/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060911.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 180


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces ERISA Violations Litigation in Texas
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct. 18
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 15 Hearing Set to Certify "Hanke"
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Bill to Help Victims Recover Asset Passed
BEAN DRYWALL: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime to Workers

BP PLC: Faces Crude Oil Price Manipulation Lawsuit in New York
CALIFORNIA: Suit Planned by Student Protesters Marked Absent
COWEN GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suits Over IPO Underwriting Fees
DVI INC: Partial Settlement Claims Must be Filed by Jan. 3, 2007
DVI INC: Partial Settlement Exclusion Requests due Oct. 12, 2006

GEORGIA: Savannah Lawyer Enters Settlement in Overcharging Suit
GLOBAL CROSSING: Sept. 22 Hearing Set for $15M Suit Settlement
GREYHOUND LINES: N.Y. State Bus Crash Survivors Plan Lawsuit
IMAX CORP: Canadian Firms to Consolidate Stock Suit in Canada
INDIANA: Speedway Faces Lawsuit Over New Apartment Regulations

INDIAN TRUST: Oklahomans Criticize Proposed "Cobell" Settlement
KINNEY DRUGS: Recalls Kinney Brand Water for High Bromate Levels
MORGAN CRUCIBLE: Court Okays $21.9M Antitrust Suit Settlement
MUSCO LIGHTING: Class Status Sought in Suit Over Ken Locke Deal
NEVADA: Faces Litigation Over Child Welfare System Deficiencies

NEW YORK: More Plaintiffs Added to WTC Disaster Site Litigation
PORTLAND GENERAL: Supreme Court Orders Refund in Trojan Lawsuit
RANDOM HOUSE: Reaches $2.35M Settlement in Suit Over "Memoir"
RELATIONSERVE MEDIA: Responds to Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
ROYAL BOTANICAL: Settles Mother's Day Brunch Lawsuit in Ontario

SANDRIDGE FOOD: Recalls Chicken Salad Due to Undeclared Soy
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Sept. Hearing Set in Settlement of "Oracle" Suit
TENNESSEE: Revised Complaint Filed in Suit Over County Elections
U.S. FOODSERVICE: Workers File Ala. Racial Discrimination Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AEGON USA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Roy Jacobs Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces ERISA Violations Litigation in Texas
Affiliated Computer Services Inc. is defendant in a class action
complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District
of Texas over alleged violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The plaintiff, Terri Simeon, is a participant in the Affiliated
Computer Services savings plan.  The company's employee 401(k)
plans confer tax benefits on participating employees to
incentivize savings for retirement and/or other long-term goals.  
Employees participating in a 401(k) plan may have the option of
purchasing the common stock of, or other investment options
created by, their employer.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties.  His suit said the defendants knew or should have known
that Affiliated stock was an imprudent investment alternative
for the Plan due to the rampant business improprieties occurring
at the company.

Defendants in the suit are:
     -- Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
     -- Darwin Deason, chairman of the Board of Directors of
     -- Mark A. King, director
     -- Lynn R. Blodgett, director
     -- Jeffrey A. Rich, director
     -- Joseph O'Neill, director
     -- Frank Rossi, director
     -- J. Livinston Kosberg, director
     -- Dennis McCuistion, director
     -- The Retirement Committee of the ACS Savings Plan, and
     -- John Does 1-30

The suit seeks:

     -- a declaration that defendants have breached their ERISA
        fiduciary duties to the participants;

     -- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the
        plan all losses to the plan resulting from defendants'
        breaches of their fiduciary duties;

     -- imposition of a Constructive Trust on any amounts by
        which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense
        of the plan as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty;

     -- an order enjoining defendants from any further
        violations of their ERISA fiduciary obligations;

     -- actual damages in the amount of any losses the plan

     -- an order that defendants allocate the plan's recoveries
        to the accounts of all participants who had any portion
        of their account balances invested in company stock
        maintained by the plan in proportion to the accounts'
        losses attributable to the decline in the price/value of
        company stock;

     -- an order awarding costs pursuant to Section 1132(g) of
        the U.S. Labor Code;

     -- an order awarding attorneys' fees; and

     -- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate
        equitable monetary relief against the defendants.

The complaint is available free of charge at:


The suit is "Simeon v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-01592," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas under Judge Jorge A. Solis

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-
         7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (2) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 295 Madison
         Ave., 4th Floor, New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct. 18
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
will hold on Oct. 18, 2006 at 11 a.m. a partial approval hearing
for the settlement of the class action "Blank v. Jacobs et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02111-JS-WDW."

The class consists of all persons who purchased Allou
Healthcare, Inc. publicly traded securities between July 3, 2002
and April 9, 2003, inclusive.  Allou Healthcare is formerly
Allou Health & Beauty Care, Inc. (Amex: ALU).

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in the courtroom of the Honorable Joanna

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Oct. 6, 2006.

In 2003, Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of Allou Healthcare.  The complaint named
as defendants:

     -- certain officers and directors of Allou,
     -- and its auditors, KPMG LLP.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Allou securities.

On April 9, 2003, Allou announced that its lenders have filed an
involuntary petition for bankruptcy under the provisions of
chapter 11.  Following this news, on April 9, 2003, the American
Stock Exchange suspended trading in Allou's common stock.

On April 24, 2003, Allou announced that it "believes that the
levels of assets collateralizing loans were substantially
overstated in recent reports submitted by the company to its
senior lenders.  The preliminary results of the company's
investigation indicate that inventory was overstated by
approximately $35,000,000 and that accounts receivable may be
overstated by $75,000,000 to $80,000,000, for a total
overstatement of $110,000,000 to $115,000,000.  The company has
retained a forensic accounting firm to assist with the
continuing investigation of this matter."

Those materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's financial results include allegations:

     (1) that Allou was materially overstating its accounts
         receivables by approximately $80 million and its
         inventory by approximately $35 million, thereby
         overstating Allou's revenue and earnings; and

     (2) as a result of the foregoing, Allou's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP
         and were therefore materially false and misleading.

Under the settlement, insurers shall pay into an interest
bearing escrow account a total of $7.70 million.

A copy of the Stipulation of Settlement is available at:


The suit is "Blank v. Jacobs et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-02111-JS-
WDW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York under Judge Joanna Seybert, with referral to Judge
William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are Nancy Kaboolian, Stephen T. Rodd
and Meagan A. Zapotocky all of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-889-3700, Fax: 212-684-5191, E-mail:
nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com or srodd@abbeyspanier.com or

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Gregory G. Ballard, Gregory A. Markel and Ronit Setton
         all of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, One World
         Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone: 212-504-
         6701 or 212-504-6000, Fax: 212-504-6666, E-mail:
         gregory.ballard@cwt.com or greg.markel@cwt.com or

     (2) Nia Cross, Christopher R. Harris and Robert John
         Malionek all of Latham & Watkins LLP, 885 Third Avenue,
         Suite 1000, New York, NY 10022-4802, Phone: 212-906-
         1346 or 212-906-1200, Fax: 212-745-0828, E-mail:
         nia.cross@lw.com or christopher.harris@lw.com or

     (3) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
         212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406; and

     (4) Benjamin Zelermyer of Steinberg & Cavaliere, LLP, 50
         Main Street, 9th Floor, White Plains, NY 10606, Phone:
         914-761-4200, Fax: 914-761-4256, E-mail:

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 15 Hearing Set to Certify "Hanke"
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron set a Sept. 15
hearing on the Lakin firm's motion to certify a class action
filed on behalf of Kerry Hanke, an American International Group,
Inc. client, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Hanke filed a class action against American International
South Insurance Co., an AIG entity, in 2001.  He alleges breach
of contract and fraud claims, including contracting third-party
vendors to provide the company with what is alleged as biased,
below-market estimates of total-loss-vehicle values.

