CAR_Public/060913.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 13, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 182

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Amended Complaint Filed in Ohio Stock Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Appeals Rulings in "Mitchell" FLSA Lawsuit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Calif. Hollister Workers File Overtime Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Certain Claims in Ohio FLSA Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Overtime Lawsuit Suit in Wash.

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Mulls Final Okay for IPO Suit Deal
AIRLINES: Deutsche Lufthansa to Settle Antitrust Suit for $85M
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Still Faces Labor-Related Suits in Calif.
ANCHOR GLASS: Motion to Dismiss Fla. Stock Fraud Suit Denied
AT&T CORP: Award for Attorneys in Stock Suit Settlement Upheld

BROWN SHOE: Court Mulls Appeal Against $1M Redfield Suit Award
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit
CARREKER CORP: Tex. Court OKs $5.25M Securities Suit Settlement
CENDANT CORP: Appeals Court Denies Investors' Settlement Claims
COMCAST CORP: Penn. Court Denies Motion to Junk Antitrust Suit

COOPER COS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
CROSS COUNTRY: Agrees to Settle Calif. Wage Suit for Up to $10M
DELL INC: Ill. Court's Change-of-Judge Policy May be Challenged
DILLARD'S INC: Settles ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio for $35M
DRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Dataram Settles Separately for $2.3M

DSW INC: Faces Mich., Ill., Ohio Consumer Suits Over Data Theft
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Stay on "Brodhead" Consumer Suit Remains
GENESCO INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Overtime Wage Suits
GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: Calif. Court Okays $2.3M Overtime Suit Deal
HOME DEPOT: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuits in N.Y.

HOME DEPOT: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ga.
INSURANCE COS: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Katrina-Linked Suits
INTEL CORP: Objects to Application of Calif. Law in P4 Lawsuit
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
JOS. A. BANK: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Md.

KENTUCKY: Fayette Jail Sued for Federal, State Labor Law Abuses
LAKESIDE FOODS: Recalls Stir Fry Veggies Over Undeclared Content
MAY DEPARTMENT: Faces Mo. Stockholder Suit Over Federated Deal
MITEL NETWORKS: Employees File Suit Seeking Better Severance Pay
PFIZER INC: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Cholesterol Drug

SAKS INC: Continues to Face Breach of Contract Suit in Ala.
WET SEAL: Employees File Labor Violations Litigation in Calif.
WET SEAL: Oct. Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ZHEJIANG NENGFU: Recalls Patio Umbrellas on Paint's Lead Level


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
JOS. A. BANK: Brower Piven Reminds on Lead Plaintiff Filing Date


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Amended Complaint Filed in Ohio Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.  In September and October of
2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed
against the company and other defendants in the same court.  All
six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On Mar. 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 14, 2006
and the responses of defendants are due on October 13, 2006.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. (2:05-cv-
00819-EAS-TPK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Soutthern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Keith W. Schneider of Maguire &
Schneider, 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200, Columbus, OH
43215, Phone: 614-224-1222, Fax: 614-224-1236, E-mail:
kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com.

Representing the defendants are:
  
     (1) Philip Albert Brown of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
         52 East Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone:
         614-464-6400, Fax: 614-464-6400, E-mail:
         pabrown@vssp.com;

     (2) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter,
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215-4294,
         Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail:
         rsugarman@keglerbrown.com; and  

     (3) Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr. of McNamara and McNamara,
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-228-6131, E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Appeals Rulings in "Mitchell" FLSA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit "Melissa Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie
& Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," are appealing
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certain
rulings made by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in the case.

The purported class action, filed on June 13, 2003, alleges that
assistant managers and store managers were not paid overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Ohio law.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add Scott Oros as a
named plaintiff on October 28, 2004.  On June 17, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a motion to further amend the complaint to add
claims under the laws of a number of states, and the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted
that motion on November 8, 2005.

On June 24, 2005, the defendants filed motions seeking summary
judgment on all of the claims of each of the three plaintiffs.
On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 Motion for
Certification of a Class of State Wage Act Claimants and a
Motion for Designation of FLSA Claims as Collective Action and
Authority to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees.  The
defendants filed their opposition to both motions on December 8,
2005.

On March 27, 2006, the court issued an order indicating that it
intended to rule on the defendants' motions for summary judgment
forthwith and, for purposes of docket administration, denied the
plaintiffs motions to certify their class.  

The court also indicated that it would reactivate, as
appropriate, the motions to certify following resolution of the
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

On March 31, 2006, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motions for summary judgment on all of the claims of
each of the three plaintiffs.

All three plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 28, 2006, and filed an
appellate brief with the Sixth Circuit on August 7, 2006.

The suit is "Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00306-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A.
Sargus with referral to Judge Norah McCann King.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Bryan L.  Clobes of Miller
Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18th &
Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800,
Fax: 215-864-2810, E-mail: bclobes@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the company is Thomas Brennan Ridgley of Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay Street,
Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, E-mail:
tbridgley@vssp.com.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Calif. Hollister Workers File Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. are
facing a class action filed by Lisa Hashimoto and others
similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles on June 23, 2006.

Three plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of
California store managers employed in Hollister and abercrombie
stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-
exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

New Albany, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (NYSE: ANF) --
http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a specialty retailer that  
operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts,
graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as
personal care and other accessories for men, women and kids
under the Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL
brands.  As of January 28, 2006, the company operated 851 stores
in the United States and Canada.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Certain Claims in Ohio FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached with regard to the individual claims in
the purported class action, "Casey Fuller, et al. v. Abercrombie
& Fitch Stores, Inc.," which was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Originally, the case was filed on December 28, 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  Plaintiff
alleges that he and other similarly situated assistant managers
and managers in training were not paid properly calculated
overtime during their employment and seeks overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The defendant filed an answer on February 7, 2005.  Because of
its similarities to "Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et
al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00306-EAS-NMK," the defendant filed, on
April 19, 2005, a motion to stay the Fuller case pending the
outcome of the Mitchell case or, in the alternative, transfer
the Fuller case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

On May 31, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee transferred the Fuller case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

On September 2, 2005, the Fuller case was consolidated with the
Mitchell case for all purposes.  The parties reached a
settlement of Fuller's individual claims, and Fuller voluntarily
dismissed his individual claims with prejudice on July 10, 2006.

The suit is "Fuller v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Case No.
2:05-cv-00596-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with
referral to Judge Norah McCann King.  

Representing the plaintiffs is John William Ferron of Ferron &
Associates, 580 N Fourth Street, Suite 450, Columbus, OH 43215-
2125, Phone: 614-228-5225, Fax: 614-228-3255, E-mail:
jferron@ferronlaw.com.

Representing the company is Thomas Brennan Ridgley of Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay Street,
Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, E-mail:
tbridgley@vssp.com.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Overtime Lawsuit Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. remains a defendant in a purported
overtime compensation class action filed in the Washington
Superior Court of King County.

In the suit, "Eltrich v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,"
filed Nov. 22, 2005, plaintiff alleges that store managers,
assistant managers and managers in training were misclassified
as exempt from overtime compensation requirements of the State
of Washington, and improperly denied overtime compensation.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 30, 2005.  The
amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged unpaid
wages due to the plaintiff and the purported class, penalties,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.  

The defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on or
about Jan. 27, 2006.  The defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment as to all of Eltrich's claims on July 5, 2006.

New Albany, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (NYSE: ANF) --
http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a specialty retailer that  
operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts,
graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as
personal care and other accessories for men, women and kids
under the Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL
brands.  As of January 28, 2006, the company operated 851 stores
in the United States and Canada.


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Mulls Final Okay for IPO Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action against
Agilent Technologies, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 6,
2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended July 31, 2006.

In November 2001, a securities class action, "Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against certain investment bank underwriters for Agilent's
initial public offering, Agilent and various of its officers and
directors at the time of the IPO.

On February 19, 2003, the Southern District Court of New York
granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against the
company based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the
claims based on Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
as amended.

Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants reached an
agreement in principle for a settlement with plaintiffs.  Under
the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against the company and its
directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a
contingent payment and an assignment of certain potential
claims.

On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing the settlement among the
plaintiffs, issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the
Southern District Court of New York.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement conditioned upon the parties' modification of a
proposed bar order contained in the settlement.  On August 31,
2005, the court confirmed its preliminary approval of the
settlement.  

On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in
connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement.
The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final
approval at the fairness hearing.  Plaintiffs continue to
prosecute their claims against the underwriter defendants, and
discovery is now underway.


