CAR_Public/060912.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 181

                            Headlines

180SOLUTIONS INC.: Ill. Suit Over Adware Installations Dismissed
ALBERTSONS: Recalls Potato Salad for Listeria Contamination
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Mass. Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants
BAYER CORP: Nov. Final Hearing Set for $32M EPDM Suit Settlement
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Lawsuit in Mo. Over Rice Contamination

CALIFORNIA: Police Officers Accuse Dept. of Retaliating for Suit
CANADA: Court to Hear Appeal on "Special Kids Ontario" Lawsuit
CANADA: Alberta Faces Suit Over Basic Health Services Policy
CAREER EDUCATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in Ill.
CATERPILLAR INC: Trial of Tenn. Pension Lawsuits Set Oct. 2008

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Files Reply in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Suit Nixing
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Order on Release of Victims' Info Appealed
FREDDIE MAC: Oct. Hearing Set for $410M Stock Suit Settlement
H&R BLOCK: Reduces Loan Fees After $39M RALs Lawsuit Settlement

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Court Sets Briefing for Tex. Stock Suit
IPASS INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
MANNATECH INC: N.Mex. Court Mulls Transfer of Stock Suit to Tex.
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC: Recalls Thousands of Notebook PC Batteries
NTL INC: Oct. 23 Hearing Set for N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement

OHIO: Hearing on Mahoning Jail Prisoner Release Order Set 2007
OHIO UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Attorney Responds to Dismissal Motion
PDI INC: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
PDI INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor Violations Suit
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Okays $1.85M Stock Suit Deal

SPRINT CORP: Foundation Opposes Benney-Lundberg Suit Settlement
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over Canceled Coupons
TARGET CORP: Calif. Judge Refuses to Dismiss ADA Violation Suit
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Wash.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Sept.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Sept. 15


                            *********


180SOLUTIONS INC.: Ill. Suit Over Adware Installations Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed with prejudice a suit filed last year against
180solutions Inc. over its advertising software.

The dismissal is not the result of a settlement and is not
subject to appeal.

The dismissed suit, "Simios, et al. v. 180solutions, Inc.,"
included broad assertions of alleged wrongdoing by the company,
now known as Zango, in relation to its desktop advertising
software, including a claim that its desktop advertising
software is "spyware."

Zango's software allows millions of consumers free access to
online videos, games, music, tools and utilities, in exchange
for targeted advertising when they search or browse the
Internet.

The dismissal "serves to confirm that Zango's desktop
advertising software is not spyware in any shape or form and
that our innovative business model is entirely legitimate," Ken
McGraw, Zango's executive vice president, general counsel and
chief compliance officer, said in a statement.

                         Case Background

The Simios case was filed Sept. 13, 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
residents of the U.S. and the state of Illinois (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2005).

The suit charges that the company downloaded spyware on
computers illegally causing a number of damages.  The company's
alleged illegal practices include deceptively distributing
spyware files and preventing users from removing them, engaging
in deceptive misconduct to download its spyware without users'
knowledge or consent and lying to consumers about its spyware.

Counts include:

     -- computer fraud and abuse;

     -- violating U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy
        Act/Wiretap Act;

     -- Trespass to Personal Property/Chattels;

     -- Consumer Fraud Act, Negligence; and

     -- Illinois Computer Tampering and Invasion of Privacy.

In 2006, the Center for Democracy & Technology, a high-profile
consumer advocacy group asked the Federal Trade Commission to
pull the plug on the "illegal and deceptive practices" used by
adware vendor 180Solutions, Inc. to install unwanted software on
millions of computers (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).

In a 91-page complaint, the nonprofit CDT accused the company of
using a complicated web of affiliate partnerships to
deliberately trick consumers into downloading and installing
intrusive adware programs.

The group wanted the FTC to impose hefty fines on the company
and block it and its affiliates from future use of the alleged
deceptive and unfair installation of software.

CDT revealed that it spent the last two years investigating
complaints that the company was turning a blind eye to the
installation of its adware through security exploits, botnets
and instant messaging worm attacks.

The suit is "Simios v. 180SOLUTIONS, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-05235," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Virginia M. Kendall.

Representing the defendants are Kristin Joy Achterhof, Dawn
Marie Canty, Michael Adam Dorfman, Floyd A. Mandell and Julie
Phyllis Setren all of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 525 West
Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: (312) 902-
5200, E-mail: Kristin.Achterhof@kattenlaw.com or
dawn.canty@kattenlaw.com or Michael.Dorfman@kattenlaw.com or
Floyd.Mandell@kattenlaw.com or julie.setren@kattenlaw.com

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Norman Benjamin Berger and Michael D. Hayes both of
         Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes & Casey, 224 South Michigan
         Avenue, Suite 350, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 341-
         9400, E-mail: nberger@vblhc.com or mhayes@vblhc.com;
         and

     (2) Shawn Michael Collins and David J. Fish both of The
         Collins Law Firm, 1770 North Park Street, Suite 200
         Naperville, IL 60563, Phone: (630) 527-1595, E-mail:
         smc@collinslaw.com or dfish@collinslaw.com


ALBERTSONS: Recalls Potato Salad for Listeria Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons and Chef Solutions, Inc. are voluntarily recalling
approximately 8,300 lbs. of essensia Baked Potato Salad that may
pose health risk.

This voluntary action is being taken in response to the results
of a single test conducted by the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety, for
Listeria monocytogenes.

The only product included in this recall is essensia Baked
Potato Salad in a 16 oz. container, bearing the use by date of
Aug. 17, 2006 WH, that may have been purchased at Albertsons
stores in California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, or Washington.

No other essensia brand potato salads or other products, or
other code dates of the Baked Potato Salad are included in this
recall.

No illnesses associated with consumption of this product have
been reported to date.

Consumers are urged to return all un-opened containers to their
local Albertsons retail store for a full refund.

Consumers with any questions may contact Chef Solutions, Inc. at
1-800-544-1246.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Mass. Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts over alleged
manipulation of stock-option dates and falsification of
financial statements for 2002 through 2005 and the first three
quarters of 2006.

The suit, filed by Roy Jacobs & Associates on behalf of
investors who bought Aspen stock from Feb. 6, 2006 through Sept.
6, 2006, 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

     -- falsifying 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 that such accounting issues have
been resolved.

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.

Plaintiffs are represented by Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs
& Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com


BAYER CORP: Nov. Final Hearing Set for $32M EPDM Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $32,000,000 settlement by Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and
Bayer MaterialScience, LLC in the matter, "In Re: Ethylene
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
3:03 MD 1542 (PCD)."

The court will hold a hearing at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Courtroom No. 1, 141 Church Street, New
Haven, Connecticut.

Any exclusion from the settlement must be made by Oct. 12, 2006.
Deadline for submitting proof of claim is Nov. 30, 2006.

The case covers all persons and entities in the U.S. and its
territories that directly purchased EPDM from defendants at any
time from Jan. 1, 1997 through Dec. 31, 2001.

Beginning in March 2003, class action complaints alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws within the EPDM
industry were filed in multiple federal courts.  Motions were
made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
centralize the cases in a single court to promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.