Mr. Hanke purchased an automobile insurance policy from the
company.  In January 2001, he was involved in an automobile
accident in Madison County while driving his 1991 Dodge Ram
truck.  He submitted a claim for property damage to the company.  
The company declared his vehicle a total loss and valued the
vehicle at $4,500 based upon a valuation obtained from ADP
Claims Solution Group.  Plaintiff challenged defendant's
valuation on the basis that it was below the actual cash value
of the vehicle.

AIG previously moved for summary judgment in the case and Mr.
Hanke filed his response Aug. 3, under seal.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Bill to Help Victims Recover Asset Passed
Lawmakers have passed a bill that would extend the statute of
limitations for claims by Armenian genocide victims until 2016,
reports say.

The legislature cleared the Senate Bill 1524 last year, but it
was tied to another bill that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed.  
The second bill seeks to allow Mexican American victims of a
1930s deportation campaign to seek damages for being forcibly
sent back to Mexico.  Gov. Schwarzenegger said it would trigger
thousands of claims against the state, local governments and
private citizens.  Lawmakers modified bill 1524 to remove its
ties to the Mexican bill.

The current bill allows genocide victims or heirs living in the
state to go beyond insurance policies and seek bank deposit
claims until 2016, according to the Sacramento Bee.

In January 1916, nine months after the genocide began that
killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire, a decree from the Ottoman Minister of Commerce and
Agriculture ordered all financial institutions operating within
the country's borders to turn over Armenian assets to the
government.  Records show that as much as six million Turkish
gold pounds were seized along with real property, cash, bank
deposits and jewelry.  The assets were eventually funneled to
European banks, including Deutsche and Dresdner banks.  

Descendants of the Armenian Genocide filed a class action
against the Turkish branches of German banks Deutsche Bank and
Dresdner Bank on Jan. 13 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006).

The lawsuit seeks the recovery of millions of dollars of
Armenian money and property wrongfully withheld by the defendant
German banks following the Armenian Genocide.  The lawsuit
charges that the banks have maintained possession of Armenian
families' money and assets deposited by Armenian families prior
to 1915 as well as assets looted by the Ottoman Turkish

The lawsuit states that the banks profited from the atrocities
committed against the Armenian people in the Ottoman Turkish
Empire by concealing and preventing the recovery of assets
rightfully belonging to Armenian families.  

The case is "Varoujan Deirmenjian, et al. v. Deutsche Bank,
A.G., Dresdner Bank, A.G., et al.," filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

For more information, contact Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP, Phone: 213-217-5000; E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com; or
Diane Zakian Rumbaugh of Rumbaugh Public Relations, Phone: 805-
493-2877; Mobile: 805-407-1888; E-mail: rumbaugh@earthlink.net;
or Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, Phone: 213-625-3900; E-
mail: geragos@geragos.com.

BEAN DRYWALL: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime to Workers
Subcontractor Bean Drywall in Arizona is facing a class action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act at seven
Pulte Homes job sites in the state, it emerged in a report by
John Yantis of the East Valley Tribune.

The suit accuses the company of paying employees on a per day
basis regardless of the number of buildings completed or the
number of hours worked in a week.  It also claims that the
company failed to keep accurate records of hours worked.  
Employees estimate they work 15 to 20 hours a week of overtime.

The suit does not allege any unlawful act against Pulte Homes.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gerald Barrett at Ward, Keenan
& Barrett, P.C. Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa Co.).

Representing Bean Drywall is Julie Pace at Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Esplanade III, 2415 East Camelback
Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (Maricopa Co.), Phone:
602-778-3700, Fax: 602-778-3750.

BP PLC: Faces Crude Oil Price Manipulation Lawsuit in New York
St. Louis resident Richard Hershey initiated a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against BP PLC, alleging price manipulation of crude oil prices,
the Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The complaint alleges that the U.K.-based company used its
position as a large supplier of oil and gas to influence the
price of light, sweet crude oil futures on the New York
Mercantile Exchange.

Specifically, the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status,
alleges that the company used its dominant ownership of crude
oil pipeline connections into and out of Cushing, Oklahoma, and
its ownership of crude oil storage facilities in the state to
control the amount of oil available to other market participants
for delivery at Cushing, a key oil-delivery point.

As a result, light sweet crude oil futures contracts were
allegedly manipulated to "artificial levels" in 2003 and in

Plaintiffs are seeking for:

     -- an order certifying the complaint as class action;

     -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and class damages for
        violation of the Commodity Exchange Act; and

     -- an award for costs of suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees and experts' fees and expenses.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the
class and predominate over any questions that affect only
individual class members.  These common questions of law

     -- whether the alleged manipulation of the crude-oil market
        based on defendant's unlawful conduct violates the CEA;

     -- whether the defendant's conduct had an effect on the
        prices of NYMEX crude-oil futures contracts purchased or
        sold by plaintiff and the class during the class period;

     -- the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
        plaintiff and the other members of the class.

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


The suit is "Hershey v. BP p.l.c., Case No. 1:06-cv-06677-NRB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court
of New York under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Representing the plaintiffs are Richard W. Cohen and Geoffrey
Milbank Horn both of Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger,
P.C., The Gateway - 11th Floor, One North Lexington Avenue,
White Plains, NY 10601, Phone: (914) 997-0500, Fax: (914) 997-
0035, E-mail: ghorn@ldbs.com.

CALIFORNIA: Suit Planned by Student Protesters Marked Absent
Lompoc students who went unexcused to join an aborted
immigration protest in March are planning to file a class action
against the school district, according to The Lompoc Record.

A group of 63 student activists were detained and cited on March
31 by police in relation to the demonstration.  Police and city
officials settled with students, agreeing to erase their police
record, and apologizing for curtailing students right to be out
of school to exercise their First Amendment right to free

The school district, on the other hand, refused to settle for
marking students as out of class on that day.  Subsequently, the
students filed claims, which include monetary compensation of an
estimated $10,000 each.  The Lompoc school board denied the
claims filed by 16 students.

"All that was asked of the board was a public apology and to
clear their school records of this, but the district refused to
do a public apology, so now it's turned into a litigation
issue," said Elizabeth Reyes-Velasquez, an aunt of one of the
students, according to Neil Nisperos of The Lompoc Record.

"The district made a mistake.  They need to rectify that and
we're just concerned the students will be labeled as
troublemakers and be targeted for that," she said.

Dino Velez, an attorney for the school district, said the
district supported a lunchtime protest on the same day.  Those
students who "worked" with the school administrators were not
marked absent.

