CAR_Public/060915.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 184

                            Headlines

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: $1B IPO Suit Deal Yet to Get Court Approval
AIRLINES: Two More U.S. Carriers Settle Price-Fixing Lawsuit
ANTIGENICS INC: Faces New Securities Fraud Suit in New Mexico
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Calif. Court Allows Suit by Victims' Families
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Tex.

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Late Fees Program
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Stockholder Suit in Del. State Court
BROADCOM CORP: Law Firm to Revise Complaints Over Stock Options
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Power Outages
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Payouts Released to Sexual Abuse Victims

ESPEED INC: N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
FEDEX GROUND: Judge Denies Request for Drivers' Tax Returns
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Underway in Urethane Antitrust Suit
INTERNET CAPITAL: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Approval
INTERSECTIONS INC: Plaintiff Appeals Order in Pa. Credit Suit

IOWA: Cable TV Subscribers Plan to Ask Refund for Franchise Fees
IPASS INC: Calif. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Musical Activity Center for Kids
MCKESSON CORP: $960M Securities Suit Settlement Tax-Deductible
MIVA INC: Click Fraud Lawsuit in Arkansas to Go into Mediation

MIVA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Fla.
MIVA INC: Still Faces Calif. I-Net Gambling, Unfair Trade Suit
MIVA INC: Still Faces Payday Advance Click Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NATURAL HEALTH: Refutes Stock Fraud Claims Filed in Tex. Court
NORBOURG GROUP: Court Certifies Investors Suit Against CEO, AMF

PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Considers Consolidation of Stock Suits
SINA CORP: Continues to Face N.Y. Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit
SPRINT CORP: Kansas Court Okays Benney-Lundberg Suit Settlement
TOBACCO LITIGATION: "McLaughlin" Certification Ruling Delayed
TRIANGLE TUBE: Recalls Water Heaters to Repair Defective Seal

VIACOM INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Complaint in S.D. N.Y.
WILLIAM LYON: Del. Court Approves Stockholder Suit Settlement
WILLIAM LYON: Court Stays Calif. Stock Suit Over Tender Offer
WILLIAMS COS: Oct. Fairness Hearing Set for Derivative Suit Deal
WILLIAMS COMMS: Okla. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BNS Holding Records 234 Active Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $6.3M Liability in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Rise to 578 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Corp. Cases Increase to 1,605 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Riley's Suit v. DaimlerChrysler Stayed

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Mobil in Bailey Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Resolves Bercu v. BICC Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Corp.'s Suits Remain at 124 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Faces Injury Suits in N.D.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp.'s Reserve Rises to $7M in 2Q06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Entrx Drop From 493 to 485 in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Faces Suit Filed by ACE, Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Records 150 Pending Suits in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Notes 130 Respirator Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Face Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Asks USG to End Trafelet Case by Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Notes 656 Property Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants Congoleum's $16.95M Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. to Give Free Medical Check-ups
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.M. Worker Sues 99 Companies in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Begins Final Cleanup at Grace N.J. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Widow Names 40 Parties in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alton Couple Sue 44 Parties in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Postpones Grace Trial for 2007-2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Vacated in Suit v. Delmarva et al.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Brower Piven Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
DELL INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.


                            *********


ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: $1B IPO Suit Deal Yet to Get Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.

ACLARA, with which Monogram Biosciences, Inc. merged in December
2004, and certain of its former officers and directors were
named as defendants in a securities class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2001 and is now captioned,
"ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  It names several of the underwriters involved in
ACLARA's initial public offering as defendants.  This class
action is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of ACLARA common stock from the time of ACLARA's March 20, 2000
IPO through Dec. 6, 2000.

The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters
in the ACLARA IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions
from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain
investors who purchased ACLARA stock in the IPO and the after-
market.  The complaint also alleges that the ACLARA defendants
violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in
the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements.  More than 300 issuers who
went public between 1998 and 2000 have been named in similar
lawsuits.  

In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints
against issuers and individual defendants affiliated with
issuers, including ACLARA defendants, was filed by the entire
group of issuer defendants in these similar actions.  On Feb.
19, 2003, the court in this action issued its decision on the
defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss.  This decision dismissed
the Section 10(b) claim as to ACLARA, but denied the motion to
dismiss Section 11 claim as to ACLARA and virtually all of the
other defendants.  

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action announced a proposed settlement with ACLARA and the other
issuer defendants.  

The proposed settlement, which was approved by ACLARA's board of
directors, provides that the insurers of all settling issuers
will guarantee that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-
settling defendants, including the investment banks who acted as
underwriters in those offerings.  

In the event that the plaintiffs do not recover $1 billion, the
insurers for the settling issuers will make up the difference.  
Under the proposed settlement, the maximum amount that could be
charged to ACLARA's insurance policy in the event that the
plaintiffs recovered nothing from the investment banks would be
approximately $3.9 million.

The company believes that it had sufficient insurance coverage
to cover the maximum amount that it may be responsible for under
the proposed settlement.  

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted unconditional preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  The settlement fairness
hearing was held on April 24, 2006, but the court has not yet
made a decision, according to the Monogram Biosciences, Inc.'s
Aug. 9, 2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

IPO Litigation: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/


AIRLINES: Two More U.S. Carriers Settle Price-Fixing Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. carriers United Airlines and American Airlines reached
settlements in a purported antitrust class action filed against
it and a dozen major international airlines over a conspiracy to
fix prices of airfreight shipping services, reports say.

Under the settlement, both U.S. carriers are not required to
make any cash payments, unlike the German airline Deutsche
Lufthansa AG, which entered into a settlement agreement earlier.

Deutsche Lufthansa would pay US$85 million to settle the
purported antitrust class action (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
13, 2006).

The settlements could close the books on their obligations in
the case barring further findings.  Officials at both American
and United, the largest two U.S. airlines, said that if the
Justice Department later brings charges against them as a result
of its investigation, the settlements would be off.

According to Tim Smith, a spokesman for American Airlines, a
unit of AMR Corp., the carrier had been swept into an
investigation that appeared centered on European airlines.

Mr. Smith said American would not be forced to change its cargo-
pricing policies.  As part of the settlement, it promised to
provide information to the shippers who filed the suits.

Meanwhile, United Airlines, a unit of UAL Corp., pledged to
continue to cooperate with the plaintiffs as part of the
agreement.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement with a majority of
plaintiffs that will see us dismissed from the civil litigation,
pending court approval," said spokesman Brandon Borrman.

The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, brought
the suit on behalf of the D.C.-based Niagara Frontier
Distribution, Inc., which used the services of the defendants
between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present (Class Action Reporter,
July 5, 2006).

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 airlines were investigated for cartel practices 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.


ANTIGENICS INC: Faces New Securities Fraud Suit in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antigenics, Inc. faces a purported class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico filed by
Steven J. Tuckfelt on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated.  

The complaint was filed on June 16, 2006 against the company and
its chief executive officer, Garo H. Armen, PhD.  It alleges
that certain of the company's disclosures in connection with the
conduct of the Oncophage Phase 3 renal cell carcinoma trial
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as includes purported claims for
breach of fiduciary duty.

As of Aug. 8, 2006, the complaint has not been served on either
defendant, and pending service of process, proceedings in the
litigation do not commence.  

New York, New York-Based Antigenics Inc. (NASDAQ: AGEN) --
http://www.antigenics.com/-- is a biotechnology company  
developing technologies and products to treat cancers,
infectious diseases and autoimmune disorders, primarily based on
immunological approaches.  Its most advanced product candidate
is Oncophage (vitespen, formerly HSPPC-96), a personalized
therapeutic cancer vaccine candidate being tested for several
cancer indications.  


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Calif. Court Allows Suit by Victims' Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California has allowed a class action by heirs of
Armenian genocide victims to proceed against the Turkish
branches of German banks Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank,
according to The Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

Recently, lawmakers have passed a bill that would extend the
statute of limitations for claims by Armenian genocide victims
until 2016 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2006).

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

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

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

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


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. remains a defendant in two putative collective
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under the Securities Act and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suits were filed by Congregation Ezra Sholom on Nov. 10,
2005, and Victor Allgeier on Jan. 4, 2006.

The suits purport to be filed on behalf of those persons who
purchased Blockbuster stock between Sept. 8, 2004 and Aug. 9,
2005.  

In these two suits, plaintiffs filed their complaints against
the company, National Amusements Inc., Viacom, John F. Antioco,
Richard J. Bressler, Jackie M. Clegg, Phillip P. Dauman, Michael
D. Fricklas, Linda Griego, Mel Karmazin, John L. Muething,
Sumner M. Redstone and Larry J. Zine.

Plaintiffs claim the above-referenced defendants committed
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act by failing to
disclose at the time of the company's split-off from Viacom and
that the company lacked the financial and other resources
required to implement initiatives announced at that time.

They also claim violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
by the defendants regarding the company's financial results.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, court costs, attorney's
fees and expert witness fees.

Dallas, Texas-based Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI) --
http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home  
rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000
stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries as of
Dec. 31, 2005.  The company operates in the home video and home
video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as
theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product)
and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-
store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite
providers.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, Blockbuster
continued to focus on offering programs that are an alternative
to the programs offered by mass merchant retailers and other
online subscription service providers.  In addition, the company
continued its BLOCKBUSTER Rewards program, expanded digital
versatile disc (DVD) and game trading significantly in its U.S.
locations, and offered in-store rental coupons to its
BLOCKBUSTER Online subscribers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Late Fees Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. continues to face several putative class
actions arising out of its "end of late fees" program.  

The suits were filed in various state courts by Anna Kane,
Thomas Tallarino, Gary Lustberg, Michael L. Galeno, Ronit
Yeroushalmi, Beth Creighton, Gustavo Sanchez, Caleb Lucas-Hansen
Marker, and Kenneth W. Edwards.

The "Kane" suit was filed in 2005 in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Ocean County.  It is alleging fraud, breach of contract,
negligent misrepresentation, an unfair trade practice and a
violation of the New Jersey consumer fraud laws regarding
deceptive advertising.  

The suit sought compensatory and injunctive relief.  On Sept.
27, 2005, the New Jersey Superior Court stayed the trial court
action and ordered plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration.
Rather than proceed to arbitration, in January 2006, plaintiff
dismissed her individual claim without prejudice.

The "Tallarino" suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2005 in Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County.  It is alleging that
the company's "no late fees" program constitutes conversion and
violates California consumer protection statutes prohibiting
untrue and misleading advertising.  

The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief.  The company
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The "Lustberg" suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action against the company in the Supreme
Court of Nassau County, New York.  The company removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York.

The "Galeno" suit was filed on Feb. 25, 2005.  It was brought as
a putative class action in the Supreme Court of New York County,
New York.  The company removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of New York.

Both suits allege breach of contract, unjust enrichment and that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.  The suits seek compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

The "Yeroushalmi" suit was filed on March 4, 2005.  It was
brought as a putative class action in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.  It is alleging that the
company's "no late fees" program constitutes fraud and violates
California consumer protection statutes prohibiting untrue and
misleading advertising.

The suit also alleged unjust enrichment and sought compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and other equitable
remedies.  The company removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

In November 2005, Mr. Yeroushalmi dismissed his individual claim
with prejudice in exchange for a nominal monetary amount with no
admission of liability by the company.

The "Creighton" suit was filed on March 4, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action in the Circuit Court of Multnomah
County, Oregon.  It claims that the company's "no late fees"
program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes
prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices.  The
suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief. The company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon.