On Aug. 12, 2003, the JPML entered a Transfer Order centralizing
the cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut and recommending that they be assigned to Judge
Peter Dorsey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

By Order dated Sept. 11, 2003, the dourt appointed class counsel
to conduct the litigation on behalf of the class.  The operative
complaint in this action is the second consolidated amended
complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix or
maintain the prices of, and/or allocate markets for, EPDM sold
in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

The complaint further alleges that, as part of the conspiracy,
the defendants agreed to limit the supply of EPDM and to
allocate markets and customers for the sale of EPDM.  As a
result of this conduct, the complaint alleges that members of
the class paid artificially inflated prices for EPDM and,
therefore, have suffered injury.

For more details, contact:

     (1) In re EPDM Antitrust Litigation (Bayer) c/o Gilardi &
         Co., LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060, San
         Rafael, CA 94912-8060. Phone: 415-461-0410, Fax: 415-
         461-0412;

     (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
         York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: (202)
         408-4600 and (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web
         site: http://www.cmht.com/;

     (3) Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, 595 Market Street,
         Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 800-778-
         1822, E-mail: info@gbcslaw.com;

     (4) Bolognese & Associates, LLC, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK
         Blvd., Suite 650, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
         814-6750; and

     (5) Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street,
         Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215) 592-
         1500, Fax: (215) 592-4663.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Lawsuit in Mo. Over Rice Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. Michael Ponder of Cook, Barkett, Maguire & Ponder, L.C. filed
a suit in Cape Girardeau against Bayer CropScience on behalf of
rice growers in Missouri whose crop values have plummeted in
recent weeks.

The rice farmers said the fall in the prices of their crop was
due to the contamination of their commercial rice supply with
genetically engineered rice that has not been approved for human
consumption by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"Missouri farmers are entitled to bring an action under the
Missouri Crop Production Act which, among other things, allows
for double damages for losses in crop production value.  This
act is unique to Missouri and cannot be pursued in lawsuits
pending in other states," Mr. Ponder said.

Three similar suits have been filed in Arkansas against Bayer
CropScience, the company that developed, manufactured and test-
marketed a genetically altered rice, known as LLRICE 601.  The
altered rice contains a protein-producing gene which makes the
plant resistant to the herbicide Liberty (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 3, 2006).

The federal lawsuits represent rice growers in Arkansas,
California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas.

The suits came after USDA's August announcement that genetically
modified rice, developed and tested by Bayer, had been found in
samples taken from commercial long grain rice.

According to the USDA, the U.S. produces approximately $1.88
billion worth of rice annually and some 40 to 50 percent of that
is exported.

Last year the European Union imported 198,000 tons of long-
grain rice from the U.S. Current exports to the European Union
are approximately 20,000 tons of rice a month.

No genetically engineered rice may be legally imported into the
E.U.  As a result, any contamination of the U.S. long-grain rice
supply is financially devastating to U.S. growers and exporters,
Mr. Ponder said.

For more information, contact J. Michael Ponder of Cook,
Barkett, Maguire & Ponder, L.C., 715 N. Clark, P.O. Box 1180
Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1180, Phone:  (573) 335-6651.


CALIFORNIA: Police Officers Accuse Dept. of Retaliating for Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Police Department is facing a suit filed by
police officers claiming the department is retaliating against
them for joining a suit alleging wage and overtime violations.

According to the DailyBreeze.com, the department is facing
accusation by 10 Los Angeles police officers of putting their
names on a "hit list" for retaliation intended to "provoke in
plaintiffs fear for their livelihood and the well-being of their
families."

The recent suit, which is asking class-action status, was filed
on Sept. 8 in federal court, the report said.  It claims that
the department withheld police officers' promotions.  In
addition, the city, Los Angeles Police Department, Police
Commission and City Attorney's Office allegedly used bad
performance reviews, intimidation, transfers and removal of
officers from the field to intimidate those who chose to join
three lawsuits that alleged wage and overtime violations.

Plaintiffs in the case are Morris Batts, William Dougherty,
Ietia Eston, Ellis Imaizumi, Johnny Jones, Helen Lopez, Samuel
Mark, James May, Juan Santos and Johnnie Zamora.  They are
asking unspecified damages as well as back pay.


CANADA: Court to Hear Appeal on "Special Kids Ontario" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario's Court of Appeal will hear on Sept. 12 and 13, 2006 an
appeal by the government against a ruling that certified the
suit "Larcade v. Ontario" as class action.

In May 2005, the Ontario Divisional Court certified the Special
Kids Ontario lawsuit.  The case was launched in May of 2001 with
Huntsville resident, Anne Larcade as the representative
plaintiff.  Mrs. Larcarde's son, Alexandre, has multiple
disabilities, and was, allegedly, systematically denied a wide
range of services and benefits.  Ms. Larcade was supposedly told
that the only way she could obtain necessary services was to
give up custody of her son to Children's Aid.  Thousands of
other disabled children in the period beginning in 1997 suffered
the same fate.

The Ontario Child and Family Services Act imposes an obligation
on the Province to promote the best interests and well being of
children and families in Ontario.  The Act provides for "Special
needs Agreements" as a safety net for profoundly disabled
children whose needs cannot be met through the normal range of
community services.  Although the law was not changed, in 1997 a
decision was made by the government of the day to terminate
"Special Needs Agreements."  It became a common practice for
families to relinquish custody of their child in order to access
necessary services and care.

The claim seeks damages of $500 million for the class.

The Toronto firm of Roy Elliott, Kim, O'Connor LLP --
http://www.reko.ca/-- will argue the case on behalf of the
government of Ontario.


CANADA: Alberta Faces Suit Over Basic Health Services Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta's ban on private health insurance for basic health
services provided by the government is being challenge in court,
according to Gloria Gonzales of the Business Insurance.

A suit seeking class-action status on behalf of a man who was
allegedly denied publicly funded hip replacement surgery is
before the court of Queen's Branch of Alberta Judicial Centre of
Calgary.

According to the report, the suit seeks, among others:

     -- declaratory relief;

     -- damages as a result of the government's failure to
        provide access to public health care for the plaintiff,
        William Lloyd Murray, and others who were unable to
        obtain publicly funded hip replacement surgeries in the
        province during a two-year period beginning Aug. 4,
        2004;

     -- declaration that the statutory prohibition on the
        purchase of private health insurance for publicly
        covered health services and that the denial of medical
        services based on a patient's age are unconstitutional
        based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to the complaint, the government continued to deny Mr.
Murray's request for the surgery despite an attempt for him to
shoulder the cost.  As a result, Mr. Murray had to travel to
Montreal for the surgery, costing him more than CA$20,000
($17,872) in medical and travel expenses.

The suit is funded by a charitable organization Canadian
Constitution Foundation, which is seeking to expand a Supreme
Court of Canada ruling in "Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney
General."

In June 2005, the Supreme Court found Quebec's ban on private
insurance for health care services that are already provided by
the province to be unconstitutional.


CAREER EDUCATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in the consolidated securities class action,
"In re Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated case represents the consolidation into one suit
of six purported class actions filed between Dec. 9, 2003, and
Feb. 5, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by and on behalf of certain purchasers of
the company's common stock against Career Education and two of
its executive officers, John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch.

The suits purportedly were brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the company's common stock during specified
class periods.

The complaints allege that in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class periods, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that John M. Larson and Patrick K.
Pesch are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs ask for unspecified amounts
in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief.

Five of these lawsuits were related to the first filed case,
"Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corp. et al., Case No. 03 CV
8884)," and were reassigned to the same judge.

On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases to be
consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff.
On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- which
represents Mr. Schroeder, as lead counsel.