COWEN GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suits Over IPO Underwriting Fees
Cowen Group, Inc. and other underwriters are defendants in two
separate, but related, antitrust actions alleging that the
underwriter defendants conspired to fix initial public offering
underwriting fees at 7%.

In the case brought by individual shareholders, plaintiffs'
damages claims have been dismissed by the district court, but
their claims for injunctive relief remain pending.

In the related case filed by issuers, where the damages are
unspecified, the district court has denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On April 18, 2006, the court denied the issuer plaintiffs motion
for class certification and ordered further briefing on the
investor plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The plaintiffs have also filed a joint motion for summary
judgment on liability and a motion for leave to amend a
consolidated class action complaint.

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

DVI INC: Partial Settlement Claims Must be Filed by Jan. 3, 2007
Purchasers of 9-7/8% Senior Notes and shares of common stock
issued by DVI, Inc., between Aug. 10, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2003,
who wish to participate in the partial settlement up for review
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Nov. 9, 2006 in In Re DVI, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336, must file proofs of claim no
later than Jan. 3, 2007.  

Proofs of Claim must be sent by first class mail to:

          DVI Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          Claims Administrator
          2710 Concord Road, Suite 5
          Aston, PA 19014
          Telephone (610) 364-2693

DVI INC: Partial Settlement Exclusion Requests due Oct. 12, 2006
Purchasers of 9-7/8% Senior Notes and shares of common stock
issued by DVI, Inc., between Aug. 10, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2003,
who want to be excluded from the partial settlement up for
review by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Nov. 9, 2006 in In Re DVI, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336, must deliver a request for
exclusion to the Claims Administrator no later than Oct. 12,

Exclusion requests must be sent by U.S. mail to:

          DVI Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          Claims Administrator
          2710 Concord Road, Suite 5
          Aston, PA 19014
          Telephone (610) 364-2693

GEORGIA: Savannah Lawyer Enters Settlement in Overcharging Suit
Effingham County State Court Judge Ronald Thompson has set aside
part of the settlement in a class action against Savannah
attorney Benjamin S. Eichholz, pending resolution on how to
calculate payouts, the Savannah Morning News reports.

On Aug. 17, Judge Thompson preliminarily approved a settlement
between Mr. Eichholz and his clients, who accused him of
overcharging them for his services.  The agreement was reached
June 1.

On Aug. 31, Judge Thompson required lawyers to file in writing
the methods to be used by accountants in computing the gross
settlement amount.  At the same time, he directed Mr. Eichholz's
attorneys to temporarily place the $1 million deposited at First
National Bank into an interest-bearing account in the court's
registry.  The amount is to be put into a "max money market" at
Savannah Bank.

According to the report, plaintiffs requested the transfer of
the settlement funds into the court's accounts as they stated in
court documents that Mr. Eichholz "balked" at the proposed

Parties have hired accountant Dabbs, Hickman, Hill & Cannon of
Statesboro to determine the compensation.  The class in the suit
is defined as: "All personal injury clients of Benjamin Sheftall
Eichholz or the law office of Benjamin Eichholz P.C. who, at any
time between Jan. 23, 2000 and Jan. 23, 2006 received monies
from verdict or settlement of personal injury claims."

The court has ordered the publication of the settlement on
newspapers and mailing of notices by Oct. 1, 2006.  A fairness
hearing is set Jan. 29, 2007 in the Chatham County courthouse.

The Law Office of Benjamin Sheftall Eichholz, P.C. specializes
in personal injury and wrongful death claims.

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney Bart Turner.

Representing Mr. Eichholz is T. Ryan Mock Jr., at Hawkins &
Parnell, LLP, 4000 SunTrust Plaza, 303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243 (DeKalb & Fulton Cos.), Phone: 404-
614-7400, Fax: 404-614-7500.

GLOBAL CROSSING: Sept. 22 Hearing Set for $15M Suit Settlement
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 22, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed $15,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Global
Crossing, Ltd. Access Charge Litigation, Case No. 04 MD 1630

The hearing shall be held before the Judge Gerard E. Lynch in
Courtroom 6B of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, The Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

The court sets forth the deadlines for exercising each of these
options, including an Aug. 16, 2006 deadline for mailing Proofs
of claim, a Sept. 1, 2006 deadline for requesting exclusion from
the class and a Sept. 7, 2006 deadline for filing any objections
to the proposed Settlement Agreement or any application for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The case was brought on behalf all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of Global Crossing Limited common
stock between Dec. 9, 2003 and Oct. 8, 2004, inclusive and who
were damaged thereby.

Global Crossing, Ltd. is a telecommunications company.  The
lawsuit alleges that the company and certain of its officers,
orchestrated a scheme to artificially inflate Global Crossing's
financial results by understating the company's "costs of
access," i.e., fees paid to use other telecommunications
carriers' lines.  

Specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges
that Global Crossing's "fresh start" financial statements that
were issued shortly after Global Crossing's emergence from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 9, 2003, understated the company's
costs of access, by $50-$80 million during the period from Jan.
1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.  

On April 27, 2004, Global Crossing announced that it would
restate its 2003 financials and advised investors to disregard
its 2004 projections.  The complaint alleges that at all times
relevant to this action, access costs were Global Crossing's
principal cost of goods sold.  

In its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Global
Crossing represented that it had established adequate internal
controls to accurately estimate and monitor its access cost
liabilities.  Plaintiffs contend that these representations were
false and misleading.  

As a result of these misrepresentations, plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

For more details, contact:

     (1) Global Crossing Access Charge Litigation c/o Gilardi &
         Co., LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8040, San
         Rafael, CA 94912-8040, Phone: (800) 447-7657, Web site:

     (2) William S. Lerach, Keith F. Park and Darren J. Robbins
         of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, California
         92101-4297, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-231-1058 and
         800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site:

     (3) David Kessler and Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor,
         Pennsylvania 19087, (Delaware Co.), Phone: 610-667-
         7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, Web site:

GREYHOUND LINES: N.Y. State Bus Crash Survivors Plan Lawsuit
Survivors of an Aug. 28 bus crash in upstate New York are
preparing to file a $20 million class action against Greyhound
Lines, Inc., alleging negligence, according to CBC News.

Four people, including two passengers from Montreal, have
already retained the services of an American personal injury
lawyer, who will represent them in the case, the report said.

The crashed happened on Interstate 87 and killed five people,
including three Quebecers and the bus driver.  It also resulted
in injuries to dozens of the bus' 52 passengers.

Though preliminary police reports suggested a blown-out tire was
the cause, surviving passengers believe otherwise, according to
Edward Jazloweicki, the group's lawyer.

Speaking from his office in Forrestville, Conn., Mr. Jazloweicki
told CBC News that a witness told him that it wasn't a tire
blow-out, but instead it appears that the bus veered off the
road, hit either some kind of guard rail and then flipped over.

He added that there are also indications that the bus driver was
wearing earphones, from either an iPod or some other kind of
music device.

Mr. Jazloweicki said that that the lawsuit will also raises
concerns about the bus itself, and the condition it was in on
the day of the crash.