The "Sanchez" suit was filed on March 22, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County.  It alleges a violation of California's
business and professions code as an unfair business practice and
misleading advertising claim, and a violation of the California
rental-purchase act.  The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and
injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The "Marker" suit was filed on April 11, 2005.  It was brought
in the District Court of Ingham County, Michigan asserting a
violation of Michigan consumer protection act and the
advertising and pricing act.  The suit sought actual or,
alternatively, statutory damages.  Blockbuster moved to compel
arbitration, the court compelled arbitration, and on July 25,
2005 the case was dismissed with prejudice.

The "Edwards" suit was filed on April 13, 2005.  It was brought
as a putative class action in the District Court of Pittsburg
County, Oklahoma, alleging fraud and a violation of Oklahoma's
consumer protection statute.  The suit sought actual damages and
civil penalties.  

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Oklahoma.  On Nov. 17, 2005, the court ordered
plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration.  

Dallas, Texas-based Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI) --
http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home  
rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000
stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries as of
Dec. 31, 2005.  The company operates in the home video and home
video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as
theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product)
and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-
store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite
providers.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, Blockbuster
continued to focus on offering programs that are an alternative
to the programs offered by mass merchant retailers and other
online subscription service providers.  In addition, the company
continued its BLOCKBUSTER Rewards program, expanded digital
versatile disc (DVD) and game trading significantly in its U.S.
locations, and offered in-store rental coupons to its
BLOCKBUSTER Online subscribers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Stockholder Suit in Del. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is a defendant in a purported stockholder
class action filed in the Newcastle County Chancery Court,
Delaware.

On Feb. 10, 2004, Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against John
Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie Clegg, the company,
Viacom, Inc. and the company' directors who were also directors
and/or officers of Viacom as defendants.

The plaintiff alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated to
be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to
minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair
dealing and coercive conduct.  

The stockholder class action complaint asks the court to certify
a class and to enjoin the then-anticipated transaction.  

Plaintiff has confirmed that Blockbuster and the other
defendants are not required to respond to the pending complaint.

Dallas, Texas-based Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI) --
http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home  
rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000
stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries as of
Dec. 31, 2005.  The company operates in the home video and home
video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as
theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product)
and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-
store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite
providers.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, Blockbuster
continued to focus on offering programs that are an alternative
to the programs offered by mass merchant retailers and other
online subscription service providers.  In addition, the company
continued its BLOCKBUSTER Rewards program, expanded digital
versatile disc (DVD) and game trading significantly in its U.S.
locations, and offered in-store rental coupons to its
BLOCKBUSTER Online subscribers.


BROADCOM CORP: Law Firm to Revise Complaints Over Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC said it will be amending a securities
fraud class action filed against Broadcom Corp. in a California
federal court.  

The plan to amend the suit came out in light of a news that the
company expects to record an option-compensation expense of at
least $1.5 billion, more than double its previous estimate.

Broadcom also plans to restate its financial results for 1998
and 1999.  More option-accounting errors may surface, and the
company states that its compensation expense "could be
substantially more" than current estimates, a statement by Kahn
Gauthier said.

As of July, Broadcom Corp. reportedly faces three shareholder
class actions over its stock-option costs (Class Action
Reporter, July 20, 2006).  The suits follow an announcement by
the company that it will record more than $750 million in
additional expenses dating back six years because it under-
reported the cost of employee stock-option grants.  The stock
awards took place from 2000 to 2003.

In June, the company said that the U.S. Securities and Exchange  
Commission is conducting an "informal inquiry based upon media
reports," regarding its stock option granting practices.  Its
executives were accused in two suits of misconduct in connection
with option granting processes.  Broadcom's preliminary review
determined that none of the company's top executives played a
role in setting the timing or value of the options.

Based in Irvine California, Broadcom ((NASDAQ: BRCM) --
http://www.broadcom.com -- provides semiconductors for wired  
and wireless communications.

For more information, contact Lewis Kahn at Kahn Gauthier Swick,
LLC, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com, Phone: (866) 467-1400, ext.
100.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Power Outages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Inc. is facing two lawsuits seeking class-
action status in relation to power outages due to heat waves, it
emerged from a report by The Journal News.

The suits each seek $1 billion in damages for alleged negligence
and other failures by the company, the report said.

The company revealed in regulatory filing that it faced
"substantial expenses" to compensate customers for food and
"substantial operating and capital costs" due to the outage.  A
mid-summer heat wave this year knocked out power to 100,000
residents and businesses in northwestern Queens and also
affected Westchester County.

The company has to compensate for millions of dollars in lost
revenues, repair costs, reimbursements to customers for spoiled
food and possibly penalties imposed by state regulators, the
report said.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. -- http://www.conedison.com-- through  
its subsidiaries, provides energy-related products and services
to its customers in the U.S.  The company's subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., provides electric
service in New York City and Westchester County; gas service in
Manhattan, the Bronx and parts of Queens, and Westchester; and
steam service in parts of Manhattan.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Payouts Released to Sexual Abuse Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The first monetary awards were distributed to victims of sexual
abuse in the class action settlement with the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Covington, according to WAVE3.

The amounts awarded from the $85 million settlement weren't
revealed due to privacy concerns, said attorney plaintiff
attorney Stan Chesley of Cincinnati.

The settlement got initial court approval in July 2005.  On
Jan. 31, Special Judge John Potter finally approved the
settlement, which will benefit 361 victims.  It calls for
victims to receive between $5,000 and $1 million based on the
severity and duration of the abuse they suffered.

                          Case Background

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

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

                     Hearing on Attorneys' Fees

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

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

              Appeal on Disclosure of Victims' Info

Meanwhile, attorneys for the plaintiff filed an appeal on Sept.
8 against a court ruling ordering the release of personal
information about the victims (Class Action Reporter, April 12,
2006).

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

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

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

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

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


ESPEED INC: N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action against eSpeed, Inc.,
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has been dismissed with prejudice.

On Feb. 15, 2005, Mircuz Partners, LLC filed a purported class
action complaint against:

     -- the company,
     -- Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., and certain affiliated
        entities, as well as
     -- Howard Lutnick and Lee Amaitis,

on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of the
company from Aug. 12, 2003 to July 1, 2004.  The suit alleges
that the company made "material false positive statements during
the class period" and violated certain provisions to the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules
and regulations thereunder.  

Two similar class action complaints were subsequently filed.  On
April 8, 2005, the court consolidated the three actions as, "In
re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CIV 2091."  
Subsequently, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.

On Sept. 27, 2005, lead plaintiffs served their consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The amended complaint named
Howard Lutnick, Lee Amaitis, Jeffrey Chertoff, Joseph Noviello
and eSpeed, Inc. as defendants in the action.

The amended complaint alleged inter alia that defendants made
material misstatements regarding eSpeed's Price Improvement
product in violation of certain provisions to the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules
and regulations thereunder.

Defendants filed and served their motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint on Nov. 16, 2005.  
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed by February
2006.

On April 3, 2006, the court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  
The court granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead within 20 days
from the date of the opinion and order.

By subsequent stipulation and order, plaintiffs had until May 3,
2006 to submit an amended pleading.  Plaintiffs chose not to
file an amended complaint.  

In May 2006, the court entered a Judgment in the company favor.
The time for the plaintiffs to appeal the Judgment has expired,
and the case has been dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "In Re Espeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-02091-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         212-867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
         rljacobs@pipeline.com;

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com; and

     (3) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
         1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Joseph De Simone of Mayer, Brown,
Rowe & Maw, LLP, (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, E-mail:
jdesimone@mayerbrownrowe.com.


FEDEX GROUND: Judge Denies Request for Drivers' Tax Returns
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein issued an
order denying FedEx Ground/Home Delivery's motion to compel the
release of tax returns of drivers in the class action, "In re
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices
Litigation, MDL-1700," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana.

Judge Nuechterlein denied the request for the release of tax
returns from the 150 named plaintiff-drivers nationwide who are
contending in a class action that FedEx Ground's 14,000 drivers
have been misclassified by the company as independent
contractors.

The judge ruled that the drivers would not be required presently
to turn over to company lawyers any of their tax returns or
financial records because they are private and not relevant to
issues now being determined.

According to the ruling, the court was not persuaded by FedEx's
argument that the tax returns reflected the drivers' "subjective
belief" that they were independent contractors.  To the
contrary, the court found that the drivers followed FedEx's lead
by filing their taxes using the 1099s provided by the company.

The court also ruled that whether the drivers "believed" they
were independent contractors is not the determining basis of
their legal status.  While tax filing may ultimately bear on
damages, the court said it did not believe that "the income,
profits, and expenses" of the drivers to be "interwoven with
liability."

The court also rejected FedEx's claim that the tax returns were
relevant to whether the drivers were proper class
representatives or any other issue related to class
certification.

The Magistrate's decision is the latest to go against FedEx
Ground as it defends itself against dozens of complaints in
state and federal agencies and courts alleging that it
intentionally misclassifies drivers as independent contractors
as a way of shifting the burden of a wide array of operating
expenses to the drivers.

Just last month, a Massachusetts state agency found a FedEx
Ground driver was actually an employee -- not a true independent
contractor -- and as such was entitled to the unemployment
benefits he had been denied upon separation.

Since December 2005, FedEx Ground has been assessed nearly $100
million by courts and/or government agencies regarding its
employment practices relative to the drivers.

For more information, visit http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Underway in Urethane Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated antitrust class action
against Huntsman International, LLC, and several other
defendants, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene
diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether
polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed Aug. 23, 2004.  The case is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  Bayer recently announced that
it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs,
which is subject to approval by the court.  Class certification
discovery is underway in these consolidated cases.

The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum
with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Nunzio Alioto of Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott,
         LLP, 2280 Union Street, San Francisco, CA 94123, Phone:
         415-563-7200, Fax: 415-346-0679, E-mail:
         malioto@tatp.com; and

     (2) Arthur N. Bailey of Arthur N. Bailey & Associates, 111
         West Second Street, Suite 4500, Jamestown, NY 14701,
         Phone: 716-664-2967, Fax: 716-664-2983, E-mail:
         artlaw@alltel.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Floyd R. Finch, Jr. of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin,
         LLP - Kansas City, 4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O.
         Box 219777, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-983-8128,
         Fax: 816-983-8080, E-mail: ffinch@blackwellsanders.com;
         and

    (ii) James S. Jardine of Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, 36 South
         State Street, Suite 1400, Salt Lake City, UT 84111,
         Phone: 801-323-3337, Fax: 801-532-7543, E-mail:
         jjardine@rqn.com.


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

In May and June 2001, certain of the company's present
directors, along with the company, certain of its former
directors, certain of its present and former officers and its
underwriters, were named as defendants in nine class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Plaintiffs and the alleged classes they
seek to represent include present and former stockholders of the
company.  

The complaints generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on, among other
things, the dissemination of statements allegedly containing
material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the
commissions received by the underwriters of the initial public
offering and follow-on public offering of the company as well as
failure to disclose the existence of purported agreements by the
underwriters with some of the purchasers in these offerings to
buy additional shares of the company's stock subsequently in the
open market at pre-determined prices above the initial offering
prices.  Plaintiffs seek for themselves and the alleged class
members an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.  

The claims in these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes -- together with claims against other issuers and
underwriters -- before one judge in the Southern District of New
York federal court.

In April 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
against these defendants -- generally alleging the same
violations -- and also refers to alleged misstatements or
omissions that relate to the recommendations regarding the
company's stock by analysts employed by the underwriters.

In June and July 2002, defendants, including the company
defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.  The company's motion was denied in its
entirety in an opinion dated Feb. 19, 2003.  

In July 2003, a committee of the company's board of directors
approved a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this
matter.  

The settlement would provide for, among other things, a release
of the company and of the individual defendants -- who had been
previously dismissed without prejudice -- for the wrongful
conduct alleged in the amended complaint.  

The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may
have against its underwriters.

Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement will be
borne by the company's insurers.  The complete terms of the
proposed settlement is on file with the Court.

The court overseeing the litigation granted preliminary approval
of the settlement in February 2005 subject to a change in the
terms to bar cross-claims by defendant underwriters for
contribution, but not for indemnification or otherwise.

The parties to the settlement agreed on revised language to
effectuate the changes regarding contribution/indemnification
claims requested by the court and it has accepted such language.
A final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24,
2006.  The court has not yet ruled on the settlement.

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


INTERSECTIONS INC: Plaintiff Appeals Order in Pa. Credit Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the class action, "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform,
Capital One Services, Inc. and Intersections, Inc.," is
appealing an order in the case by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Filed on Dec. 23, 2005, the action alleges that the Credit
Inform credit monitoring service marketed by Capital One and
provided by the company violates certain procedural requirements
under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act (PA CSA).

Plaintiff contends that the company and Capital One are "credit
repair organizations" under the CROA and "credit services
organizations" under the PA CSA.  

The suit seeks certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased such services from defendants within
the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.  It
also seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's action.  
On June 12, 2006, the U.S. District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss and stayed the case on the grounds that the
plaintiff is required to submit her claims to mandatory
arbitration.

On June 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court granted the
plaintiff's motion to stay the case pending an interlocutory
appeal of the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  

The plaintiff has filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to file an appeal of
the District Court's order, and the plaintiff's petition is
pending.

The suit is "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-06729-JG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James a. Francis of Francis & Mailman, PC, Land Title
         Building, 19TH Floor, 100 S. Broad Street,
         Philadelphia, PA 19110, Phone: 215-735-8600, Fax: 215-
         940-8000, E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com; and

     (2) David A. Searles of Donovan Searles, LLC, 1845 Walnut
         St., STE. 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-732-
         6067, Fax: 215-732-8060, E-mail:
         dsearles@donovansearles.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) David R. Fine of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Nicholson,
         Graham, LLP, 17 North Second Street, 18TH Floor,
         Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507, Phone: 717-231-4500, Fax:
         717-231-4501, E-mail: dfine@klng.com; and

    (ii) Mark A. Aronchick of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin,
         One Logan Sq., 27TH Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
         215-568-6200, E-mail: maronchick@hangley.com.


IOWA: Cable TV Subscribers Plan to Ask Refund for Franchise Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for cable television subscribers who recently sued
seven cities over alleged illegal franchise fees is planning to
seek a class-action refund on behalf of all subscribers forced
to pay the fee, reports say.

Richard Davidson of the Lane & Waterman law firm --
http://www.l-wlaw.com/-- in Davenport, is hoping that a ruling  
in a suit by a Des Moines woman over gas and electric utility
fees could be extended to the franchise fees.  Iowa's Supreme
Court in May certified as a class action a lawsuit filed by Lisa
Kragnes against the city of Des Moines in Polk County District
Court.

Recently, lawsuits were filed in district court against
Waterloo, Bettendorf, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Des Moines,
Dubuque and Sioux City by plaintiffs questioning the legality of
the franchise fee.  The seven cities charge cable television
subscribers a fee of up to 5 percent and place the money in
their general fund, the petitions say.

Mr. Davidson said if the plaintiffs are successful in proving
that the franchise fees are illegal, his clients will seek a
class-action refund going back as far as five years.


IPASS INC: Calif. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class
action filed against iPass, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers.

The case, "In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-
00228-MHP," was pending in the U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, and involved allegations that the company and several
of its officers and directors had violated the federal
securities laws.

In a ruling, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court
in San Francisco found that the complaint fell short of the
requirements for setting forth a claim under the federal
securities laws.  The court entered a final judgment on Sept. 7,
2006.

The effect of this order is to terminate the federal class
action litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

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


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Musical Activity Center for Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
LeapFrog Enterprises Inc., of Emeryville, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 186,000 units of Learn-Around Playground
Activity Center.

The company said a child's arm can become caught in the activity
center's plastic tube, posing a risk of injury to children.

LeapFrog has received 145 reports of children's arms becoming
caught in the plastic tube, resulting in 54 reports of minor
scratches and bruises.

The Learn-Around Playground is a multi-colored, plastic musical
activity center for young children ages 6 to 36 months.  It
includes a Slide and Sing alphabet panel and a ball drop on the
left side, a Number Rock musical keyboard in the center, and a
Flying Rhymes airplane, pop-up LittleLeap, and "smart" book on
the right side.  "Leap Frog Baby" is printed on the activity
center.  Item number 10200 is written underneath the activity
table below "Made in China."

These Learn-Around Playground activity centers were manufactured
in China and are being sold at department stores and toy stores
nationwide, on the Web site: http://www.leapfrog.com,and other  
online retailers from July 2005 through August 2006 for about
$60.

Picture of the recalled playground activity center:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06253.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the recalled activity center
away from children and contact LeapFrog for a free repair kit.

For additional information, contact LeapFrog at (800) 701-5327
between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, and between
7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Saturday, or visit http://www.leapfrog.com


MCKESSON CORP: $960M Securities Suit Settlement Tax-Deductible
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruled that McKesson Corp.'s
$960 million placed into an escrow account for a securities
class action settlement approved in February is fully tax-
deductible.

Earlier this year, the wholesale drug distributor placed about
$960.5 million into an escrow account for the settlement of the
securities class action "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 99-CV-20743." (Class Action Reporter, April
4, 2006).

In a first quarter filing with securities regulators, the
company said Bear Stearns appealed the final judgment in the
suit.  It is challenging portions of the settlement that
restrict its ability to assert some claims against the company
in the future.

The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corp. and HBO &
Co. in Atlanta resulting in an entity called McKesson HBOC, Inc.  
Beginning on June 29, 1999.

These actions were subsequently consolidated, and the plaintiffs
proceeded to file a series of amended complaints.  On Feb. 15,
2002, plaintiffs filed their third amended consolidated
complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint proxy
statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the
McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC
between Jan. 20, 1997 and Jan. 12, 1999, or acquired publicly
traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between Sept. 18,
1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson securities on
Nov. 27, 1998 and Jan. 22, 1999.  Named defendants include
McKesson HBOC, certain present and former directors and/or
officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or HBOC, Bear Stearns
and Arthur Andersen LLP.  Compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount were sought.

In January 2005, the company agreed to settle the class action
that arose from an alleged accounting fraud at HBO & Co., which
was acquired in 1999.  

The suit is "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 99-CV-20743," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York), 170 E. 61st Street,
         Second Floor, New York, NY, 10021, Phone: 212.688.0782,
         Fax: 212.688.0783, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (3) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212.554.1400, Fax: 212.554.1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com; and

     (4) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
         92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
         blbg@blbglaw.com.

Representing the company are James E. Lyons, Jonathan J. Lerner
of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Four Embarcadero Ctr.,
Ste. 3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 984-6400.


MIVA INC: Click Fraud Lawsuit in Arkansas to Go into Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., is in the process of
scheduling a mediation session for the purported class action,
"Lane's Gifts LLC, et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., et al."

On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed in Miller
County Circuit Court, Arkansas, against that company and others
in its sector by:

     -- Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC,
     -- U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,
     -- Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and
     -- Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

The Complaint names 11 search engines, web publishers, or
performance marketing companies as defendants, including the
company.  It alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
civil conspiracy.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the allegation
that the plaintiffs have been charged for clicks on their
advertisements that were not made by bona fide customers.  The
lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals
that allegedly "were overcharged for [pay per click]
advertising," and seeks monetary damages, restitution,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other remedies.

Two plaintiffs -- Savings 4 Merchants and U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc. -- voluntarily dismissed themselves from
the case, without prejudice, on April 4, 2005.  The company
believes it has no contractual or other relationship with either
of the remaining plaintiffs.

On Sept. 7, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Arkansas Rule 12(b) (6) of the Civil
Procedure for failure to state claims on which relief may be
granted.  

On Sept. 14, 2005, the company timely filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Arkansas Rule 12(b) (2) of the Civil Procedure for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court has not yet ruled on
these motions.

Google Inc. and certain other co-defendants in the case have a
reached settlement terms with the plaintiffs.  The court has
granted conditional approval to the class settlement between
these parties.  The court held a fairness hearing on July 24,
2006 and has taken the review of the settlement terms under
advisement.  The company anticipates that the court will issue a
final order approving the settlement with Google.

The court has stayed the case as to the remaining defendants,
including company, and has ordered the parties to mediation.  
The company is currently in the process of scheduling the
mediation, according to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing
for the period ended June 30, 2006.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618,
         Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870)
         773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com;  

     (2) Stephen F. Malouf, Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf,
         P.C., 3506 Cedar Springs Road, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone:
         (214) 969-7373; and

     (3) James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 Washington NW, Post
         Office Box 938, Camden, AR 71701, Phone: 870-836-7328,
         Fax: 870-837-2405, E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) L. Wren Autrey and Ned A. Stewart, Autrey Autrey &
         Stewart, 501 East Sixth St., P.O. Box 960, Texarkana,
         AR 75504, Phone: 870-773-5684, Fax: 870-773-2900, E-
         mail: lwautrey@cs.com; and

    (ii) Richard Hays. Rick Holcomb and David J. Stewart, Alston
         & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree St.,
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000.


MIVA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., filed a renewed motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
action were filed, alleging that the company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of
MIVA.  

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
the company's investors who purchased company stock between Jan.
5, 2004 and May 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding the goodwill associated with a
recent acquisition and certain material weaknesses in its
internal controls.

Plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions in order to keep its
stock price high to allow certain individual defendants to sell
stock at an artificially inflated price.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints.  In response to
the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits under the case as, "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities
Litigation," selected lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated cases, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint.  

The company and the other defendants then had until Sept. 6,
2005 to file an answer and/or a motion to dismiss.  The company
and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept.
8, 2005.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The court granted plaintiffs leave to submit a further
amended complaint, which was filed on Jan. 17, 2006.  On Feb. 9,
2006, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

The suit is "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Chris A. Barker of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 300 W.
         Platt St., Suite 150, Tampa, FL 33606, Phone: 813/489-
         1001, Fax: 813/489-1008, E-mail:
         cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and

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

Representing the defendant is Joseph G. Foster, Porter, Wright,
Morris & Arthur, P.A., 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300,
Naples, FL 34108, Phone: 239/593-2900, Fax: 239/593-2990, E-
mail: jfoster@porterwright.com.


MIVA INC: Still Faces Calif. I-Net Gambling, Unfair Trade Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., continues to face a
putative class action that was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Francisco.

The suit was filed by Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight on
behalf of themselves, all other similarly situated, and/or for
the general public.  The suit also names other Internet search
sites and service providers.

The complaint alleges that acceptance of advertising for
Internet gambling violates several California laws and
constitutes an unfair business practice.

The complaint seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and
disgorgement as well as an injunction preventing the company
from accepting paid advertising for online gambling.  

Three of the company's industry partners, each of whom is a co-
defendant in the lawsuit, have asserted indemnification claims
against the company for costs incurred as a result of such
claims arising from transactions with the company, according to
the company's Aug. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "Mario Cisneros et al., v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Case
No. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court in
San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.

Representing the plaintiffs is Ira P. Rothken of The Rothken Law
Firm, 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520, San Rafael, CA 94903,
Phone: (415) 924-4250, E-mail: feedback@techfirm.com, Web site:
http://www.techfirm.com/

Representing the company are David T. Biderman, Robert Harvey
Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert Gidari,
Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer, Thomas P.
Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C. Rawls,
David O. Stewart.


MIVA INC: Still Faces Payday Advance Click Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the purported class
action filed MIVA, Inc., formerly Findwhat.com, Inc., over
allegations of click fraud.