Subsequently, the court issued an order changing the caption of
this lawsuit to "In re Career Education Corp. Securities
Litigation."

On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On Feb. 11, 2005, defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted, without prejudice.

On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On March 28, 2006, defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint was granted, without prejudice.

On May 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint on Aug. 2, 2006.

The suit is "In re Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan Humphrey
Lefkow.

Representing the company are Karl Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin
Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il
60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200.


CATERPILLAR INC: Trial of Tenn. Pension Lawsuits Set Oct. 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two federal cases asking class-action status against Caterpillar
Inc. is set for trial in October 2008 in U.S. District Court in
Nashville, according to the Commercialappeal.com.

The suits accuses the heavy equipment maker of reneging on an
obligation to provide retirees and surviving spouses with free
health care coverage for life.

                       The Winnett Lawsuit

The complaint, entitled, "Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc.,"
was filed in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee.

Two Caterpillar retirees and a surviving wife of a deceased
retiree brought the suit in April (Class Action Reporter, April
4, 2006).  The complaint asserts that the company's labor
contracts and benefit plans provided retiree's health care
coverage "continued for his or her lifetime at no cost."  The
plaintiffs request the court certify a class of former company
retirees and surviving spouses who retired before the adoption
of a March 1998 contract.

In Oct. 2004, the company began charging retirees monthly
premium costs ranging from $134 to $280 per month for health
care benefits.  The suit seeks to remove the charges and restore
the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees to the position
they would have been but for Caterpillar's contractual
violations.

Representing the plaintiffs are Kathryn Barnett, Elizabeth
Alexander, and Mark Chalos of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- of Nashville,
Tennessee, and Michael Mulder, Shona Glink and Jamie Franklin of
Meties, Mulder, Mollica and Glink of Chicago, Illinois.

The suit is "Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00235," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

                          Kerns Lawsuit

On the same month, retirees Judith Kerns, Marcia Nalley and
Sandra Stewart filed a suit against the company on behalf of
survivors whose spouses retired from the company between March
16, 1998, and Jan. 10, 2005.  The company is accused of
violating a contract that provides spouses of three retirees
with free health coverage for life (Class Action Reporter, April
25, 2006).  The period covers the previous contract between the
company and the United Auto Workers.

The suit seeks free health coverage for the spouses as well as
punitive damages.

The suit is "Kerns, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case
No. 2:06-cv-02213-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 are Samuel C. McKnight and Lisa M.
Smith of Klimist, Mcknight, Sale, Mcclow & Canzano, P.C., 400
Galleria Officentre, Suite 117, Southfield, MI 48034-8460, US,
Phone: 248-354-9650; and Samuel Morris of Godwin Morris Laurenzi
& Bloomfield, P.C., Morgan Keegan Tower, 50 N. Front St., Ste.
800, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-528-1702, Fax: 901-528-0246,
E-mail: smorris@gmlblaw.com

In May, AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys were named co-
counsel for the class action.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Files Reply in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc. filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition
to an amended motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
fraud class action pending against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Between December 2004 and January 2005, the company and certain
current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in several class actions seeking monetary damages
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased company common
stock during a specified class period.

These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts.

The California cases have now been consolidated with the New
Jersey cases so that all of the class actions are being heard in
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge.

On Sept. 1, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the case.  On Nov. 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion to file a second amended complaint, which was filed on
Dec. 5, 2005.

The defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the case on
Feb. 6, 2006.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Apr. 24,
2006, and defendant's reply was filed on June 14, 2006.

The suit is "Witriol v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-06219-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann
         & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ
         07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:
         PSP@njlawfirm.com; and

     (2) Katrina Blumenkrants and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite
         Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Phone: (973) 623-3000,
         E-mail: kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com and
         jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Gregory B. Reilly and Deborah A.
Silodor of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue,
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone: (973) 597-2500 and (973) 597-
2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com and
dsilodor@lowenstein.com.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Suit Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a notice to appeal the dismissal of the purported
class action against Conexant Systems, Inc. that alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and
former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit.  It was filed
on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's
401(k) Plan during a specified class period.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants
in the Plan.  The defendants believe these charges are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
case.

The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30,
2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006.

On Mar. 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it
closed.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

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

Representing the defendants is Gregory B. Reilly of Lowenstein
Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Order on Release of Victims' Info Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for victims of sexual abuse by priests in the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Covington filed an appeal on Sept. 8 against
a court ruling ordering the release of personal information
about the victims, the Kentucky Post reports.

Attorneys had argued that the order violates the victims'
constitutional right to privacy.  According to the appeal,
Special Judge John Potter himself stated in an order of June
2005 that the information victims submitted in the settlement
process wouldn't be made public without their consent.

In that order, Judge Potter pointed out that under Kentucky law
sex-abuse allegations must be forwarded to police.  The judge
reasoned that he wants the prosecutors to know the type of
abuse, when it occurred and the name of the suspected abuser.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, however, reasoned that those laws
are designed to protect children suffering abuse right now, and
not adults who endured it years ago, according to the report.

In a petition filed with the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the
attorneys say that Judge Potter's order has already harmed their
clients by giving them anxiety over, among others, the
embarrassment that the disclosure could bring.

                   Hearing on Attorneys' Fees

Meanwhile, Judge Potter will hear on Nov. 6, 2006 a request by
Covington attorney Brenda Dahlenburg Bonar to get part of an $84
million settlement in the suit.

Judge Potter awarded plaintiff attorneys $18.5 million in fees
in May, but Stan Chesley, lawyer for the lead plaintiff, has
refused to give Ms. Bonar a share.  Ms. Bonar argues that she is
entitled part of the fees for her efforts in the initiation,
prosecution and ultimate settlement of the case.  The initial
two plaintiffs in the case that eventually became a class action
were her clients, as well as 13 of the original class members.

                         Case Background

Mr. Chesley filed the class action in Boone County Circuit Court
back in 2003, claiming 21 priests and some other workers abused
more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades
while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2003).

According to court filings, from about 1956, information on the
sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed
from the public, including parents of children in schools and
parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well
as from family members of employees of the diocese.

Sexual abuse victims and the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington, Kentucky subsequently reached an $84 million
settlement that the court initially approved in July 2005.  On
Jan. 31, Judge Potter finally approved the settlement that
covers 361 victims.

For more info, visit: http://www.covingtonkydioceseabuse.com/


FREDDIE MAC: Oct. Hearing Set for $410M Stock Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 26, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. for
the proposed $410,000,000 settlement in a securities suit
pending in New York.

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Freddie Mac f.k.a. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.,
     -- Leland C. Brendsel,
     -- Vaughn A. Clarke,
     -- David W. Glenn, and
     -- Gregory J. Parseghian

The suit is MDL-1584, Lead Case No. 03-CV-4261 (JES).

The final approval hearing will be held before Judge John E.
Sprizzo at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 21C, New York, New York,
10007.

Any objection and exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made by Oct. 12, 2006.  Deadline for submitting proof of claim
is Dec. 7, 2006.

The case covers all persons and entities that purchased shares
of common stock of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. from July
15, 1999 through and including Nov. 20, 2003.

The securities action stems from:

      -- Freddie Mac's announcement on June 9, 2003 regarding
         the retirement, resignation or termination of Freddie
         Mac's three top executive officers; and

      -- alleged misapplications of generally accepted
         accounting principles and employee misconduct.