The survivors instigating the lawsuit don't want to be
identified until the papers are filed, according to Mr.
Jazloweicki.  He also told CBC News that the planned class
action would seek damages for injuries, loss of enjoyment of
life, and medical bills.  

The class action, whose value could increase depending on how
many other passengers join it, will be filed in Texas this
September, since Greyhound is headquartered there.

Dallas, Texas-based Greyhound Lines -- http://www.greyhound.com/
-- provides scheduled intercity bus service in the U.S.  It
serves customers by interconnecting rural and urban markets
throughout the U.S., offering scheduled passenger service to
more than 2,200 destinations in North America.

IMAX CORP: Canadian Firms to Consolidate Stock Suit in Canada
Two Canadian law firms will launch a consolidated shareholder
class suit against Imax Corp. over alleged misrepresentations
concerning the company's 2005 earnings, the Canadian Press

Earlier, 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 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2006).

Siskinds LLP also filed a class suit against Toronto-based IMAX
Corp., claiming $500 million in damages and an additional $100
million in punitive damages as a result of alleged
misrepresentations concerning IMAX's 2005 earnings (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)

"We (will) combine our two actions so that we can get everyone
together and move forward in one case so there is no
duplication," Jay Strosberg, a partner with Windsor-based Sutts,
Strosberg LLP, confirmed.  

The consolidated suit will be filed under new Ontario
legislation, Bill 198, which gives investors the right to sue
public companies that operate in the province's capital markets
for misleading disclosure and failure to make timely disclosure.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits are represented by:

     (1) Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., Patricia Speight and Jay
         Strosberg at Sutts, Strosberg LLP --
         http://www.strosbergco.com-- Phone: (519) 561-
         6296 or (519) 561-6285, Fax: (866) 316-5308, Email:
         harvey@strosbergco.com or jay@strosbergco.com;

     (2) Charles M. Wright at Siskinds Desmeules-Quebec
         Affiliate Office, 43 Rue Buade, Bur 320, Quebec City,
         Quebec, Canada, G1R 4A2, Phone: (418) 694-2009, Fax:
        (418) 694-0281, E-mail: charles.wright@siskinds.com; and

     (3) Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds Desmeules-Toronto Office,
         390 Bay Street, Suite 1102, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
         M5H 2Y2, Phone: (416) 362-8334, Fax: (416) 368-5454, E-
         mail: dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com.

INDIANA: Speedway Faces Lawsuit Over New Apartment Regulations
The town of Speedway was named as defendant in a purported class
action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana over a new law regulating apartment complexes,
INDYchannel.com reports.

Speedway resident Sheri Peoples, managers of two apartment
communities and the Indiana Apartment Association, filed the
class action on Sept. 6, 2006, which seeks to block the town's
new rental housing law.  The American Civil Liberties Union of
Indiana is representing the association in the suit.

The law, which was passed in June allows the town to inspect
properties in an attempt to combat crime.  The group that filed
the suit claims the law invades privacy.

Ken Falk, local ACLU legal director, stated that the
organization became involved in the case due to the privacy

Mr. Falk pointed out that the law requires tenants to waive
their Fourth Amendment rights or face eviction.  He contends
that it's an unconstitutional condition that violates the Fourth
Amendment.  He adds that every citizen has the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The law requires landlords to buy an annual license and pay fees
for each rented unit.  The ordinance was crafted in response to
a rash of crime in the town, much of which was in apartment

The suit is "Peoples et al. v. Town Of Speedway, Indiana, Case
No. 1:06-cv-01324-LJM-WTL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Larry J. McKinney
with referral to Judge William T. Lawrence.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew Clyde Charnstrom of Wooden & McLaughlin, LLP,
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1800, Indianapolis, IN 46204-
         2019, Phone: (317) 639-6151, Fax: (317) 639-6444, E-
         mail: acharnstrom@woodmaclaw.com; and

     (2) Kenneth J. Falk of ACLU Of Indiana, 1031 East
         Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952, Phone:
         (317) 635-4059 x229, Fax: (317) 635-4105, E-mail:

INDIAN TRUST: Oklahomans Criticize Proposed "Cobell" Settlement
At the U.S. Senate committee hearing on Sept. 1 in Tulsa,
Oklahomans voiced out their opinions on a proposed settlement of
the 10-year-old class action, "Cobell v. Norton," which accuses
the federal government of mismanaging American Indian trust
accounts, The Associated Press reports.

Most of the estimated 60 people attending the meeting criticized
the proposal.  

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said Indians may be owed as much
as $27.5 billion, but a Senate bill proposes settling the
lawsuit for $8 billion.

Previously, it was reported that American Indians in the
protracted class action are contemplating an offer by the Senate
Indian Affairs Committee to resolve their case for $8 billion
(Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2006).

The Indians had said they were eager to work with the Congress,
and the congressional committee scheduled a hearing earlier this
month to work out the details of the Indian Trust Reform Act or
HR 4322, a legislation that would settle the protracted class
action (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2006).  A summary of HR
4322 is available at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f14

According to E. Bernadette Huber, chairman of the Iowa Tribe of
Oklahoma, the $27.5 billion should really be revisited since its
quite ridiculous to go from $27.5 to $8 billion.

However, committee general counsel David Mullon, said $8 billion
is the figure his boss, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., thinks
he can get through Congress.  He maintains that though every
account holder would like more money, they would not get the
$27.5 billion through the 109th Congress.

The Sept. 1 meeting was the last of four held during Congress'
August recess.  Previous meetings were in Auburn, Washington;
Phoenix, Arizona; and Bismarck, North Dakota.

Other point of contention in the deal that was pointed out by
Oklahoma speakers was that the proposal lacked an "opt-out
clause," which would let individual Indians pursue separate

Mr. Mullon, though, argues that an opt-out clause is not an
option, since one of the government's goals in settling is to be
finished with the trust issue once and for all.

With regards to HR 4322, Osage Nation Principal Chief Jim Gray,
chairman of the Intertribal Monitoring Association on Indian
Trust Funds, opined that the legislation probably has a 50-50
chance of passing.

                         Case Background

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in
Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  It seeks to force
the federal government to account for billions of dollars
belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians and their
heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  
It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break
up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.  

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber,
grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds
for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has
revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by
federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their
conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony,
financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

      -- to force the government to account for the money, and

      -- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC  
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,  
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net;  
     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,  
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com;  
     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American  
         Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:  
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and
     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th  
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)  
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:  

Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-
0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or

For more details, contact

     (1) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund,
         Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417,
         E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site:

     (2) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251,
         Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and
     (3) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web
         site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.

KINNEY DRUGS: Recalls Kinney Brand Water for High Bromate Levels
Kinney Drugs is implementing a voluntary recall of all sizes of
Kinney brand water with a "sell by date" between June 27, 2008
and Aug. 4, 2008.  The "sell by date" is located on the neck of
Kinney brand water bottles.

Kinney Drugs removed the affected water from its shelves on Aug.
23, 2006 and subsequently ordered it destroyed at store level.
Extra warehouse stock of the affected water has been returned to
the manufacturer.