On March 10, 2006, Payday Advance Plus, Inc. filed a putative
class action against the company and Advertising.com, Inc.  The
complaint alleges that Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network
distribution partner, engaged in click fraud to increase
revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and
participation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who have allegedly been overcharged by the
defendants and seeks monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other
remedies.  

On May 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, arguing that plaintiff failed to raise
any colorable claims against MIVA.  Advertising.com filed a
similar motion.  The court has taken the motions under
advisement and has not yet issued a ruling, according to the
company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01923-JGK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John G.
Koeltl.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robin Bronzaft Howald and Robert
M. Zabb of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (917) 510-0009
and (310)-201-9150, Fax: (646) 366-0895 and (310)-201-9160, E-
mail: hobbit99@aol.com and info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the company is Karl Geercken of Alston & Bird, LLP,
(NYC), 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-210-9400,
Fax: 212-210-9444, E-mail: kgeercken@alston.com.


NATURAL HEALTH: Refutes Stock Fraud Claims Filed in Tex. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. refutes claims in a putative class
action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.

The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed the suit purportedly on behalf of
certain purchasers of the company's common stock from March 31,
2003 through Aug. 11, 2006 to recover damages caused by alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The complaint charges that Natural Health and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act by issuing materially false and
misleading statements about key characteristics of the company's
multi-level marketing business model, violations of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, and the company's financial
condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period
the company:

     (1) reported revenues and earnings were artificially
         inflated due to phantom sales;

     (2) internal controls and procedures were inadequate and
         enabled and assisted the defendants in engaging in
         improper transactions;

     (3) earnings were significantly impacted from returns by
         its distributors which reflected the true market
         penetration and acceptance of the company's products;
         and

     (4) the company's financial statements filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission were not prepared in
accordance with GAAP.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1191

The suit is "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01654," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Christopher S. Hinton of The Hinton Law Firm, 350 Fifth
         Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 646/723-
         3377, Fax: 212/202-3827; and

     (3) Phillip Kim and Laurence Rosen both of The Rosen Law
         Firm, 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118,
         Phone: 212/686-1060, Fax: 214/202-3827.


NORBOURG GROUP: Court Certifies Investors Suit Against CEO, AMF
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Superior Court Justice Pierre Jasmin certified a class
action by investors of Norbourg mutual funds, according to Don
Macdonald of The Gazette.

The court has authorized the lawsuit to go ahead against:

     -- company chief executive Vincent Lacroix;

     -- Quebec's financial regulator, the Autorite des marches
        financiers;

     -- former employees, Serge Beaugre and David Simoneau, and
        a business associate of Mr. Lacroix, Felicien Souka;

     -- accounting firm Beaulieu, Deschambault and one of the
        firm's partners, Remi Deschambault; and

     -- Northern Trust Co. Canada, the securities custodian used
        by Norbourg.

The judge refused to authorize class action against four
parties: Claude Boisvenue, a businessman who sold two financial
services firms to Norbourg, accounting firms KPMG LLP and
PriceWaterhouseCoopers and trust-services provider Concentra.  
KPMG and Concentra were excluded because they provided services
to some mutual funds but not others.

The suit accuses Mr. Lacroix of fraud, and the AMF of
negligence.  The financial regulator is accused of not acting
early enough to protect investors, according to investors'
lawyer Jacques Larochelle.  

Plaintiffs are seeking CA$130 million in loses after the
discrepancy was discovered and the company filed for bankruptcy.

The lead plaintiff in the suit is Norbourg investor Wilhelm
Pellemans who represents about 9,200 clients of the Norbourg
group.


PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Considers Consolidation of Stock Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to consolidate several securities
fraud class actions filed against PXRE Group, Ltd.

Several class actions were filed against:

     -- the company,
     -- Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer,
        and
     -- John Modin, the company's former chief financial officer

in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who
purchased the publicly traded securities of PXRE between July
28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006.

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical
claims and alleges that during the purported class period
certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business,
prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase
PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts:

      -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
         Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

      -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
         loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best.

Further, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted
facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates
for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable basis.  The
class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.  

A motion to consolidate all of the class actions into a single
proceeding is currently pending before the court.

The first identified complaint is "Stephen Goldberger, et al. v.
PXRE Group Limited, et al., Case No. 06-CV-3410," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

     (5) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com;

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

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

     (8) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (9) Yourman Alexander & Parekh, LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd.,
         Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, Phone:
         310.725.6400, Fax: 310.725.6420.


SINA CORP: Continues to Face N.Y. Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sina Corp. and certain of its officers and directors remain
defendants in a consolidated securities class action that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, following the company's announcement of anticipated
financial results for the first quarter of 2005 ending on March
31, 2005.

The suit, some filed starting February 2005, seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws from
Sept. 26, 2004 to Feb. 7, 2005.  It alleges violations of the
federal securities laws through the issuance of false or
misleading statements during the class period covered.

On July 1, 2005, Judge Naomi Buchwald consolidated the cases
under the caption, "In re SINA Corp. Securities Litigation," and
appointed:

     -- City of Sterling Heights General Employee's Retirement
        System,
     -- City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
        System, and
     -- Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement
        System (collectively the MAPERS Funds Group)

as lead plaintiff.

The MAPERS Funds Group filed an amended consolidated complaint
on Sept. 9, 2005.  

The company reported no material development in the case in its
regulatory filing for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re SINA Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-02154-NRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Samuel Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58
         South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         srudman@lerachlaw.com and malba@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Robert I. Harwood and Samuel Kenneth Rosen of Wechsler
         Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York,
         NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400, Fax: 212 753-3630, E-
         mail: rharwood@whesq.com and srosen@whesq.com.

Representing the defendants are, John T.A. Rosenthal and Joshua
M. Cutler of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 666 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10103, Phone: (212) 506-5000, Fax: (212)
506-5151, E-mail: jrosenthal@orrick.com and jcutler@orrick.com.


SPRINT CORP: Kansas Court Okays Benney-Lundberg Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Daniel A. Duncan of the Wyandotte County, Kansas
has granted final approval on Sept. 12 to the settlement in the
matter:

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

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

The judge also approved the payment of $5 million in legal fees
to the plaintiffs' attorneys, according to The Kansas City Star.

Beneficiaries under the settlement include up to 43 million
former and current Sprint wireless customers.  No more than
450,000 had filed claims as of Sept. 12, the report said.

The Washington Legal Foundation previously asked the court to
defer approval of the legal fees until they can be properly
evaluated.  Its objection centers on the proposed plaintiffs'
attorneys fees of $5 million.  The group said the fee should be
limited to no more than 25 percent of the value of the benefits
claimed.  

The settlement received preliminary approval in February.

                          Class Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Benney, Plaintiffs allege that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Settlement Terms

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

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


TOBACCO LITIGATION: "McLaughlin" Certification Ruling Delayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
delayed a decision on whether to grant class action status in
the suit, "McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al." to
determine whether a findings against the tobacco industry by
another federal judge should apply to the case, reports say.
   
Lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab alleged in the suit that cigarette
manufacturers violated the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt
Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead smokers into thinking
light cigarettes were safer than regular smokes when the
companies knew otherwise.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;
     -- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;
     -- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;
     -- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and
     -- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco
        (Investments) Ltd.

At a hearing on Sept. 13, plaintiff attorney Michael D. Hausfeld
presented a conclusion by plaintiffs' expert witnesses that 90
percent of the smokers in the potential class purchased light
cigarettes largely because of health concerns.  

The plaintiffs are asking between $120 billion and $200 billion
in damages.  Mr. Hausfeld said that because the suit was filed
under civil provisions of RICO Act, those damages could be
automatically tripled, up to $600 billion.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein has cautioned the suit could stumble
over unresolved questions about the size of the class, the
plaintiffs' state of mind and possible damages, according to
Associated Press.

                    D.C. Court Ruling

On Aug. 17, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled
that PM USA, Altria Group and the other cigarette companies
violated civil provisions of RICO Act.  The court refused to
order the companies to pay $10 billion for a smoking cessation
program or $4 billion for a "counter-marketing" youth
advertising program sought by the government but found, among
other things, the companies must remove descriptors such as
"light" or "ultra light" from cigarette packages and publish
statements concerning smoking and health issues.

Closing arguments came to a conclusion on June 9, 2005.  As
ordered by the court, the parties filed post-trial submissions
through Sept. 11, 2005 to assist the court in deciding the case.   
In 1999, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the
Department of Justice filed suit against the domestic tobacco
industry (i) seeking a medical cost recovery for federal funds
spent to treat alleged tobacco-related illnesses and (ii)
asserting RICO violations.  The medical cost recovery claims
were dismissed in 2000 and only the Civil RICO claim remains.

On Feb. 4, 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1
decision, holding that disgorgement is not an available remedy
under the Civil RICO statute at issue.  On April 20, 2005, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the
Department of Justice's request to reconsider the Feb. 4, 2005
decision.  However, on July 18, 2005, the government filed its
petition for certiorari seeking further review on this issue by
the U.S. Supreme Court.   The U.S. Supreme Court denied the
Government's petition for certiorari on Sept. 17, 2005.

The Schwab suit is Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under
Judge Jack B. Weinstein with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,  
         North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-
         3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:   
         mabelasic@jonesday.com;  

     (2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup  
         Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,  
         Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:  
         peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of  
         Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il  
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;
  
     (3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth  
         Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-
         5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or  
         Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:  
         212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;   
         and

     (4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington  
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.

Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,  
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W.  
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005; and William P.  
Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th  
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-
337-8090, E-mail: wpb@ftllaw.com.   


TRIANGLE TUBE: Recalls Water Heaters to Repair Defective Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triangle Tube/Phase III, of Blackwood, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 3,000 units of Delta Performance or Delta
Performance Plus Series Combination water heaters.

The company said the burner plate and flue hood seal on the
water heaters can fail due to an improper seal causing a leak of
flue gases and carbon monoxide.  This poses the risk of carbon
monoxide poisoning to consumers inside of the house.

Triangle Tube has received one report of a flue leak with the
recalled Combination Water Heater during installation.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled Delta Performance or Delta Performance Plus Series
Combination Water Heaters operate on natural or propane gas.  
The water heaters are white and rectangular.  "Triangle Tube" is
written on the silver-colored control panel.  "Delta" is printed
on the front of the water heater.  The burner is located under a
white or gray cover that protrudes outward at the bottom front
of the heater.  The models and serial numbers included in this
recall are listed below.  The model and serial numbers are
located on the rating plate on either the front or the right
side of the water heater.

Models                  Serial Numbers
PG-25
PG-30
PG-35                      1148
PG-40                      through
PG-45                      6203
PG PLUS-25
PG PLUS-30
PG PLUS-35
PG PLUS-40
PG PLUS-45

These water heaters were manufactured in the U.S. and are being
sold at plumbing and heating wholesale companies to independent
plumbing and heating contractors from August 2001 to January
2006 for about $3,500.

Pictures of the recalled water heaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06252a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06252b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
water heaters and contact Triangle Tube to schedule a free
repair.

For more information, contact Triangle Tube at (800) 856-6271
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
company's Web site: http://www.triangletube.com


VIACOM INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Complaint in S.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viacom, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative collective class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Nov. 16, 2005, Katherine Corthon filed a complaint on behalf
of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included investments
in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since Nov. 15, 2003.

Plaintiff has filed her claim against the company, the Viacom
Retirement Committee, Keith M. Holtz, Barbara Mickowski, Dan
Satterthwaite, Phillip P. Dauman, Sumner M. Redstone, Richard
Bressler, Michael D. Fricklas, John L. Muething, Linda Griego,
Jackie M. Clegg, John F. Antioco, Peter A. Bassi, Robert A.
Bowman, Gary J. Fernandes, Mel Karmazin and unnamed "John Doe"
members of the Viacom and Blockbuster Retirement Committees.

