection in May 2002 after banks
declined to extend further credit and after its parents, KPN of
the Netherlands and U.S. operator Qwest, cut funding support,
and a consortium of lenders, which holds most of the group's
assets, refused to advance further cash.

In June of that year, the administrators and management board of
the company were forced to request a court in Netherlands to
convert the company's moratorium into bankruptcy.  At the time
of the filing, the company's total debts amounted to EUR2
billion (US$1.8 billion).  The company's assets were offered for
sale shortly after the filing (Troubled Company Reporter-Europe,
Dec. 18, 2002).

In October 2002, a putative class action was filed against the
company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest.  

The suit alleges that Willems Ackermans, former executive vice
president and chief financial officer, engaged in a fraudulent
scheme and deceptive course of business in order to inflate
KPNQwest revenue and securities.  Mr. Ackermans was the only
defendant named in the original complaint.  On Jan. 9, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the
company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest, and others.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and/or rescission as appropriate against
defendants, as well as an award of plaintiffs' fees and costs.

In July 2006, Royal KPN N.V. settled for $4.18 million a
securities class action linked to KPNQWest's bankruptcy (Class
Action Reporter, July 3, 2006).

The suit is "Taft v. Ackermans, Case No. 1:02cv7951," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Peter K. Leisure with referral to Frank Maas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Ira M. Press and Mark Booker of Kirby, McInerney &   
         Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10TH Floor, New York, NY   
         10022 USA, Phone: (212) 317-2300;  

     (2) Jacob A. Goldberg, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three   
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USA,   
         Phone: (610) 667-7706; and  

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert M. Zabb, Glancy, Binkow &   
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los   
         Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: (310) 201-9150.  

Representing the company are Barry Howard Goldstein of O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, USA, Phone:
212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: Bgoldstein@omm.com; and
Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S Hope Street, Los   
Angeles, CA 90071, USA, Phone: (213) 430-6000.


KVH INDUSTRIES: Hearing Set on Class Status of R.I. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2006 hearing is slated for a motion to certify a
class in the consolidated securities suit against KVH
Industries, Inc. and certain of its officers that is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that
statute, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities in the period Oct. 1, 2003 to July 2, 2004
and seeks certain legal remedies, including compensatory
damages.

The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed lead
plaintiff.  This matter consolidates into one action eight
separate complaints filed between July 24, 2004 and Sept. 15,
2004.

On Jan. 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  The court denied this motion in part and
granted it in part.

On Oct. 14, 2005, the defendants answered the consolidated
complaint and denied liability and all allegations of
wrongdoing.

Subsequently, on Dec. 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.  A hearing on that motion is currently
scheduled for mid-September 2006.

The suit is "Sekuk Global, et al. v. KVH Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00306-ML," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, under Judge Mary M Lisi.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew F. Medeiros, Little, Medeiros, Kinder, Bulman &
         Whitney, 72 Pine St., 5th Floor, Providence, RI 02903,
         Phone: 401-272-8080 Fax: 401-521-3555; and

     (2) Barry J. Kusinitz, 155 South Main St., Suite 405,
         Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 401-831-4200, Fax: 401-
         831-7053.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) John H. Henn, Kalun Lee, Brandon F. White, Foley Hoag
         LLP, 155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, MA 02210, Phone:
         617-832-1000, Fax: 617-832-7000; and

    (ii) Brooks R. Magratten, Benjamin V. White III, Vetter &
         White, Incorporated, 20 Washington Place, Providence,
         RI 02903, Phone: 401-421-3060, Fax: 401-272-6803.


MEMBERS MORTGAGE: Sept. Hearing Set for Mass. Consumer Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2006, 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $3.375 million settlement in the matter: "Rodrigues, et
al. v. Members Mortgage Co., Inc. and Plymouth Savings Bank,
Case No. 1:03-cv-11301-PBS."

The hearing will take place before The Honorable Patti Saris at
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John
Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA
02210.

Exclusions and objections to and from the settlement must be
submitted on or before Aug. 14, 2006.  Claim forms must be
submitted on or before Oct. 2, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who obtained a
loan from Members Mortgage Co. or Plymouth Savings Bank and who
signed at closing a Confirmation of Non-Exercise of Right to
Cancel in connection with a mortgage loan secured by property in
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island from July 11,
2000 to Dec. 31, 2001, or in Massachusetts from July 11, 1999 to
Dec. 31, 2001.

Plaintiffs Raul and Jo-Ann Rodrigues and Michael and Lisa
Phillips allege that defendants violated the Truth iIn Lending
Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act
either by providing borrowers with a form at the closing that
did not technically comply with those statutes or by asking
borrowers to sign a form at the closing that should have been
signed three days after the closing.  The lawsuit seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit from Defendants.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen Combs and Heather Kolbus of
         Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 S.
         LaSalle St., 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
         (312) 739-4200, Fax: (312) 419-0379, Web site:
         http://www.edcombs.com;and

     (2) Christopher M. Lefebvre, P.O. Box 479, Pawtucket, RI
         02862, Phone: 401-728-6060, Fax: 401-728-6534, E-mail:
         lefeblaw@aol.com.