On the June 9, 2003 news, the price of Freddie Mac's common
stock dropped to $50.26 per share, from a class period high of
$70.79 per share.

Freddie Mac announced on Jan. 22, 2003 that it would need to
restate certain of its previously issued financial statements.

On Nov. 21, 2003, Freddie Mac announced the final results of the
restatement of its financial statements for 2000, 2001 and 2002,
revealing, among other things, that Freddie Mac had overstated
its net income for 2001 by approximately $1.4 billion, and that
the net cumulative effect of the restatement through Dec. 31,
2002 was an increase to the company's net income of $5 billion.

Multiple securities class action complaints were filed against
Freddie Mac and certain of its officers alleging that the
securities defendants knowingly or recklessly made misstatements
concerning Freddie Mac's reported financial results in order to
artificially inflate the price of its common stock.  Several
shareholder derivative actions were also filed alleging that
derivative defendants had breached their fiduciary duties,
engaged in corporate waste and were unjustly enriched.

On Jan. 15, 2004, the lead securities plaintiffs filed an
amended class action complaint for violation of the federal
securities laws, alleging that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by knowingly or recklessly
making materially false and/or misleading statements regarding
Freddie Mac's financial results in press releases, analysts'
conference calls and public financial reports during the class
period to artificially inflate the value of Freddie Mac common
stock, thus causing damages to Lead Securities Plaintiffs and
the other class members who purchased Freddie Mac common stock
during the class period.

By Order dated March 17, 2004, the court consolidated the
securities cases into the Securities Action, appointed:

     -- Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State
        Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiffs,
        and approved

     -- Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. as lead
        counsel and Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP
        and Barrett & Weber, L.P.A. as co-lead counsel.

On April 1, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of
the claims asserted against them in the Securities Action.  Lead
securities plaintiffs, through lead securities counsel and co-
lead securities counsel, opposed that motion.  Oral argument was
held on July 19, 2004, and, by Order dated July 19, 2004, the
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

Lead securities plaintiffs, through lead securities counsel and
co-lead securities counsel, conducted extensive discovery in the
Securities Action.  Lead securities counsel and co-lead
securities counsel requested or subpoenaed documents from 47
persons or entities, including all defendants, the previous and
current auditors of Freddie Mac, and numerous counter-parties to
transactions with Freddie Mac.

Lead securities plaintiffs moved for class certification on June
15, 2005 in the Securities Action, and oral argument was heard
on March 31, 2006.

By Order dated April 4, 2006, the court granted lead securities
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but adopted the
position as to class definition advanced by Freddie Mac in its
papers in response to the motion, and certified the Securities
Action to proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased Freddie Mac common stock during the period from July
15, 1999 through and including Nov. 20, 2003 and who allegedly
were damaged thereby -- excluding the securities defendants and
certain other persons -- and certifying lead securities
plaintiffs as the class representatives.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Stanley M. Chesley, James R. Cummins and Melanie S.
         Corwin of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co.,
         L.P.A., 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth
         Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Phone: (513) 621-0267,
         Fax: (513) 621-0262, E-mail: jcummins@wsbclaw.com and
         mcorwin@wsbclaw.com;

     (2) Max W. Berger, Darnley D. Stewart and Jeffrey N.
         Leibell of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP,
         1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019,
         Phone: (212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444, E-mail:
         darnley@blbglaw.com and jeffl@blbglaw.com; and

     (3) Freddie Mac Securities Litigation Settlement c/o The
         Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
         9078, Dublin, Ohio 43017-0978, Phone: 1-800-460-3971,
         E-mail: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


H&R BLOCK: Reduces Loan Fees After $39M RALs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc., which recently settled a lawsuit over refund-
anticipation loans for $39 million, is reducing its fees for the
loans, MarketWatch reports.

According to Mark Ernst, chairman and chief executive at H&R
Block, the fee for a $2,800 refund-anticipation loan, will be
40% lower this year than last year, about $60 instead of $100.

However, he added, the fee schedule "will affect different
clients in different ways, some with greater savings than
others."

In Aug., Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a $39
million settlement of a class action over H&R Block's use of
refund anticipation loans (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31,
2006).

The settlement would cover refund anticipation loans that had
been funded by Beneficial National Bank and offered through an
H&R Block office from April 8, 1994 through Dec. 31, 1996.
Overall, the proposed nationwide settlement would make available
cash payments to approximately 1.7 million class members who
made approximately 2 million individual RAL transactions.  It
also calls for payment of an estimated $850,000 covering six
months of interest.

The suit was filed April 8, 1998.  Plaintiffs in the RAL Cases
alleged, among other things:

     -- that disclosures in the RAL applications were
        inadequate, misleading and untimely;

     -- that the RAL interest rates were usurious and
        unconscionable;

     -- that the company did not disclose that it would receive
        part of the finance charges paid by the customer for
        such loans;

     -- that company breached state laws on credit service
        organizations;

     -- that the company committed a breach of contract, unjust
        enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and
        violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
        Act; and

     -- that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty
        to its customers in connection with the RAL program.

Representing the plaintiffs is Chicago attorney Ronald Futterman
at Futterman & Howard, Suite 1850, 122 S. Michigan Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-3600, Fax:  (312) 427-1850.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Court Sets Briefing for Tex. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set briefing schedules
for the appeal proceedings in the securities class action filed
against Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Between Aug. 20 and Oct. 4, 2004, five putative securities fraud
class actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The five lawsuits were consolidated as
"In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:04-CV-3342."

On March 23, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborer' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to
the parties' agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its
amended complaint on June 6, 2005.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements during the
proposed class period of Nov. 10, 2003 to Aug. 13, 2004.

It also alleges that defendants misrepresented the company's
financial condition in 2003 and 2004 as evidenced by the
restatement, violated generally accepted accounting principles,
and misrepresented the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls so that they could engage in insider trading at
artificially-inflated prices, retain their positions at the
company, and obtain a credit facility for the company.

On Aug. 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Defendants argued,
among other things, that the amended complaint fails to allege
fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the heightened
pleading requirements for securities fraud class actions under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Defendants also argued that the amended complaint does not
allege fraud with particularity as to numerous Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles violations and opinion statements
about internal controls, fails to raise a strong inference that
defendants acted knowingly or with severe recklessness, and
includes vague and conclusory allegations from confidential
witnesses without a proper factual basis.

The lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Sept. 28, 2005, and defendants filed their reply in support
of the motion to dismiss on Nov. 14, 2005.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the court held a telephonic hearing relating
to the motion to dismiss.  On Jan. 10, 2006 the court issued a
memorandum and order dismissing with prejudice all claims filed
against the defendants.  Plaintiff in the securities class
action filed its notice of appeal on Feb. 2, 2006.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy
informing the court that the action was automatically stayed
because it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On March 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a partial opposition to
company's suggestion of bankruptcy arguing that the action
against non-bankrupt co-defendants was not stayed.

On July 24, 2006 the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set the
briefing scheduling for the appeal proceedings.  Appellant's
brief was due Sept. 5, 2006.  Appellee's brief is due on Oct. 5,
2006.  Appellant's reply brief is due on Oct. 19, 2006, 14 days
after Appellee's brief.

The suit is "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

     (3) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard, et al., 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-779-1414; and

     (4) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein, et al., 1100 New York
         Ave., NW Ste. 500 W. Twr., Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         202-408-4600.