AIRLINES: Deutsche Lufthansa to Settle Antitrust Suit for $85M
--------------------------------------------------------------
German airline Deutsche Lufthansa AG would pay US$85 million to
settle a purported antitrust class action against filed against
it and a dozen major international airlines over a conspiracy to
fix prices of airfreight shipping services, the English Business
News reports.

Lufthansa said it has applied for leniency with the U.S.
Department of Justice, the European Union Commission for
conditional immunity.

The settlement is subject to court approval and, pending
approval, the Cologne-based airline, along with Swiss
International Air Lines Ltd., would be released from the pending
class actions.

In July, Niagara Frontier Distribution, Inc. commenced a
purported antitrust class action against a dozen major
international airlines over a conspiracy to fix prices of
airfreight shipping services (Class Action Reporter, July 5,
2006).

The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, brought
the suit on Feb. 24, 2006 on behalf of the D.C.-based
distribution company, which used the services of the defendants
between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present.

Specifically, the suit named as defendants:

      -- Air France ADS,
      -- Air France-KLM Group ADS,   
      -- Air France Cargo ADS,   
      -- Air France-KLM Cargo ADS,   
      -- Asiana Airlines, Inc.,   
      -- British Airways, plc,   
      -- Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.,   
      -- Deutsche Lufthansa AG,   
      -- Lufthansa Cargo AG,   
      -- Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd.,   
      -- Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.,   
      -- SAS AB,   
      -- SAS Cargo Group A/S,   
      -- UAL Corp.,   
      -- United Airlines, Inc.,  
      -- United Airlines Cargo, Inc.,   
      -- International Air Transport Association, and   
      -- John Does I-X

The law firm pointed out that the airlines, and many others, are
currently under investigation for cartel behavior, relating to
inflated airfreight surcharges.   

The investigation was the result of a global sting operation
coordinated by governmental antitrust enforcement authorities
from regions including the U.S., the European Commission,
Canada, Switzerland, and Korea.   

According to the complaint, the case arises from a global
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for
fuel, security and insurance surcharges in air cargo shipping.

Surcharges are charged by the major airlines acting as
airfreight shipping providers that deliver the cargo placed by
their customers, companies or individuals seeking to transport
freight via air on behalf of themselves or others.

The fees are charged to customers purportedly to compensate the
air carriers for certain external costs for including increased
cost for fuels, for additional securities measures after the
Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist incident, for war-risk insurance
premiums applied in conjunction with the outbreak of war in Iraq
in 2003, and for other external costs.   

The complaint states that the plaintiff, on behalf of those
similarly situated, seeks to recover the surcharges paid by it
and other direct purchasers as a result of the airlines'
conspiracy to levy these coordinated and inflated fees on their
airfreight customers.

It claims that the airlines' actions are in violation of the
federal antitrust laws of the U.S., specifically: Section 1 of
the Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and Section 4 of
the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. Section 15.

In addition, the complaint states that victims of the cartel
include all those paying such inflated surcharges.  It also
states that as the defendant airlines' alleged cartel activities
were perpetrated worldwide on a vast number of inter-continental
airfreight shipments, victims of the alleged conspiracy hail
from potentially all parts of the globe.

The suit is "Niagara Frontier Distribution Inc. v. Air France
ADS, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00325-HHK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Henry H.
Kennedy.

Representing the plaintiff is Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West
Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-
4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: mhausfeld@cmht.com.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Still Faces Labor-Related Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Security Services, a subsidiary of ABM
Industries, Inc., remains a defendant in two purported class
actions filed by ACSS security guards in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.

One of the suits was filed on Jul. 12, 2005, under the caption,
"Augustus v. American Commercial Security Services."  The
potential class consists of all ACSS security guards in
California.  The plaintiff alleges that ACSS failed to provide
meal breaks and rest breaks under California's wage and hour
laws.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the same named plaintiff in the same forum
representing the same class and alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws and unfair business practices
filed a second purported class action.

San Francisco, California-based ABM Industries, Inc. (NYSE: ABM)
-- http://www.abm.com/ilwwcm/connect/ABM/Home/-- is a facility  
services contractor in the United States.  ABM and its
subsidiaries provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering
and lighting services for thousands of commercial, industrial,
institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities
throughout the United States and in British Columbia, Canada.  
The company conducts business through a number of subsidiaries,
which are grouped into five segments: Janitorial, Parking,
Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ANCHOR GLASS: Motion to Dismiss Fla. Stock Fraud Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
denied Anchor Glass Container Corp.'s motion to dismiss
securities fraud claims filed against it, allowing the
plaintiffs to proceed with discovery.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Anchor Glass Container Corporation;
     -- Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.;
     -- Cerberus Institutional Partners (America), L.P.;
     -- Cerberus Institutional Partners, L.P.; and
     -- Cerberus International, LTD.

In 2004, shareholders of the bottle manufacturer sued the
company for securities fraud in connection with its loss of a
contract to manufacture and label bottles of Rolling Rock beer.

The shareholders alleged that Anchor fraudulently failed to
disclose the loss of the Rolling Rock contract and its plan to
close the plant where the Rolling Rock work was done.

They brought claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The district court previously denied Anchor's motion to dismiss
the Exchange Act claims.  Anchor moved to dismiss the Sections
11 and 15 claims.

The district court ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations that
Anchor failed to disclose its troubles with Rolling Rock and the
plant were sufficient to support its Section 11 claims.

The district court denied Anchor's motion to dismiss, finding
that the Section 11 claims were adequately supported.

Further, because the underlying Section 11 claim was sustained,
the district court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 15
claim.

The suit is "Davidco Investors, LLC v. Anchor Glass Container
Corp. et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-02561-SCB-EAJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle of District of Florida under Judge
Susan C Bucklew, with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Richard Astley, Paul J. Geller, Jack Reise and
         Jonathan M. Stein all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal Highway - Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561/750-3000 Ext.
         148, Fax: 561/750-3364, E-mail: sastley@lerachlaw.com
         or pgeller@lerachlaw.com or jreise@lerachlaw.com or
         jstein@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Christopher S. Polaszek of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, Suite 600, 5200 Town Center
         Circle, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561-361-5000,
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Maya S. Saxena of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal
         Highway, Suite 307, Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781, Phone:
         800/361-5096, Fax: 888/782-3081, E-mail:
         msaxena@saxenawhite.com; and

     (4) Julie Prag Vianale and Kenneth J. Vianale both of
         Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112,
         Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/392-4750 ext 107, Fax:
         561/392-4775, E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Chris S. Coutroulis of Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221 West
         Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33607,
         Phone: 813/223-7000, Fax: 813/229-4133, E-mail:
         ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com;

     (2) John D. Mullen of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Suite 1900, 100 S
         Ashley Dr., Tampa, FL 33602, Phone: 813/472-7867, Fax:
         813/472-7570, E-mail: john.mullen@phelps.com;

     (3) Matthew M. Oliver, Lawrence M. Rolnick and Sheila A.
         Sadighi all of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston
         Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: 973/597-2500 or
         973/597-2468 or 973/597-6218, Fax: 873/597-2400 or 973-
         597-2469 or 973/597-6219, E-mail:
         MOliver@lowenstein.com or lrolnick@lowenstein.com or
         ssadighi@lowenstein.com; and

     (4) Samuel J. Salario, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221
         West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33607,
         Phone: 813/229-4337, Fax: 813/229-4133, E-mail:
         ssalario@carltonfields.com.


AT&T CORP: Award for Attorneys in Stock Suit Settlement Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district
court's decision awarding plaintiff attorneys in a securities
fraud class action against AT&T Corp. 21.25% of the settlement
money.

A class of shareholders sued AT&T for violations of Section 10
and Rule 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Discovery was completed, and the case went to trial.

After eight days of jury trial, the parties successfully
negotiated a settlement of $100 million.

At the beginning of the suit, the lead plaintiff, the New
Hampshire Retirement Systems, and the lead counsel negotiated
attorneys' fees based on a sliding scale, depending on the size
of the settlement.

The attorneys' fees would be 15% of any settlement amount up to
$25 million, 20% of any settlement amount between $25 million
and $50 million, and 25% of any settlement amount of over $50
million.

Thus, the attorneys' fees were 21.25%, and costs of $5,465,996
would be paid out of the settlement fund as well.

The district court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and notice was given to the one million class
members.

Eight class members objected to the attorneys' fees as excessive
and unreasonable.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, and
the objectors appealed.