The suit claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, recovery of actual damages, court costs, attorney's
fees, a constructive trust, restoration of lost profits to the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and an injunction.

The suit is "Corthon v. Viacom, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
09685-DLC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Denise L. Cote.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Olimpio Lee Squitieri of
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: (212)-421-6553, E-
mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael Allen Birrer, David Steven Coale and Peggy
         Glenn-Summitt of Carrington, Coleman, Sloman &
         Blumenthal, L.L.P., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500,
         Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 855-3113, (214) 855-3000
         and (214) 855-3072, Fax: (214) 855-1333, E-mail:
         mbirrer@ccsb.com and psummitt@ccsb.com; and

     (2) Brian Howard Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, (New
         York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 848-4000, Fax: (212) 848-7179, E-mail:
         bpolovoy@shearman.com.


WILLIAM LYON: Del. Court Approves Stockholder Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County approved a settlement in the consolidated
stockholder class action, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092"

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed, purportedly
on behalf of the public stockholders of the company, challenging
the Tender Offer and challenging related actions of the company
and the directors of the company.  

"Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil Action
No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and "Michael Crady, et
al. v. General William Lyon, et al., Civil Action No. 2017-N"
was filed on March 21, 2006 (the Delaware Complaints).

On March 21, 2006, plaintiff in the "Brown" action filed a first
amended complaint.  The Delaware Complaints name the company and
the directors of the company as defendants.

These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in
connection with the tender offer and other related corporate
activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  The members of the
Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and
Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have determined
that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006 to April
28, 2006.

On April 23, 2006, Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
Stipulation of Settlement, and the Delaware Chancery Court
approved the settlement on Aug. 9, 2006.

Newport, California-based William Lyon Homes, incorporated in
July 1999, -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily engaged  
in the design, construction and sale of single-family detached
and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada. The
company offers a range of homes designed to meet the specific
needs of each of its markets, although it primarily emphasizes
sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets.


WILLIAM LYON: Court Stays Calif. Stock Suit Over Tender Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Lyon Homes, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class
action that was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange, challenging the tender offer by
one of the company's stockholders.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was
filed.  On April 5, 2006, plaintiff in the Alaska Electrical
action filed an amended complaint.  

The complaint in the California Action names the company and
certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
to the public stockholders.

Plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender Offer.
Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the California
Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the company
filed a motion to stay the California Action.  On July 5, 2006,
the California Court granted the company's motion to stay the
California Action.

Newport, California-based William Lyon Homes, incorporated in
July 1999, -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily engaged  
in the design, construction and sale of single-family detached
and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.  The
company offers a range of homes designed to meet the specific
needs of each of its markets, although it primarily emphasizes
sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer markets.


WILLIAMS COS: Oct. Fairness Hearing Set for Derivative Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matters:

      -- "J. Wright Williamson and Theophilus Herbst, Jr.,
         Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant The
         Williams Companies, Inc., v. Keith e. Bailey, et al.,
         Case No. Case No. CJ 2002-1144;" and

      -- "Philip Hummel and Douglas Miller, Derivatively on
         Behalf of Nominal Defendant The Williams Companies,
         Inc., v. Steven J. Malcolm, et al., Case No. CJ 2002-
         7335."

The hearing will be held before Judge Rebecca Nightingale at the
District Court of Tulsa County, Tulsa County Courthouse, 500 S.
Denver, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

The case covers all shareholders of The Williams Companies, Inc.
as of Aug. 16, 2006.

On or about Feb. 27, 2002, plaintiff J. Wright Williamson
commenced the action captioned, "Williamson v. Bailey, et al.,
Case No. CJ 2002-7335."  In his Petition, Mr. Williamson,
derivatively on behalf of Williams, asserted claims against
certain of the defendants, all of whom were directors and/or
officers of Williams, for, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with certain transactions
involving Williams' former subsidiary Williams Communications
Group, Inc.  

The individual defendants were Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman,
Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green, W. R.
Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch,
Frank T. MacInnis, Peter C. Meinig, Gordon R. Parker, Janice D.
Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams, present or former directors of
Williams; Williams was listed as a nominal defendant.

The Williamson Action was based on facts and circumstances
related to those alleged in "Cali v. The Williams Companies,
Inc., Case No. 02-cv-72," a securities fraud class action then
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

On or about May 3, 2002, plaintiff Theophilus Herbst, Jr.
commenced the action captioned "Herbst v. Bailey, et al., Case
No. CJ 2002-2505."  The Herbst Action was substantially similar
to the Williamson Action.

The individual defendants were Keith E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman,
Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank, William E. Green,
W. R. Howell, James C. Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A.
Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis, Peter C. Meinig, Gordon R. Parker,
Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams, present or former
directors of Williams; Williams was listed as a nominal
defendant.

Accordingly, by an order dated Aug. 1, 2002, the court
consolidated the Williamson and Herbst Actions and stayed the
consolidated action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss
the federal class action, "Cali v. The Williams Companies, Inc."

On or about Dec. 26, 2002, plaintiff Philip Hummel commenced the
action captioned Hummel v. Malcolm, et al., Case No. CJ 2002-
7335.  The individual defendants were Steven J. Malcolm, Keith
E. Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank,
William E. Green, Ira D. Hall, William R. Howell, James C.
Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis,
Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams,
present or former directors of Williams; Williams was listed as
a nominal defendant.

In his Petition, Hummel, derivatively on behalf of Williams,
asserted claims against certain of the defendants, all of whom
were directors and/or officers of Williams, for, among other
things, breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with certain
energy trading transactions.  The Hummel action was based on
facts and circumstances related to those alleged in the federal
class action, "Cali v. The Williams Companies, Inc."

On or about Dec. 26, 2002, plaintiff Douglas Miller commenced
the action, "Miller v. Malcolm, et al., Case No. CJ 2002-7337."  
The individual defendants were Steven J. Malcolm, Keith E.
Bailey, Hugh M. Chapman, Glenn A. Cox, Thomas H. Cruikshank,
William E. Green, Ira D. Hall, William R. Howell, James C.
Lewis, Charles M. Lillis, George A. Lorch, Frank T. MacInnis,
Gordon R. Parker, Janice D. Stoney, and Joseph H. Williams,
present or former directors of Williams; Williams was listed as
a nominal defendant.  The Miller action was substantially
similar to the Hummel action.

Accordingly, by an order dated July 29, 2003, the court
consolidated the Hummel and Miller Actions and stayed the
consolidated action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss
in the federal class action, "Cali v. The Williams Companies,
Inc."

The parties remained in contact during the duration of the stays
of the actions.  Following arms-length negotiations, the parties
came to an agreement to settle the actions, as reflected in the
Stipulation of Settlement between the parties filed in these
actions on Aug. 16, 2006.

For more details, contact Eric L. Zagar, Esq. of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: (610) 667-7706.


WILLIAMS COMMS: Okla. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
certified The Williams Communications Group, Inc. subclass in
the securities fraud suit, "In Re Williams Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-72-SPF-FHM."

The class is defined as all persons who purchased any of the
following securities of Williams Communications Group, Inc.
between July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, inclusive:

      -- WCG common stock;
  
      -- WCG 10.700% Senior Notes issued Sept. 6, 1999 and due
         Sept. 1, 2007;
  
      -- WCG 10.875% Senior Notes issued Sept. 6, 1999 and due
         Sept. 1, 2009;
  
      -- WCG 11.700% Senior Notes issued Aug. 8, 2000 and due
         Aug. 1, 2008; or
  
      -- WCG 11.875% Senior Notes issued Aug. 8, 2000 and due
         Aug. 1, 2010.

In the WCG subclass litigation, plaintiffs are former
shareholders of WCG who assert that certain defendants,
including:

     --former officers and directors of WCG;

     -- The Williams Companies, Inc. (WMB), WCG's former parent
        company;

     -- Keith E. Bailey, WMB's former chairman and chief
        executive officer; and

     -- Ernst & Young, LLP, WMB's and WCG's outside auditor,

during the period between July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, made
false and/or misleading statements regarding, among other
subjects, WCG's reported financial condition and prospects for
future success.  WCG itself is not a named defendant in the
action because it filed for bankruptcy protection on April 22,
2002.

Specifically, plaintiffs assert that certain former executive
officers of WCG:

     * Howard E. Janzen,
     * Scott E. Schubert,
     * Ken Kinnear,
     * Matthew W. Bross,
     * Bob F. McCoy,
     * Howard S. Kalika,
     * John C. Bumgarner, Jr., and
     * Frank M. Semple), as well as
     * WMB,
     * Bailey and
     * E&Y,

violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and further, that
all of the defendants except for E&Y violated Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendants vigorously
deny all of the plaintiffs' allegations of wrongdoing and deny
they have any liability whatsoever.

The parties disagree on both liability and damages in this case
and the court has not made any finding on either liability or
damages.  The issues on which the parties disagree include:

      -- whether statements made or facts allegedly omitted were
         false, material or otherwise actionable under the
         federal securities laws;

      -- the amount by which WCG securities were allegedly  
         artificially inflated (if at all) during the class
         period;

      -- the extent to which external factors, such as general
         market conditions, including the overall decline of the
         stock market in general and the telecommunications
         sector in particular before and during the Class
         Period, affected the price of WCG securities at various
         times during the class period;

      -- the extent (if any) to which the various matters that
         plaintiffs allege were materially false or misleading
         affected the price of WCG securities at various times
         during the class period; and

      -- the extent (if any) to which the various allegedly
         adverse material facts that plaintiffs allege were
         omitted affected the trading price of WCG securities at
         various times during the Class Period.

Plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent a class of persons and
entities who purchased WCG securities during the period between
July 24, 2000 and April 22, 2002, inclusive, and who were
damaged thereby.

On behalf of the class, they are seeking to establish liability
against the defendants and resulting damages.  Plaintiffs are
seeking a trial by jury to decide whether any of plaintiffs'
allegations are true, whether there is any liability on account
of such facts under the federal securities laws if proven, and
if so, the amount of damages to be paid, if any.

The court has not decided whether all or some of the defendants
are liable to the class or whether some or all of the defendants
will have to pay any amount of damages.

Defendants dispute that they made any materially false or
misleading statements or omissions that affected the price of
WCG securities at any time during the class period, or that they
did anything wrong, and as outlined below, have requested that
the court enter judgment in their favor.  It is therefore
defendants' position that they have no liability and owe no
damages.

Plaintiff Alex Meruelo was appointed by the court to serve as
the Lead Plaintiff and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman and Yourman, Alexander & Parekh have been appointed to
serve as co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

Thereafter, defendants filed various motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The court denied in part, and
granted in part, defendants' motions to dismiss.

Defendants then filed answers to the consolidated amended
complaint denying the material allegations set forth therein.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification.

On June 12, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
certified the action to proceed as a class action and certified
plaintiffs Alex Meruelo and Norman Kirkendoll as class
representatives pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  

This means that the final result of this action, whether
favorable to the class or favorable to defendants, will apply to
all class members who do not act to exclude themselves from the
class.

The court has made no decision regarding the merits of the class
claims.  On April 14, 2006, defendants filed four motions for
summary judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in
this action.

On May 12, 2006, plaintiffs filed their briefs in opposition to
defendants' motions for summary judgment, and on May 26, 2006,
defendants filed their reply briefs in further support of their
motions.  Separately, certain defendants filed motions seeking
to exclude opinion testimony from plaintiffs' damages expert.