Representing the company is N. Scott Fletcher of Vinson &
Elkins, LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-3234, Fax: 713-615-5168, E-mail:
sfletcher@velaw.com.


IPASS INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against iPass, Inc. certain of its
executive officers.

Three purported class action complaints were filed against the
company beginning Jan. 14, 2005.  On March 2, 2005, these cases
were consolidated as "In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:05-cv-00228-MHP."  On April 22, 2005, David Lutzke and
Rhonda Lutzke were named lead plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Named as defendants together with the company are
officers Kenneth D. Denman, Donald C. McCauley, Anurag Lal, and
Jon M. Russo.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during an alleged "class period" from April
22, 2004 to June 30, 2004 by failing to inform investors of
certain operational issues that allegedly led to declines in the
company's revenue, earnings and growth prospects.  Defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on Feb.
28, 2006, the court granted the motion with leave to amend.

On March 30, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which set forth, the same claims against the
same defendants relating to the same alleged class period.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on May 1, 2006, and pursuant to an agreed-upon
schedule, the motion was heard and taken under submission on
July 31, 2006.

The case is at an early stage and no trial date has been set.
No discovery is expected to take place unless defendants' motion
to dismiss is denied.

The suit is "In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-
cv-00228-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA
         90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
         mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen Mistein Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98104,
         Phone: 206 521-0080, Fax: 206 621-0166, E-mail:
         afriedman@cmht.com; and

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy of Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265
         Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963, Phone: 772-231-4202,
         Fax: 772-231-4042.

Representing the company is Mary Beth O'Connor of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 94306, Phone: (415) 843-5594, Fax: (650) 849-7400, E-
mail: mboconnor@cooley.com.


MANNATECH INC: N.Mex. Court Mulls Transfer of Stock Suit to Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has yet
to rule on a motion to transfer the consolidated securities
against Mannatech, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Originally, three securities class actions were filed against
Mannatech.  On Aug. 1, 2005, Mr. Jonathan Crowell filed a
putative class action against the company and Samuel L. Caster,
chief executive officer.  The suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of Mr.
Crowell and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between Aug. 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

On Aug. 30, 2005, Mr. Richard McMurry filed a class action
against the company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Terry L. Persinger, the
company's president and chief operating officer, and Mr. Stephen
D. Fenstermacher, the company's chief financial officer.

On Sept. 5, 2005, Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller filed a class action
against the company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr.
Fenstermacher.

The allegations in these class actions are substantially
identical.  The complaints allege the company violated Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, alleging that defendants artificially inflated the
value of the company's common stock by knowingly allowing
independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the efficacy
of its products during the purported class period.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
three putative class actions.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into the civil action as, "In re Mannatech,
Incorporated Securities Litigation."

Also, on Jan. 4, 2006, the court granted a motion in the
consolidated putative class action to appoint "The Mannatech
Group," consisting of:

     -- Mr. Austin Chang,
     -- Ms. Naomi S. Miller,
     -- Mr. John C. Ogden, and the
     -- Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund,

as lead plaintiffs.

The Jan. 4, 2006 court order also appointed the law firms:

     * Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead
       counsel, and

     * Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg, P.A. as
       liaison counsel, for the putative class.

On March 3, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed
a consolidated class action complaint for securities fraud.

On April 4, 2006, the company filed a motion to transfer venue
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On April 11, 2006, the court granted the parties agreed motion
for joint continuance and briefing schedule, which was filed
April 6, 2006.

On May 25, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed their response in
opposition to the motion to transfer and on June 27, 2006, the
company filed its reply in support of the motion.

In addition, on June 28, 2006, a Notice of Completion of
Briefing was filed and the motion to transfer venue is now
pending before the Court.

The first identified complaint is "Jonathan Crowell, et al. v.
Mannatech, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-829," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP (San Diego),
401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com


MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC: Recalls Thousands of Notebook PC Batteries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (6752.TO) is recalling about
6,000 lithium-ion batteries used in its Panasonic brand notebook
PCs due to possible self-ignition and damage, the MarketWatch
reports.

According to a company spokesman the problem does not stem from
the lithium-ion battery itself but from the battery cover.  The
batteries could produce heat and change shape if the battery
cover is damaged due to the poor strength of the latch.  The
company confirmed two such cases.

"But such cases are extremely rare, and only occur when the
computer suffers a strong impact such as a drop," he said.

Sony Corp. (6758.TO), which had a recall of its laptop computer
batteries by Dell Inc. and Apple Computer Inc., last month does
not make the batteries.  A spokesman declined to specify the
maker of the batteries.  He declined to specify the costs of the
recall.

The company has started replacing batteries from the initial
shipments of its Let's Note CF-W4G notebook PCs produced in
April and May 2005.


NTL INC: Oct. 23 Hearing Set for N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York will
hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 23, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re NTL, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-3013 (LAK)(AJP)."

The court will hold a the hearing at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007.

Deadline for submission of claims and any exclusion from the
settlement is Sept. 22, 2006.  Any objections to the settlement
must be made by Sept. 29, 2006.

The case covers all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of NTL, Inc.
on the open market during the period between Aug. 10, 2000 and
Nov. 29, 2001.

During the class period, NTL was a New York-based corporation
providing telephone, cable television, Internet, and broadband
communications services in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and
parts of continental Europe.

Commencing in April of 2002, several securities class actions
were instituted on behalf of purchasers of NTL securities during
the period from Aug. 3, 2000 and continuing through and
including Nov. 29, 2001, alleging violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws.  These lawsuits were consolidated for all
purposes by a Court Order on July 31, 2002.

By order of the court dated July 31, 2002:

     -- Cheyne Fund LP and Fleck T.I.M.E. Fund L.P. were
        designated lead plaintiffs, and

     -- Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (formerly known as
        Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP) and Bernstein
        Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP were appointed as co-lead
        counsel for the class.

The consolidated amended class action complaint dated Oct. 30,
2002 filed in the action alleges, among other things, that NTL
and the individual defendants, who were officers and/or
directors of NTL, made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions in NTL's public reports and statements
disseminated to the investing public thereby artificially
inflating the price of the securities of NTL and damaging
members of the class.

In particular, the complaint alleges, inter alia, that during
the class period, one or more defendants materially
misrepresented the company's ability to integrate acquired
businesses, the size of its subscriber base and its ability to
service its debts in public reports and statements disseminated
to the investing public.

The company's financial and other public statements are alleged
to have made been in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of defendants'
materially false and misleading statements, the price of NTL
securities was artificially inflated during the class period,
thereby causing damage to members of the class who purchased or
otherwise acquired NTL securities during that period.

NTL filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 8, 2002.
On Sept. 5, 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court permitted the Action
to proceed post-reorganization against the parties other than
the corporate debtor and against the corporate debtor to the
extent of its available insurance coverage.  NTL Europe, Inc.
replaced the corporate entity in the action.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 6,
2002.  By Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 12, 2004, the
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2005, defendants answered the complaint, denying
that they violated any laws or did anything wrong.  They believe
that their actions were proper under the federal securities
laws, and they assert several affirmative defenses.

On Sept. 7, 2005, lead plaintiffs made a motion to certify the
class.  By Order dated March 9, 2006, the court certified the
class as described above and Cheyne Fund LP and Fleck T.I.M.E.
Fund L.P. as class representatives.