The Third Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in approving the settlement and attorneys' fees,
holding that the fees were reasonable in light of the complexity
and duration of the case, the limited objections given the size
of the class, the risk of nonpayment and the awards in similar
cases.

The suit is "In Re AT&T Corp. Sec. Litigation, Case No. 05-
2727," filed in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


BROWN SHOE: Court Mulls Appeal Against $1M Redfield Suit Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado
has yet to rule on an appeal against the $1 million damage award
granted to plaintiffs in a class action filed against Brown Shoe
Co., Inc., in relation to the operations at its Redfield,
Colorado site.

The suit was filed in March 2000 and alleged claims for
trespass, nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment,
negligence, and exemplary damages arising from the alleged
release of solvents contaminating the groundwater and indoor air
in the areas adjacent to and near the site.

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages.

The company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial
interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions
imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute
between the parties.

In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost
recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a
settlement agreement between the company, its co-defendant in
the class action, and an insurer, which resolved all remaining
sanctions issues related to the class action.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury
verdict, according to the company's June 6, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended April 29, 2006.

St. Louis, Missouri-based Brown Shoe Co., Inc. (NYSE: BWS) --
http://www.brownshoe.com/-- is a retailer and wholesaler that  
provides branded, licensed and private-label casual, athletic
and dress footwear products to women, children and men.  Its
products are sold at a variety of price points through multiple
distribution channels both in the United States and
internationally.  

As of January 28, 2006, Brown Shoe operates 1,267 retail shoe
stores in the United States and Canada, primarily under the
Famous Footwear and Naturalizer names.  In addition, through its
Wholesale Operations division, the company designs, sources and
markets footwear to retail stores in the United States and
internationally, including department stores, mass merchandisers
and specialty shoe stores.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. remains a defendant in a
consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning on or about May 19, 2005, several securities class
action complaints were filed against the company and certain of
its current and former officers.

These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005.  They came on
the heels of the company's restatement of certain financial
results due to stock-based compensation accounting issues.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On April 14, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock from May 2000 to May 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among others, violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It generally alleges that the company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
the company's business and operations and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.

The suit is "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, (San Francisco, CA), 100
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;

     (2) Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, 205 Linda Drive,
         Daingerfield, TX, 75638, Phone: 903.645.7333, Web site:
         http://www.nixlawfirm.com;and
  
     (3) Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, Century
         Bank Plaza - Suite 400; 2900 St. Michael Drive,
         Texarkana, TX, 75503, Phone: 903-334-7000, Fax: 903-
         334-7007, E-mail: website@pattonroberts.com.

Representing the company are Steven Guggenheim, Caz Hashemi and
Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 415-493-3900
and 650-320-4827, E-mail: sguggenheim@wsgr.com,
chashemi@wsgr.com and choffman@wsgr.com.


CARREKER CORP: Tex. Court OKs $5.25M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas gave
final approval to the proposed $5,250,000 settlement in the
consolidated securities class action against Carreker Corp.

On April 16, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas issued an order consolidating a number of
purported class actions as, "In re Carreker Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 303CV0250-M."

On Oct. 14, 2003 the plaintiffs filed their consolidated class
action complaint.  The complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between May 20, 1998
and Dec. 10, 2002, inclusive.

It alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants the
company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori, Terry L. Gage
and Ernst & Young, the company's auditors; violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against
defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants
artificially inflated the value of Carreker stock by knowingly
or recklessly misrepresenting the Company's financial results
during the purported class period.

On March 22, 2005 the court dismissed the action without
prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs 60 days in which to file an
amended complaint.  Also the court dismissed, with prejudice,
all claims by shareholders relating to periods prior to July 31,
1999.

On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between July 30, 1999 and Dec. 10, 2002, inclusive,
which reiterates the allegations in the first complaint.

It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants --
the company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori and Terry L.
Gage, except Ernst & Young LLP -- violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against
defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.

On April 21, 2006, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants
executed and submitted to the court a stipulation of settlement
whereby they have agreed to settle the class action litigation
for a payment of $5,250,000.  

The District Court on May 5, 2006, preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, but it remains subject to final court
approval.  

The District Court entered a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice on August 17, 2006 concluding the
litigation.  The settlement payment in the class action was
fully covered by the company's directors and officer's insurance
policies.

The suit is "In re Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:03-cv-00250," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Jane J.
Boyle.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary L O'Connor, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -
         Dallas, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201-
         4618, Phone: 214/969-2800, Fax: 214/969-4343, E-mail:
         moconnor@akingump.com;

     (2) Barry C. Barnett, Susman Godfrey - Dallas, 901 Main St
         Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214/754-1900,
         Fax: 214/754-1933, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com;

     (3) Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey - Houston, 1000
         Louisiana St, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
         Phone: 713/651-9366, E-mail: kmarks@susmangodfrey.com;

     (4) Fred T. Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 212/545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com

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

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

Representing the company is Roger F. Claxton of Claxton & Hill,
3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471,
Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
claxtonhill@airmail.net.


CENDANT CORP: Appeals Court Denies Investors' Settlement Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by a
district court to deny certain shareholders of Cendant Corp.
compensation under a plan of allocation for a settlement of the
class action "In Re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litigation, No. 04-1410."

The court affirmed the denial ruling that the settlement
correctly excluded shareholders who did not suffer net losses
from a company's securities fraud.

In a class action, shareholders sued Cendant Corp. for
securities fraud.  The parties agreed on a settlement wherein
shareholders who suffered net losses would recover the amount
they lost.

However, the settlement specified that shareholders who did not
suffer net losses could not recover from the settlement fund.

The Danuff shareholders -- Sheldon Danuff, SKAT Capital L.P. and
Joel Zychick -- filed claims for compensation under a plan of
allocation for the class settlement.

The district court denied the Danuff shareholders' claim, and
they appealed.

The district court ruled that, although the Danuff shareholders'
appeal was timely, they were not entitled to recover under the
settlement agreement because they did not suffer net losses.  

The suit is "In Re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litigation, No. 04-1410,"
filed in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


COMCAST CORP: Penn. Court Denies Motion to Junk Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss an antitrust class
action filed against cable television company Comcast Corp. in
Philadelphia and Chicago, according to The Legal Intelligencer.

The company is accused by a group of cable subscribers of
setting out to establish monopolies in these markets and then
increasing prices once it had eliminated all the competition.  
Specifically, the company is accused of entering into a series
of agreements with AT&T and Adelphia Communications Corp. in
which the companies allegedly "swapped" assets and customers so
that each company would have "clusters" of markets.

The suit was ordered into arbitration, but parties later decided
to pursue the case in federal court.  Comcast's lawyers moved
for dismissal of the suit on grounds that the plaintiffs'
theories were fatally flawed and that the case failed to allege
any antitrust injury.

Rejecting the argument, Judge Padova wrote in a recent opinion
that plaintiffs have stated a valid claim that Comcast
established a "horizontal restraint" -- "an agreement between
competitors at the same level of the market structure to
allocate territories in order to minimize competition,"
according to the report.

Padova also found that the plaintiffs' assertion that the anti-
competitive practice resulted to price increases "is assuredly
one type of injury for which Section 4 of the Clayton Act
potentially offers redress."

The suit is "Glaberson v. Comcast Corp."  Representing the
defendants are Leckerman of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll --
http://www.ballardspahr.com-- in Philadelphia; and Kasowitz  
Benson Torres & Friedman -- http://www.kasowitz.com-- in New  
York.

The plaintiffs are represented by: Bolognese & Associates --
http://www.bolognese-law.com-- in Philadelphia; Heins Mills &  
Olson -- http://www.heinsmills.com/-- in Minneapolis; Susman  
Godfrey -- http://www.susmangodfrey.comin Dallas; Mager &  
Goldstein -- http://www.magergoldstein.com/in Philadelphia; and  
Ann D. White -- http://www.whitecase.com/asmith/-- in  
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.


COOPER COS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Cos., Inc. remains a defendant in the consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

On February 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC,
against:

     -- the company;
     -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president
        and chief executive officer and a director;
     -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief
        operating officer and a director; and
     -- John D. Fruth, a director.

Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-
306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC.

On May 19, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions under
the heading, "In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities
Litigation," and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31,
2006.  The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's securities between July 28, 2004 and
December 12, 2005, including persons who received company
securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the January
2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular.