The water is being recalled due to bromate levels that exceed
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration standard.  If customers
have purchased Kinney brand water showing the affected "sell by
dates" indicated, it can be returned to any Kinney Drugs for a
full refund.

Based on information from the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration
and the New York State Department of Health, the level of
bromate discovered is not a health risk in humans.

"We want to assure our customers that the water does not pose a
health risk.  Studies have shown that this level of bromate does
not cause illness in humans," commented Craig Painter, CEO,
Kinney Drugs.  "However, since the water packaged within the
affected dates does not meet FDA standards, Kinney Drugs will be
implementing this voluntary recall."

Kinney Drugs customers can return Kinney brand water with these
UPC codes and "Sell By Dates" to their local Kinney Drugs for a
full refund:

SKU#:              Description                  UPC#:

0237914            KNY 16.9OZ WATER LOOSE       8416141973

0238007            KNY 12-16.9OZ WATER          8416170083

6409679            KNY SPRING WATER 1 GAL       8416100121

6409792            MB SPRING WATER 2.5 GAL.     2219800142

6409806            KNY 24-16.9OZ WATER 24PK     8416160890

6409814            KNY 25OZ SPORT WATER         8416141890

6409822            KNY WATER 1 LTR              8416122890

6409830            KNY 24OZ SPORT WATER         8416103890

MORGAN CRUCIBLE: Court Okays $21.9M Antitrust Suit Settlement
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey gave
final approval to the $21.9 million settlement in an antitrust
class action that accused a group of manufacturers of electrical
carbon products of engaging in a decade-long conspiracy to fix
prices, The Legal Intelligencer reports.

In several suits, which were consolidated as a multidistrict
litigation, the plaintiffs accused four companies and some of
their European parent companies of conspiring to fix the prices
of a range of electrical carbon products.

In court papers, the list of products included:

      -- carbon brushes used in consumer products, including
         fractional horsepower brushes;

      -- carbon brushes and current collectors (including
         pantographs but excluding brush holders and
         commutators) for automotive and traction-transit

      -- carbon brushes used in battery-operated vehicles; and

      -- mechanical carbon products for use in pump and
         compressor industries.

Judge Jerome B. Simandle awarded $5.7 million in attorney fees.  
A large part of those fees will be split among teams of lawyers
from five Philadelphia firms and one New Jersey firm, led by:

      * Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher,
      * Sandra A. Jeskie of Duane Morris,
      * Howard J. Sedran of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman,
      * Warren Rubin of the Law Offices of Bernard Gross,
      * Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, and
      * Allyn Z. Lite of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas.

About 20 firms who played various roles in the litigation will
also share in the fees.

Under the settlements, more than 460 plaintiffs that filed
claims will have a gross recovery, before attorney fees, of
about 12 to 15 percent of their purchases of electrical carbon

        Settling Company                        Settlement
        ----------------                        ----------

       Morgan Crucible Co. a British firm,      $15 million
        and its American affiliates             

       Carbone of America Industries            $3.7 million
        and its affiliates

       Schunk GmBH, a German firm,
        and its American affiliates             $2.975 million

       SGL Carbon in North Carolina             $225,000

The suit is "In re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-02182-JBS-JBR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven A. Asher of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., 101
         W. Elm Street, Suite 360, Conshohocken, PA 19428,
         Phone: (484) 342-0700;

     (2) Sandra A. Jeskie of Duane Morris, LLP, 30 South, 17th
         Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196, Phone: 215-979-
         1395, E-mail: jeskie@duanemorris.com;

     (3) Howard J. Sedran of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman,
         510 Walnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106-
         3697, Phone: (215) 592-1500, E-mail:

     (4) Warren Rubin of Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC,
         Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building, Juniper & Market
         Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600;

     (5) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,
         LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
         Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com; and

     (6) Allyn Zissel Lite of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
         LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com

MUSCO LIGHTING: Class Status Sought in Suit Over Ken Locke Deal
An attorney for a Knoxville, Iowa businessman asked District
Court Judge Dale Hagen to turn his client's suit against Musco
Lighting into a class action, the Journal Express reports.

Kathryn Barnhill asked the court on behalf of Steve Everly to
name as additional plaintiffs Steve Everly and Dennis Lee, along
with the rest of the taxpayers in the Knoxville School District.  

The suit was originally filed against the company, the Knoxville
School District and Superintendent Randy Flack.  It was directed
at a lighting project at Ken Locke Stadium that was awarded by
the school board to ABC Electric.  The company had planned to
use Musco's lighting.  The project is now complete.

The suit claims specifications of the contract were changed,
giving Musco an unfair advantage.  It also claims that Musco's
lights failed expectations.  

The new case will no longer involve the school district and Mr.

A hearing on the motion has already been held.

Ms. Barnhill is member at Barnhill & Associates, P.C., 2100
Westown Parkway, Suite 210, West Des Moines, Iowa 50265 (Dallas
& Polk Cos.), Phone: 515-223-7230, Fax: 515-223-7234.

NEVADA: Faces Litigation Over Child Welfare System Deficiencies
The National Center for Youth Law filed a class action in U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada against the state and
Clark County for failing to protect abused and neglected
children in the child welfare system, according to KLASTV.

Filed on Aug. 30, 3006, the lawsuit, "Clark K., et al. v. Kenny
C. Guinn et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01068-RCJ-RJJ," also names
Governor Kenny Guinn, state Health and Human Services Director
Michael Willden, and Clark County officials as defendants.

The suit charges the defendants with causing serious harm to
children in the system.  It does not seek money and instead asks
for a system-wide reform.

According to the suit, at least 79 children have died of abuse
of neglect at the hands of their parents, foster parents, or
other caregivers while under the watch of the Clark County
Department of Family Services.

In addition, the suit also charges that there has been much
documentation of the county's failure to protect children in the
foster care system and that the system hides "behind a veil of
confidentiality meant to protect children and families, but
which the county has used to shield itself from oversight and

The suit is "Clark K., et al. v. Kenny C. Guinn et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-01068-RCJ-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada under Judge Robert C. Jones with referral to
Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs are William Grimm, Bryn Martyna and
Leecia Welch of National Center for Youth Law, 405 14th Street,
15th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, US, Phone: 510-835-8098, Fax:

Representing the defendants are Bruno Wolfenzon and Gregory M.
Schulman of Wolfenzon Schulman, 4530 South Eastern Avenue, Suite
9, Las Vegas, NV 89119, Phone: 702-836-3138, Fax: 702-836-3139,
E-mail: erin@wolfenzon.com.

NEW YORK: More Plaintiffs Added to WTC Disaster Site Litigation
About 1,000 Ground Zero workers will join the class action, "In
Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation," which is
claiming that city's negligence caused them to breathe toxic air
at the World Trade Center site, The New York Post reports.

The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated certain
laws by not providing adequate safety equipment to those
involved in the rescue and clean-up efforts following the
collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.  