MIRANT CORP: "Comer" Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil,
U.S.A., et al." that is pending U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, sought the dismissal of claims
asserted against Mirant Corp.  

On April 18, 2006, the plaintiffs, who are seeking damages from
a variety of parties that allegedly contribute to global
warming, named the company as one of the defendants in the case.

Other defendants in the suit include various oil companies, coal
companies, chemical companies and other owners of electric
generating facilities.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class that consists of
residents and property owners in Mississippi who suffered loss
and harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

The complaint alleges that the defendants' activities in
producing and combusting coal and other carbon-based fuels
resulted in the emission of greenhouse gasses that caused
significant climate change and increased the frequency and
intensity of hurricanes, including Hurricane Katrina.

Plaintiffs assert that the defendants knowingly engaged in
activities that cause greenhouse warming and have taken no
action to utilize currently available mitigation techniques.

The suit asserts claims based upon nuisance, trespass,
negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.  
It thus seeks damages for loss of property, personal injury, and
damage to property, as well as punitive damages.

On June 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the claims asserted against Mirant Corp.

The suit, Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW, is originally, "Comer,
et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co."  It is filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
under Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H.
Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
         Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
         Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
         and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;

     (2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
         Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
         LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
         mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
         smwiles@smithfawer.com; and

     (3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
         Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
         8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.


NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Discovery Continues in N.Y. TCPA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
National Physicians Datasource LLC, a subsidiary of WebMD Health
Corp.  

The suit is alleging that the company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax
advertisements.

Filed by Ari Weitzner M.D., P.C., a Brooklyn ophthalmologist,
the suit claims that faxes allegedly sent by National Physicians
Datasource, which publishes The Little Blue Book, were sent in
violation of the TCPA.  The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of
$5,000,000.  

The court had temporarily stayed the lawsuit pending resolution
of relevant issues in a related case.  On Feb. 21, 2006, the
court lifted the stay.  The parties are currently conducting
discovery.

The suit is "Weitzner v. National Physicians Datasource LLC,
Case No. 1:05-cv-02531-CBA-SMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Carol B.
Amon.  

Representing the plaintiff is Todd C. Bank, Law Office of Todd
C. Bank, 119-40 Union Pike, Fourth Floor, Kew Gardens, NY 11415,
Phone: 718-520-7125, E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com.

Representing the company is Richard A. Johnston of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212 230-8800, Fax: 212 230-8888.


NETOPIA INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted class-action status to the consolidated securities
lawsuit against Netopia, Inc.

The first of four purported class action complaints, "Valentin
Serafimov, et al. v. Netopia, Inc., Alan B. Lefkof and William
D. Baker," was filed in August 2004.  The suit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint alleged that during the purported class period,
Nov. 6, 2003 and July 6, 2004, the company made materially
false, misleading and incomplete statements and issued false and
misleading reports regarding its earnings, product costs, and
sales to foreign customers.  

The other three complaints that subsequently were filed made
additional related claims based on the same announcements and
allegations of misstatements.

As provided in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, the plaintiffs in these actions filed motions to
consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff
counsel.  

On Dec. 3, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases and appointing a lead plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel.  
On June 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that during the
purported class period, Nov. 6, 2003 through Aug. 16, 2004, the
company made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material facts, and that the market price of its common
stock was artificially inflated as a result of such alleged
conduct.

On June 21, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The company believes that it have strong
defenses to the claims asserted in the consolidated amended
complaint.

The suit is "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-3364," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael David Braun of Braun Law Group, P.C., 12400
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025,
         Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
         service@braunlawgroup.com; and

     (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.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Sara B. Brody of Heller Ehrman, 333 Bush Street, San
         Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone: 415/772-6000, Fax:
         (415) 772-6268, E-mail: sara.brody@hellerehrman.com;
         and

    (ii) Richard Marmaro of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
         LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los Angeles,
         CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000, Fax: 213-687-5600,
         E-mail: rmarmaro@skadden.com.


NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque City Drivers Sue Over STOP Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque employees who drive government vehicles as part of
their work filed a class action complaint against the city and
Mayor Martin Chavez after being found violating the city's Safe
Traffic Operations Program Ordinance by traffic cameras.

The ordinance authorizes surveillance cameras to photograph
vehicles throughout the city and establish fines and penalties
for alleged traffic light, turn signal and speed violations.

The plaintiffs are seeking for relief from enforcement of the
new "STOP" Ordinance against city employees who drive city
vehicles as part of their work.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs Johnny Aguilar, Anthony
Chavez, Yvonne Dougherty, Virginia Ramirez, and John Sanchez
received notice of alleged violation of the STOP ordinance and
have been advised that the city has "docked" their pay for a
corresponding fine.