The consolidated complaint names as defendants:

     * the company,

     * Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, and also

     * Steven M. Neil, the company's vice president and chief
       financial officer;

     * Gregory Fryling, the president and chief operating
       officer of CooperVision;

     * Carol R. Kaufman, the company's senior vice president of
       legal affairs, secretary and chief administrative
       officer;

     * B. Norris Battin, the company's vice president of
       investor relations and communications;

     * John J. Calcagno, CooperVision's chief financial officer
       and vice president of business development;

     * James M. Welch, the former president of international
       operations for Coopervision;

     * John A. Weber, CooperVision's vice president of Worldwide
       Manufacturing & Distribution;

     * Nicholas J. Pichotta, chief executive officer of
       CooperSurgical; and

     * directors Moses Marx and Steven Rosenberg.

The consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 by, among other things, contending that:

      -- the company improperly accounted for assets acquired in
         the Ocular merger by improperly allocating $100 million
         of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing
         technology to goodwill (which is not amortized against
         earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than
         goodwill (which are amortized against earnings);

      -- the company's earnings guidance reflected the improper
         accounting for intangible assets and was inflated by
         (among other things) the amount of the understated
         amortization expense;

      -- contrary to certain alleged statements, Ocular had
         "flooded the trade channel" with its older products as
         its Premier lenses were not being well received by
         customers;

      -- the company's aggressive revenue and growth targets for
         2005 and beyond lacked any reasonable basis when made
         and did not reflect realistically achievable results
         primarily because of the absence of a two-week silicone
         hydrogel product;

      -- the company's internal controls were inadequate making
         it possible to misstate earnings by improperly
         accounting for the merger with Ocular; and

      -- sales force integration was not materializing and was
         fraught with dissension and acrimony.

This lawsuit, which is in a very preliminary stage, seeks
unspecified damages.  

The suit is "In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00169-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac
J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) X Jay Alvarez of Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway,
         Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-
         1058.

     (2) Michiyo Michelle Furukawa of Stull Stull and Brody,
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350, Los Angeles, CA
         90024, Phone: 310-209-2468, E-mail:
         mfurukawa@ssbla.com; and

     (3) Eben O. McNair of Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East
         Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building, Cleveland, OH
         44114-1503, US, Phone: 216-566-1600.

Representing the defendants is Charles W. Cox, II of Latham and
Watkins, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA
90071-2007, Phone: 213-485-1234, E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Agrees to Settle Calif. Wage Suit for Up to $10M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. has reached an agreement in
principle to settle the wage and hour class action that was
brought on behalf of the company's field employees.

Terms of this settlement would entail payment of up to $10.0
million, including payments to eligible nurses, the named
plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney fees and administrative costs.

Payments to eligible nurses would be on a "claims made" basis,
which means that the company's total liability would be reduced
to the extent that nurses who are eligible to participate in the
settlement do not submit claims through the settlement
administration process.

Accordingly, based on its best estimate, the company anticipates
taking a pre-tax charge of $8.8 million in the third quarter of
2006 to reserve for this settlement, which equates to $5.4
million after-tax, or approximately $0.17 per diluted share.

"We believe this settlement will allow us and our shareholders
to avoid the uncertainties and significant additional legal
expenses that we would have incurred to further litigate this
lawsuit.  It has been a very expensive and distracting process
for us over the past three years," said Joseph A. Boshart,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Cross Country
Healthcare, Inc.

                         Case Background

On Aug. 26, 2003, a purported class action, "Theodora Cossack,
et al. v. Cross Country TravCorps and Cross Country Nurses,
Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Orange (Class Action Reporter,
June 2, 2006).

Plaintiffs plead causes of action for:  

      -- violation of California Business and Professions Code  
         Section 17200, et. seq;  

      -- violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et.  
         seq;  

      -- recovery of unpaid wages and penalties;  

      -- conversion;  

      -- breach of contract;  

      -- common counts - work, labor, services provided; and  

      -- common counts - money had and received.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated allege that defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  They specifically claim that defendants:

      -- failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by  
         California law;  

      -- failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular  
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which  
         overtime hours are to be compensated;  

      -- failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time  
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a  
         workday;  

      -- scheduled some of its employees on an alternative  
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional  
         compensation when those employees did not work such  
         alternative workweek, as scheduled; and  

      -- failed to pay employees for the minimum hours  
         defendants had promised them.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the Superior Court of the state of California
granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add causes of
actions alleging defendant's failure to pay for missed meal
periods and rest breaks.  

Although Cross Country Nurses, Inc. was previously dismissed
from the action upon defendants' motion for summary judgment
plaintiffs have erroneously included Cross Country Nurses, Inc.
in the caption and allegations of the amended complaint they
filed.

On Mar. 10, 2006, defendants removed this putative class action
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in Orange County.   

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the case be remanded
to state court, which was granted on Apr. 28, 2006.  Defendants
previously said it would appeal the motion to the U.S. Court of  
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit by May 5, 2006.     

Plaintiffs are seeking:  

      -- an order enjoining defendants from engaging in the  
         practices challenged in the complaint;  

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies  
         defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and  
         their purported class);  

      -- for pre-judgment interest; for certain penalties  
         provided for by the California Labor Code; and  

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.

In June, two subsidiaries of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit a
decision that remanded a purported class action over labor law
violations that was filed against the companies in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit is "Cossack et al. v. Cross Country Travelcorps, et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00266-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David  
O. Carter with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph Antonelli of Joseph Antonelli Law Offices, 1000  
         Lakes Drive, Suite 450, West Covina, CA 91790, Phone:  
         626-917-6228, E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com;

     (2) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670  
         Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036,  
         Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com;

Representing the defendants are, Enzo Der Boghossian, Arthur F.  
Silbergeld and Michael H. Weiss of Proskauer Rose, 2049 Century  
Park East, 32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206, Phone: 310-
557-2900, E-mail: asilbergeld@proskauer.com and
mweiss@proskauer.com.


DELL INC: Ill. Court's Change-of-Judge Policy May be Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer in a class action against Dell Inc. notified Madison
County Chief Judge Ann Callis he might challenge the
constitutionality of a rule she implemented limiting automatic
change of judge, Brian Brueggemann of the News-Democrat reports.

Attorney Aaron Zigler of the St. Louis law firm Korein Tillery
sent a letter via U.S mail, fax and e-mail message to Judge
Callis informing her of the possible move should Circuit Judge
Dan Stack deny a change-of-judge motion in his suit against
Dell.

The rule implemented by Judge Callis in May allowed only one
automatic change of judge in a class action, instead of one for
each class member.

The lawsuit against Dell Inc. claims that the company falsely
marketed the capacity of its computers with Pentium 4
processors.  It allegedly advertised the computers as being
faster and more powerful than computers with Pentium III
processors, even though the Pentium 4 is actually slower and
less powerful than the Pentium III.  The suit seeks compensation
on behalf of all United States citizens who bought a Dell
computer with a Pentium 4.

Korein Tillery LLC: 10 Executive Woods Court, Belleville,
Illinois 62226 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-277-1180, Telecopier:
618-222-6939, Web Site: http://www.koreintillery.com


DILLARD'S INC: Settles ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio for $35M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dillard's Inc. settled for $35.0 million a purported class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Southern Ohio that alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

On July 29, 2002, a class action complaint was filed on behalf
of a putative class of former plan participants.  A second
amended class action complaint was filed on Dec. 13, 2004.

The suit named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- the Mercantile Stores Pension Plan, and
     -- the Mercantile Stores Pension Committee  

The complaint alleges that certain actions by the Plan and the
Committee violated the ERISA, as a result of amendments made to
the Plan that allegedly were either improper and/or ineffective
and as a result of certain payments made to certain
beneficiaries of the Plan that allegedly were improperly
calculated and/or discriminatory on account of age.

The second amended complaint does not specify any liquidated
amount of damages sought and seeks recalculation of certain
benefits paid to putative class members.

During the 13 weeks ended July 29, 2006, the company signed a
memorandum of understanding for $35.0 million to settle the case
and, accordingly, accrued an additional $21.7 million ($13.6
million after-tax or $0.17 per diluted share) regarding the case
in trade accounts payable and accrued expenses.  The settlement
is still pending court approval.