It alleges that that because of such violations the plaintiffs
suffered respiratory injuries brought on by toxic fumes and dust
from the collapsed towers

The plaintiffs' legal team said it represents 375 Ground Zero
workers struck by cancer and that more than 50 others have died
from WTC-related illnesses -- many of them police officers,
firefighters and cleanup workers.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein is expected to rule soon on whether the
massive case can go forward.  Currently there are now 6,000
plaintiffs in the case.  Their lawyers argue that city and Port
Authority officials failed to provide proper ventilators and

However, defense lawyers insist that local governments are
immune from liability in national, terror-inspired catastrophes
and that the city did all it could to safeguard the workers.

The complaint is available free of charge at:


The suit is "In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation,
Case No. 1:21-mc-00100-AKH-THK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein with referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc Jay Bern and Paul Joseph Napoli of Napoli Bern
         Ripka, LLP, 115 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, NY
         10006, Phone: (212) 267-3700, Fax: (212)-513-7320 and
         (212) 587-0031, E-mail: mjbern@napolibern.com and
         PNapoli@napolibern.com, Web site:

     (2) Rita F. Aronov of Shestack & Young, LLP, 233 Broadway,
         50th Floor, New York, NY 10279, Phone: (212) 766-1200,
         Fax: (212) 349-4911, E-mail: raronov@yahoo.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kenneth A. Becker, Corporation Counsel of the City of
         New York, Assistant Corporation Counsel, 100 Church
         Street--Rm. 4-214, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212)
         788-051; and

    (ii) Judith Pearl Falk of Flemming Zulack Williamson
         Zauderer, LLP, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006,
         Phone: (212) 412-9554, Fax: (212) 964-9200, E-mail:

PORTLAND GENERAL: Supreme Court Orders Refund in Trojan Lawsuit
The Oregon Supreme Court refused to dismiss a class action filed
by customers of Portland General Electric over the defunct
Trojan nuclear power plant, Peter Wong of the Statesman Journal
reports.  It has directed the Public Utility Commission to
decide how to refund customers for improperly collected return
on investment.  The decision puts on hold the class action.

Justice Michael Gillette wrote for a unanimous court that if the
commission can "provide a remedy to ratepayers, then the present
(legal) actions may become moot in whole or in part."  If not,
and that decision becomes final, then the court system may have
a role to play."

In 1993, Portland General closed its Trojan facility after its
steam generator broke down.  The Commission allowed the company
to recoup its investment in Trojan through its power rates.  It
further allowed the company, from 1995 to 2000, to recover from
customers an amount representing the estimated profits on the
plant had it remained open.  A ratepayer-advocacy group then

The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in 1998 that the Commission
could not allow Portland General to charge ratepayers for a
return on its investment in a closed plant.

In 2003, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Paul Lipscomb decided
in favor of ratepayers, ordering Portland General to return the
collected money to ratepayers.  Subsequent legal proceedings
prompted Judge Lipscomb to allow a separate class action to

The ratepayer suit seeks more than $200 million, plus interest.  
About 800,000 current and former customers of the company stand
to receive as much as $500 million, according to Dan Meek, a
Portland lawyer who represented the ratepayers.

One of the ratepayers attorney is Linda Williams, Senior
Compliance Counsel at Harland Financial Solutions, Inc. (Legal
Department), 400 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon
97204 (Clackamas, Multnomah & Washington Cos.), Phone: 800-274-
7280, Fax: 503-790-9292.

RANDOM HOUSE: Reaches $2.35M Settlement in Suit Over "Memoir"
Random House, the publisher of A Million Little Pieces," has
reached a tentative settlement in a class action filed after the
author of the "memoir" admitted on embellishing details of the

The author of the book, James Frey, and the publisher will pay
up to $2.35 million under the settlement, a person familiar with
the deal told The Associated Press.

Readers who bought the book on or before Jan. 26, would be
eligible for a refund of the full suggested retail price,
regardless of discounts or sales.  Mr. Frey and Random House
acknowledged that the author had made up parts of the book on
that day.  Mr. Frey and his publisher continue to deny

Readers who have bought hardcover will receive $23.95; those who
bought paperback will receive $14.95.  To receive refunds
readers have to submit a receipt or other proof of purchase: for
the hardcover, page 163; for the paperback, the front cover.  
They also will need to sign a sworn statement that they bought
the book because they thought it was a memoir.

David Drake, a spokesman for the Random House imprint Doubleday,
confirmed the settlement, according to the report. "However, it
requires court approval and may take several weeks and even
months," he said.

Suits over the book were filed, among others, by:

     -- E. Powell Miller of Miller Shea and Bingham Farms lawyer
        Mark S. Baumkel of Provizer & Phillips in the U.S.
        District Court in Detroit (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
        24, 2006);

     -- Montreal resident Joshua Adam Levy in a Quebec Superior
        Court on behalf of Quebec readers who he claims were
        defrauded by what they see as a literary fraud,
        according to CTV.ca News (Class Action Reporter, Feb.

        Mr. Levy sued the book's author, James Frey, publisher
        Random House Inc., and its Canadian arm, Random House of
        Canada Ltd. for marketing the book as non-fiction.  He
        is demanding $2 million as reimbursement for the class;

     -- Jennifer Cohn, a Manhattan social worker, who claimed
        she was 'injured' by the book and asking $10 million in

     -- Karen Futernick in federal court in Manhattan on
        Jan. 27, seeking the return of $14.95 she spent for the
        book Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006);

     -- Sara Brackenrich in U.S. District court against Mr.
        Frey, Doubleday & Co. Inc., Random House Inc., Vintage
        Anchor Publishing Inc. and Borders Group Inc. (Class
        Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006);

     -- Mike Myers in Washington federal court (Class Action
        Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006); and

     -- Chicago law firm Dale and lawyer Thomas Pakenas against
        Doubleday Books in a Cook County, Illinois court,
        alleging consumer fraud (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17,

Random House on the Net: http://www.randomhouse.com/.

RELATIONSERVE MEDIA: Responds to Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
RelationServe Media, Inc. (OTCBB: RSVM), also known as SendTec,
Inc., (SNDN), intends to seek dismissal of a purported class
action filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

On Aug. 28, 2006, the law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP, at the
direction of its client, Richard Thompson, filed a securities
fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against RelationServe and individual
defendants (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2006).

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

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.

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

According to company Chief Executive Paul Soltoff, the action is
frivolous and without merit.  They intend to seek sanctions for
a false filing in which federal jurisdiction as a class action
has been improperly sought.

Previously, a state court in Indiana dismissed Mr. Thompson's
claims that he had never reviewed any of the disclosures
contained in a Confidential Private Placement Memorandum
distributed by the company to him, including extensive and
detailed Risk Factors described therein, and had never spoken to
any officer or employee of the company.

Representing the plaintiffs is Richard Bell of Cohen & Malad,
Phone: 317-636-6481, E-mail: rbell@cohenandmalad.com.

ROYAL BOTANICAL: Settles Mother's Day Brunch Lawsuit in Ontario
The law firm of Scarfone Hawkins LLP announced that an agreement
has been reached to resolve two proposed class actions over
salmonella contaminated-food served at the Royal Botanical
Gardens' Mother's Day Brunch on May 8, 2005.

Lawsuits were commenced by individuals who consumed food
contaminated with salmonella and fell ill shortly after
attending the Brunch.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Royal Botanical Gardens, and
     -- 1242238 Ontario Inc., operating as Compton & Greenland
        Fine Foods and Catering Ltd.