The lawsuit seeks money damages against the defendants for
violations of the federal securities laws.  The defendants deny
all allegations of misconduct contained in the complaint, and
deny having engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq., Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016,
         Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212)-779-3218, E-mail:
         haber@bernlieb.com;

     (2) George A. Bauer III, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
         York 10119-0165, Phone (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9310,
         Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail: gbauer@milberg.com; and

     (3) The Claims Administrator, In re NTL, Inc. Securities
         Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
         Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6456, Merrick, NY 11566-
         9000, Phone: 1-888-366-5350, Web site:
         http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/index.html.


OHIO: Hearing on Mahoning Jail Prisoner Release Order Set 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing in the suit concerning operations at the Mahoning
County Jail has been set for May 16 and 17 next year, according
to Vindy.com.

The hearing will determine whether the court will issue a
prisoner release order to solve overcrowding at the jail.

In March 2005, David D. Dowd Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio found that Mahoning County jail
was overcrowded and unsafe.  To avoid jail overcrowding, Judge
Dowd, Judge Dan Aaron Polster and U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals Judge Alice M.  Batchelder, set plans to issue orders
concerning possible inmate releases.

However, the City of Youngstown opposed any existing or future
prisoner release orders and subsequently filed a motion to
intervene in the case.  Federal judges rejected the attempt on
the city's failure to file a legal motion setting forth a claim
or defense for which intervention is sought.

Youngstown renewed its bid to intervene on July 27.  It included
in its motion a resolution allowing the city law department to
oppose release of prisoners that judges have ordered held in the
jail.  On Aug. 2, Judge Dowd signed an order permitting the city
to intervene (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006).

Meanwhile, Anthony J. Farris, deputy city law director, said the
city and county are continuing talks, including discussions on
possible payments by the city to house its misdemeanor prisoners
charged under state law in the county jail.  The city now pays
the county only to house misdemeanor prisoners charged under
city ordinances.

                         Case Background

The class action was filed on Nov. 14, 2003 against the County
of Mahoning, Dave Ludt, Edward J. Reese, Randall A. Wellington,
and Vicki Allen Sherlock.  Named as plaintiffs are James Joseph
Mancini, Joshua Baird, Kevin Whitacker, Leland Scott, Maurice
Barnes, Mike Hamad, Nathaniel Roberts, and Rodney Gray

The suit is "Roberts, et al. v. County of Mahoning, Ohio, A
Local Government Entity, et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-02329-DDD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio under Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas
Kelley of Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker, Ste. 720,
159 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-434-2113,
Fax: 330-434-2158, E-mail: robattarm@aol.com and
tkelley1@neo.rr.com

Representing the defendants is Sharon K. Hackett, Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County, 120 Market Street,
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-740-2330, Fax: 330-740-2366.

Representing the Intervenor is Anthony J. Farris, City of
Youngstown, Department of Law, 26 South Phelps Street,
Youngstown, OH 44503, Phone: 330-742-8874, Fax: 330-742-8867, E-
mail: ajf@cityofyoungstownoh.com


OHIO UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Attorney Responds to Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney for the plaintiffs in a class action over personal
data theft against Ohio University filed documents in court
opposing a motion to dismiss the suit, according to Jim Phillips
of Athens NEWS.

Attorneys for Ohio University filed a motion in Ohio Court of
Claims asking it to grant summary judgment or dismiss a suit
filed in June against the school by two alumni over personal
data loss (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2006).

Donald J. Kulpa and Kenneth D. Neben filed the suit on June 23
alleging their right to privacy was violated when hackers stole
their Social Security numbers from a university computer (Class
Action Reporter, June 28, 2006).

The plaintiffs sought to have the school pay millions of dollars
in credit-monitoring services for about 173,000 people whose
personal data was stolen.

The filing asks Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. to order Ohio
University to secure its digital data and pay for fraud losses
from any identity thefts linked to piracy against the
university's computers.

The suit also seeks class-action status to represent all
affected students, alumni, employees and others.

Attorney Marc Mezibov, the men's legal representative, accuses
the university of negligence in failing to adequately protect
personal information stolen in five hacking incidents disclosed
since mid-April.

In a motion filed July 28, Ohio Assistant Attorney General
Randall W. Knutti said the estimated 173,000 people affected by
the computer security breaches "could never constitute a class"
for purposes of a legal action because the only thing they have
in common is the fact that their Social Security numbers were
all on the university computers.

Mr. Knutti also said the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because
they failed to point out any concrete damages they've suffered
as a result of the data loss.  Further, he said that the
plaintiffs "do not allege -- nor could they ever prove -- that
the university intentionally gave their Social Security numbers
to outsiders" to prove an act of invasion of privacy.  Also, he
said the court of claims lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit,
which makes a federal constitutional claim.

The motion included some 150 pages of supporting documentation,
including affidavits from university employees.

In a memorandum filed Aug. 28, Mr. Mezibov responded to the
dismissal motion's claim that the plaintiffs and the putative
class 'have not been harmed in any way.'  His memorandum pointed
out the university's admission that "it issued letters to
plaintiffs warning them of the serious risk of identity theft
caused by its breach, admits that 33 individuals have reported
actual identity theft, and most astoundingly, admits that the
putative class members 'someday might be harmed as result of
these security breaches.'"

Contact information for Mezibov & Jenkins, LLP: 401 East Court
Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (Hamilton Co.),
Phone: (513) 723-1699, Fax: 513-723-1620, Web site:
http://www.mezibovjenkins.com


PDI INC: N.J. Court Mulls Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action against the PDI, Inc., its former chief executive officer
and its chief financial officer.

In January and February 2002, three complaints that were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class
actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.

On May 23, 2002, the court consolidated all three lawsuits into
a single action as, "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File
No. 02-CV-0211," and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  On or about Dec. 13, 2002, lead plaintiffs
filed a second consolidated and amended complaint, which
superseded their earlier complaints.

In February 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated and amended complaint.  On or about Aug. 22,
2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed the second consolidated and amended complaint without
prejudice to plaintiffs.

On Oct. 21, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a third consolidated and
amended complaint.  Like its predecessor, the third consolidated
and amended complaint:

     -- names the company, its former chief executive officer
        and its chief financial officer as defendants;

     -- purports to state claims against the company on behalf
        of all persons who purchased its common stock between
        May 22, 2001 and Aug. 12, 2002; and

     -- seeks money damages in unspecified amounts and
        litigation expenses including attorneys' and experts'
        fees.

The essence of the allegations in the third consolidated and
amended complaint is that the company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning the company's financial condition and
prospects with respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection
with:

     * the October 2000 distribution agreement with
       GlaxoSmithKline;

     * the company's marketing of Lotensin in connection with
       the May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis; as
       well as

     * its marketing of Evista in connection with the October
       2001 distribution agreement with Eli Lilly and company.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
third consolidated and amended complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  That motion
is currently pending.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law
in opposition of the motion to dismiss the third consolidated
and amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).

The suit is "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File No. 02-
CV-0211," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose L. Linares, with
referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph
DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg And Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway
Center, 12TH Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Alan S. Naar of Greenbaum, Rowe,
Smith & Davis, Metro Corporate Campus one, P.O. Box 5600,
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0988, Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail:
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com.


PDI INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the class action against
PDI, Inc. that was filed on behalf of certain of the company's
current and former employees and alleging violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company was served with a complaint in a
purported class action that was commenced against the company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2005, the company accrued
approximately $3.3 million for potential penalties and other
settlement costs relating to both asserted and unasserted claims
relating to this matter.