The suit is "Clevenger v. Dillards Dept Stores, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00558-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Southern Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carrie Atkins Barron of Freking & Betz, 215 East Ninth
         Street, Fifth Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:
         5137211975, E-mail: cbarron@frekingandbetz.com;

     (2) William K. Carr of the Law Offices of William K. Carr,
         2222 E. Tennessee Avenue, Denver, CO 80209, Phone: 303-
         296-6383, E-mail: bill@pension-law.com; and

     (3) Steven Katz of Korein Tillery, LLC, 701 Market Street,
         Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 53101, Phone: 314-241-4844, E-
         mail: skatz@koreintillery.com.

Representing the defendants are Stephen Joseph Butler and Jack
Frederick Fuchs of Thompson Hine, LLP, 312 Walnut Street, 14th
Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4029, Phone: 513-352-6700, Fax: 513-
352-6741, E-mail: steve.butler@thompsonhine.com and
Jack.Fuchs@ThompsonHine.com.


DRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Dataram Settles Separately for $2.3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dataram Corp. entered into a settlement agreement on August 30,
2006 with a DRAM manufacturer whereby the manufacturer has paid
the company $2,300,000.  In return, Dataram has committed to not
to participate in, and affirmatively to opt out of, any class
actions that have been or in the future may be brought against
the manufacturer by reason of or in any way arising out of a
specified litigation, as defined in the agreement.

In June, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California certified a class action
filed against manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory.  
The suit claims that several computer memory manufacturers
illegally conspired to fix the price of computer memory.

The suit was filed in 2002 by 11 technology companies against
defendants:

     -- Micron Technology, Inc.,
     -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
     -- Crucial Technology, Inc.,
     -- Infineon Technologies AG,
     -- Infineon Technologies North America Corp.,
     -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
     -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
     -- Mosel Vitelic Corporation,
     -- Mosel Vitelic Corporation (USA),
     -- Nanya Technology Corporation,
     -- Nanya Technology Corporation USA,
     -- Winbond Electronics Corporation,
     -- Winbond Electronics Corporation America,
     -- Elpida Memory, Inc.,
     -- Elpida Memory (USA), Inc.,
     -- NEC Electronics America, Inc.

The defendants in the case controlled a vast majority of DRAM
production at the time of filing, an industry with revenue
estimated at $20 billion.

According to the complaint, beginning in 1999 the price for DRAM
began falling dramatically, dipping below the cost of
production.  Then, in September 2001, DRAM prices spiked and by
February 2002 reached as high as $4.50, the complaint states.  
In mid-2002, media reports cited statements by DRAM manufacturer
Mosel Vitelic's Vice President Thomas Chang that the company
held price-fixing meetings with other manufacturers where they
agreed to reduce production to boost prices.

The original lawsuit claims antitrust violations under The
Sherman Act.  The cases were consolidated and moved to U.S.
District Court in San Francisco.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction to
end the price-fixing activities, and award the plaintiffs and
members of the class damages, which are trebled under antitrust
laws.

The certified class includes anyone who purchased DRAM directly
from the defendants between April 1, 1999 and June 22, 2002.

Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herze are class counsel.

The suit is "In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. M:02-cv-01486-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Spero.


DSW INC: Faces Mich., Ill., Ohio Consumer Suits Over Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Michigan federal court granted DSW, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
suit filed against the company over the theft of credit card and
other purchase information.

DSW a defendant in four putative consumer class actions filed in
Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.

On March 8, 2005, Retail Ventures, Inc. announced that it had
learned of the theft of credit card and other purchase
information from a portion of DSW customers.

On April 18, 2005, Retail Ventures issued the findings from its
investigation into the theft.  The theft covered transaction
information involving approximately 1.4 million credit cards and
data from transactions involving approximately 96,000 checks.

The company and Retail Ventures contacted and continue to
cooperate with law enforcement and other authorities with regard
to this matter.

The four putative class actions seek unspecified monetary
damages, credit monitoring and other relief.  Each of the four
cases seeks to certify a different class of consumers.

One of the lawsuits seeks to certify a nationwide class action
that would include every consumer who used a credit card, debit
card, or check to make purchases at DSW between November 2004
and March 2005 and whose transaction data was taken during the
data theft incident.

The other three lawsuits seek to certify classes of consumers
that are limited geographically.  Those cases use different
putative class definitions to identify consumers who made
purchases at certain stores in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.

On July 26, 2006, the Michigan federal court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the Michigan lawsuit.

Ohio-based DSW Inc. (NYSE: DSW) - http://www.dswshoe.com/-- is  
a U.S. specialty branded footwear retailer.  It offers a
selection of brand name and designer dress, casual and athletic
footwear for women and men, and a selection of in-season and
fashion-oriented footwear, handbags, and accessories with
everyday prices.

The company operates in two segments: DSW stores and leased
departments.  The leased departments comprise leased shoe
departments in Stein Mart, Gordmans, Frugal Fannie and Filene's
Basement.  The company sells branded footwear in both the
segments.  During the fiscal year ended January 28, 2006 (fiscal
2005), the company operated a total of 199 stores located
throughout the United States.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Stay on "Brodhead" Consumer Suit Remains
---------------------------------------------------------------
The stay on the purported class action, "Brodhead et al. v.
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June
22, 2005, has yet to be lifted.

The complaint states a claim for damages growing out of certain
California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a
specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers from
1995 through 2003.

Plaintiffs have further clarified and narrowed the class for
which they are seeking certification, which now encompasses all
original owners of folding trailers produced by Fleetwood
Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof but not including
original purchasers who received an aluminum roof replacement
and did not pay for freight.

The subject matter of the claim is similar to a putative class
action previously filed in California state court, entitled,
"Griffin et al v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al."

The California trial court denied class action certification in
the Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the State of
California Court of Appeal upheld the denial in a ruling issued
on May 11, 2006.  Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court of Appeal
ruling in Griffin.

Proceedings relating to the class certification in the Brodhead
matter had been stayed pending the outcome of the state court
certification in Griffin.  

The suit is "Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises
Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward M. Gergosian and Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. of
         Gergosian and Gralewski, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-230-0104, E-mail:
         ed@gergosian.com; and

     (2) Eric H. Gibbs, Karen Lee Hindin and Jonathan K. Levine
         of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, 601 California St.,
         Ste. 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-981-
         4800, E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com; klh@girardgibbs.com
         and jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Howard B. Golds of Best Best & Krieger, 3750 University
         Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028, Riverside, CA 92502-
         1028, Phone: 951-686-1450, E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com;
         and

    (ii) Lee Ann Anand and Richard K Hines, V of Nelson Mulins
         Riley & Scroborough, 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite
         1400, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-817-6000, E-mail:
         leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com and
         richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com.


GENESCO INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Overtime Wage Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. settled two overtime class actions filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County.

On Oct. 22, 2004, the company was named a defendant in a
putative class action, "Schreiner vs. Genesco Inc., et al.,"
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles.  The suit alleges violations of California wages and
hours laws.  It seeks damages of $40 million plus punitive
damages.

On May 4, 2005, the company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to court
approval and other conditions.  

In connection with the proposed settlement, to provide for the
settlement payment to the plaintiff class and related expenses,
the company recognized a charge of $2.6 million before taxes
included in restructuring and other, net in the accompanying
Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the first quarter of
fiscal 2006.

On May 25, 2005, a second putative class action, "Drake vs.
Genesco Inc., et al.," making allegations similar to those in
the Schreiner complaint on behalf of employees of the company's
Johnston & Murphy division, was filed by a different plaintiff
in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Schreiner court granted final approval of
the settlement and the company and the Drake plaintiff reached
an agreement on Nov. 17, 2005 to settle that action.

The two matters were resolved more favorably to the company than
originally expected, as not all members of the plaintiff class
in Schreiner submitted claims and because the court required
that plaintiff's counsel bear the administrative expenses of the
settlement.

Consequently, the company recognized income of $0.9 million
before tax, reflected in restructuring and other, net, in the
Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the third quarter of
Fiscal 2006.

Nashville, Tennessee-based Genesco Inc. (NYSE: GCO) --
http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of branded footwear,  
licensed and branded headwear, and wholesaler of branded
footwear.  Its business segments include Journeys, Underground
Station Group, Hat World, Johnston & Murphy, and Licensed
Brands. The Journeys segment consists of the Journeys and
Journeys Kidz retail footwear chains.  The Underground Station
Group segment includes the Underground Station and Jarman retail
footwear chains.  The Hat World segment includes the Hat World,
Lids, Hat Zone, Cap Connection and Head Quarters retail headwear
chains.  The Johnston & Murphy segment includes Johnston &
Murphy retail operations, and wholesale distribution.  The
Licensed Brands segment is engaged in the wholesale distribution
of footwear manufactured under the Dockers and Perry Ellis
brands, under licenses from Levi Strauss & Company and PEI, Inc.  
As of June 9, 2006, it operated a total of 1,773 stores: 1,755
stores throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, and 18
stores in Canada.


GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: Calif. Court Okays $2.3M Overtime Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Riverside County, California granted final
approval to the settlement of a labor-related class action
against Gymboree Operations, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Gymboree Corp.

The suit was filed on Apr. 21, 2005 on behalf of the manager of
a Gymboree store in Temecula, California, alleging that the
company failed to pay overtime wages and provide meal breaks.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, including interest and
penalties, under the California Labor Code and other statutes.
The complaint also seeks class-action status on behalf of the
plaintiff and other managers of company stores in California.  

On May 20, 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying
the plaintiff's allegations.

As a result of mediation proceedings, the company entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding on Nov. 18, 2005 to fully
resolve all claims related to the lawsuit.

The settlement provides that the company will pay a total amount
of up to approximately $2.3 million, payable on a claims-made
basis, to fully resolve all claims related to the lawsuit.  

The settlement resulted in a charge of approximately $1.5
million after tax, which was recorded in results for the
thirteen weeks ended Oct. 29, 2005.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb.
8, 2006.  The court granted final approval of the settlement on
June 12, 2006.

San Francisco, California-based The Gymboree Corp. (NASDAQ:
GYMB) -- http://www.gymboree.com/-- is a specialty retailer  
operating stores selling apparel and accessories for children
and women under the GYMBOREE, JANIE AND JACK, and JANEVILLE
brands, as well as play programs for children under the GYMBOREE
PLAY & MUSIC brand.  It operates stores in the United States and
Canada, primarily in regional shopping malls and in selected
suburban and urban locations.  The company conducted its
business through five primary divisions: Gymboree, Gymboree
Outlet, Janie and Jack, Janeville and Gymboree Play & Music.  As
of January 28, 2006, the Company operated a total of 659 retail
stores, including 631 stores in the United States and 28 stores
in Canada.  The Company also operated two online stores at
http://www.gymboree.comand http://www.janieandjack.com.


HOME DEPOT: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc., is a defendant in two purported, but as
yet uncertified, class actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 in connection with the company's return-to-vendor and stock
option practices.  

The suits, both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, are:

      -- "Clark v. Home Depot, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
         03216-CPS-RLM," filed on June 29, 2006; and

      -- "Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
         03938-CPS-RLM," filed in Aug. 15, 2006.

The suits named as the defendants, the company, The Home Depot
Futurebuilder Administrative Committee and certain of the
company's current and former directors.

They were brought by certain former employees of the company and
seek unspecified damages, costs, attorney fees and equitable and
injunctive relief.  

Atlanta, Georgia-based The Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE: HD) --
http://www.homedepot.com/-- is a home improvement retailer that  
as of January 29, 2006, operated 2,042 stores.  The Home Depot
stores sell an assortment of building materials, home
improvement and lawn and garden products, and provide a number
of services.  


HOME DEPOT: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. remains a defendant in six purported, but
as yet uncertified, class actions that were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suits are alleging certain misrepresentations in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with the
company's return-to-vendor practices.  Certain current and
former shareholders of the company filed these actions against
the company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

Relief sought in these actions includes unspecified damages and
costs and attorney fees.  

The first identified complaint is "John Mizzaro, et al. v. Home
Depot, Inc., et al. Case No. 06-CV-01151," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706;

     (2) Charles T. Caliendo and Jay W. Eisenhofer of Grant &
         Eisenhofer, P.A., 45 Rockerfeller Center, 15th Floor,
         630 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10111, US, Phone: 646-
         722-8500, E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com and
         jeisenhofer@gelaw.com;

     (3) Alan R. Perry, Jr. of Page Perry, LLC, Suite 1050, 1040
         Crown Pointe Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338, Phone: 770-
         673-0047, Fax: aperry@pageperry.com.

Representing the defendants is Michael R. Smith of King &
Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763,
Phone: 404-572-4600, E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com.


INSURANCE COS: Judge Refuses to Consolidate Katrina-Linked Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Walker refused to consolidate cases
filed by hundreds of Mississippi homeowners whose insurance
claims were denied after Hurricane Katrina, reports say.

Richard F. Scruggs of The Scruggs Law Firm asked Judge Walker to
consolidate his clients' cases against State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co., Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and Allstate
Property and Casualty Insurance Co. into a joint trial against
each insurer.

Judge Walker ruled that allowing hundreds of policyholders to
consolidate their cases against several major insurers would
amount to a "quasi class action [] but without regard for the
rigid requirements for class certification."  He said the storm,
while a common occurrence, has vastly different effect on each
particular home on specific geographic location.  

The judge ruled that each claim on a storm-damaged property must
be filed individually with separate complaints.  He, however,
did not rule out the possibility that the cases could be
consolidated before they are tried.

Policyholders say their insurance companies' offer of
compensation is not enough for their losses.  The firms are
paying compensation for damages cause by wind, but not by water.

The Scruggs Law Firm Phone: (662) 281-1212.


INTEL CORP: Objects to Application of Calif. Law in P4 Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court a ruling
by a District Appellate Court that allows California law to be
applied in a nationwide class action pending in Madison County
against the computer chip maker, Brian Brueggemann of the News-
Democrat reports.

In July, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, vacated
the Third Judicial Circuit Court's class certification order in
a consumer fraud class action over Intel's Pentium 4
microprocessor (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006).

In June 2002, various plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Third
Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, against:

      -- Intel Corp.,  
      -- Gateway Inc.,  
      -- Hewlett-Packard Co., and  
      -- HPDirect, Inc.  

Plaintiffs in the suit include Barbara's Sales, Inc., Donald
Braddy, Michael Bundy, Bundy & Associates, Inc., Rhonda
Byington, Rebecca S. Chandler, Vernon Anthony Duenas,
Christopher R. Grout, Deanna L. Neubauer, Sandra Pyle, and
Richard Rodriguez.

The suit alleges that the defendants' advertisements and
statements misled the public by suppressing and concealing the
alleged material fact that systems containing Intel Pentium 4
processors are less powerful and slower than systems containing
Intel Pentium III processors and a competitor's microprocessors.  

In July 2004, the court certified against Intel an Illinois-only
class of certain end-use purchasers of certain Pentium 4
processors or computers containing such microprocessors.  The
court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this
ruling.   

In January 2005, the court granted a motion filed jointly by the
plaintiffs and the company that stayed the proceedings in the
trial court pending appellate review of the court's class
certification order.   

On July 25, 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District,
vacated the Circuit Court's class certification order, and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to
reconsider its class certification ruling applying California
law.  

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The company disputes the plaintiffs' claims and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Illinois Appellate Court's opinion is available free of
charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?f1c

In recent developments, Intel's attorney, Edward Crane, wrote in
the company's petition that if the appellate ruling stands,
Illinois courts would "regulate commerce throughout the nation,"
and that the ruling "invites a bizarre result never authorized
by any appellate court of this state: the application of
California law, in an Illinois court, to a nationwide class, the
overwhelming majority of whose members and transactions have no
connection to Illinois whatsoever."

Mr. Crane also wrote: "The appellate court articulated no sound
justification for the courts of Illinois to play so intrusive a
role in regulating commercial affairs throughout the United
States based on California's purported interests.  There is
none."

The suit is Docket No. No. 02-L-788," filed in the Third
Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aaron M. Zigler and Stephen M. Tillery of Korein  
         Tillery, LLC, Gateway One on the Mall, 701 Market  
         Street, Suite 300, St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1820,  
         (Independent City), Phone: 314-241-4844, Fax: 314-588-
         7036, Web Site: http://www.koreintillery.comand   

     (2) Stephen A. Swedlow and Robert L. King of Swedlow &  
         King, LLC, Three First National Plaza, 70 W. Madison  
         Street, Suite 660, Chicago, Illinois 60603, Phone:  
         (312) 641-3750, Fax: (312) 641-9751.

Representing the company is Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &  
Flom, LLP, 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, (Cook  
Co.), Phone: 312-407-0700, Fax: 312-407-0411, Web Site:  
http://www.skadden.com   


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class
action filed against IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
certain of its officers.

Beginning on Jul. 2, 2004, three purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed against the company.  The actions
were later consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
IntraBiotics common stock between Sept. 5, 2003 and Jun. 22,  
2004.  

The amended complaint generally alleges that IntraBiotics and
several of its officers and directors made false or misleading
statements concerning the clinical trial of Isegana.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.  

On Feb. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On Jan. 23,
2006, the court issued its decision on the motion, granting the
motion to dismiss the claim under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, with leave to amend, and denying the motion to dismiss the
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 22, 2006.  The
company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on Mar. 14, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, May 26,
2006).

On August 1, 2006, the court issued an order granting
IntraBiotics' and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
with prejudice.

With respect to the claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the
court gave the parties the opportunity to provide supplemental
briefs before it would rule on these claims.

As plaintiffs did not file a supplemental brief concerning the
1933 Act Claims, on August 30, 2006, the court dismissed those
claims with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have 30 days from entry of judgment in which to file
a notice of appeal.

The suit is "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2675," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory M. Castaldo of Schiffrin &  
         Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706.

Representing the Company are Boris Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung,  
Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E. Salceda of Wilson Sonsini  
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,  
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:  
boris.feldman@wsgr.com or cfoung@wsgr.com or knassiri@wsgr.com
or isalceda@wsgr.com.


JOS. A. BANK: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Md.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. was named as defendant in several
purported securities fraud class actions that were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  

                           Lefkoe Action

On July 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the company and
its chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe, Civil Action Number 1:06-
cv-01892-WMN.  

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's stock from January 5, 2006 through
June 6, 2006.  The lawsuit purports to make claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during
the time period described above.  It seeks unspecified damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  

                       Tewas Trust Action
  
On August 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the Lefkoe
Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-
cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the Lefkow Action and purports to assert the same
claims and seek the same relief.

                         Hutton Action
  
On August 14, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the company's
directors and, as nominal defendant, the company in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland by Glenn
Hutton, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02095-BEL.

The lawsuit purports to be a shareholder derivative action.  The
lawsuit purports to make claims for various violations of state
law that allegedly occurred from January 5, 2006 through the
present.

It seeks on behalf of the company against the directors,
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

                           Kemp Action

On August 28, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the
Hutton Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland by Robert Kemp, Civil Action Number 1:06-
cv-02232-BEL.

The Kemp Action was filed against the same defendants as those
in the Hutton Action and purports to assert substantially the
same claims and seek substantially the same relief.  The
defendants intend to defend the matter vigorously.

The first identified complaint is "Roy T. Lefkoe, et al. v. Jos.
A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) 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;  

     (2) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

     (3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


KENTUCKY: Fayette Jail Sued for Federal, State Labor Law Abuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nine employees of the Fayette County Detention Center sued the
city of Lexington over allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act
violations.

The suit was filed in Commonwealth of Kentucky, Fayette Circuit
Court by Justin Crawford, Bobbi Bartlett, Brian Herberl, Jessica
Herberl, Rebecca Grillo, Kevin Johnson, Claud A. Reynolds
Deborah Lennon and Janet Vannatta on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated current and former employees of
the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Division of
Community Corrections.

Plaintiffs declared that they are responsible for supervising
and guarding inmates in the custody and control of the LFUCG
DCC.  Their suit accused the DCC of engaging in "long-standing
widespread, and multiple violations" of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and of the Kentucky Wage and Hours Act, Kentucky Revised
Status Chapter 337.

Their complaint further states: "Through the DCC, the LFUCG has
deprived the named plaintiffs and members of the proposed class
of compensation for the full amount of time worked, overtime
compensation, adequate meal periods and rest periods, of proper
compensatory time, and proper pension contributions."  The
allegations allegedly constitute abusive employment practices,
which violate both federal and state law.

The plaintiffs request issuance of temporary and permanent
injunction against these alleged wrongful practices, policies
and procedures, recovery of pension contributions, petition for
declaratory relief, and class-action certification.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1171

The suit was filed by Miller, Griffin & Marks, PSC, 271 West
Short Street, Suite 600, Lexington, Kentucky 40507-1292, Phone:
(859) 255-6676.


LAKESIDE FOODS: Recalls Stir Fry Veggies Over Undeclared Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeside Foods, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 7,500 packages of
frozen 14 oz. Kroger Stir Fry Vegetables because they may
contain undeclared egg noodles, which contain both wheat or eggs
ingredients.

The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to wheat or eggs run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The Kroger brand Stir Fry Vegetables were produced by Lakeside
Foods in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and are sold in Kroger grocery
stores in Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois,
Missouri and Kentucky.  The recalled packages will have the two-
line code of W46124/W610002 printed on the back of the package.

No illnesses have been reported, and no other Lakeside Foods
products are involved in this recall.

Kroger employees and retailers are removing the product from
store shelves.  

Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions can contact the company
at 800-632-6900.


MAY DEPARTMENT: Faces Mo. Stockholder Suit Over Federated Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri has yet to rule on a
motion to dismiss the purported stockholder class action filed
against The May Department Stores Co., which was acquired by
Federated Department Stores, Inc.

On January 11, 2006, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former May
stockholder, filed a purported class action on behalf of all
former May stockholders against May and the former members of
the board of directors of May.  

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith
and candor to May stockholders in connection with the merger.

On August 30, 2005, pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger,
dated as of February 27, 2005, by and among Federated, The May
Department Stores Co., and Milan Acquisition LLC (a subsidiary
of Federated), May merged with and into Milan Acquisition LLC.  
As a result of the merger, May's separate corporate existence
was terminated.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit upon
which the court has not yet ruled.

New York-based Federated Department Stores, Inc. (NYSE: FD) --
http://www.federated-fds.com/-- is a retail company operating  
department stores that sell a range of merchandise, including
men's, women's and children's apparel and accessories,
cosmetics, home furnishings and other consumer goods.


MITEL NETWORKS: Employees File Suit Seeking Better Severance Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Nelligan O'Brien Payne filed a lawsuit in the
Ontario Court of Justice against Mitel Networks Corp. on behalf
of employees whose jobs were recently cut, reports say.

The lawsuit seeks better severance and other benefits than Mitel
allegedly provided when it started the round of layoffs late
last month.

The suit said Mitel offered:

     -- up to eight weeks pay in lieu of notice based on one
        week per year of service, up to the maximum; and

     -- up to 26 weeks' pay for severance, and supplemental pay
        determined by the employee's age (if over 45), length of
        service (if over five years) and position within
        company.

Named plaintiffs are Ottawa resident Carl Heyendal and Wayne
Wink.  Mr. Heyendal was a software designer with 26 years at
Mitel, and Mr. Wink was a hardware designer with Mitel for 24
years.

The two plaintiffs, who neither had employment contracts,
received their termination notices on Aug. 29.

The six-page statement of claim argues that Mitel failed to
provide reasonable notice under common law, which unlike the
Employment Standards Act has no defined formula to determine
what is a reasonable notice period, and therefore its
unilaterally imposed severance package is inadequate for the
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' lawyer, Steve Levitt said, "Reasonable notice is an
implied term in an employment relationship, absent an employment
contract that would contract out of that entitlement."

Apart from loss of salary, the plaintiffs are seeking
compensation for loss of health, dental, life insurance and
other benefits, as well as stock options and company
contributions to a group Registered Retirement Savings Plan that
they would have received if they had been given reasonable
notice.

The law firm is seeking to represent all Mitel employees laid
off between Aug. 15 and Sept. 30 who did not accept the original
severance packages offered by the company.

Mitel, which is trying to launch a public offering of stock, has
declined to reveal how many employees were laid off, the report
said.

In 2003, the law firm of Nelligan O'Brien Payne initiated a
class action lawsuit against Terry Matthews' Mitel Networks
Corporation on behalf of about 80 employees laid off earlier
that year (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2003).

Damages sought in the suit were due to the company's failure to
provide reasonable notice of termination of employment to
employees, and focused on ensuring that employees are fairly
compensated for their loss of employment.

Mitel is a maker of Internet-based communications products such
as office phone networks.  Mitel currently employs about 950
people.

Representing plaintiffs is Steven Levitt of Nelligan O'Brien
Payne, Suite 1900, 66 Slater St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5H1
Canada, Phone: 613 231 8283, Fax: 613 788 2369, E-mail:
steven.levitt@nelligan.ca.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Cholesterol Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
A third set of personal injury lawsuits has been filed against
Pfizer Inc., charging the giant drug company with concealing
serious and permanent health risks associated with its
cholesterol drug Lipitor.

Ten new suits accuse Pfizer of deceptive marketing practices.  
They allege that the company promoted Lipitor as a safe drug
with minimal health risks while failing to adequately warn
physicians and patients of Lipitor's more dangerous side
effects, including nerve damage, memory loss and other cognitive
impairments.

The lawsuits contend that Lipitor is defectively designed and
lacks adequate patient warnings as to its potential cognitive
and neuromuscular dangers.

The lawsuits, all filed in New York State Supreme Court, were
brought on behalf of plaintiffs from Delaware, Georgia, Idaho,
Illinois, New Jersey, New York and South Carolina.

Nineteen similar personal injury lawsuits have been filed
against the company in recent months.

The law firm of attorney Mark Jay Krum represents consumers of
cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor in a class action, accusing
Pfizer of deceiving the public with its marketing of Lipitor as
a "safe drug with minimal health risks."

"The lawsuits do not challenge Lipitor's effectiveness in
lowering cholesterol levels, nor do they contend that the drug
is unsafe for all patients," Attorney Krum said.  "Rather, the
suits charge that Pfizer has failed to adequately warn both
doctors and consumers of Lipitor's more serious and sometimes
permanent heath risks."

Mr. Krum filed the first two personal injury suits against
Pfizer on June 7, 2006.  In June two similar suits were filed
against Pfizer by former Atlanta insurance executive Charles M.
Wilson and New York City criminal trial lawyer Michael
Mazzariello in Manhattan State Supreme Court (Class Action
Reporter, September 7, 2006).

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

In March, Pfizer was also sued by a group of union and employee
insurance plans who charged the company with fraudulently
marketing Lipitor for off-label uses not approved by U.S. Food
and Drug Administration protocols for cholesterol treatment.

Lipitor litigation on the Net: http://www.krumlaw.com.

For more information, contact Robin Brassner, Phone: 212-262-
7472, E-mail: rbrassner@aol.com; Sara Wolosky, Phone: 212-262-
7470, E-mail: swolosky@hotmail.com


SAKS INC: Continues to Face Breach of Contract Suit in Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saks, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
over allegations of breach of contract.

Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed
chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for
merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff class.  The
lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and
restitution.

The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05-
cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn.  

Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Richard T. Dorman Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder &
         Brown, P.O. Box 66705, Mobile, AL 36660, Phone: 1-251-
         471-6191, E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com;

     (2) Rachel J. Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         US, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail:
         rgeman@ichb.com; and

     (3) David J. Guin and Tammy McClendon Stokes of Donaldson &
         Guin, LLC, The Financial Center, 505 20th Street North,
         Suite 1000, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-503-4505,
         Fax: 205-226-2357, E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com and
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com.

Representing the defendant Andrew J. Sinor, Jr. of Hand
Arendall, LLC, 1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4400, Fax: 205-397-1310, E-
mail: dsinor@handarendall.com.


WET SEAL: Employees File Labor Violations Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. is a defendant in a purported labor-related
class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in California
on July 19, 2006.

The class action complaint was filed on behalf of certain of the
company's current and former employees that were employed and
paid by the company on an hourly basis during the four-year
period from July 19, 2002 through July 19, 2006.

The complaint alleges violations under the State of California
Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions
Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission
with respect to paying employees all overtime wages due,
observing meal and rest periods and maintaining proper records
of wages earned and rates of pay.

The complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
costs, attorney's fees, injunctive relief and such other and
further relief that the Superior Court may deem just and proper.

Foothill Ranch, California-based The Wet Seal, Inc. (NASDAQ:
WTSLA) -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a specialty retailer  
of fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items
designed for female consumers.  The company operates two,
primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names,
Wet Seal and Arden B.  As of January 28, 2006, Wet Seal had 400
retail stores in 46 states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. Of
the 400 stores, there were 308 Wet Seal stores and 92 Arden B.
stores.


WET SEAL: Oct. Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative October 2006 court hearing is scheduled for the
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against The Wet Seal, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Between Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 12, 2004, six securities class
actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock between Jan. 7, 2003 and Aug. 19, 2004.  
The company and certain of its former directors and executives
were named as defendants.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, on the
grounds that, among other things, the company failed to disclose
and misrepresented material adverse facts that were known to the
company or disregarded by us.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel.  On Jan. 29, 2005, the
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
with the court, which consolidated all of the previously
reported class actions.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the company violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements of fact
or failing to disclose material facts during the class period,
from March 2003 to August 2004, concerning the company's
prospects to stem ongoing losses in the company's Wet Seal
concept and return that business to profitability.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the company's
former directors and La Senza Corp., a Canadian company
controlled by them, unlawfully utilized material non-public
information in connection with the sale of the company's common
stock by La Senza.  

It seeks class certification, compensatory damages, interest,
costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  The company filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in April 2005.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the consolidated class action was dismissed
against the company in the lawsuit.  However, plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint, which they did file
on Nov. 23, 2005.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Jan. 25, 2006, and a court hearing is scheduled for October
2006.  

The suit is "Alexander Vinokurov v. Wet Seal Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-07159-GAF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos and Bacine, 402 W.
         Broadway, Ste. 850, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         230-0800, E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com; and

     (2) William J. Doyle, II of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Seth A. Aronson of O'Melveny & Myers, 400 S. Hope St.,
         15th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899, Phone: 213-430-
         6000, E-mail: saronson@omm.com;

    (ii) Charles Avrith of Nagler and Associates, 2300 South
         Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064, Phone: 310-
         473-1200, Fax: 310-473-7144.


ZHEJIANG NENGFU: Recalls Patio Umbrellas on Paint's Lead Level
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Nengfu Tourist Products Co., Ltd., China, in
cooperation with Atico International USA Inc., of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 27,700 units of 9-foot patio
umbrellas.

The company said the umbrella poles contain paint with excessive
levels of lead, which can cause adverse health effects if
ingested by young children.  No injuries were reported.

These patio umbrellas have an opening size of 9-feet wide by
94.5-inches high.  They are sold in solid colors of tan, red,
green, and navy blue.

These patio umbrellas were manufactured in China and are being
sold at Longs Drug Stores nationwide from April 2006 through May
2006 for about $40.

Pictures of the recalled umbrellas:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06251a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06251b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these umbrellas immediately
and return it to the retailer for a full refund.

For more information, contact Atico International USA Inc. toll-
free at (877) 546-4835 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.aticousa.com


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Aspen
Technology, Inc. between February 6, 2006 and September 6, 2006.

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

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

The practice of manipulating stock option dates 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 September 6, 2006, the defendants announced that Aspen 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.

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


JOS. A. BANK: Brower Piven Reminds on Lead Plaintiff Filing Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven announces that interested parties have only until
September 25, 2006 to seek for appointment as lead plaintiff in
the class action that was commenced in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. between January 5,
2006 and June 7, 2006.  

The action is pending against defendants Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc. and Robert N. Wildrick, president and chief executive
officer.  Brower Piven was the first firm to file this action.
Those who sold put options or bought call options on Jos. A.
Bank shares during the class period may also have claims.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market during the class period concerning the company's
inventories and their impact on the company's business and
finances.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose that:

      -- the company had over-invested in inventories of fall
         clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock
         inventories of seasonal merchandise, in light of
         demand, that carried over into the first quarter of
         2006;

      -- these inventories were at such excessive levels that
         the company resorted to very aggressive promotional
         pricing in February and March 2006 which deeply
         discounted the prices of the merchandise, discounts
         significantly greater than the company's historical
         practice, in order to move the merchandise and make
         room for new season merchandise within the financial
         constraints in which the Company operated and financed
         its inventories and new store openings;

      -- the company's gross profit margins were substantially
         reduced in February and March 2006 by reason of the
         inventory and pricing actions taken by defendants which
         caused the company's profit margins and profits in
         February and March 2006 to shrink dramatically even as
         sales revenues increased, which represented an extreme
         departure from Jos. A. Bank's historical pattern; and

      -- Defendant Wildrick, while he was touting the current
         and future operational and financial strengths of Jos.
         A. Bank and the 52% appreciation in the Company's stock
         price in 2005 on the NASDAQ was selling large blocks of
         his personal stock.

Then, on June 8, 2006, defendants announced that the company's
net income for the first quarter of 2006 had fallen 13% even as
sales revenues increased 18%.  The market was stunned by
defendants' belated disclosures.  The company's common stock
fell 29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per share on June
8, 2006.

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  * * *