The complaint said that with only one exception, plaintiffs have
not been informed of their right to a hearing or any other
opportunity to contest the charges against them.  None of the
plaintiffs have conceded or admitted violations of the
ordinance.

The case alleges, among others:

     -- violation of New Mexico Common Law by declaring city
        vehicles to be public nuisances;

     -- violations of the Fourteenth Amended to the U.S.
        constitution, which provides citizens the right to due
        process of law;

     -- violations of New Mexico Constitution that provides due
        process of law and municipal home rule;

     -- that the city lack jurisdiction to enforce the STOP
        Ordinance because only the Metropolitan court has
        jurisdiction over "offense and complaints pursuant to
        ordinances of the county and of a municipality located
        within the county;"

     -- violations of the state traffic code that provides that
        the arrest for traffic misdemeanor should be by a
        commissioned, salaried peace officer, who, at the time
        of the arrest, is wearing a uniform clearly indicating
        his official status; and

     -- violation of the city's ordinances that provides for the
        preparation of a "written notice to appear in court"
        prior to the issuance of ordinance violation and
        citation.

It asks the court to declare judgment on the issues of
violations of constitutional rights, jurisdiction, and alleged
violations of the state's Motor Vehicle Code and the City's Code
of Ordinances.

It seeks class-action status to represent all city employees who
have been or will be threatened with or have suffered or will
suffer loss of pay because of alleged violations of the STOP
Ordinance.  It also seeks compensatory, declaratory and
injunctive relief, requiring defendants to, among others:

     * declare the acts and omissions of the defendants to be
       illegal and unconstitutional;

     * reimburse the full amount of the fine(s) collected by the
       city as well as any other costs;

     * rescind any disciplinary action taken without notice or
       the right to a hearing, including but not limited to the
       accrual of "points" against the employees' City Operator
       Permits;

     * enjoin defendants' alleged illegal and unconstitutional
       conduct and require adherence to principles and rules
       contained in the federal and state constitution, state
       laws, and city ordinances; and

     * pay to plaintiffs any damages proximately resulting from
       defendants unlawful conduct and violations of legal or
       constitutional rights, together with costs, including
       reasonable attorneys' fees.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

           http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1136

The suit, CV 2006 06834, is filed in the Second Judicial
District Court, County of Bernalillo, state of New Mexico.


PFIZER INC: Faces Several Suits Over Cholesterol-Lowering Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of attorney Mark Jay Krum is representing consumers
of cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor in a class action against
drug manufacturer Pfizer Inc.  The suit accuses Pfizer of
deceiving the public with its marketing of Lipitor as a "safe
drug with minimal health risks."

Mr. Krum says Pfizer should have given physicians and patients
adequate warnings regarding the more dangerous side effects of
the drug, such as severe muscle pain, nerve damage, memory loss,
extremely vivid nightmares and other issues involving the brain
and central nervous system.  The lawsuits specifically state
that Lipitor is poorly created.

In June two similar suits were filed against Pfizer by former
Atlanta insurance executive Charles M. Wilson and New York City
criminal trial lawyer Michael Mazzariello in Manhattan State
Supreme Court, according to the Livin' La Vida Low-Carb blog
http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com.

The suits allege that the drug Lipitor caused the plaintiffs to
experience intense pain in their muscles and joints, overall
weakness and even trouble remembering simple tasks.

Mr. Krum has offices in New York and Pennsylvania.  On the Net:
http://www.krumlaw.com/firm.html


POST PROPERTIES: Shareholder Seeks Court Review of Ga. Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged Post Properties, Inc. shareholder whose request for a
review on the approval of the settlement of the shareholder
derivative and purported class action was denied by the Georgia
Supreme Court now seeks to make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

On May 5, 2003, the company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action was filed against members
of the board of directors of the company and the company as a
nominal defendant.

This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 2, 2003.  It alleges various breaches of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the company and
sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain
information by the defendants.  It also sought to compel the
defendants to undertake various actions to facilitate a sale of
the company.

On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary
expedited discovery.  On May 13, 2003, the company received
notice that a similar shareholder derivative and purported class
action was filed against certain members of the board of
directors of the company and against the company as a nominal
defendant.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the
defendants.  Plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as
appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation.

The estimated legal and settlement costs, not covered by
insurance, associated with the expected resolution of the
lawsuits were recorded in 2003 as a component of a proxy contest
and related costs charge.

An alleged company shareholder, who had filed a separate
purported derivative and direct action against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, appealed the Superior
Court's orders approving the settlement, overruling the
shareholder's objection to the settlement denying the
shareholder's motion to intervene, and dismissing the litigation
with prejudice.

In November 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
orders.  In December 2005, the alleged company shareholder asked
the Georgia Supreme Court to review the case.  