Those motions have been fully briefed.  The court has not yet
ruled on defendants' motions for summary judgment or the motion
to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' damages expert.  On Aug.
11, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the appointment of
the law firm of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. to serve as additional co-
lead counsel and class counsel; the court has not yet ruled on
that motion.

Under the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order, entered by the court
on July 19, 2006, trial is scheduled to commence on Jan. 16,
2007.

For more details, contact:

     (1) Joshua H. Vinik, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300;

     (2) Behram V. Parekh, Esq. of Yourman Alexander & Parekh,
         LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach,
         CA 90066, Phone: (310) 725-6400; and

     (3) In re Williams Securities Litigation c/o Analytics,
         Inc., Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 2006, Chanhassen,
         MN 55317-2006, Phone: 1-866-535-1630.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BNS Holding Records 234 Active Claims in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
BNS Holding Inc. recorded 234 known asbestos-related claims open
and active as of July 31, 2005, according to the Company's
quarterly report, on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended June 30,
2006 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of May 1, 2006, the Company had 289 known open and active
asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2006)

The Company's BNS Co. subsidiary receives claims for toxic tort
injuries related to the alleged use of asbestos in pumps sold by
its former pump division, and other product liability claims
linked to the use of machine tools sold by BNS Co. divisions,
which were sold years ago.

Most of these suits are toxic tort claims resulting from the use
of small internal seals that allegedly had asbestos and were
used in small fluid pumps made by BNS Co.'s former pump
division, which was sold in 1992.

Through 2002, 44 claims were dismissed or settled for an
aggregate of about US$30,000,000 exclusive of attorney's fees.
In 2003, three claims were granted summary judgment, and one
claim was dismissed and closed.

In 2004, eight claims were granted summary judgment and were
closed, 144 claims were dismissed, and seven claims were settled
for US$500,000 each. In 2005, six claims were granted summary
judgment and were closed, 124 claims were dismissed and six were
settled for US$500,000 each. In October 2005, the Company and
its insurers settled two claims for an aggregate of
US$150,000,000.

As of July 31, 2006, six more claims were granted summary
judgment and were closed, five claims have been settled for an
aggregate of US$2,600,000, and 68 more claims have been
dismissed or agreed to dismiss.

BNS Holding Co., which is based in Middletown, Rhode Island,
became a holding company for BNS Co. in December 2004. BNS Co.
was engaged in the metrology business and the design,
manufacture, and sale of precision measuring tools and
instruments, and manual and computer controlled measuring
machines. BNS Co. sold its remaining assets in June 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $6.3M Liability in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation reported a US$6.3 million
asbestos-related liability in its consolidated financial
statements, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form
10-Q, for the period ended July 2, 2006 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate
liability through March 31, 2031 and March 31, 2082 to range
between US$5.5 million and US$19 million.

The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate
liability that is probable and estimable is through March 31,
2031 and ranges from US$5.5 million to US$6.5 million as of July
2, 2006.  

The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation like the "FAIR Act." Of
this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$250,000 over the next 12 months.

Based in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corp., through its two
business units, manufactures equipment for handling, lifting,
and positioning materials. Company products are sold to
construction, general manufacturing, and transportation markets,
which include hoists, chains, cranes, forged products, and
industrial components.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Rise to 578 in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation was named defendant in about 578
asbestos-related claims, in which about 23 are "malignant"
claims and about 555 were "non-malignant" claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period
ended July 2, 2006, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company categorizes certain diseases including mesothelioma,
lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis as "malignant"
claims. The Company categorizes all others of a less medically
serious nature as "non-malignant."

Parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former Company facilities, have
named the Company a defendant in civil actions.

Aside from the Company, the cases include as defendants other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.

As of April 2, 2006, the Company was named in 575 asbestos-
related bodily injury claims, of which 25 are "malignant" and
550 are "non-malignant." These claims are included in about 429
open cases. (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2006)

As of July 2, 2006 the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$7.2 million and a bodily injury
insurance receivable of US$5.6 million. This compares to a
previously recorded bodily injury reserve of US$7.3 million and
insurance receivable of US$5.5 million as of April 2, 2006.

Based in Seattle, Wash., Todd Shipyards Corp., through
subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains,
overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial vessels.
The U.S. Government, through the Navy and the Coast Guard,
accounts for more than 90 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Corp. Cases Increase to 1,605 in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation recorded about 1,605 pending cases involving
an aggregate of about 10,697 claimants alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing materials, as of July 31,
2006.

These materials were used in gaskets, both encapsulated and
otherwise, made or distributed by certain Company subsidiaries
for use in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company is involved in about 1,568
pending active asbestos-related cases with an aggregate of about
10,526 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006)

Moreover, the Company acquired companies to distribute its
products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
before acquisition. The Company said that many of its pending
cases related to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.

Exclusive of defense costs, total settlement costs for these
cases, some of which were filed over 18 years ago, have been
about US$3.5 million.  

To date, about 50 percent of the Company's costs related to
settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered
by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.

Based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corp. has five business
units: Recreational Accessories, RV & Trailer Products,
Packaging Systems, Industrial Specialties, and Energy Products.
The Company makes products from SUV and truck parts, packaging,
consumer products, tools, and agricultural equipment. The
Company was spun off from Metaldyne Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Riley's Suit v. DaimlerChrysler Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted
DaimlerChrysler Corporation's motion to stay an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Connie June Houseman-Riley.

Judge Joseph R. Slights III handed down the decision to C.A. No.
05C-06-295-JRS (ASB) on March 8, 2006.

On Jan. 28, 2005, Ms. Houseman-Riley filed the suit in Fulton
County, Ga. against defendants, including DaimlerChrysler,
seeking damages for mesothelioma. Her complaint alleged that she
was "exposed to asbestos fibers and dust emanating from the work
clothing and hair of her father which originated from the
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, and distributed
by the defendants."  

DaimlerChrysler has moved to dismiss or stay Ms. Houseman-
Riley's complaint. The Company contended that it has met its
burden of establishing that all factors weigh in favor of
Georgia as the preferred forum for Mr. Houseman-Riley to
litigate her claims.

The Company alleged that Georgia was appropriate since Ms.
Houseman-Riley chose to file her case in Georgia before filing
in Delaware.

The Court found that Ms. Houseman-Riley had a valid prior
pending suit in Georgia, that the parties and issues in that
suit were the same as the parties and issues in the Delaware
action, and that the Georgia court is capable of doing prompt
and complete justice.

The Court found DaimlerChrysler's stay appropriate.

Robert Jacobs and David Arndt of Jacobs & Crumplar P.A. in
Wilmington, Del., with John Spillane of Baron & Budd P.C. in
Dallas, Tex., represented Connie June Houseman-Riley.

Somers Price Jr., Daniel Wolcott Jr., and James Kron of Potter
Anderson & Corroon LLP in Wilmington, Del. represented
DaimlerChrysler Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Mobil in Bailey Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont, reversed a trial court
ruling in favor of Mobil Oil Corporation, Mobil Oil Refining
Corporation, and Mobil Chemical Co. Inc. in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed on behalf of James E. Bailey.

The Panel, comprised of Judges Steve McKeithen, David Gaultney,
and Charles Kreger, handed down the decision of Case No. 09-04-
225-CV on March 9, 2006. Judge Gaultney dissented.

Pearlie Bailey, individually and as administratrix of the Estate
of Mr. Bailey, James Thibodeaux, Kevin Bailey, Paul Bailey, and
Carolyn Bailey sued Mobil for Mr. Bailey's wrongful death from
lung cancer. The suit alleged that Mr. Bailey's death was caused
by exposure to asbestos on Mobil's premises.

The jury found that Mobil's negligence caused Mr. Bailey's death
and awarded US$350,000 in actual damages. Further, the jury
found the harm to Mr. Bailey resulted from malice and awarded
US$500,000 in exemplary damages.

Mr. Bailey worked at Mobil's Beaumont, Tex. facilities from 1966
to 1972 where his work assignments subjected him to asbestos
exposure. His work history also indicated he had been exposed to
asbestos at other work sites, including ships, furnaces, and as
an operator helper.  

The record also indicated that Mr. Bailey was a long-time
smoker, and that for the last 40 to 50 years of his life, he
smoked a full pack of cigarettes daily.  

The 60th District Court, Jefferson County denied Mobil's post-
trial motions and entered judgment on the verdict. From that
judgment, Mobil appealed.

Since the Appeals Court found that the Baileys presented no
evidence of probative force of medical causation, the Court
reversed the Trial Court's judgment, and rendered judgment in
favor of Mobil.

Reagan W. Simpson and Christian A. Garza of King & Spalding, LLP
in Houston, Tex., David P. Herrick of Herrick & Associates PC,
Gary D. Elliston of DeHay & Elliston in Dallas, Tex., Michael L.
Baker of Strong, Pipkin, Bissell & Ledyard LLP in Beaumont,
Tex., represented Mobil Oil Corp., Mobil Oil Refining Corp., and
Mobil Chemical Co. Inc.

Bryan O. Blevins, Aaryn K. Giblin, and John A. Cowan of Provost
Umphrey Law Firm, LLP in Beaumont, Tex. represented Pearlie
Bailey, James Thibodeaux, Kevin Bailey, Paul Bailey, and Carolyn
Bailey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Resolves Bercu v. BICC Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. settled an asbestos-related case styled
Bercu v. BICC Cables Corporation, et al. during March 2006,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ended June 30, 2006, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Originally filed on June 27, 2003, the Bercu case had been
pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The Company's administrative costs decreased to US$2.5 million
or 10.1 percent of revenue, compared with US$2.6 million or 10.3
percent in 2005.

Compared with 2005, other administrative expenses have risen and
included those pertaining to legal, severance, compliance and
compensation costs. The legal costs came from the settlement of
the Bercu asbestos case during the 2006-1st quarter.

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. supplies motion
picture theater equipment, like film projectors and sound
systems, used by major theater chains like AMC Entertainment and
Regal Entertainment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Corp.'s Suits Remain at 124 in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a co-defendant in about 124 asbestos-
related lawsuits as of June 30, 2006, compared with 122 suits as
of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's quarterly report,
on Form 10-Q, for the period ended June 30, 2006, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company had about 122 asbestos-related
exposure suits. (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)

The suits alleged that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints stated valid claims
against it.

The lead insurance carrier has informed the Company that the
primary policy for the period July 1, 1972 - July 1, 1975 has
been exhausted and that the lead carrier would no longer provide
a defense under that policy.

The Company has requested that the lead carrier affirm its
position. The Company has contacted representatives of its
excess insurance carrier for some or all of this period.

Formerly known as Selas Corp. of America, IntriCon Corp.'s
Resistance Technology subsidiary develops digital signal
processor chips for medical applications. The Company's
components are used in professional audio equipment. The Company
is based in Arden Hills, Minn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Faces Injury Suits in N.D.
------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Co. has been named co-defendant in a number
of lawsuits in North Dakota state courts, in which the suits
alleged that exposure to certain asbestos-containing wire and
cable caused injury to the plaintiffs.

These suits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of monetary damages.

It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a
result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused injury.

Moreover, the Company did not make any of the wire and cable at
issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the
manufacturers of the cable if it were determined that any of the
wire or cable that the Company distributed had asbestos.

In connection with ALLTEL Corp.'s sale of the Company in 1997,
ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages
associated with these claims. The Company maintains general
liability insurance that has applied to these claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been
covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of
these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance firms.