Approximately 155 individuals suffered the salmonella poisoning.
The proposed settlement allows individuals who consumed the food
contaminated with salmonella and who fell ill, to apply for
compensation based on the severity of their symptoms.

Class members are classified as:

      Category 1 - Class Members who suffered mild symptoms of
                   salmonella poisoning or other illness.  Mild
                   symptoms last no more than 72 hours and do
                   not involve the Class Member having been
                   hospitalized and/or having sought and
                   received medical treatment.

      Category 2 - Class Members who suffered moderate symptoms
                   of salmonella poisoning or other illness.  
                   Moderate symptoms last more than 72 hours but
                   no more than 15 days and may, but need not
                   necessarily, involve the Class Member having
                   been hospitalized and/or having sought and
                   received medical treatment.

      Category 3 - Class Members who suffered serious symptoms
                   of salmonella poisoning or other illness.
                   Serious symptoms last more than 15 days but
                   not more than 60 days and involve the Class
                   Member having been hospitalized or having
                   sought and received medical treatment.  These
                   symptoms may, but need not necessarily,
                   involve complications or other medical
                   difficulties or residual effects as a result
                   of the salmonella poisoning/other illness.

      Category 4 - Class Members who suffered severe symptoms of
                   salmonella poisoning or other illness.  
                   Severe symptoms last more than 60 days and
                   involve the Class Member having been
                   hospitalized or having sought and received
                   medical treatment.  These symptoms may, but
                   need not necessarily, involve complications
                   or other medical difficulties or residual
                   effects as a result of the salmonella
                   poisoning/other illness.

Under the settlement:

     -- Category 1 Class Members shall be entitled to
        compensation of $500.00 as general damages, plus any
        Special Damages as awarded by the Adjudicator;

     -- Category 2 Class Members shall be entitled to
        compensation of $3,000.00 as general damages, plus any
        Special Damages as awarded by the Adjudicator;

     -- Category 3 Class Members shall be entitled to
        compensation of $5,000.00 as general damages, plus any
        Special Damages as awarded by the Adjudicator;

     -- Category 4 Class Members shall be entitled to
        compensation of at least $5,000.00 as general damages,
        but not more than $50,000.00, such general damages
        amount to be determined by the Adjudicator, plus any
        Special Damages as awarded by the Adjudicator.

Family Class Members shall be entitled to Family Class
compensation as awarded by the Adjudicator.  Family Class
Members shall be entitled to an award of compensation only where
the related Class Member has already been awarded Category 4

The maximum award in favor of a Family Class Member where the
related Class Member has been awarded Category 4 relief is
$10,000.00, plus any Special Damages as awarded by the

The settlement is subject to court approval and, if approved,
will require that notice of the settlement be published in local

Individuals will be required to make a claim for compensation to
take advantage of the settlement benefits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a hearing to
approve the settlement on Sept. 28, 2006 at 10 a.m. at the
courtroom of the Honorable Justice Crane.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Nov. 9, 2006.
Deadline to file claims is Dec. 1, 2006.

Royal Botanical Gardens Class Action Claim on the net:


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


The suit is "Jones v. Royal Botanical Gardens et al., Court File
No. 05-CV-290254CP," filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice under the Honorable Justice Crane.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Thompson of Scarfone Hawkins LLP, Hamilton, 1
         James St. S., 14th Floor, P.O. Box 926, Depot #1,
         Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3P9, Phone: 1-905-523-1333, Fax:
         1-905-523-5878, E-mail: classactionlaw@shlaw.ca; and

     (2) Minden Gross Grafstein & Greenstein LLP, 111 Richmond
         St W, Ste 700, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2H5, Canada, Phone:
         (1-416) 362-3711, Fax: (1-416) 864-9223, Email:
         meritas@mindengross.com, Web Site: www.mindengross.com.

Law firm representing the defendants is Agro, Zaffiro, Parente,
Orzel & Baker LLP, PO Box 2069, LCD 1, Hamilton, ON L8N 3G6,
Phone: 905-527-6877, Fax: 905-527-6169, E-Mail:
mail@agrozaffiro.com, Website: http://www.agrozaffiro.com

SANDRIDGE FOOD: Recalls Chicken Salad Due to Undeclared Soy
Sandridge Food Corp. of Medina, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 7,497 lbs. of
chicken salad due to an undeclared soy allergen.

The company said, the package labels of the chicken salad do not
specifically state that textured soy flour, a potential known
allergen, is an ingredient.

The product subject to recall is in 12-ounce plastic containers
of "Grandma's Original Recipes, Chicken Salad, Made with White
Chicken Meat."  Each label bears the establishment number "P-
2447" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each case bears the
code "2632323."  Each label also includes one of the following
use by dates: "08/27/06," "09/03/06," "09/08/06," "09/15/06,"
"09/22/06," "09/25/06," "09/29/06," "10/06/06" or "10/08/06."

The chicken salad was produced between July 13 and August 24,
2006, and was shipped to retail stores in Florida, New York,
Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered by the company.  FSIS has received no
reports of illness due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about an allergic reaction should contact a physician.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company President Bill Frantz at (800) 627-2523.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-
6854).  The hotline is available in English and Spanish and can
be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a

SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Sept. Hearing Set in Settlement of "Oracle" Suit
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 21, 2006 at 9:30
a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter "Miller, et al.,
v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 449534
(Consolidated with Actions Nos. 438635, 449535 and 449608)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Mark R. Forcum, 400 County
Center, Department B, Redwood City, CA 94063.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Sept.
12, 2006.

The settlement covers all persons who held Siebel Systems, Inc.
common stock, either of record or beneficially, at any time
between and including Sept. 12, 2005, and Jan. 31, 2006, other
than defendants and their respective affiliates, to the extent
that the held Siebel stock.

"Miller v. Siebel Systems, Inc., Case No. 449534," and "Showers
v. Siebel Systems, Inc., Case No. 449535," both filed on Sept.
12, 2005 and "Corwin v. Siebel Systems, Inc., Case No. 449608,"
filed on Sept. 15, 2005, were all filed in San Mateo Superior

The company and its directors are named as defendants in all
three actions.  The Miller and Corwin complaints also name
Oracle Corp. as a defendant.

The complaints arise out of the announced purchase of the
company by Oracle and allege in substance that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the transaction
for failure to maximize stockholder value.

In the complaints where it is named, Oracle is alleged to have
aided and abetted the alleged violations.  These complaints seek
injunctive relief and damages together with interest and
reimbursement of costs and expenses of litigation.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the three actions were consolidated, with
Miller v. Siebel Systems, Inc. Case No. 449534 as the lead case.

On Dec. 21, 2005, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement without
seeking to maximize shareholder value, that the termination fee
of $140 million in the merger agreement is excessive and that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing in the
merger agreement not to solicit a higher bid for Siebel Systems.

The complaint also alleges that the earlier versions of the
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger with Oracle
omit material facts relating to Siebel Systems' forecasts or
projections, Oracle's projected earnings, Goldman Sachs'
analysis of the transaction, the negotiations leading to the
transaction, the terms of the consulting agreements to be
entered into between Oracle and Thomas M. Siebel and George
Shaheen and other matters.