In April 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court denied review, and the
alleged company shareholder has indicated that he will seek
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Post Properties, Inc. (NYSE: PPS) --
http://www.postproperties.com/-- is a self-administrated and  
self-managed equity real estate investment trust).  Along with
its subsidiaries, it develops, owns and manages upscale multi-
family apartment communities in selected markets in the U.S. The
company, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is the general
partner and owns a majority interest in Post Apartment Homes,
L.P., which through its subsidiaries, conducts substantially all
of the on-going operations of the company.


PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Sept. 20 Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Porter County Superior Court, Indiana, will hold a fairness
hearing on Sept. 20, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. for the proposed $11,750
settlement in the matter, "David Jackowski v. Primary
Residential Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 64D02-0508-CT-7033."

The hearing will be held in Room 2 of the Porter County Superior
Court, Indiana, 209 Courthouse, 16 E. Lincolnway Street,
Valparaiso, Indiana 46383.

The case covers all natural persons who purchased real property
located in Indiana who paid a document preparation fee to
Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. (PRMI) on or after Aug. 19,
1999 to the present.

Plaintiff, David Jackowski, filed the suit in the Porter County
Superior Court, Indiana, Civil Divison.  On behalf of a putative
class, plaintiff seeks restitution for money obtained by PRMI
through the charging of allegedly unauthorized and unlawful
document preparation fees in connection with the closing of
residential mortgage loans.

Plaintiff also alleged that this practice was deceptive in
violation of the Indiana Deceptive Sales Act, IC Section 24-5-
0.5-10(a)(1).  Defendant denies these allegations but has agreed
to settle to avoid the costs of litigation.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Daniel A. Edelman and Heather Kolbus of Edelman, Combs,
         Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax:
         (312) 419-0379, Web site: http://www.edcombs.com;and  

     (2) Michael P. McIlree of Michael P. McIlree, Attorney at
         Law, 821 Lincolnway, Suite 1, Valparaiso, IN 46383,
         Phone: (219) 548-1800, Fax: (219) 548-5905, E-mail:
         mcilree1@aol.com.


TOBACCO WHOLESALERS: Aussie Court Stops Retailers Suit Over Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's High Court refused to allow a suit filed by tobacco
retailers seeking to reclaim state levies from wholesalers to
proceed as a class action, according to WA Business News.

The court made the decision after finding that the company
funding the suit, Firmstones Pty Ltd., had breached New South
Wales Supreme court rules.  However, it rejected arguments that
the suit was contrary to public policy and an abuse of process.

The case was filed by seven tobacco retailers against
wholesalers on behalf of other retailers that paid state license
fees that the High Court ruled as unconstitutional in 1997.  The
court said only the Commonwealth could collect such taxes.

A 2001 case allowed retailers to recover license fees from
wholesalers.  In 2002, Firmstones funded the suit against the
wholesalers, including Campbells Cash and Carry and IGA.  The
defendants were issued summons in June 2003 in actions initiated
as class proceedings under the NSW Supreme Court Rules.  But the
summons did not list retailers to be represented.  Instead, they
provided opt-in procedures for other affected retailers, and
sought to discover the full list of retailers supplied by each
company.

Justice Clifford Einstein of the New South Wales Supreme Court
refused to allow the proceeding to continue as a class action,
and dismissed applications for discovery of the names of other
retailers and for extra plaintiffs to join the action.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal allowed the appeals from the
seven retailers and ordered that the representative proceedings
continue.  On Aug. 30, the High Court ruled that the case could
not proceed as a class action.


TRIZEC PROPERTIES: Amends Merger Plan to Settle Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trizec Properties, Inc. and its directors have agreed to settle
putative stockholder class actions seeking to stop a planned
merger with affiliates of Brookfield Properties Corp.

The merger and arrangement agreement among Trizec Properties,
Inc., Trizec Holdings Operating LLC, Trizec Canada and
affiliates of Brookfield Properties Corp. was first announced on
June 5, 2006.  Under it, an affiliate of Brookfield Properties
will acquire all outstanding subordinate voting shares and
multiple voting shares of Trizec Canada for an aggregate
consideration for each share outstanding immediately before the
arrangement of US$30.97 in cash plus an additional cash amount
representing a pro rata portion of any unpaid regular quarterly
dividend.

As part of the agreement to settle these lawsuits, the parties
entered into an amendment to the merger agreement, dated Aug.
31, 2006, which amends the merger agreement, among others, to
provide that:

     -- The "Trizec Termination Fee" be reduced from $71,300,000
        to $65,100,000; and

     -- The "TZ Canada Termination Fee" be reduced from
        $43,700,000 to $39,900,000.

The boards of directors of Trizec Canada has approved the
amendments to the merger and arrangement agreement and
recommended the approval of the proposed transactions by Trizec
Canada's shareholders.  The closing of the proposed transactions
is expected to occur on or about Oct. 4 or 5, 2006 and
iscontingent upon customary closing conditions and approval by
Trizec Canada's shareholders at a meeting scheduled to be held
on Sept. 12, 2006.