In October 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations set forth in the complaint.

In December 2005, the company reached a tentative settlement of
this action, subject to court approval.  As a result, the
company reduced its accrual relating to asserted and unasserted
claims relating to this matter to $600,000 during the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The balance of the accrual at June 30, 2006 is $247,000.

Saddle River, New Jersey-based PDI, Inc. (NASDAQ: PDII) --
http://www.pdi-inc.com/-- is a sales and marketing services
company serving the biopharmaceutical and medical devices, and
diagnostics industries. It operates in three segments: Sales
Services, Marketing Services and PDI Products Group.


SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Calif. Court Okays $1.85M Stock Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura
approved the $1.85 million settlement of the securities class
action filed against Salem Communications Corp.

On March 9, 2005, Pipefitters, Locals 522 and 633 Pension Trust
Fund filed a class action complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws against the company, its directors, certain of
its officers and certain underwriters of the company's April
2004 public offering of Class A common stock.

The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased the company's equity securities pursuant
to or traceable to that offering.

The complaint alleges that offering documents contained
misstatements and omissions regarding the company's fixed assets
and internal controls.  It asserts claims under Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeks rescission
or damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
Feb. 7, 2006, which provides for a full settlement of these
claims in exchange for payment of $1.85 million to be paid by
the company and its insurance carrier.

The settlement is subject to certain conditions set forth in the
stipulation, including final court approval following notice to
the class members.

The court granted plaintiff's unopposed motion and application
for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 27, 2006 and
set a schedule for providing notice to the class members.

The court approved the full settlement at a hearing held on June
19, 2006.  During 2005, the company recognized expenses of $0.7
million related to this settlement.

The suit is "Pipefitters Locals 52 & 633 Pension v. Salem
Communications Corp., Case No. CIV-232456," filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Ventura.

Representing the plaintiffs is Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 9601 Wilshire Blvd,
Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90210, Phone: (310) 859-3100, Fax:
(310) 278-2148, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


SPRINT CORP: Foundation Opposes Benney-Lundberg Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Legal Foundation has filed objection to the
settlement of a class action filed against Sprint Corp. over
regulatory fees that were added on to wireless customers' phone
bills, Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports.

The 29th Judicial District of Wyandotte County, Kansas is
holding a fairness hearing today, beginning at 1:30
p.m., for the proposed settlement in the matter:

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

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

The legal foundation asked the court to defer approval of the
legal fees until they can be properly evaluated.  Its objection
centers on the proposed plaintiffs' attorneys fees of $5
million.  The group said the fee should be limited to no more
than 25 percent of the value of the benefits claimed.  The
court, it said, should defer awarding the fees until it has
determined how many class members opt to participate in the
settlement.

                          Class Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Benney, Plaintiffs allege that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Settlement Terms

Benney Subclass 1:      (i) a series of eight equal (as nearly
                            as practicable) quarterly invoice
                            credits on future Sprint wireless
                            bills to their existing account in
                            the total amount of $19.00; or

                       (ii) an immediate invoice credit of
                            $15.00, upon their agreement to a
                            two year contract for Sprint
                            wireless service; or

                      (iii) a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $14.00.


Benney Subclass 2:          a Sprint long distance calling card
                            in the face amount of $2.50.


Benney Subclass 3:      (i) a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $14.00; or

                       (ii) an immediate invoice credit of
                            $15.00, upon their agreement to a
                            two-year contract for Sprint
                            wireless service.

Benney Subclass 4:          a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $2.50.


Lundberg Subclass 1:    (i) a series of eight equal (as nearly
                            as practicable) quarterly invoice
                            credits on future Sprint wireless
                            bills to their existing account in
                            the total amount of $7.00; or

                       (ii) an immediate invoice credit of
                            $5.00, upon their agreement to a two
                            year contract for Sprint wireless
                            service; or

                      (iii) a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $3.00.


Lundberg Subclass 2:    (i) a series of eight equal (as nearly
                            as practicable) quarterly invoice
                            credits on future Sprint wireless
                            bills to their existing account in
                            the total amount of $7.00; or

                       (ii) an immediate invoice credit of
                            $5.00, upon their agreement to a
                            two-year contract for Sprint
                            wireless service; or

                      (iii) a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $3.00.

Lundberg Subclass 3:    (i) an immediate invoice credit of
                            $5.00, upon their agreement to a
                            two-year contract for Sprint
                            wireless service; or

                       (ii) a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $3.00.


Lundberg Subclass 4:        a Sprint long distance phone card in
                            the face amount of $1.50.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?115f


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over Canceled Coupons
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed in New York County Supreme Court
against Starbucks Corp. over alleged deceptive advertising, Koin
6 News reports.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a 23-year-old Kelly Coakley -- a
paralegal and a Starbucks regular -- seeks $114 million in
damages for a class that will include a million New Yorkers.

The plaintiff accused the Seattle-based coffee company of fraud
and says she felt "betrayed" when her coupon was not honored.

Last month, Starbucks e-mailed a coupon for a free iced beverage
to some employees and encouraged them to forward it to friends
and family.  Starbucks stopped honoring the coupon last week, a
month short of its Sept. 30 expiration date, saying it had been
"redistributed beyond the original intent," the Seattle Times
reports.

According to New York attorney Attorney Peter Sullivan, the $114
million the lawsuit seeks is an estimate of the average cost of
one daily cup of Starbucks coffee for all of the people turned
away during the 38 days the offer was supposed to be valid.

A Starbucks spokeswoman says the company has no immediate
comment since it has not received a copy of the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' attorney is Peter Sullivan of Hughes Hubbard & Reed
LLP, One Battery Park Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10004-1482, Phone:
(212) 837-6709, Fax: (212) 422-4726, E-mail:
sullivan@hugheshubbard.com.


TARGET CORP: Calif. Judge Refuses to Dismiss ADA Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied a motion to dismiss a class action filed by the National
Federation of the Blind against Target Corp.

The suit charges that Target's website -- http://www.target.com
-- is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act.

Target asked the court to dismiss the action by arguing that no
law requires Target to make its Web site accessible.  The court
denied Target's motion to dismiss and held that the federal and
state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as
target.com.

The suit, "NFB v. Target," was filed as a class action on behalf
of all blind Americans who are being denied access to
target.com.  The named plaintiffs are the NFB, the NFB of
California, and a blind college student, Bruce "BJ" Sexton.

The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates --
http://www.dralegal.org -- a Berkeley-based non-profit law firm
specializing in high-impact cases on behalf of people with
disabilities; Brown, Goldstein & Levy --
http://www.browngold.com-- a civil rights law firm in
Baltimore, Maryland; and Schneider & Wallace --
http://www.schneiderwallace.com-- a national plaintiff's class
action and civil rights law firm based in San Francisco, CA.

The court held that "the 'ordinary meaning' of the ADA's
prohibition against discrimination in the enjoyment of goods,
services, facilities or privileges, is that whatever goods or
services the place provides, it cannot discriminate on the basis
of disability in providing enjoyment of those goods and
services."

The court thus rejected Target's argument that only its physical
store locations were covered by the civil rights laws, ruling
instead that all services provided by Target, including its Web
site, must be accessible to persons with disabilities.

"This ruling is a great victory for blind people throughout the
country," said NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer.  "We are pleased
that the court recognized that the blind are entitled to equal
access to retail websites."