Finally, the complaint alleges that the directors breached their
duties in connection with the administration of Siebel Systems'
1996 and 1998 Equity Incentive Plans, which allegedly resulted
in options being granted at a lower exercise price than they
should have been.

The complaint also alleges that, as a result, the recipients of
those options are receiving a greater share of the consideration
being paid by Oracle and the alleged options repricing increased
the expenses to be incurred by Oracle.

According to the complaint, these alleged increased expenses
have purportedly resulted in Oracle offering a lower price per
share to Siebel Systems' shareholders.  It alleges that Oracle
aided and abetted the directors' breaches of duties.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Patricia C. Weiser, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., 121 N.
         Wayne Avenue, Suite 100, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087,
         (Chester & Delaware Cos.), Phone: 610-225-2677, Fax:
         610-225-2678, Web site: http://www.weiserlawfirm.com;

     (2) Henry J. Young of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016,
         (New York Co.), Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax: 212-684-5191,
         Web site: http://www.abbeyspanier.com;and

     (3) Francis A. Bottini, Jr. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
         York 10016, (New York Co.), Phone: 619-239-4599, Fax:
         619-234-4599, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.

TENNESSEE: Revised Complaint Filed in Suit Over County Elections
An amended complaint was filed in the purported class action
pending against Shelby County in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.

Originally, Suhkara A. Yahweh, a Memphis minister and four other
plaintiffs filed the case back in July 31, 2006, contending that
the electronic voting machines used in the August elections are
"fundamentally flawed and unreliable" and prevented voters from
casting their ballots in private.

The amended complaint, which was filed electronically, names as

     -- Shelby County Election Commission members, and
     -- officials of Diebold Election Systems Inc., a subsidiary
        of ATM maker Diebold Inc.

The suit alleges that the Diebold AccuVote Machine is subject to
tampering and that in some instances workers were not properly
trained in the use of the machine and that the machines denied
voters the right to cast secret ballots.

Plaintiffs, represented by attorney William Winchester, also
claim that their civil and voting rights were violated.  They
also claim that in some instances voters did not cast ballots
because of intimidation or coercion due to the lack of secrecy
at the polls.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of all county
voters, a declaration that the election is invalid, and
unspecified monetary damages.

The suit is "We the People v. Diebold Corp. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02492-JPM-dkv," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee under Judge Jon Phipps McCalla
with referral to Judge Diane K. Vescovo.

Representing the plaintiffs is William T. Winchester of The Law
Offices Of William T. Winchester, 2600 Poplar Ave., Ste. 507,
Memphis, TN 38112, Phone: 901-327-6666, Fax: 901-327-6699, E-
mail: wagamwinchester@hotmail.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John M. Majoras of Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave N.W.,
         Washington, DC 20001, E-mail: JMMajoras@jonesday.com;

     (2) William P. Dougherty of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell
         & Berkowitz, 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000, Memphis,
         TN 38103, Phone: 901-526-2000, E-mail:

U.S. FOODSERVICE: Workers File Ala. Racial Discrimination Suit
Six American-American workers filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against their
employer, U.S. Foodservice, alleging racial discrimination, The
Montgomery Advertiser reports.

The suit, "Fluker, et al. v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-VPM," was filed after the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission found that the workers were harassed and
then punished for complaining about their treatment.  The six
workers in the case, who are represented by Birmingham attorney
Jon C. Goldfarb, includes:

      -- Calvin Fluker,
      -- Ricardo Wright,
      -- Beryl Jackson,
      -- Tracey Martin,
      -- Lisa Pitchford and
      -- Kimberley Love

The EEOC investigated the employees' complaints against the
Montgomery division of the distribution company, and decided
they have grounds for racial discrimination.  It determined that
the company subjected the workers to "a racially hostile work

Filed on Sept. 1, 2006, the suit lists several claims by the
black workers, including the company's placement of black
salespeople in predominantly black, low-income areas of town and
its refusal to promote black employees to high-level positions.

The suit alleges that managers also attempted to coerce blacks
into signing statements that they had not been subjected to
racial discrimination.

Mr. Goldfarb told The Montgomery Advertiser that he would
investigate whether there is evidence to pursue a class action
against the company, which would require at least 25 plaintiffs.

The suit is "Fluker, et al. v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-VPM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama under Judge Myron H.
Thompson with referral to Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson.

Representing the plaintiffs are Ethan R. Dettling, Jon Craig
Goldfarb and Maury Steven Weiner of Wiggins, Childs, Quinn, &
Pantazis, LLC, 301 19th Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203,
Phone: 205-314-0500, Fax: 205-254-1500, E-mail:
edettling@wcqp.com, jgoldfarb@wcqp.com and mweiner@wcqp.com.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AEGON USA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, on Sept. 1, 2006,
filed a class action in the U.S District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who, from Oct.
1, 1998 through Oct. 1, 2001:

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired an individual tax-
        deferred variable annuity contract, or

     -- who received a certificate to a group tax-deferred
        variable annuity contract, or

     -- who made an additional investment through such a
        contract, issued by any of the defendants herein,

which was used to fund a contributory retirement plan or
arrangement qualified for favorable tax treatment pursuant to
sections 401, 403, 408, 408A or 457 of the Internal Revenue

The defendants are:

     * AEGON USA, Inc. and six of its subsidiaries/affiliates,
     * Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio,
     * PFL Life Insurance Co.,
     * AUSA Life Insurance Co., Inc.,
     * Bankers United Life Assurance Co.,
     * AFSG Securities Corp., and
     * AEGON Financial Services Group, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements and
omissions, in their selling documents including prospectuses,
which caused plaintiffs and other members of the Class to
purchase the variable annuity contracts.

The tax-deferred variable annuities sold by defendants are
virtually never suitable investments for tax-deferred retirement
accounts because earnings on any such annuity placed in such a
retirement plan are already tax-deferred, and purchase of a
deferred annuity increases costs without any material,
additional economic benefit.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Nov. 6, 2006.

For more details, contact Daniel W. Krasner, Esq., Robert B.
Weintraub, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web
site: http://www.whafh.com.

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Roy Jacobs Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock and other securities of Aspen
Technology Inc. who purchased during the period from Feb. 6,
2006 through Sept. 6, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Aspen Tech and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the backdating of the grant of stock options to management, and
the falsification of its financial statements for the years
2002-2005 and the first three quarters of 2006.

The company had been previously forced to restate its financial
statements for the years 2002-2004 in 2005, and the investing
public was led to understand such accounting issues were

The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Aspen Tech's earnings between
2002 and 2005, and the under-booking of compensation expenses.
Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed
the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for
as an expense, which Aspen Tech failed to do.

On Sept. 6, 2006, the defendants shocked the market by
announcing that the company would be forced to restate its
financial statements to correct for the backdating of stock
options, by booking approximately $31 million of additional
compensation charges. On this news the company's share prices
declined substantially on greatly increased share volume.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Nov. 7, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:


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


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  * * *