                         Class Actions  

On June 6, 2006, two substantially identical purported
stockholder class actions were filed related to the merger
agreement.  The suits are:

      -- "Doris Staehr v. Trizec Properties, et al. (Case No.
         06CH11226);" and

      -- "Hubert Van Gent v. Trizec Properties, et al. (Case No.
         06CH11571)."

The suits named the company and each of its directors as
defendants.  They allege that the company's directors were
conflicted, unjustly enriched, and engaged in self-dealing, and
violated their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in
approving the mergers, the merger agreement and the other
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.
  
The lawsuits seek to enjoin the completion of the mergers and
the related transactions.  Additionally, the lawsuits seek
class-action status, rescission of, to the extent already
implemented, the mergers, the Trizec Voting Agreement, the PMCI
Voting Agreement, and the termination fees, and costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with the lawsuits,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

Based Chicago, Illinois, Trizec Properties, Inc. (NYSE: TRZ) --
http://www.trz.com/-- is a fully integrated and self-managed,  
publicly traded real estate investment trust, in the U.S.  It is
engaged in owning and managing office properties in the U.S.  As
of Dec. 31, 2005, it owned interests in 50 office properties
comprising approximately 36.8 million square feet of total area.


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Settles Lawsuit Over "Facility Fee"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Washington Medical Center has agreed to settle
a class action over claims it tacked "facility" fee charges on
patients' bills without them knowing, KIROtv.com reports.

Under the settlement, the hospital agreed to reduce its charges
for minor surgical procedures by 25 percent and inform patients
ahead of time about charges.

The settlement involves no refunds, but the hospital will set up
a system over the next year allowing patients to estimate their
personal out-of-pocket costs ahead of time.

Seattle resident Heidi Rothmeyer filed the suit when the
hospital added onto her bill a hospital "facility" fee for a
dermatology procedure done at an outpatient clinic.  About
20,000 patients a year have such procedures.

Her bill from the hospital totaled more than $8,000, including a
$6,839 hospital "facility" fee, even though the procedure was
performed in a doctor's office.

Ms. Rothmeyer said in the lawsuit the hospital never told her
ahead of time they would be added to her bill.

The hospital argued that such billing practices are legal,
"consistent with industry practice," accepted by Medicare and
Medicaid and negotiated with insurers.

John W. Phillips of Phillips Law Group, PLLC, Ms. Rothmeyer's
attorney, argued that patients should be able to know before
they undergo a procedure at a particular clinic that the cost of
having a procedure performed at a hospital-based outpatient
clinic could be much higher than at another doctor's office or
at a non-University of Washington clinic.

Representing the plaintiffs is John W. Phillips of Phillips Law
Group, PLLC, 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA
98104, Phone: (206) 382-1060.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against Viisage Technology, Inc.

In March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against:

      -- Viisage,
      -- Bernard C. Bailey,
      -- William K. Aulet, former chief financial officer, and
      -- Denis K. Berube, and
      -- other members of the company's board of directors

These suits were later consolidated into one action, as "In re:
Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-
10438-MLW."  The so-called Turnberry Group has been designated
as lead plaintiff and its counsel has been designated as lead
counsel.

The amended consolidated complaint, filed in February 2006,
alleges violations of the federal securities laws by the company
and certain of its officers and directors.  It arose out of
purported misstatements and omissions in its U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings related to the litigation involving
the Georgia drivers' license contract and related to its
reported material weaknesses in internal controls over financial
reporting.  The misstatements and omissions allegedly
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock from May
12, 2004 to March 2, 2005.

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss this case.

The consolidated suit is "In re: Viisage Technology Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Alan L. Kovacs of Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs, 2001
         Beacon Street, Suite 106, Boston, MA 02135, Phone: 617-
         964-1177, Fax: 617-332-1223, E-mail:
         alankovacs@yahoo.com; and

     (3) Jeffrey C. Block and Leslie R. Stern of Berman
         DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty
         Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-
         8300, Fax: 617-542-1194 and 617-542-1154, E-mail:
         jblock@bermanesq.com and lstern@bermanesq.com.

Representing the defendants is Mitchell H. Kaplan of Choate,
Hall & Stewart, Two International Place, 100-150 Oliver Street,
Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-248-5000, Fax: 617-248-4000, E-
mail: mkaplan@choate.com.


VIRGINIA MEDICAL: Feb. Hearing Date Set in Facility Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court of the State of Washington has
set a Feb. 5, 2007, trial date for the class action "Gibson et
al. v. Virginia Medical Center, Case No. 05-2-02198-5 SEA."

The class consists of all Virginia Mason patients who, since
Jan. 1, 1999, have received medical services at a Virginia Mason
clinic in downtown Seattle and were charged more than they would
have been charged for the same services at one of Virginia
Mason's satellite clinics and were obligated to pay all or any
portion of that excess cost.