Dr. Maurer explained that blind persons access Web sites by
using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading software,
which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen.

Target's website contains significant access barriers that
prevent blind customers from browsing among and purchasing
products online, as well as from finding important corporate
information such as employment opportunities, investor news, and
company policies.

The plaintiffs charge that target.com fails to meet the minimum
standard of web accessibility.  It lacks compliant alt-text, an
invisible code embedded beneath graphic images that allows
screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of the image
to a blind computer user.  It also contains inaccessible image
maps and other graphical features, preventing blind users from
navigating and making use of all of the functions of the
website.  And because the website requires the use of a mouse to
complete a transaction, blind Target customers are unable to
make purchases on target.com independently.

The National Federation of the Blind originally filed the
lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court against Target Corp.,
claiming that the giant retail chain discriminates since its Web
site is inaccessible to blind customers (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 9, 2006).

The case was removed to federal district court and assigned to
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.  Target responded to the suit by
filing a motion to dismiss the case, which argued in part that
no civil rights laws apply to the Internet.

"We tried to convince Target that it should do the right thing
and make its website accessible through negotiations," said Dr.
Maurer.  "It is unfortunate that Target took the position that
it does not have to take the rights of the blind into account.
The ruling in this case puts Target and other companies on
notice that the blind cannot be treated like second class
citizens on the Internet or in any other sphere."

Explaining the ramification of the ruling, Mazen M. Basrawi,
Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, noted
that, "the court clarified that the law requires that any place
of public accommodation is required to ensure that it does not
discriminate when it uses the internet as a means to enhance the
services it offers at a physical location."

"I hope that I can soon shop online at Target.com just like
anyone else," said UC Berkeley student BJ Sexton, who is a named
plaintiff in the lawsuit.  "I believe that millions of blind
people like me can use the Internet just as easily as do the
sighted, if websites are accessible."

The suit is Case No. 3:06-cv-01802-MHP.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mazen Mohammed Basrawi and Laurence W. Paradis both of
         the Disability Rights Advocates, 2001 Center Street,
         Third Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704, Phone: 510-665-8644,
         Fax: 510-665-8511, E-mail: mbasrawi@dralegal.org or
         larryp@dralegal.org;

     (2) Daniel F Goldstein of Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP, 120
         E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700, Baltimore, MD 21202,
         Phone: 410/962-1030, Fax: 410/385-0869, E-mail:
         dfg@browngold.com; and

     (3) Joshua Konecky and Todd M. Schnieder both of Schneider
         & Wallace, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San
         Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/421-7100, Fax: 415/421-
         7105, E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com.

Representing the defendants are Michael James Bostrom and David
Frank McDowell both of Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W. Fifth
Street, Suite 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90013, Phone: 213.892.5200,
Fax: 213.892.5454, E-mail: mbostrom@mofo.com or
dmcdowell@mofo.com; and Robert A. Naeve of Morrison & Foerster
LLP, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, 12th Floor, Irvine, CA 92612-
2445, Phone: 949/251-7541, Fax: 949/251-7441, E-mail:
rnaeve@mofo.com.


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the consolidated securities class action against
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.

On April 8, 2005, a holder of the company's common stock, on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company stockholders, filed an action against the company and
some of its current and former officers, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws arising out of, among other things,
its announcement on March 15, 2005 that it was restating some of
its financial results for interim periods of 2004.

Subsequently, other holders of WatchGuard's common stock later
filed a number of related purported class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  The Washington Court
later consolidated the various actions.

On Oct. 3, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the action and the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On April 21, 2006, the Washington Court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint.  The
court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint and on
May 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaint.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.  The court has yet to schedule a
hearing on this motion.

The suit is "Pius v. Watchguard Technologies Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-00678-JLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge James L. Robart.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aelish M. Baig and Tamara J Driscoll of Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Phone: 415-288-4545 and
         206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-9978, E-mail:
         AelishB@lerachlaw.com and tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Juli Farris Desper and Lynn Lincoln Sarko of Keller
         Rohrback, 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200, Seattle, WA 98101-
         3052, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         jdesper@KellerRohrback.com and
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com;

     (3) W. Scott Zanzig of Hall Zanzig Zulauf Claflin
         Mceachern, 1200 5th Ave., Ste. 1414, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5900, E-mail:
         szanzig@hallzan.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Stephen M. Knaster, James N. Kramer and Justin M.
         Lichterman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, 405 Howard
         St., 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-
         733-5700, E-mail: sknaster@orrick.com,
         jkramer@orrick.com and jlichterman@orrick.com; and

    (ii) Louis David Peterson of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson,
         1221 Second Ave., Ste. 500, Seattle, WA 98101-2925,
         Phone: 206-623-1745, Fax: 206-623-7789, E-mail:
         ldp@hcmp.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of ADVO, Inc. common stock
during the period between July 6, 2006 and Aug. 30, 2006.

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

ADVO is a direct mail media company that engages in soliciting
and processing printed advertising from retailers,
manufacturers, and service companies in the U.S. and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results, concealing material
adverse problems in ADVO's long-term financial health and
intrinsic value.

Defendants concealed this information in order to accomplish a
merger, which the company had entered into with Valassis
Communications, Inc., a leading company in marketing services,
to create the largest integrated media services provider in the
nation.

Valassis was acquiring all of ADVO's outstanding common stock in
an all cash transaction. As a result of defendants' false
statements, investors believed the acquisition would occur,
causing ADVO's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $36.80 per share in
August 2006.

Then, on Aug. 30, 2006, Valassis announced that it had filed an
action to rescind its merger agreement with ADVO. On this news,
the company's shares fell to $28.59 per share.

According to the complaint, to accomplish the merger, ADVO
officers and employees concealed material information, including
that:

      -- its business had deteriorated so badly that it would
         never be replaced;

      -- its financial internal controls were woefully
         inadequate; and

      -- its business was not as nearly successful as the market
         and Valassis had been led to believe.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/advo/.


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that the deadline to seek
for appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities class action
that was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. (FOXH) between May 13, 2005 and
Jan. 26, 2006 is on Sept. 26, 2006.

The securities class action litigation is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/332-0030, E-mail:
piven@browerpiven.com.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Sept. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that the deadline to seek
for appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities class action
that was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. between April 29, 2004 and
July 5, 2006 is on Sept. 15, 2006.

The complaint charges that defendants Par, Scott L. Tarriff,
Gerald A. Martino and Dennis J. O'Connor violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

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

The Complaint alleges that the company's product line consists
of prescription and over the counter products in both oral
dosage and semi-solid forms, including generic versions of
antidepressants Paxil and Prozac.

As alleged in the Complaint, on July 5, 2006, after the market
closed, the company issued a press release entitled "Par
Pharmaceutical Will Restate Certain Prior Period Results and
Delays Filing Its Second Quarter Form 10-Q" which stated, "that
an internal review of its trade accounts receivable balances
revealed accounting errors that will result in the restatement
of financial results for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and the
first quarter of 2006."

On July 6, 2006, following these announcements, Par stock fell
$4.78 per share, losing nearly 26% of its value in one day of
extremely high volume trading of over 9 million shares, to close
at $13.47 per share.  On July 24, 2006, the company filed a Form
8-K with the SEC.  Therein, the defendants disclosed that the
SEC had commenced an informal probe into the company's
restatement.

For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/332-0030, E-mail:
piven@browerpiven.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  * * *