Based in Houston, Tex., Houston Wire & Cable Co. distributes
specialty wire and cable products like cable terminators, fiber-
optic cables, mining cable, and bare copper and building wire,
as well as voice, data, and premise wire. It operates 11
regional distribution centers and sells to electrical
distributors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp.'s Reserve Rises to $7M in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's current reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$7 million as of June 30, 2006, compared with US$8
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos liability
claims reserve was US$7.5 million. (Class Action Reporter, June
16, 2006)

The Company's non-current reserve for asbestos liability claims
was US$34 million as of June 30, 2006, compared with US$27
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of March 31, 2006, the Company's non-current reserve for
asbestos liability claims was US$25.5 million. (Class Action
Reporter, June 16, 2006)

Based in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation. Operating on the West Coast, it installs insulation
on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial
equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells
specialty insulation products. The Company was established as
Metalclad Corp. in 1947.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Entrx Drop From 493 to 485 in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation, primarily its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, recorded 485 asbestos-related cases pending at June
30, 2006, in which the claims are defended and covered by
insurance.

As of March 31, 2006, Metalclad had 493 pending asbestos-related
cases, which were defended and covered by insurance. (Class
Action Reporter, June 16, 2006)

Before 1975, the Company sold and installed asbestos-related
insulation materials, which has resulted in claims of personal
injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company had 123 new
cases filed, compared with 111 cases in the first six months of
2005.

For the first six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted
92 defense judgments and dismissals, 53 settled cases, and 145
total resolved cases.

For the first six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company made
total indemnity payments of US$1,693,500, with US$31,953 as the
average indemnity paid on settled cases and US$11,679 as the
average indemnity paid on all resolved cases.

Factoring in the average indemnity of US$11,679 for the first
six months of 2006, the Company has adjusted its projected
average future indemnity per claim to be US$19,300.

While defense costs are included in its insurance coverage, the
Company expended US$86,000 for the three months ended June 30,
2006 and US$141,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2006, to
administer the asbestos claims.

Based in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs insulation
on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial
equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells
specialty insulation products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Faces Suit Filed by ACE, Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, and a number of Metalclad's liability insurers face
an asbestos-related declaratory relief lawsuit filed by ACE
Property & Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of
Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co.

Filed on Feb. 23, 2005, the suit is pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos suits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE suit sought declarations regarding coverage issues, but
is focused on issues involving whether historical and pending
asbestos suits brought against Metalclad are subject to either
an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence"
limits of liability.

The ACE suit also sought to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Co. on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of
Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy. The ACE suit does not seek any monetary
recovery from Metalclad.

Moreover, the ACE suit may result in the Company incurring costs
in connection with obligations to indemnify Allstate under a
settlement agreement.

In a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in October 2005,
Allstate asked the Court to determine the Company's obligation
to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE suit
under the Company's indemnification obligations in the
settlement agreement.

Based in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs insulation
on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial
equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells
specialty insulation products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Records 150 Pending Suits in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mestek Inc. reported that it is a party to about 150 asbestos-
related lawsuits, having been named in about six new lawsuits in
the past three months, according to the Company's quarterly
report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended June 30, 2006, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The requested damages of these cases totaled more than US$3
billion.

Almost all of these suits seek to establish liability against
the Company as successor to firms that may have made, sold or
distributed asbestos-related products, and who are currently in
existence and defending thousands of asbestos related cases, or
because the Company sells and distributes boilers, an industry
that has been associated with asbestos-related products.

To date, the Company has had over 250 asbestos-related cases
dismissed without any payment and it settled about 25 asbestos-
related cases for a de minimis value.

The Company had over 300 asbestos-related suits, and in the past
three months has been named in about 12 new suits each month,
mainly in a Texas county where asbestos-related actions have
been filed against numerous defendants. (Class Action Reporter,
June 2, 2006)

Based in Westfield, Mass., Mestek Inc. makes heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning products, which comprises
about 75 percent of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Notes 130 Respirator Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norcross Safety Products LLC recorded 997 respirator suits as of
July 1, 2006, 13% or 130 suits of which are related to asbestos
exposure injury.

These suits reportedly involved respirators made or sold by it
or its predecessors.

The Company is also monitoring 12 more lawsuits in which it
feels that North Safety Products, its predecessors and the
former owners of those businesses may be named as defendants.
These 997 suits represent a total of about 9,468 plaintiffs.

About 87 percent of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging
injury resulting from exposure to silica dust. These suits
alleged that the injuries resulted in part from respirators that
were negligently designed or made.

Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is contractually obligated to
indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of
defending claims, resulting from respiratory products made or
sold prior to the acquisition of North Safety Products in
October 1998.

Based in Oak Brook, Ill., Norcross Safety Products LLC makes
protective equipment like boots, clothing, eyewear, hats,
hearing protection aids, and respiratory devices, for the
agricultural, fire service, industrial, and utility markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation have been named
defendants in personal injury actions based on asbestos
exposure.

An excess of 70 cases are pending against D/C on the U.S.
mainland and are allegedly based on D/C's prior business
operations.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corp. Case No. 04433669 was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center.  

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for other relief as the Court might grant, the plaintiff alleged
that it is an insurance company to whom D/C has tendered for
defense and indemnity personal injury suits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.  

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.  

D/C has filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. The
litigation is in its early stages.  

In February 2006, D/C merged into a newly formed Illinois
limited liability company named D/C Distribution LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Asks USG to End Trafelet Case by Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following confirmation of USG Corporation's and the other
Debtors' First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization on June 16,
2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court directs the Debtors, the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and
Dean Trafelet, as legal representative for the Debtors' future
asbestos personal injury claimants, to take appropriate steps to
terminate and close their adversary proceeding by Oct. 1, 2006.

If the Adversary Proceeding is not ready to be closed, the Court
will place the matter on the September omnibus hearing agenda
for status conference.

In January 2006, the Debtors, the PI Committee, and Mr. Trafelet
agreed to resolve all present and future asbestos-related
personal injury claims, enabling the Debtors to successfully
emerge from bankruptcy on June 20, 2006.

The Asbestos Agreement contemplates that the Debtors will create
and fund an Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, which will be funded
in this manner:

(a) The Debtors will pay US$890,000,000 and issue a
US$10,000,000 note to the PI Trust on the Effective Date.

(b) The Debtors will provide a contingent payment note to the PI
Trust in the principal amount of US$3.05 billion on the
Effective Date, which note will be payable in the event that the
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 or any
substantially similar legislation creating a national trust or
similar fund has not been enacted and made law on or before the
date that is 10 days after final adjournment sine die of the
109th Congress of the United States.

(c) If asbestos legislation is enacted and made law on or before
the Expiration Date, and is not subject to a constitutional
challenge to its validity on or before 60 days after the
Expiration Date, the Debtors' obligations under the Contingent
Note will not vest and the note will be fully cancelled.

(d) If Asbestos Legislation is enacted and made law in that time
period but is subject to a Challenge as of 60 days after the
Expiration Date, the Debtors' obligations under the Contingent
Note will depend on whether the Challenge is upheld.

(e) If the Debtors are required to satisfy the Contingent Note,
they will make a US$1.9 billion principal payment within 30 days
of the Expiration Date. A second payment of US$1.15 billion
would be due within 180 days after the Expiration Date, or 180
days after the Asbestos Legislation is found unconstitutional if
subject to a Challenge. The Contingent Note will also bear
interest from 30 days after the Expiration Date at a fixed rate
equal to 90-day LIBOR on the Effective Date plus 40 basis
points.

(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 121; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Notes 656 Property Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors tell the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court that since the filing of their 15th omnibus objection to
4,002 asbestos property damage claims, 83 percent of those
claims have been withdrawn or expunged, leaving 656 PD Claims
currently pending.

James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones &
Weintraub LLP, in Wilmington, Del., reports that the Debtors are
currently focusing on 19 pending U.S. PD Claims and 97 pending
Canadian PD Claims for which individual claimants have not
provided signatures for their putative responses to a specific
question of the PD Claims proof of claim form. The Question
required each claimant to provide a date as to its first
knowledge of the presence of asbestos in the W.R. Grace & Co.
product for which the claimant is asserting its claim.

Mr. O'Neill relates that by the PD Claims Bar Date on March 31,
2003, Speights & Runyan submitted 2,975 PD Claims, most of which
have been withdrawn or expunged. As of Aug. 31, 2006, Speights
has 180 pending U.S. PD claims and 97 pending Canadian PD
Claims.

In their 15th Omnibus Objection, the Debtors argued that
Speights provided no factual basis for asserting "2003" as the
year when it first became aware of Grace's asbestos-containing
product in the building for which the claimant was making the
claim. At a January 2006 hearing, the Court directed Speights to
obtain signatures from each of its remaining U.S. claimants and
to provide those signatures to the Debtors' counsel, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, and to the claims processing agent. Mr. O'Neill notes
that the deadline for receipt of those individual claimant
signatures was extended until May 2006.

Pending a decision on the proposed Canadian PD Claims
disposition protocol, the parties agreed that Speights will
obtain and provide individual claimant signatures from U.S.
claimants, but the issue was tabled as to Canadian claimants,
Mr. O'Neill says.

Mr. O'Neill states that since Speights had not provided
signatures from any of its claimants, the Court fixed Aug. 26,
2006, as the deadline for the firm to provide the signatures.
Subsequently, the Debtors received signatures purporting to be
individual claimant signatures for 161 of the 180 pending
Speights PD Claims. The Debtors are analyzing those signatures
and reserve the right to question Speights about any signatures
that appear to be invalid.

Speights indicated that three Ruden Claims, Claim Nos. 10952,
10960 and 11010, should be consolidated into one claim and the
other two claims expunged, Mr. O'Neill notes. As a result, 17
claimant signatures still have not been provided.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to expunge and disallow
the 17 U.S. PD Claims for which no claimant signature has been
provided.

The Debtors also want Speights to provide by Oct. 26, 2006, the
individual claimant signatures for the 97 pending Canadian PD
Claims.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 115; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants Congoleum's $16.95M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Trenton, N.J. approved a settlement
that would add US$16.95 million to Congoleum Corporation's trust
to pay victims who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-
containing products, the Associated Press reports.

According to a docket note, the Court signed off on the
Company's settlement with insurer Century Indemnity Co.

The Company said the Century deal brings total insurance
settlements in the case to about US$207 million. The Company
will use the settlement money to fund a trust to repay asbestos
victims.

The Company has reached a tentative deal with bondholders and
asbestos claimants' representatives on the terms of its Chapter
11 reorganization plan.

The Company said its bondholders have agreed to withdraw a
reorganization plan they filed and support the Company's own
reorganization plan. The official committee of bondholders had
previously supported the Ch. 11 plan it proposed along with
insurers Continental Casualty Co. and Continental Insurance Co.

The Company said it would file a new reorganization plan with
the Court and expects to seek approval of the plan's disclosure
statement at an Oct. 19, 2006 hearing.

Based in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corp.'s products include
plank flooring, resilient sheet flooring, do-it-yourself vinyl
tile, and laminate and commercial flooring. Congoleum markets
through a network of about 15 distributors in roughly 86
locations in North America. American Biltrite owns about 55
percent of Congoleum.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. to Give Free Medical Check-ups
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry is set to implement a
research project providing free medical examinations for people
who may have been exposed to asbestos, The Yomiuri Shimbun
reports.

The Ministry would collect data on patients diagnosed with
mesothelioma to establish a nationwide registration system in
the hope of using the information to help diagnose and treat the
disease.

The Government and individual firms offer medical examinations
to workers and retirees who handle or have handled asbestos as
part of their job and who now exhibit symptoms caused by the
material.

Ryosuke Tsuchiya, director of the National Cancer Center's
hospital, will head and conduct the Ministry's project, which
will be budgeted about JPY100 million for research.

The Environment Ministry began offering free health examinations
to residents in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, the Sennan district
of Osaka Prefecture, and Tosu, Saga Prefecture, on the grounds
that they lived near factories dealing with asbestos.

Currently, people living outside the three areas designated
above are not eligible for government examinations.

Some people living near factories that handle asbestos have
visited rosai hospitals, medical institutions for work-related
sickness, for a checkup.

In cooperation with medical institutions across the nation, the
Ministry will register details like age, area of residence, and
employment history for those newly diagnosed with mesothelioma
during its own and other examinations.

By continually adding to the database, the Ministry will find it
easier to identify areas with a higher concentration of
mesothelioma patients, and to analyze the effects of treatment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.M. Worker Sues 99 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Updegraff, a New Mexico resident suffering from
mesothelioma, sued 99 defendants in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., on Sept. 7, 2006 for his exposure to asbestos, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Some of the defendants include AutoZone Inc., Bondex
International Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corp., The Dow Chemical Co.,
Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co., John Crane Inc., The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack, Sears,
and Western Auto.

Mr. Updegraff seeks compensatory damages in excess of
US$400,000, plus punitive damages in an amount to punish the
defendants for their alleged misconduct.

Mr. Updegraff claimed he was exposed to asbestos while working
as an autoworker, mechanic and truck driver at various locations
from 1955 to 2004. He said he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
March 22, 2006.

Mr. Updegraff claimed the defendants failed to exercise ordinary
care and caution for his safety by including asbestos in their
products. He also claimed the defendants included asbestos in
their products when they knew asbestos fibers would have a
highly deleterious effect on the health of people absorbing
them.

Mr. Updegraff said the defendants also failed to provide any
warnings to people working with or around asbestos and failed to
conduct tests on asbestos-containing products in order to
determine the hazards to workers.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel J. Stack.

Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd and Perry Browder of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent Mr. Updegraff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Begins Final Cleanup at Grace N.J. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency has begun the final stage of
the cleanup of the former W.R. Grace & Co. Zonolite plant in
Hamilton, N.J., and clearing the ground in anticipation of
removing 6,000 tons of dirt, The Times reports.

EPA site manager Mike Ferriola said the removal should be
completed within the next three months.

In 2004, the EPA began the cleanup of the site after discovering
that the grounds of the former plant, which for 40 years had
processed vermiculite ore for use in fireproofing, insulation
and garden products, were contaminated with tremolite asbestos.
More than 9,000 tons of contaminated soil were removed and an
additional 6,000 is set to be removed.

Mr. Ferriola said the EPA will monitor continuously for
particles and asbestos in the air and will set up eight
monitoring sites around the perimeter of the project.

Mr. Ferriola said that about 300 truckloads should be needed to
remove all of the contaminated soil. He speculated that the
asbestos-laced vermiculite was dumped in the woods surrounding
the factory, which opened in 1948 and closed in 1994.

W.R. Grace closed the plant in 1994 and assured officials from
the state Department of Environmental Protection that the
grounds were free of asbestos. The DEP issued a no further
action order, requiring no additional testing or cleanup.

In 2000, the EPA tested the site and found asbestos
concentrations as high as 40 percent in some samples. The state
Attorney General has since filed a US$1.6 billion lawsuit
against W.R. Grace for allegedly lying to state regulators.

The state has also been exploring criminal charges against the
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Widow Names 40 Parties in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Beattie of Sierra Vista, Ariz. filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill. on Sept. 6, 2006,
claiming that her husband's mesothelioma was caused by the
negligence of 40 defendant companies, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

Mrs. Beattie claimed her husband, Ronald, was employed from 1948
to 1974 as an electrician's mate, naval instructor and a
salesman in various locations in California, Colorado and
Illinois and on many occasions was exposed to asbestos and
asbestos-containing products.

Mrs. Beattie claimed that Mr. Beattie was exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and
automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

Mrs. Beattie claimed the defendants were negligent in failing to
timely and adequately warn Mr. Beattie of the dangerous
characteristics and serious health hazards associated with
exposure to asbestos and machinery calling for the use of
asbestos products.

According to the complaint, Mr. Beattie was first diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Oct. 20, 2004, and died on Sept. 6, 2005.

Mrs. Beattie alleged the defendants are guilty of willful and
wanton misconduct. She claimed Mr. Beattie had to undergo costly
medical treatment and that he suffered great physical pain and
mental anguish as a result of his asbestos exposure. She also
claimed that her husband was hindered and prevented from
pursuing his normal course of employment, and losing large sums
of money he would have otherwise earned.

According to the suit, the defendants included asbestos in their
products even though adequate substitutes were available, and
they failed to provide warnings of the dangers of working around
asbestos.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.

Baron and Budd in Dallas, Tex. and Korein Tillery of St. Louis,
Mo. represent Mrs. Beattie.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alton Couple Sue 44 Parties in Ill. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Alton, who worked in Massachusetts and Maine for nearly
30 years, has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 44
defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., and claiming
exposure to asbestos, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Alton claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March
29, 2006, and learned his disease was wrongfully caused.

Mr. Alton's wife, Carole, seeks damages claiming her husband's
illness has deprived her of the companionship, society and
services of her husband.

The Altons seek damages in excess of US$200,000 plus punitive
damages in excess of US$100,000.

From 1963 to 1967, Mr. Alton was employed as a boilerman-fireman
in the U.S. Navy in Illinois, Florida and Rhode Island. From
1968 to 1972, he worked as a mechanic at two different service
stations in Massachusetts. From 1972 to 1974, he worked as a
mechanic for Bedford Cities Services in Massachusetts.

From 1974 to 1975, Mr. Alton worked as a machinist's helper in
Massachusetts. From 1976 to 1977, he worked as a machinery
mechanic at Bethlehem Shipyard in Massachusetts. From 1977 to
1983, he worked at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine. From the
1950s to the 1980s, he worked as a shadetree mechanic in
Massachusetts.

In the suit filed Sept. 1, 2006, Mr. Alton alleged that the
defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for his
safety by including asbestos in their products.

Mr. Alton claimed he has become disabled and disfigured, became
liable for medical expenses, experiences great physical pain and
mental anguish, and has been prevented from pursuing his normal
course of employment losing large sums of money.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel J. Stack.

Representing the Altons are Mark Lanier and Angela Barmby
Greenberg of Houston, Tex. and Randy Gori of Edwardsville, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Postpones Grace Trial for 2007-2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy abandoned a longstanding
trial date in the case against W.R. Grace and Co., postponing
the case for a date between September 2007 and February 2008,
Missoulian.com reports.

A federal indictment unsealed in February 2005 accused Grace and
seven of its top employees of conspiracy, charging that
officials knew their vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont. was
releasing dangerous cancer-causing asbestos into the air and
conspired to hide the hazards from workers and area residents.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean, chief prosecutor in the
case, notified the Court of his appeals at a final pretrial
conference in August 2006.

While he has routinely denied defense motions to postpone the
jury trial, Judge Molloy agreed to a "stay" of the case after
Mr. McLean announced the Government's decision to appeal the
Court's rulings.

The original conspiracy count contained two objects: that Grace
violated the Clean Air Act by releasing asbestos into the air
while knowing that such releases placed others in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that Grace
defrauded the Government by impeding the investigations of
environmental agencies.

However, in a June 2006 hearing, and again in July 2006, Judge
Molloy dismissed that object from the indictment, ruling that
the statute of limitations to allege knowing endangerment had
expired shortly before the document was unsealed.

Mr. McLean also is challenging Judge Molloy's decisions to
exclude certain evidence at trial, including some test results
that show the presence of fibers that do not contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Vacated in Suit v. Delmarva et al.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware vacated a ruling, which denied
summary judgment to site owners: Delmarva Power & Light Co.,
E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., FMC Corp., ICI Americas Inc.,
and Rhone-Poulenc Inc., in two appeals in asbestos litigation.
The matters have been remanded for further proceedings.

The Panel, comprised of Chief Justice Myron T. Steele, Justice
Randy J. Holland, Justice Carolyn Berger, Justice Jack B.
Jacobs, and Vice Chancellor John W. Noble, handed down the
decision of Case Nos. 100,2005, 101,2005, 102,2005, 106,2005,
107,2005, and 137,2005 on April 12, 2006.

The appeals presented two issues. In the first issue, James
Wooleyhan, Robert Stymerski, John Helm, W. Drexel Biddle, Ronald
Irwin, George Townsend, and John Betley worked for independent
contractors. They worked as painters, telephone linemen, and
electricians who were exposed to asbestos even though they did
not work with asbestos. The employees filed claims against the
site owners.

The Superior Court of Delaware granted the site owners leave to
file appeals of the order, which denied their motions of summary
judgment. The Supreme Court accepted the appeals.

In the second appeal, Mr. Wooleyhan and Mr. Biddle challenged
the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment against them and
in favor of Honeywell International Inc. The two men suffered
injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos as part of their
own work on the premises of Honeywell's predecessor-in-interest.

Mr. Wooleyhan and Mr. Biddle contended that Honeywell should be
held liable for their injuries because Honeywell exercised
control over the means and methods by which their work was
performed, and had undertaken responsibility for implementing
necessary safety measures but negligently failed to do so.

The Supreme Court concluded that Honeywell is entitled to
summary judgment with respect to claims based on the exposure of
Mr. Wooleyhan and Mr. Biddle as a result of their own work or
their employers' work with asbestos. The Supreme Court affirmed
the Superior Court's decision to grant Honeywell summary
judgment.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Brower Piven Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of ADVO, Inc. between July
6, 2006 and Aug. 30, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut against defendant ADVO and one or more of its
officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Nov. 10,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact, Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Aspen Technology, Inc.
between Feb. 6, 2006 and Sept. 6, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed
against Aspen and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially misleading
statements with respect to the backdating of stock option
grants.

As a result, the company's financial statements were not
presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles for the period 2002 to 2005 and the first three
quarters of 2006.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Aspen announced that it would be forced to
restate its previously issued financial statements to correct
the back dating of certain stock options, by booking
approximately $31 million of additional non-cash compensation
expense.

In reaction to this news, shares fell from $11.56 per share to
$10.35 per share, a one-day decline of approximately 10.5%.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than Nov. 7, 2006
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact Brian Penny, Esq., The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.  


DELL INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Dell, Inc., publicly traded
securities between Feb. 13, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2006.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants caused Dell to report inflated financial results,
including misstating the accrual and reserves reported on the
company's balance sheet.

The complaint alleges that by at least August 2005, the
defendants were aware of but concealed from investors the fact
that the SEC was investigating the company's revenue recognition
and accounting practices.

Unable to maintain the charade, the complaint alleges defendants
began reducing sales and profit projections as Dell began
missing its own revenue, EPS and unit sales growth targets,
causing significant declines in its stock price.

In order to support the company's stock price, the complaint
alleges defendants continued concealing the full extent of
Dell's problems and promising a quick turnaround.

On Aug. 17, 2006, Dell announced its fifth consecutive quarter
of disappointing results, again significantly missing its own
revenue and EPS targets.

The company also finally revealed the SEC had begun
investigating its revenue recognition practices and other
accounting practices in August 2005, and announced that in
connection with its own internal accounting review it had
recently discovered information that raised potential issues
relating to certain periods prior to fiscal 2006.  The company
also disclosed that its Audit Committee was undertaking a full
review.

Finally, on Sept. 11, 2006, defendants disclosed that as the
Audit Committee had not finished its review, the company would
not be able to file its interim financial report for its second
quarter of 2007, that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York had served Dell with a subpoena
requesting documents concerning its accounting and financial
reporting between 2002 and 2006, and that the company had
indefinitely suspended its ongoing share repurchase program,
causing Dell's stock price to continue its decline, with shares
trading as low as $20.52 in intra-day trading on Sept. 11, 2006,
a decline of more than 50% from its Class Period high.

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


                            *********


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  * * *