The suit, brought by DeLois Gibson on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated patients of Virginia Mason, alleges
that the company has unfairly and deceptively failed to disclose
to its patients that it charges hospital facility fees at its
outpatient clinics in downtown Seattle for the same services it
provides at its satellite clinics without any facility fees.

Further, plaintiffs claim that Virginia Mason's practice of
charging these undisclosed facility fees at its downtown clinics
is unfair and deceptive because these fees are not required and
are imposed by Virginia Mason solely to increase its revenues
and they bear no relationship to the cost of the facilities
actually used.

Plaintiffs, further contend that Virginia Mason is liable for
all damages suffered as a result of Virginia Mason's alleged
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, and is also liable for
treble damages up to $10,000 per class member, costs and
attorney's fees.

Virginia Mason has denied these claims.  Although Virginia Mason
admits charging the facility fee for services provided at its
downtown outpatient clinics, it denies that this practice is
unfair or deceptive.

Virginia Mason also denies that it has unfairly or deceptively
failed to disclose this facility fee to its patients.

The company also claims that federal law permits its practice of
charging this facility fee at its downtown outpatient clinics.

The court has not ruled on the merits of the plaintiff's claims
or on the denials or other defenses of Virginia Mason.

On Sept. 6, 2005, the court ruled that this lawsuit may be
maintained as a claim for damages, not only for the individual
plaintiff named above, but on behalf of the class of all other
Virginia Mason patients who have been charged hospital facility
fees for services provided at Virginia Mason's downtown
outpatient clinics as described above.

Deadline to file for authorization disclosure is Sept. 14, 2006.

A copy of the Notice of Class Action and Privacy Rights, and
Written Authorization to Disclose Health Care Information is
available at:

                 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1134

The suit is "Gibson et al. v. Virginia Medical Center, Case No.
05-2-02198-5 SEA," filed in the King County Superior Court of
the State of Washington, under Honorable Gregory P. Canova.

Representing the plaintiffs are John W. Phillips and Matthew
Geyman both of Phillips Law Group, PLLC, 315 Fifth Avenue South,
Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: (206) 382-1060.  On the
Net: http://www.gilardi.com/virginiamason/


WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Water Containers for High Bromate Level
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weis Markets Inc. is voluntarily recalling one-gallon containers
of Weis Quality Spring Water.

The company said it is initiating the recall after receiving
test results of high levels of bromate in certain of this
products.

The Food and Drug Administration allows 10 parts per billion
(ppb) as the maximum allowable level of bromate in bottled
water.  While some of the company's tests showed no detectable
levels of bromate, other tests indicated that levels exceeded
the maximum level of 10 ppb, with results ranging from zero to
19 parts per billion.

"While only a small portion of our gallons of Weis Quality
spring water is affected by this problem, we are, as a
precaution, voluntarily recalling all one gallon containers of
Weis Quality Spring Water.  All of our stores are currently
pulling this product from our shelves.  We regret any
inconvenience this may cause for our customers," said Dennis
Curtin, Weis Markets' Director of Public Relations.  "We will
not resume production of this product until it meets FDA
standards and our own internal quality control standards."

No other bottled water product sold by Weis Markets is affected
by this voluntary recall.  Customers can return the recalled
products to a Weis Markets' store, including Mr. Z's and King's,
for a full refund.  

Customers with concerns or questions can contact Weis Markets'
customer service at 570-988-3778 or E-mail:
customerservice@weismarkets.com.


WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Enters $1.4M Settlement in Styrene Leak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Louis Gilligan at Keating, Muething and Klekamp filed a
$1.4 million class action settlement in a suit over the
Cincinnati East End styrene leak last year, Community Press
reports.

Westlake Chemical Corp., Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals and
Indiana Ohio Railway Corp. reached the agreement in a suit filed
after a rail car leaked styrene near Lunken Airport on Aug. 28,
forcing the evacuation and shelter in place of more than 800
residents and 100 business nearby.  The rail car caught fire
after being parked along the tracks for about nine months.   
Cincinnati then filed a class action against the rail line owner
and the shipping company that sent the chemical.

The suit sought reimbursement for city police, fire fighters,
and other services needed to help contain the hazardous chemical
vapor leak.

Under the settlement, adults who were required to evacuate as a
result of the leak could individually collect $600 per day up to
$1,800.  Children under the age of 18 could collect $200 per day
up to $600, each.

Residents in adjacent areas who were affected by the styrene
leak could collect $175 per day up to $525.  Minors could
collect $60 per day up to $180.

Columbia Tusculum is one of the areas in which residents were
required to evacuate their homes.  However, affected residents
in Mount Lookout could also be eligible, the report said.

Claims must be filed before Sept. 21.

Keating Muething and Klekamp on the Net: http://www.kmklaw.com/


WYETH INC: Pempro Products Liability Trial Commences in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
heard the first case in the Prempro Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1507 against Wyeth Inc.

The lawsuits over the Prempro drug used to treat menopause
symptoms were filed after the result of a 2002 study from the
Women's Health Initiative linked Prempro, which contains
estrogen and progestin, to a 24% increase in risk for invasive
breast cancer and other health risks.

The suit "Reeves v. Wyeth, Case No. 05-CV-163," seeks judgment
that could award Linda Reeves more than $1 million, according to
Reuters.

At last week's hearing, U.S. District Judge William Wilson told
the nine female and three male jurors that the case over
Prempro, might last three to four weeks.

According to Zoe Littlepage, one of Ms. Reeves' attorneys, Wyeth
was aware of the link between Prempro and increased risk for
breast cancer prior but Wyeth never told physicians about the
risks because it ignored "signal after signal" that Prempro
increased a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

Rainey Booth, another of Ms. Reeves' attorneys, said Wyeth is
liable for not delaying the release of relevant information to
physicians.

But Wyeth attorney Lyn Pruitt denied the allegations saying that
there is a warning about increased risk for breast cancer on the
Prempro label.

According to Wyeth attorneys, Ms. Reeves' deposition revealed
she did not read the patient-information slip provided with
Prempro prescriptions that noted the elevated risk of breast
cancer.

Some Wyeth sales representatives are expected to testify that
they were instructed to play down the drug's risks, according to
the report.

The suit is "Reeves v. Wyeth Inc., Case No. 4:05-cv-00163-WRW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Lyn Peeples Pruitt of Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates
         & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR, 425 West Capitol Avenue,
         Suite 1800, Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: (501) 688-
         8869, E-mail: lpruitt@mwsgw.com;

     (2) Jane E. Bockus of Clark, Thomas & Winters - San
         Antonio, McCombs Plaza, 755 East Mulberry, Suite 165,  
         San Antonio, TX 78212, Phone: (210) 582-0220, E-mail:
         snl@ctw.com; Randall L. Christian of Clark, Thomas &
         Winters - Austin, Post Office Box 1148, Austin, TX
         78767-1148, Phone: 512-472-8800, E-mail: rlc@ctw.com;
         and

     (3) F. Lane Heard, III, John W. Vardaman, Jr. and John W.
         Vardaman, Jr. all of Williams & Connolly, 725 Twelfth
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-5901, Phone: (202)
         434-5000 or (202) 434-5522, E-mail: lheard@wc.com or
         jvardaman@wc.com or surbanczyk@wc.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Zoe B. Littlepage of Littlepage Booth - Houston, 1012
         West Alabama Street, Houston, TX 77006, Phone: (713)
         529-8000, E-mail: zoe@littlepagebooth.com; Rainey
         Cawthon Booth of Littlepage Booth - Pensacola, 331 East
         Romana Street, Pensacola, FL 32502, Phone: (850) 432-
         1500, E-mail: rainey@littlepagebooth.com;

     (2) Brian S. Campf, Leslie W. O'Leary and Michael L.
         Williams all of Williams, Love, O'Leary, Craine &
         Powers, P.C., 9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 450, Portland,
         OR 97225-6681, Phone: (503) 295-2924, E-mail:
         bcampf@wdolaw.com or loleary@wdolaw.com or
         mwilliams@wdolaw.com;

     (3) Steve M. Faries of Hissey, Kientz & Herron, P.L.L.C.,
         16800 Imperial Valley Drive, Suite 130, Houston, TX
         77060, E-mail: 888-237-5798;

     (4) Christopher T. Kirchmer of Provost & Umphrey Law Firm,
         L.L.P. - Beaumont, Post Office Box 4905, Beaumont, TX
         77704-4905, Phone: 409-835-6000, Fax: 409-813-8612, E-
         mail: ckirchmer@provostumphrey.com; Thomas H. McGowan
         of Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P. - North Little
         Rock, 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 605, North Little Rock,
         AR 72114, Phone: (501) 374-3655, E-mail:
         tmcgowan@provostumphrey.com;

     (5) James A. Morris, Jr. of Moore Landrey L.L.P., 390 Park
         Street, Beaumont, TX 77701, Phone: 409-835-3891, E-
         mail: jmorris@moorelandrey.com; and

     (6) Jake Michael Ramey of Girards Law Firm, 10,000 North
         Central Expressway, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75231, Phone:
         (214) 346-9529, E-mail: mike@girardslaw.com.

   
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


IMAX CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs, LLP, filed a class action on Sept.
5, 2006, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of IMAX Corp. between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug.
9, 2006.  The class action alleges that IMAX and certain of its
present and former officers violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The class action, "Reynolds v. IMAX Corp., et al., 06-cv-6693,"
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The class action is brought against defendants
IMAX, Richard L. Gelfond, Bradley J. Wechsler and Francis T.
Joyce.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations in its filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and press releases.

According to the Complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that:

      -- IMAX's financial results including its revenue
         recognition were materially misrepresented;

      -- IMAX lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- IMAX's financial statements were presented in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants inflated IMAX's financial
results in a failed attempt to attract a buyer or merger partner
for the company.

On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was responding to an
informal inquiry from the SEC regarding the company's revenue
recognition. IMAX's share price fell by 40.6% or $3.91 in
reaction to this news.

Interested parties can request the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff on the case no later than Oct. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Aaron M. Sheanin, 601 California
Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: (866) 981-
4800, E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com, Web site:
http://www.girardgibbs.com/imax.html.


IMAX CORP: Sutts, Strosberg Files $200M Stock Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Sutts, Strosberg LLP filed a $200 million class suit in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on behalf of Neil Silver of
Windsor, Ontario, and all persons who purchased IMAX Corp.
shares on or after March 9, 2006 and held them at market close
on Aug. 9, 2006.

The suit alleges that IMAX misrepresented its revenue and
earnings for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ending on Dec.
31, 2005 and in the first quarter of 2006.

Mr. Silver will be the first person in Ontario to seek
permission from the court to bring an action under the new
provisions of the Securities Act dealing with liability for
secondary market disclosure.

IMAX shares dropped 40 percent in value when the company
revealed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has
started an informal inquiry in respect of the alleged
misrepresentations.

Plaintiffs are represented by Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.,
Patricia Speight and Jay Strosberg all of Sutts, Strosberg LLP,
Phone: (519) 561-6296 or (519) 561-6285, Fax: (866) 316-5308,
Email: harvey@strosbergco.com or jay@strosbergco.com, Website:
http://www.strosbergco.com.


RELATIONSERVE MEDIA: Cohen & Malad Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 28, 2006, the law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP, filed a
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against RelationServe Media, Inc.
(OTCBB: RSVM), also known as SendTec, Inc., (SNDN), and
individual defendants.

The proposed class is defined in the complaint as all persons
who purchased RelationServe shares between May 24, 2005 and Aug.
28, 2006.

On July 27, 2006, RelationServe Media, Inc. announced that it
had completed the change of its name and symbol to SendTec,
Inc., (SNDN).  For purposes of the complaint, RelationServe
Media, Inc. and SendTec, Inc. are now one and the same entity.

The company provides direct marketing services, including
Internet customer and lead acquisition, DRTV advertising, and
offline marketing.

The Complaint alleges that RelationServe and the individual
Defendants violated U.S. securities laws, and the securities
laws of the states of Florida and Indiana, causing an artificial
inflation of RelationServe's stock process.

According to the Complaint, RelationServe made false and
misleading statements by failing to disclose that it was selling
its securities through unregistered and commissioned agents and
broker/dealers in violation of state and federal law, thereby
creating a substantial risk of civil liability for damages
and/or the rescission of stock purchases.

For more details, contact Richard Bell of Cohen & Malad, Phone:
317-636-6481, E-mail: rbell@cohenandmalad.com.


SCOTTISH RE: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, announces that a
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern
District of New York, against Scottish Re Group Ltd. and certain
officers.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company during the period from Feb. 17, 2005 --
July 28, 2006.  The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Scottish Re is a Cayman Islands corporation that engages in the
reinsurance of life insurance, annuities and annuity-type
products.

The Complaint alleges that that in 2003 and 2004, the company
acquired the "book of business" of ING's annuity contracts, as
well as life and health insurance contracts from a GE
subsidiary.  The quality of both of these portfolios was
extremely poor.

Indeed, in the case of the ING transaction, Scottish Re was
actually paid to purchase the portfolio.  In connection with
these transactions, Scottish Re recognized substantial deferred
tax assets, value of which was dependent upon the company's
ability to generate an expected stream of income from premiums
being paid by the customers who initially purchased the
annuities and insurance.

Despite the clearly poor quality of the acquired portfolios,
Scottish Re recklessly inflated the expected income from the
underlying policies, and failed to adequately account for the
likelihood of significant lapses in the policies, which would
cause the income stream to halt.

The complaint also alleges that as a result of this reckless
misconduct, the company's reported income during the Class
Period that was materially inflated.

On July 28, 2006 Scottish Re disclosed that due to significant
lapse rates experienced with these policies, and the material
inflation of income streams that were supposed to be generated,
the company was compelled to write down $112 million of assets
related to these policies, and reported a loss of over $130
million.

Additionally the company stated that it would suspend its
ordinary share dividend and "that it had engaged Goldman Sachs
and Bear Stearns to assist with evaluating strategic
alternatives and potential sources of capital."

In response to these revelations, the company's stock fell
$12.01 per share, loosing approximately 72% of its value in one
day on extremely high volume of over 32 million share traded, to
close at $3.99 per share.

Interested parties can request the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff on the case no later than Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.

                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *