CAR_Public/060918.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 185

                            Headlines

ARIZONA: Judge to Review Ruling in English Learning Program
AXT INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
BALLY TOTAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Ill. Securities Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for Suit Over Pacemakers
CHEMICAL COMPANIES: Pollution Linked to Infant Death in Tenn.

CHINEX APPAREL: Recalls Helmets that Fail to Meet Safety Test
FEDEX EXPRESS: Ordered to Produce Documents in EEOC Inquiry
FLORIDA: Complaint Filed Over Errors in Bus Drivers' Paychecks
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fla. Consumer Suit Settlement Gets Approval
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Hears $70M AWP Lawsuit Settlement

HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
ILLINOIS: Chicago, Police Face Lawsuit Over Confiscated Money
IMERGENT INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Still Faces Suit Over Defective Windows
LABOR READY: N.Y. Worker Sues Over Cash Dispensing Machine Fees

LANTRONIX INC: Nov. Hearing Set for Calif. Stock Suit Settlement
MAGEE-WOMENS: High Court Mulls Appeal in Medical Results Suit
MAGMA DESIGN: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: Medford Hires Attorney for Lawsuit by Retirees
MICROSOFT CORP: Nov. Trial Set for Iowa Consumer Antitrust Suit

MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Recalls Mushrooms Over Possible Health Risk
NEW YORK: Albany County Jail Officials Face Suit Filed by Inmate
NEW ZEALAND: Activist Group Plans to File Suit Over WFF Program
NORTH CAROLINA: Schools Seek to Junk Students' Gang Policy Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Attorney for Former Employee Plans New Lawsuit

SECURITIES AMERICA: La. Court Upholds $22M Arbitration Award
SELECT MEDICAL: Discovery Begins in Penna. Securities Lawsuit
SEPRACOR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Fraud Suits
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Oral Arguments Yet to be Set for Ga. Stock Suit
STRATOS INT'L: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval

TALISMAN ENERGY: N.Y. Court Junks "Alien Tort Claims Act" Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Federman Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
IMAX CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
IMAX CORP: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ARIZONA: Judge to Review Ruling in English Learning Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins has set a Jan. 9 to 12,
2007 hearing to determine whether the state has already improved
its program for students learning the English language,
according to KVOA Tucson.

The hearing is a review of his previous rulings on the issue
after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his orders
that found the state in contempt for missing a deadline to
improve the program.  

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students
learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000
that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students
were inadequately funded.  The order was part of a ruling in a
class action that was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of
Nogales Unified School District students and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that
guarantees equal opportunities in education.  The state was
fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways
to improve the program.  The fine was increased to $1 million,
resulting to a $21 million in total fines.  The fines were
stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to
revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in
March.

In April, Judge Collins ruled that the law still doesn't
adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out
the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the
basis for funding that it does provide.

The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San
Francisco on July 25.  In August, it vacated orders by Judge
Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public
schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the
general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the
state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes
in education funding and related circumstances since the
original 2000 ruling.

The August ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly
on the latest law regarding the program.  

The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.   

Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and
Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave.,
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790,
Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
jcardenas@lrlaw.com.  


AXT INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action against AXT, Inc., which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Oct. 15, 2004, a purported securities class action, "City of
Harper Woods Employees Retirement System v. AXT, Inc., et al.,
No. C 04 4362 MJJ," was filed in the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California.  The court consolidated the case with a
subsequent related case and appointed a lead plaintiff.  

On April 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint, "Morgan v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ."  The
complaint names the company and its chief technology officer, as
defendants, and is brought on behalf of a class of all
purchasers of its securities from Feb. 6, 2001 to April 27,
2004.

The complaint alleges that the company announced financial
results during this period that were false and misleading.  No
specific amount of damages is claimed.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend.  Lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss,
..., according to the company's  

The suit is "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04362-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow &
         Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310)
         201-9160, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and

     (2) Elizabeth P. Lin, 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.

Representing the defendants are David Banie and David Priebe of
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP, 2000 University Avenue,
East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone: 650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-
2001, E-mail: david.banie@dlapiper.com and
david.priebe@dlapiper.com.


BALLY TOTAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Ill. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Bally Total Fitness
Holding Corp. and certain of its officers.

Between May and July 2004, 10 putative securities class actions,
now consolidated and designated, "In re Bally Total Fitness
Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and
certain of its former and current officers and directors.

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.

On March 15, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and on
May 23, 2005 the court appointed lead plaintiff's counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements in
November 2005.

On Dec. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased Bally stock between Aug. 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004.

The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint and dismissed the complaint in its
entirety on July 12, 2006 without prejudice to plaintiffs filing
an amended complaint on or before Aug. 14, 2006.

Defendants intend to move to dismiss the complaint on or prior
to Sept. 28, 2006.  

The suit is "In re Bally Total Fitness Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03530," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Fay Clayton of Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C., 300  
         South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606,  
         Phone: (312) 663-3100, E-mail:  
         fclayton@robinsoncurley.com; and  

     (2) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,  
         Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite  
         1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403,  
         Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Janet Malloy Link of Latham & Watkins, LLP, (IL), 233  
         South Wacker Drive, 5800 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL  
         60606, Phone: (312) 876-7700, E-mail:  
         janet.link@lw.com;

    (ii) Gregory A. Markel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,  
         LLP, One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281,  
         Phone: (212) 504-6000;

   (iii) Howard Steven Suskin of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM  
         Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th  
         Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E-
         mial: hsuskin@jenner.com; and

    (iv) Mary Ellen Hennessy of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525  
         West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661,  
         Phone: (312) 902-5200, E-mail:  
         maryellen.hennessy@kattenlaw.com.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for Suit Over Pacemakers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first state court hearing over faulty heart devices made by
Guidant Corp., a company Boston Scientific Corp. acquired in
April, is to begin on Sept. 18, 2006, The Sierra Times reports.

The hearing will be before Judge Jack E. Hunter of the 94th
State District Court in Nueces County, Texas.

The suit was brought by two Corpus Christi residents, Louis
Motal and Beatrice Hinojosa, who allegedly suffered mental
anguish upon discovery that the company's defibrillator heart
devices can malfunction.

In June, Judge Hunter denied an appeal by Guidant Corp. on his
order to make public 22 documents that it said contain
potentially sensitive information (Class Action Reporter, June
12, 2006).  The judge ruled on June 5 that Guidant had
improperly designated as confidential the documents in one trial
exhibit.

The disclosure shows that Guidant drafted a letter warning
doctors of a dangerous electrical malfunction in some of its
defibrillator heart devices, but the letter was not sent, the
report said.  Instead, the company issued a more routine and
less-targeted "product update."

Guidant officials were reportedly worried about creating "undue
alarm" about the electrical problem.

According to the company, majority of the lawsuits allege no
physical injury, but clam compensation for medical monitoring
and anxiety.

Since 2005, Guidant faced hundreds of lawsuits related to
problems with implantable defibrillator devices that have been
linked to multiple deaths.

In its most recent regulatory filing, Boston Scientific said
there are now about 72 product liability class suits and about
477 individual suits pending in various state and federal courts
against Guidant.  More than 60 of those are in state court
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).

Most cases are filed in federal court, and federal cases have
been consolidated under "multi-district litigation" rules and
moved to a U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

Boston Scientific has set aside $381 million to defend itself
against the suits (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).  
According to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the $381 million figure is an estimate of
legal costs to fight the lawsuits, and did not represent an
estimate of potential liability.

A number of health insurers, including several Blue Cross and
Blue Shield plans, have also sued Guidant to recover the
healthcare charges they say are associated with patients who
received faulty devices.

For more information, contact plaintiffs attorney Robert C.  
Hilliard, and Robert J. Patterson of Watts Law Firm, L.L.P.,  
Tower II Building, 14th Floor, 555 North Carancahua Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78478-0801 (Nueces Co.), Phone: 361-887-
0500, Fax: 361-887-0055.

Guidant's attorney is Elmore James Shepherd of Shook, Hardy &  
Bacon L.L.P., JP Morgan/Chase Tower, 600 Travis Street, Suite  
1600, Houston, Texas 77002-2911 (Ft. Bend, Harris & Montgomery  
Cos.), Phone: 713-227-8008, Fax: 713-227-9508.


CHEMICAL COMPANIES: Pollution Linked to Infant Death in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A concerned group that believes there is a connection between
the contaminated Cypress Creek, and the high infant mortality
rate in a Memphis, Tennessee neighborhood, is planning to file a
lawsuit in civil court, WMCTV.com reports.

A class action could determine if toxic chemicals dumped into
the creek by companies like Morton and Velsicol Chemical Corp.
harmed fetuses or babies, according to Davis Hall of the Life
Together Institute for Peace along with.

On average, 14 out of every 1,000 children born in Shelby County
die before the age of one, making the infant mortality rate in
the county one of the highest in the country, the report said.

Mr. Hall claims people living near Cypress Creek may have been
victimized by the company, which used the creek as a dumping
ground for toxic chemicals for years.  Chemicals seeped in the
yards of many Douglas neighborhood homes.

"Babies may have to be exhumed to attest to whether or not the
baby came here with something as a result of contamination," Mr.
Hall said.  

According to Mr. Hall, a court battle will take a long time and
those claiming to victims will have to undergo tests to
determine if chemicals once dumped into the cypress led to any
serious chronic health problems, or death.

A 1-800 hotline number will be set up in the near future so that
residents who believe they have been harmed can lodge a
complaint, according to Mr. Hall.  


CHINEX APPAREL: Recalls Helmets that Fail to Meet Safety Test
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chinex Apparel, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling 18,419
motorcycle helmets sold in the U.S. by Hot Leather/Good Sports
as model numbers NH30, NH31, NH32, NH53, NH54, NH55 and NH56.

The agency is warning owners of these helmets that they could be
seriously injured or killed because of reduced head protection.  
The helmets do not comply with safety standards related to shell
penetration and impact attenuation, according to NHTSA.

Helmet owners can contact NHTSA at 1-888-327-4236.


FEDEX EXPRESS: Ordered to Produce Documents in EEOC Inquiry
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Raner C. Collins in Tucson Arizona
ordered FedEx Corp. to provide records for an inquiry by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in relation to
possible racial discrimination at the company, AZCentral.com
reports.

Previously, the company refused to provide requests for records
on how it maintains its electronic personnel records.  According
to the federal agency, FedEx claimed the government lacked
authority to investigate an employee's race-discrimination claim
because, in part, the employee was part of a related class
action.

EEOC's investigation concerns a claim by Phoenix employee Tyrone
Merritt over the company's Basic Skills Test.  Mary Jo O'Neill,
the EEOC's regional attorney, said questions have been raised
whether the test is structured in a way to unfairly discriminate
against blacks and Latinos, according to azstartnet.com.  She
said passage of that test is required for some promotions.

Mr. Merritt said he failed that Basic Skills Test that is
required to be promoted to some other positions, including
customer-service agent and courier.

According to the report, the EEOC investigation closely
parallels a class action filed in San Francisco on behalf of
about 20,000 current and former FedEx employees in Arizona and
13 other states in the region.

FedEx Express, a unit of FedEx Corp., is facing a racial
discrimination class action, "Satchell v. FedEx Express, Case
No. 03-2659," in the District Court for the Northern District of
California.  

The suit alleges that the company has a culture of hostility
toward minorities and that the company turns "a blind eye,"
allowing racial bias to infect performance evaluation,
promotion, compensation, and discipline decisions, according to
court documents.

Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief as well as money in the
form of front pay, back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court granted class certification to the
case, which is specifically alleging discrimination by the
company in the Western region of the U.S. against certain
current and former minority employees in pay and promotion.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 2007.

The suit is "Satchell v. FedEx Express, Case No. 03-2659," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Susan Illston.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Guy B. Wallace of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
         Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109, Phone:
         415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-7105, E-mail:
         gwallace@schneiderwallace.com;  

     (2) Michael S. Davis of The Law Offices of Michael S.
         Davis, 345 Hill Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone:
         (415) 282-4315, Fax: (415) 358-5576, E-mail:
         msdlegal@comcast.net; and

     (3) Waukeen Q. Mccoy of The Law Offices of Waukeen Q.
         McCoy, 703 Market Street, Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA
         94103, Phone: 415-675-7705, Fax: 415-675-2530, E-mail:
         mccoylawsf@yahoo.com.  

Representing the company are Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. and
Francis J. Ortman, III of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 560 Mission
Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-397-
2823, Fax: 415-397-8549, E-mail: gdiekmann@sf.seyfarth.com; and
fortman@sf.seyfarth.com.


FLORIDA: Complaint Filed Over Errors in Bus Drivers' Paychecks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Sosa, business agent for National Conference of Firemen
and Oilers, Local 1227, filed a class-action grievance against
the Palm Beach County school district last month over bus
drivers' flawed paychecks, it emerged from a report of the Palm
Beach Post.

This month, more than 60 Palm Beach County school bus drivers
either did not come to work or left early after allegedly
receiving inaccurate paychecks for the second time in a month.  

According to the report, the problem is due in part to a new
software program implemented this summer.  The district has yet
to determine exactly how many employees received flawed
paychecks, the report said.  The problem has persisted for two
months now.

Problems encountered by the employees include unpaid overtime or
merit pay, although there are also cases of overpayments.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fla. Consumer Suit Settlement Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida approved an agreement proposed in December
2005 to settle a nationwide class action filed against General
Electric Co. in Fort Myers in April 2005, News-press.com
reports.

The judge also awarded more than $1.3 million in attorneys' fees
plus an additional $1,500 to lead plaintiff Bill Turner.

On April 29, 2005, plaintiff filed his complaint on behalf of
himself and a putative class consisting of all persons in the
state of Florida who purchased any of nine specific models of
General Electric refrigerators.  

Among other things, the complaint alleged that the "GE" and
"Hotpoint" side-by-side refrigerators sizes 20, 22, and 25 cubic
feet, manufactured between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2002 did
not perform in accordance with the advertisements, marketing
materials and warranties disseminated by General Electric nor
with the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers because
of alleged moisture problems.  The complaint asserted causes of
action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligence,
and unjust enrichment.

List of model and serial numbers of affected refrigerators:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff7    

Plaintiffs' class counsels are Scott Wm. Weinstein, Weinstein
Bavly & Moon, P.A., Gary E. Mason and Alexander E. Barnett of
The Mason Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J.
LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, L.L.P.; and William M. Audet
of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.

A settlement, preliminarily approved Dec. 9, 2005, includes:

     -- Additional Warranty Protection: GE shall provide
        settlement class members with additional warranty
        protection for moisture-related problems in the
        refrigerators.  The Additional Warranty Protection shall
        be for one year following the Notice Date;

     -- Refrigerator Exchange: For any settlement class member
        whose refrigerator has required three or more
        unsuccessful moisture-related service calls and still
        has a moisture-related problem, GE shall provide, in
        exchange for the settlement class member's refrigerator,
        a new GE refrigerator of like grade and quality with
        comparable features; and

     -- Reimbursement: GE shall reimburse settlement class
        members for the reasonable cost of moisture-related
        service calls (including parts and labor) charged to the
        settlement class members by a GE factory service
        technician, an authorized GE customer care servicer, or
        a firm or technician that holds a business license, or
        is otherwise demonstrably qualified to perform major
        appliance service and repair work.  The costs to be
        reimbursed must have been incurred and paid by the
        settlement class members between the date of purchase of
        their Refrigerators and the notice date.

Subject to court approval, General Electric has agreed to pay
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to class counsel in the
total amount of $1,325,000.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff6
   
A copy of the Judgment in a Civil Case is available at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11ae

The suit is "Turner v. General Electric Co., Case No. 2:05-CV-
186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, under Judge John Steele with referral to
Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiff are:    

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.P.,  
         300 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,  
         Phone: 415/921-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776;   

     (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., P.O.          
         Box 230758, 144 West 72nd St., #3D, New York, NY 10023,          
         US, Phone: 202/408-4600, E-mail:          
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com;

     (3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th          
         St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:          
         202/429-2290, Fax: 202/429-2294, E-mail:             
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;

     (4) Jordan Lucas Chaikin and Scott Wm. Weinstein of          
         Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A., 2400 First St., Suite           
         303, Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax:          
         239/334-1289, E-mail: jordan@weinsteinlawfirm.com and          
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com; and

     (5) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo          
         Gilbert & LaDuca, 507 C. St., NE, Washington, DC 20002,          
         Phone: 202/789-3960, Fax: 202/789-1813, E-mail:          
         jonc@cuneolaw.com and charlesl@cuneolaw.com.
   
Representing the defendant is Charles Wachter of Fowler White  
Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1700, P.O. Box  
1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438, Phone: 813/228-7411 ext. 1136, Fax:  
813/229-6679, E-mail: cwachter@fowlerwhite.com.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Hears $70M AWP Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the $70 million settlement of a class action
against GlaxoSmithKline plc was held on Sept. 12 at U.S.
District Court in Boston, according to the MetroWest Daily News.

In August, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $70 million to cancer
patients and health plans who were overcharged for drugs that
ease the side effects of cancer treatments (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 15, 2006).  

According to Renee Markus Hodin, associate director of the
Prescription Access Litigation Project in Boston, which is
helping plaintiffs in the class action, between 1 million and 5
million cancer patients nationwide who used the drugs Kytril and
Zofran since 1991 will potentially be eligible for refunds.

Kytril and Zofran are drugs commonly used to ease the side
effects associated with cancer treatments.  

The settlement will provide reimbursement to both patients and
third-party payers, such as union benefit funds and health
plans, who pay for drugs on behalf of their members.  

In the proposed settlement agreement, 30 percent of the $70
million settlement will go to consumers who incurred co-payments
based on Average Wholesale Price for a list of specific Medicare
Part B covered drugs manufactured by Glaxo.  The remaining 70
percent will go to third-party payers including health plans,
Health Maintenance Organizations and other organizations who
purchased certain Glaxo drugs.

The proposed settlement will refund class members for drug
amounts paid in excess, and will guarantee a minimum payment of
$100.00.

                         AWP Litigation

The GlaxoSmithKline settlement is part of a larger AWP case
currently before the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.  In a
trial set for November 2006, Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, who is lead counsel in the Glaxo case, will be leading
the plaintiffs' case against four other major drug manufacturer
defendants: Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca
and Schering-Plough.

AWP is a system by which drug companies set prices for almost
all prescription drug sales in the U.S.  There has been a
growing consensus that the AWP is a fictitious price that has no
direct relation to the actual average price charged for
prescription drugs.  It is calculated that the manipulation of
AWP costs consumers hundreds of millions of dollars every year
in unnecessary drug costs, according to a statement by The
Prescription Access Litigation Project.

The system, which has come under scrutiny in recent years, is
being eliminated from use in nearly all federal programs that
pay for prescription drugs.  In 2005, the federal government
stopped using this system to determine drug prices as part of
the legislation that created the Medicare drug plan.  Similarly,
in 2007, Medicaid is set to do away with AWP as the
reimbursement benchmark.  Currently, private sector health
insurance companies are the primary users of AWP.

GlaxoSmithKline has not admitted any wrongdoing even though it
agreed to the $70 million settlement, court approval of which is
still pending.

Lead counsel for the class is the law firm of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.  On the Net: http://www.hagens-berman.com/.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Fredrick G. Herold at Dechert LLP, 1117 California
         Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 813-4930, Fax:
         (650) 813-4848;

     (2) Mark H. Lynch, Geoffrey E. Hobart (BBO #547499), Ronald
         G. Dove, Jr. at Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania
         Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 662-
         6000, Fax: (202)662-6291; and

     (3) Mark D. Seltzer (BBO#556341) at Holland & Knight LLP,
         10 St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02116, Phone: (617)
         523-2700, Fax: (617) 523-6850.


HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the state of
Delaware over a June 2005 Exchange Agreement with subsidiaries,
according to the company's May 15, 2006 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006.

On June 2, 2005, the company entered into an Exchange Agreement
with the New England subsidiaries of the company and the
stockholders of the company in the Shaker Group.  The Exchange
Agreement was also approved by the written consent of
stockholders owning a majority of the voting power of the shares
of stock of the company.

In June 30, 2005 a suit was filed naming as defendants
directors:

      -- Corey E. Shaker,  
      -- William C. Muller, Jr.,
      -- Joseph Shaker,  
      -- Bernard J. Dzinski, Jr.,  
      -- Steven A. Fournier,  
      -- H. Dennis Lauzon,
      -- Timothy C. Moynihan

Steven N. Bronson, Louis J. Meade and Leonard Hagan as the
plaintiffs purport to bring the action individually,
derivatively and as a class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of the company's Class A shares.  

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the directors and
controlling stockholders have breached their fiduciary duties to
Hometown and the Class A stockholders, have failed to seek a
transaction that would maximize value for Hometown and all its
stockholders, and have initiated a transaction that is not fair
to Hometown and its public stockholders.

The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, including,
rescission of the Exchange Agreement, a preliminary and
permanent injunction against the Exchange Agreement
transactions, a declaration that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties, a constructive trust on any assets
transferred pursuant to the Exchange Agreement transactions,
damages for the injury suffered by plaintiffs and the class as a
result of defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, certification
of the action as a class action, and an order requiring
defendants to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug 11, 2006 form 10-Q filing for the period ended June 30,
2006.

Waterbury, Connecticut-based Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. (OTC:
HCAR) -- http://www.htauto.com/-- sells new and used cars and  
light trucks, provides maintenance and repair services, sells
replacement parts and provides related financing, insurance and
service contracts through eight franchised dealerships located
in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont.

The company's dealerships offer nine American and Asian
automotive brands, including Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford,
Jeep, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercury, and Toyota.  Hometown's Lincoln
Mercury Autocare center located in Connecticut was the pilot
facility for Ford's authorized freestanding neighborhood service
center concept for the maintenance and light repair of cars and
trucks.  On Feb. 9, 2006, the company completed the acquisition
of a Nissan franchise.


ILLINOIS: Chicago, Police Face Lawsuit Over Confiscated Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department face a
purported class action in U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois over an alleged failure to return unclaimed
cash to the state treasury, according to The Chicago Tribune.

The suit contends the city confiscated an estimated $25 million
in cash from people who were arrested and never returned it to
the arrestees.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the city kept the money,
instead of turning it over to the state treasurer pursuant to
the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, which became
law in 1954.

Thomas Peters, an attorney who filed the lawsuit, said that he
believes $25 million is "a very conservative number.  I wouldn't
be surprised if the actual number were closer to $50 million."

The lawsuit is an outgrowth of another suit filed by Mr. Peters
two years ago that challenged Police Department procedures for
inventorying and returning confiscated money.  

In that case, which is still pending, Mr. Peters is asserting
that the city owes more than $3.6 million to more than 20,000
people.  The city argues the claim is untrue.

Judge Ruben Castillo of the Illinois federal court dismissed a
portion of that lawsuit, alleging a violation of the unclaimed
property act.  Thus prompting Mr. Peters to file another
lawsuit.

Referring to the unclaimed property act, police spokeswoman
Monique Bond said that the department does not turn over money
[to the state treasury] pursuant to UDUPA.  "That doesn't apply
to the funds we hold," she adds.

Also, Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city corporation
counsel's office, said the city relies on the Law Enforcement
Disposition of Property Act, which says, in part, that abandoned
property may be disposed of by law enforcement.

The suit is "Kennedy, et al. v. City Of Chicago, et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-04914," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas M. Peters of The Law Offices of Thomas Peters,
         407 South Dearborn, Suite 1675, Chicago, IL 60605,
         Phone: (312) 697-0022, E-mail: tompeters9@aol.com;

     (2) Mary F. DeSloover of The Law Offices of Mary DeSloover,
         407 South Dearborn, #1735, Chicago, IL 60605, Phone:
         (312) 697-0022, E-mail: 040424@msn.com; and

     (3) Kevin R. Peters of The Law Offices of Kevin Peters, 407
         South Dearborn, Suite 1675, Chicago, IL 60605, Phone:
         (312) 697-0022, E-mail: kp6970022@aol.com.


IMERGENT INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class action against iMergent,
Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah.

On March 8, 2005, Elliott Firestone filed a lawsuit, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, against the
company, certain current and former officers, and current and
former directors.

This suit was followed by several other similar complaints.  The
court ordered that the cases be consolidated, and on Nov. 23,
2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws" against the company, certain
current and former officers, and current and former directors,
together with the former independent registered public
accounting firm for the company, Grant Thornton LLP, as
defendants.  

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of
securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were
responsible for the making of material misleading statements and
omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and
failing to make proper disclosures, which required the company
to restate its financial results.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Although this action was determined by the court to be the
"consolidated action," Hillel Hyman filed a complaint in October
2005 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the company, certain current and former officers,
current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP.  

The group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the
"accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should be
determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as it
properly alleges a class period consistent with timing necessary
to raise a claim based upon the restatement of financial results
announced by the company.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws by the company and Grant Thornton LLP.

On Feb. 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference" the court determined
that the complaint filed by the accounting restatement group
should be substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint.  

On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting
Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff.  The discovery stay imposed
under applicable federal law, which controls the administration
of class actions, remains in place.  There has been no amended
complaint filed to date.

The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861-
DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) C. Richard Henriksen, Jr. of Henriksen & Henriksen, 320
         S. 500 E., Salt Lake City, UT 84102, Phone: (801) 521-
         4145, E-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com; and

     (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, 830 Third
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: (212) 317-6600, E-
         mail: ipress@kmslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Jacqueline Benson and Gary F.
Bendinger of Howrey, LLP, Phone: (713) 654-7693 and (801) 533-
8383, E-mail: bendingerg@howrey.com.


INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Still Faces Suit Over Defective Windows
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Aluminum Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries
remain defendants in a class action, "Klotzer, et al. v.
International Windows In Time, Inc. (FCS021196)," filed in the
Superior Court for Solano County, California.

The suit alleges that the company's Series 6200 aluminum windows
were defective in design and manufacture.  The plaintiffs seek
monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs based upon various
legal theories.  

The same lawyers who represent plaintiffs in this action have
also brought similar class actions against other manufacturers
of aluminum windows in California

In their third amended complaint filed in August 2005, the
plaintiffs assert various causes of action, including strict
product liability, breach of warranty, and violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  

Plaintiffs also purport to represent a statewide class of
persons who own buildings in California that contain the
company's Series 6200 horizontal sliding, vertical hung, or
fixed aluminum windows manufactured during the period 1993 to
the present.  In November 2005, the court certified the
plaintiff class.

According to plaintiffs, the essence of their claims is that the
Series 6200 windows leak at the lower corners.  Plaintiffs
contend that these leaks are caused by the design and
manufacture of the lower corners and voids and gaps in the
sealant used in the window corners; and that the leaking windows
have damaged parts of the homes in which they were installed.  
Plaintiffs also claim that the windows do not perform as
warranted and do not perform in compliance with American
Architectural Manufacturer's Association, or AAMA, standards.  

There are approximately 80,000 owners of the Series 6200 windows
in the class.  The named plaintiffs seek actual and punitive
damages, as well as injunctive and restitutionary relief on
their claims, including the cost to remove and replace all of
the Series 6200 windows in the class.  The company denies any
liability.

The company's insurers have accepted the defense of this lawsuit
under reservation of rights.  The scope of the company's
insurance coverage may depend upon the ultimate disposition of
the plaintiffs' claims.

Monterey Park, California-based International Aluminum Corp.
(NYSE: IAL) -- http://www.intlalum.com/-- is an integrated  
building products manufacturer of diversified lines of aluminum
and vinyl products.  It operates in three segments: Commercial
Products, Residential Products and Aluminum Extrusions.  The
company markets its residential products primarily to lumber
yards, home improvement centers, independent dealers and
distributors.  Commercial building products are marketed
primarily to glazing and tenant improvement contractors.  
Aluminum extrusions are marketed principally by direct sales to
other manufacturers.


LABOR READY: N.Y. Worker Sues Over Cash Dispensing Machine Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Ready, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action
filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York over allegations that the company illegally charged its
clients a nominal fee for opting to receive their earnings in
cash at the end of each workday, The Elmira Star-Gazette
reports.

The suit was filed by Christopher M. Murphy, who has accepted
work assignments from Labor Ready's office at 230 S. Main St.
from January through June.  

It seeks to recover the total fees deducted from Mr. Murphy's
wages and those of the other Labor Ready clients who are paid
via cash dispensing machines found in the company's offices.

Mr. Murphy is basing his case on a 2005 New York State Supreme
Court ruling that states the deduction of the fees, which range
from $1 to $1.99 each time the cash machines are used, is a
violation of the state's labor laws.  

According to the suit, the total amount to be returned to the
workers, can't be determined until the number of affected
clients are identified and the amount each has had deducted from
their wages since 2000 is calculated.  It contends that the
statue of limitations for the violation is six years.

Throughout his time with the company, Mr. Murphy calculated that
he's lost about $125 through the fees.  However, he claims that
other company clients, who've used the service for longer
periods of time, have lost more.

The suit states that the company's temporary workers can receive
a paycheck check drawn on Fleet Bank or daily vouchers that can
be redeemed by using the cash dispensing machines.

However, there are no Fleet Banks in Chemung County and since
many of the company's clients don't have accounts with local
banks, they cannot cash the checks.  Thus, the suit pointed out
that most of the workers use the voucher system.

The vouchers, which the workers receive at the end of their
workday, can be redeemed at the cash dispensing machines.  The
machines though deduct $1 for the transaction and round the
total amount down to the nearest dollar.

The suit also seeks a court-ordered end to the company-enforced
practice of requiring workers without cars to pay a daily fee to
the driver of the car that drives them to work.  It contends
that arrangement should be between the driver and the person
accepting the ride, without the company's involvement.

Tacoma, Washington-based Labor Ready, Inc. (NYSE: LRW) --
http://www.laborready.com/-- is a provider of temporary  
employees for manual labor, light industrial and skilled trades
worldwide.  It operates under the brand names of Labor Ready,
Workforce, Spartan Staffing and CLP Resources.  The company's
customers are primarily small- to mid-sized businesses in the
construction, transportation, warehousing, hospitality, light
manufacturing, retail, wholesale, facilities and sanitation
industries.  These businesses typically require temporary
employees for various types of manual work.  The majority of its
customers require temporary employees for short-term projects,
such as lifting, hauling, cleaning, digging, painting and other
types of manual or unskilled work.  During the fiscal year ended
Dec. 30, 2005, the company served more than 300,000 customers
and put almost 600,000 people to work through its 887 branches
located in all 50 of the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and the
United Kingdom.  The company purchased CLP Holdings Corp. in May
2005.


LANTRONIX INC: Nov. Hearing Set for Calif. Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 22, 2006 final fairness hearing was scheduled for the
settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Lantronix, Inc.

Beginning on May 15, 2002, a number of securities class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and former officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  

These actions were consolidated into a single action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and entitled, "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS."  

After the court appointed a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff filed
amended complaints, and the defendants filed various motions to
dismiss directed at particular allegations.  Through that
process, the court dismissed certain of the allegations.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed the third amended
complaint, which was the operative complaint in the action.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

The Securities Act claims are brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased common stock of Lantronix pursuant or traceable to
the company's Aug. 4, 2000 initial public offering.  

The Exchange Act claims are based on alleged misstatements
related to the company's financial results that were contained
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO.

The claims brought under the Exchange Act are brought on behalf
of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Lantronix
securities from Nov. 1, 2000 through May 30, 2002.  

The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the business and financial
condition in order to allegedly inflate the value of the
company's securities during the class period.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Lantronix
overstated financial results through improper revenue
recognition and failure to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and the case entered
discovery.  The court set a trial date in September 2006.  

While the complaint did not specify the damages plaintiff may
seek on behalf of the purported classes of stockholders, a
recovery by the plaintiff and the plaintiff classes could have a
material adverse impact on the company.

The proceeds from certain insurance policies have funded and
continue to fund much of the company's defense to the lawsuit.

Recently, the company reached an agreement with plaintiffs to
settle the lawsuit.  The company has also reached agreements
with its relevant insurance carriers with respect to the funding
of the cash portions of the settlement with plaintiffs.

Under the terms of the agreement with the plaintiffs, the
company will not be required to contribute any cash to the
settlement, as all cash contributed would be from the company's
insurance carriers.

However, as part of the agreement with the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, the company has agreed to issue certain Lantronix
securities to the plaintiffs.

On Aug. 29, 2006, the court held a hearing to consider a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement.  It granted
preliminary approval on Sept. 8, 2006.  The court has scheduled
a final settlement approval hearing date on Nov. 22, 2006.  

The suit is "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire Blvd.
         - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone: 310-725-
         6400 and 310.208.2800, Fax; 310.209.2348, E-mail:
         valexander@yaplaw.com;

     (2) Andrew J. Brown of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         andrewb@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Karnit Daniel of Weiss and Lurie, 10940 Wilshire,
         Boulevard, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
         310-208-2800, E-mail: service@wyca.com.

Representing the defendants are, Keith E. Eggleton, Boris
Feldman, Kelley E. Moohr and Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100.


MAGEE-WOMENS: High Court Mulls Appeal in Medical Results Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is considering an appeal to
overturn a lower court decision that denied class-action status
to a case by two women against Magee-Womens Hospital over the
reading of Pap smear test results, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
reports.

In 2004, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Robert P. Horgos
dismissed the lawsuit, "Walter, et al. v. Magee-Womens Hospital,
et al.," filed by two local women, saying the plaintiffs had not
shown any harm had occurred.  The Superior Court upheld that
ruling in April 2005.

Plaintiffs in the suit are Christine Walter of Sewickley and
Sharon King of West Deer.  Both are accusing the hospital of
misleading patients by putting physician auto-signatures to test
results that the physician had not reviewed.

Though neither woman has shown signs of illness, their attorney,
Robert Daniels, said that between 1995 and 2003 thousands of
women who had Pap smears at the hospital may be in danger since
a pathologist did not review the test results.

Thus, Mr. Daniels wants the court to order the hospital to have
a board-certified pathologist review any test results in
question and if deemed necessary retest some patients.

However, attorney William Pietragallo, who represents the
hospital, countered that the two women have no standing to sue,
since there is no evidence that their Pap smears were read
incorrectly, or that they sustained any harm.  He pointed out
that fear of cancer is not a real injury.

The parties cited past court opinions backing ongoing monitoring
after exposure to asbestos or toxic substances.  Mr. Pietragallo
though contends that the case is different, since women have
annual Pap tests that would reveal any abnormalities.  Mr.
Daniels countered that the women might not know a previous test
was unreliable unless they received notification.

A brief filed by the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of
Pennsylvania on Magee's behalf argued that if the court rules in
favor of the women, "it would dramatically lower the threshold"
for patients to sue hospitals, leading to increased malpractice
premiums and higher health care costs.

For more details, contact Sprague & Sprague, The Wellington
Building, 135 South 19th Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-561-7681 or 800-541-7358, Web sites:
http://www.spragueandsprague.com/and  
http://www.papsmearsuitagainstmagee.com/.


MAGMA DESIGN: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the purported shareholder
class action against Magma Design Automation, Inc.

On June 13, 2005, a putative shareholder class action was filed
by The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust against Magma Design
Automation, Inc., Rajeev Madhavan, Gregory C. Walker and Roy E.
Jewell, Case No. No. C 05 02394."

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which defendants have again
moved to dismiss.  

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite
         3900, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax:
         (213) 617-1975, E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Eric J. Belfi of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0878,
         Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com; and

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue
         of The Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Dale M. Edmondson of O'Melveny &
Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone:
650/473-2632, Fax: 650/473-2601, E-mail: dedmondson@omm.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Medford Hires Attorney for Lawsuit by Retirees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medford's Council has hired Springfield attorney Robert Franz to
defend the city and city manager Mike Dyal in a class action
filed by retired public employees, the Mail Tribune reports.

The civil suit was filed by former city attorney Ron Doyle, Bob
Deuel, Ben Miller and Chuck Steinberg in U.S. district court.  
Plaintiffs in the case seek to represent a potential class of
hundreds of other retirees who were denied continued health
insurance benefits starting in 1990.  

The suit asks for unspecified amount of compensation for the
difference between the cost of retirees' health insurance
premiums and the cost of city employees' premiums; compensation
for emotional distress; and punitive damages against the city
manager for discontinuing the practice of allowing retirees the
same insurance as employees.

The city discontinued health insurance coverage to police
officer retirees in 1990.  It did the same to then management-
level employees in 2001.  Now, about 300 of the 440 current
employees are not offered continued health insurance into
retirement.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Stephen Brischetto of
520 SW Yarnhill, Portland, OR 97204-1129, Phone: (503) 223-2814
Fax: (503) 228-1317.


MICROSOFT CORP: Nov. Trial Set for Iowa Consumer Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 13, 2006 trial is scheduled for one of the last remaining
consumer antitrust class actions filed against Microsoft Corp.,
according to The Associated Press.    

The lawsuit in Polk County District Court, Iowa against
Microsoft has made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court three times
and unlike those in most states, which have been either settled
or dismissed, it is scheduled for trial that is expected to last
six months.  Bill Gates, company co-founder and chairman, is on
the witness list to testify.

Specifically, the case claims that the company violated Iowa's
antitrust laws and harmed customers by:

      -- illegally overcharging for its software;

      -- denying class members free choice in software products
         and the benefits of software innovation; and

      -- making computers increasingly susceptible to security
         breaches.

However, the company denies that consumers were injured and said
that computer users have benefited from the company's efforts to
improve its products.

According to Des Moines attorney Roxanne Conlin, her experts
have estimated that individuals and businesses were overcharged
as much as $453 million for Microsoft products in the past 12
years, since a lack of competition has inflated the cost of the
company's products.

In Iowa, about 5.1 million licenses for Microsoft Windows have
been issued, 1.8 million for Office, 446,373 for Word and about
21,349 for Excel.  

Ms. Conlin pointed out that the average consumer overcharges
ranges from $10.50 for buyers of Word to $56.99 to those who
purchased Excel.  She also pointed out that many customers might
have purchased more than one version in 12 years, thus they
could be eligible for multiples of those amounts.

Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.

The reason that case continues to this day is due to Ms.
Conlin's refusal to accept a settlement in which the company
would offer vouchers for computer products.

Initially, the company faced 206 class actions across the U.S.  
It said that 108 were consolidated in a federal antitrust case
and 96 remained in state courts.  Most were dismissed or settled
for vouchers.  The cases in Iowa and Mississippi are among the
few that remain.

For more details, contact Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C.
319 Seventh Street, Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone:
(515) 283-1111, Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com/.


MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Recalls Mushrooms Over Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monterey Mushrooms of Watsonville, California is recalling
approximately 10,000 cases of fresh sliced white mushrooms and
fresh sliced baby bella mushrooms, because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Fresh sliced mushrooms were distributed from Monterey's location
in Temple, Pennsylvania into the northeastern states of
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia through retail stores and produce
market channels.

These fresh sliced mushrooms were packaged for retail stores in
4 oz., 6 oz., 8 oz., and 16 oz. foam tills and 10 oz. plastic
bags with code dates 237 through 247.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The mushrooms are labeled "Wash before using"; however, Listeria
monocytogenes may not be removed with washing.  Cooking will
destroy the organism.

Monterey received a positive test result for listeria on their 6
oz. sliced Baby Bella product through a random product sampling
by the Ohio State Department of Agriculture.  No complaints of
illnesses have been reported.  The company believes the source
of potential contamination has been identified and corrected,
effective Sept. 5, 2006.

Monterey initiated a voluntary recall on Sept. 6, 2006 based on
preliminary information.  Most product has already been removed
from distribution.  All other sliced mushrooms from Monterey's
Temple, Pennsylvania facility should be considered safe as of
this date.

Consumers who have purchased Monterey Mushrooms' fresh sliced
white or Baby Bella mushrooms in these states are advised to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-333-
6874.


NEW YORK: Albany County Jail Officials Face Suit Filed by Inmate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany County jail inmate Brian Brodhead filed a suit in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York on Sept. 5
over conditions at the facility, Michele Morgan Bolton of the
Timesunion.com reports.

The civil suit claims correction officials ignored repeated
requests by inmates to exterminate an infestation of mosquitoes
in the east and west cellblocks and worms that foul showers.  
Further, according to the report, the complaint stated that lack
of air-conditioning in the jail this summer bred microorganisms
that caused many inmates to develop rashes.

The suit named as defendants Chief Correction Officer Mark
Kramek, Assistant Superintendent John Teabout and one other jail
employee.  The suit seeks improvement in living conditions,
damages of $5.5 million and class-action status for the suit.  
Mr. Brodhead is filing the suit without a lawyer, the report
said.

The suit is "Brodhead et al. v. Muhammad et al., Case No. 9:06-
cv-01066-LEK-DEP," filed under Judge Lawrence E. Kahn with
referral to Judge David E. Peebles.


NEW ZEALAND: Activist Group Plans to File Suit Over WFF Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Child Poverty Action Group in New Zealand plans to file a second
lawsuit that will challenge the government's program "Working
for Families," Kim Thomas of NZLawyer reports.

The country's Human Rights Review Tribunal determined this year
in a ruling on one case that the group could challenge the
program for discriminating against beneficiaries because it is
paid only to those in employment, the report said.

According to the program's Web site, WFF is a package that is
designed to make it easier to work and raise a family.  It pays
extra money to many thousands of New Zealand families.  Greater
financial support is available for: almost all families with
children, earning under $70,000 a year; many families with
children, earning up to $100,000 a year; and some larger
families earning more.

This assistance is delivered by Work and Income and Inland
Revenue.

The activist group's spokeswoman, Janfrie Wakim, said the
organization is now looking for beneficiaries to become
plaintiffs in legal action, either as individuals or as a class.

"The kind of people who would be suitable for this kind of
action, we believe, must already have a deep conviction that
making public assistance for children subject to parental work
testing is a fundamental injustice," she said.

The group's lawyer is Catherine Rodgers of the Office of Human
Rights Proceedings.


NORTH CAROLINA: Schools Seek to Junk Students' Gang Policy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Durham Public School System in North Carolina asked Superior
Court Judge Orlando Hudson to dismiss a lawsuit over its gang
policy, The News & Observer.

Eight students filed the lawsuit in March, claiming that they
were mislabeled as gang members and unfairly suspended (Class
Action Reporter, March 29, 2006).  Patti Solari, one of
students' attorneys, contends that the policy should be revised
and that students wrongfully suspended should be let back into
school.

The suit specifically alleges that the school denies equal
opportunity to education and due process, and that its
disciplinary measures have racial implications.  Named as
original defendants in the case are:

     -- Superintendent Ann Denlinger,
     -- Board Chairwoman Gail Heath,
     -- Vice Chairman Steve Martin,
     -- Board Member Steve Schewel,
     -- Board Member Heidi Carter,
     -- other school and public officials,
     -- past and present principals at Southern and Jordan high
        schools, and
     -- Sheriff Worth Hill and two of his deputies

The suit stems from a suspension record for school year 2004-
2005 that shows only 202 white male students have been suspended
for the period compared with 1,297 black males.

If the case goes forward, Ms. Solari plans to ask a judge to
designate the lawsuit as a class action so it applies to any
student in a similar situation.

Claims of racial discrimination against the two deputies who
work in the schools have been thrown out by Judge Hudson in
July.

On a Sept. 13 hearing, an attorney for the school system, Ann
Majestic, contended that the case was "baseless" since the
students failed to show they tried everything to appeal
suspension before taking the matter to court.  She pointed out
that state law requires that effort.

Ms. Solari, a North Carolina Central University law professor,
maintains that the students' stories show that school
administrators used a vague, "zero-tolerance" gang policy to
oust minorities.

She added that the current and former students weren't given
adequate notice of suspension, and those who appealed were not
taken seriously.

Seven of the students are black, the lawyer said.  One
plaintiff, Ms. Solari's daughter, is white but was discriminated
against due to her association with black students while at
Jordan High School.

Furthermore, Ms. Solari told the court at the hearing that there
is a "pattern and practice" of discrimination in the schools,
including the suspensions of three students after a fight at
Jordan in December.  The fight lasted less than two minutes,
according to her.

However, Ms. Majestic countered that Ms. Solari doesn't give
enough proof of a pattern.  She pointed out that the 52-page
lawsuit contradicts itself, makes accusations against people who
are not named as defendants and does not deliver the proof it
promises.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] Patti Solari, 1512 S. Alston Avenue,
         Durham, NC 27707, Phone: (919) 530-6333, Fax: (919)
         530-6339; and

     (2) [Defendant] Ann L. Majestic of Tharrington Smith, LLP,
         209 Fayettevlle Street Mall, P.O. Box 1151, Raleigh, NC
         27602, Phone: (919) 821-4711, Fax: (919) 829-1583.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Attorney for Former Employee Plans New Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney for a former PPG Industries Inc. employee who
recently won a $1 million award for discrimination claims said
he was preparing a class action against the company, according
to a report by Christopher Snowbeck of the Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette.

Bruce C. Fox of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP
represented former PPG employee Kathleen Moyer of Hampton in a
suit over age and gender discrimination against the company.  
She recently won a $1 million arbitration judgment in the case.  

Ms. Moyer started working at PPG Industries in 1968 as an
engineer.  She was terminated in 2004 as the company determined
that "business necessities" required that some employees lose
their jobs.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG Industries, Inc. --
http://www.ppg.com-- manufactures coatings, glass, and  
chemicals products.  The coatings products include protective
and decorative coatings for industrial equipment, appliances,
and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions, and steel
and aluminum coils; aircraft; automotive original equipment; and
other industrial and consumer products, as well as automotive
refinishes to the aftermarket.

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP: One Penn Center, 1617
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 19th Floor, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103-1895 (Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-665-3000,
Fax: 215-665-3165.


SECURITIES AMERICA: La. Court Upholds $22M Arbitration Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern of
District of Louisiana denied a motion by Securities America, a
brokerage arm of Ameriprise Financial, Inc., to modify a $22
million arbitration award against the company.

The award was a result of a class action filed on behalf of
Exxon Mobil employees whose retirement accounts were grossly
mismanaged by Securities America broker David McFadden.

New Orleans-based law firm Correro Fishman Haygood Phelps
Walmsley & Casteix represented 32 Exxon Mobil employees in the
suit.  The case lasted over two years.

"This ruling has huge implications on many levels," says Correro
Fishman Managing Partner Jim Swanson, who worked closely on the
case.  "From a legal perspective, the fact that the judge
affirmed the punitive damages of the award is important because
Louisiana law generally doesn't allow punitive damages."

Retired plant workers who invested their retirement savings with
Securities America, Inc. filed suit in state court based on
allegations that they lost the majority of their life savings
due to the blatant self-dealing of Securities America and Mr.
McFadden, broker who serviced plaintiffs' Securities America
accounts.

Securities America demanded that they pursue their claims in
arbitration as required by the Securities America customer
agreement.

The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim with the National
Association of Securities Dealers-Dispute Resolution in July of
2003.  The panel issued an award in favor of the plaintiffs on
May 15, 2006.

The award includes $11,635,850 in compensatory damages,
$4,654,374 in attorney's fees, $453,924.62 in costs, and
approximately $3.5 million in punitive damages.  With interest,
the award totals approximately $22 million.  The award included
separate amounts for each plaintiff ranging from $144,112 to
$1,364,205.

The arbitration spanned approximately three years, and it
involved 90 hearing days.

The arbitration panel consisted of C. Ellis Henican, Jr., and
Leonard J. Sullivan, who were the "public" arbitrators, and
Michael F. Brown, the "industry" arbitrator.  Mr. Brown replaced
Richard Upton after Mr. Upton withdrew from the panel.

Plaintiffs filed this action against Securities America seeking
to confirm the award.  Securities America and Mr. McFadden filed
a separate action, which has been consolidated with the
plaintiffs' action, seeking to vacate the award.

Securities America and McFadden argue that the award should be
vacated or modified for the following reasons:

     (1) the award's assessment of punitive damages was in
         manifest disregard of the law and public policy;

     (2) the award's attorneys' fees were grossly excessive and
         in manifest disregard of the law and public policy;

     (3) one of the appointed arbitrators failed to make
         required disclosures of material information that
         constituted an appearance of bias and therefore evident
         partiality in violation of Securities America's and
         McFadden's right to due process"; and

     (4) the conduct of one of the arbitrators demonstrated
         evident partiality in violation of Security America's
         and McFadden's right to due process.

The court found no merit in Securities America and McFadden's
contention that the panel failed to assess punitive damages on
an individual basis.

In the award, the panel listed a separate amount of punitive
damages to be paid to each individual Plaintiff.  The panel did
not state its reasons for the amount of punitive damages it
awarded to each plaintiff.

A copy of the judge's orders is available for free at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11b3

The suit is "Adams et al. v. Securities America, Inc., Case No.
2:06-cv-02509-JCZ-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Jay C. Zainey, with
referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Representing the defendants:

     (1) Lauren Fajoni Bartlett, Karen M. Dicke, George Davidson
         Fagan and Wendy Lynn Rovira all of Leake & Andersson,
         LLP, Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1700, New
         Orleans, LA 70163-1701, Phone: (504) 585-7500, E-mail:
         lbartlett@leakeandersson.com or
         kdicke@leakeandersson.com or gfagan@leakeandersson.com
         or wrovira@leakeandersson.com;

     (2) Juston M. O'Brien of McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC - New
         Orleans, 643 Magazine St., New Orleans, LA 70130-3477,
         Phone: 504-586-1200, E-mail: jobrien@mcglinchey.com;

     (3) Thomas A. Roberts of McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC - New
         Orleans, 643 Magazine St., New Orleans, LA 70130-3477,
         Phone: 504-586-1200, E-mail: troberts@mcglinchey.com or
         mrubin@mcglinchey.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Joseph C. Peiffer and James Richard Swanson both of
         Correro Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley & Casteix, LLP,
         201 St. Charles Ave., 46th Floor, New Orleans, LA,
         70170-4600, Phone: 504-586-5252, E-mail:
         jpeiffer@cfhlaw.com or jswanson@cfhlaw.com; and

     (2) Kyle D. Schonekas of Schonekas, Winsberg, Evans &
         McGoey, LLC, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2105, New
         Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-680-6050, E-mail:
         kyle@swemlaw.com.


SELECT MEDICAL: Discovery Begins in Penna. Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action pending against Select Medical Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has moved to the discovery and class certification
phase, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 3006.

On Aug. 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed a
purported class action complaint on behalf of the public
stockholders of the company against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A.
Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice and the company.

In February 2005, the court appointed James Shaver, Frank C.
Bagatta and Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der
Bank Austria Creditanstalt Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.

On April 19, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders of Select,
against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A.
Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the company as defendants.

The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things,
failure to disclose adverse information regarding a potential
regulatory change affecting reimbursement for the company's
services applicable to long-term acute care hospitals operated
as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance of false and
misleading statements about the financial outlook of the
company.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees.  The company
believes that the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this
action.

In April 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the
company and the individual officers' preliminary motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

The company and the individual officers have answered the
amended complaint and the case has moved to the discovery and
class certification phase.

The suit is "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the U.S. District for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge J. Curtis Joyner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Lori G. Feldman, Shannon L. Hopkins
         and Peter E. Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
         sdumain@milbergweiss.com, lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
         shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and

     (2) Eric L. Young of Kenney Lennon & Egan, 3031 Walton
         Road, Building C, Suite 202, Plymouth, PA 19462, Phone:
         215-260-5493, E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com.

Representing the defendants are, David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Stuart T. Steinberg of Dechert, LLP, Phone: 215-
994-4000, 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2521, E-mail:
david.howard@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com and
stuart.steinberg@dechert.com.


SEPRACOR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the consolidated securities class actions
filed against Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and a current director in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The company and several of its officers were named as defendants
in several class action complaints which have been filed on
behalf of certain persons who purchased the company's common
stock and/or debt securities during different time periods,
beginning on various dates, the earliest being May 17, 1999, and
all ending on March 6, 2002.

These complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Primarily, they allege that the defendants made certain
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
testing, safety and likelihood of approval of tecastemizole by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In both the debt purchasers' action and equity purchasers'
action, the court has granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

In late February 2006, two corrected and amended consolidated
complaints were filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the
company common stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers
of the company's debt securities.

The amended complaints were for:

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12235-MEL," (Debt Purchasers Action); and

      -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
         02-12338-MEL," (Equity Purchasers Action).

The cases were brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
either purchased any of the 5%, 5.75% or 7% convertible debt
securities of the company, or purchased the common stock or call
options or who sold put options of the company on the open
market, between May 17, 1999 and March 6, 2002.

These corrected and amended consolidated complaints reiterate
the allegations contained in the previously filed complaints.
The parties are engaged in discovery, according to the company's
Sept. 12 form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006.

A copy of the Debt Purchasers lawsuit is available at:

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e7

A copy of the Equity Purchasers lawsuit is available at:

          http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e8

For more details, contact:

     (1) Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City
         Group, Inc., Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6372,
         Merrick, New York 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 916-5305.

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

     (3) Michael R. Dube Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
         LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526-
         6420, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
         michael.dube@wilmerhale.com.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Oral Arguments Yet to be Set for Ga. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
No date has been set yet for oral arguments on the motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Spectrum Brands, Inc.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company, along with Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer David A. Jones, and Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer Randall J. Steward, were named
defendants in a purported class action "Jain v. Spectrum Brands
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-2494-WSD."  The suit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

It was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities between Jan. 4, 2005 and
Sept. 6, 2005.

Plaintiff generally alleges that the company and the
individually named defendants made materially false and
misleading public statements concerning the company's
operational and financial condition, thereby allegedly causing
plaintiff to purchase company securities at artificially
inflated prices.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.

The suit was followed by these additional cases:

     -- "Dague v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and
        Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-0580-C," filed
        Oct. 3, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
        District of Wisconsin (Wisconsin Action);

     -- "Davies v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and
        Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-2814," filed on
        Oct. 31, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
        Northern District of Georgia; and

     -- "Hunkapiller v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and
        Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-2911-WSD," filed
        Nov. 14, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
        Northern District of Georgia, purportedly brought on
        behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly-
        traded securities between Jan. 4, 2005 and Nov. 11,
        2005.

By Order dated Nov. 18, 2005, all cases pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia were
consolidated, and the court entered a scheduling order providing
for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and briefing
schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss.  On Dec. 22, 2005,
plaintiff in the Wisconsin action dismissed the complaint.

On Nov. 28, 2005, a motion was filed in the Georgia Action to
appoint lead plaintiffs and approve selection of co-lead
counsel.

On Dec. 30, 2005, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion.  Pursuant to the scheduling order entered on
Nov. 18, 2005, on Feb. 2, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 6, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Briefing of defendants' motion
to dismiss was completed on April 28, 2006.  

On Aug. 3, 2006, defendants filed a motion seeking leave to
submit a supplemental brief informing the court of the
termination of the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office
of the Northern District of Georgia.  Oral argument on
defendants' motion to dismiss has not yet been set.

The suit is "In re: Spectrum Brands Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-02494-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge William S.
Duffey, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail:
         mdc@classlaw.com;

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

     (3) Trevan Borum of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-
         mail: tborum@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants is James R. Carroll of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108,
Phone: 617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
jcarroll@skadden.com.


STRATOS INT'L: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action against
Stratos International, Inc., according to the company's Sept.
12, 2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended July 31, 2006.

The company and certain of its former directors and executive
officers have been named as defendants in purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York.  

The first of these lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001, is "Kucera
v. Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et al. No. 01 CV 6821."  The
complaints are substantially identical to numerous other
complaints filed against other companies that went public during
the time of Stratos' initial public offering.

Three other similar lawsuits have also been filed against
Stratos and certain of the company's former directors and
executive officers.  

The complaints also name as defendants the underwriters for
Stratos' initial public offering.  The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus from the company's June 26, 2000 initial public
offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the
underwriters for the offering.

The complaints charge Stratos and several of the company's
former directors and executive officers with violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and/or Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the U.S.
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

The complaints also allege claims solely against the
underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the company agreed to a Memorandum and Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, Stratos and the former
officers and directors, and the company's liability insurers.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
company's liability insurers will pay certain sums to the
plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs'
recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a
whole.

Plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims against
Stratos and the company's former officers and directors, and
Stratos will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may
have against the underwriters.

Plaintiffs filed with the court a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which, when granted, would lead to
the mailing of class-wide notices of the settlement and a
hearing date for approval of the settlement.

The issuers, including Stratos, filed a statement joining in the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
The underwriter defendants opposed the motion.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued its ruling granting the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
with the issuers, subject to certain changes to the bar order to
be included as part of the settlement and to the notice to the
class, and the court recently approved the revisions made to the
settlement and the notice pursuant to its prior order.

The settlement still remains subject to final approval by the
court after notice of the settlement is sent to the class.  A
final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24,
2006, at which time the court took final approval of the
settlement under advisement.

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


TALISMAN ENERGY: N.Y. Court Junks "Alien Tort Claims Act" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a $1 billion class action brought by the Presbyterian
Church of Sudan against Calgary-based Talisman Energy Inc. under
the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Edmonton Journal reports.

U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote granted a summary judgment
motion by Talisman to dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs
have failed to "locate admissible evidence that Talisman has
violated international law."

"The issue is whether the plaintiffs have supplied sufficient
admissible evidence to proceed to trial on their claims," the
judge said in her 111-page order.  "They have not."

In her ruling the judge held the Republic of Sudan, which was
also named a defendant, in default and ordered an inquest into
its responsibility for damages stemming from the country's civil
war.

Carey D'Avino, lead counsel for Philadelphia-based Berger and
Montague P.C., which is prosecuting the case in New York court,
said the ruling was "based on a deeply flawed factual and legal
analysis of the evidence."

Rev. Matthew Mathiang, moderator of the Western Upper Nile
Presbytery, said plaintiffs are preparing to appeal the
dismissal of the case.

In 2001, the Presbyterian Church of Sudan brought the lawsuit
against Calgary-based Talisman Energy Inc. in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan.

The lawsuit alleges that the company conspired with, or aided
and abetted, the government of Sudan to commit violations of
international law in connection with the Company's now disposed-
of interest in oil operations in Sudan.

Specifically, the suit alleged, "Talisman, in an effort to
protect its oil fields in Sudan, aided and abetted the
fundamentalist Islamic government in its ongoing and self-
proclaimed 'jihad' -- a campaign that has resulted in massive
civilian displacement; the burning of villages, churches and
crops; and the murder and enslavement of innocent civilians."

The suit is "The Presbyterian, et al. v. Talisman Energy, et
al., Case No. 1:01-cv-09882-DLC-HBP," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Denise L. Cote.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carey R. D'Avino of Carey R. D'Avino, P.C., 1251 Avenue
         of the Americas, 42nd Floor, New York, NY 10020, Phone:
         (212) 278-1382;

     (2) Steven E. Fineman and Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser
         Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 780 Third Ave., 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-
         9592, E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com;

     (3) Linda Gerstel and Lawrence A. Kill of Anderson, Kill,
         Olick & Oshinsky P.C., 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10020, Phone: (212) 278-1000, Fax: (212) 278-
         1733, E-mail: lgerstel@andersonkill.com and
         lkill@andersonkill.com; and

     (4) Keino R. Robinson and Stephen A. Whinston of Berger
         & Montague, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: (215)-875-4655 and (215) 875-3097, Fax: (215)-
         875-4604 and (215) 875-4604, E-mail: krobinson@bm.net
         and swhinston@bm.net.

Representing the Defendant is Darcy Lynne O'Loughlin and Marc
Joel Gottridge of Lovells, 900 Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)-367-8381 and (212) 909-0600, Fax:
(212)-909-0666 and (212) 909-0666, E-mail:
darcy.o'loughlin@lovells.com and marc.gottridge@lovells.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven a securities class action was
commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Aspen Technology, Inc. (AZPN)
between Feb. 6, 2006 and Sept. 6, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against defendant Aspen 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 request for appointment as lead plaintiff
on or before Nov. 7, 2006.

For more details, contact Brower Piven, 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: Federman Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces the filing of a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Aspen Technology, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Feb. 6, 2006 through Sept. 6, 2006.

Interested parties may request for appointment as lead plaintiff
on or before Nov. 7, 2006.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


IMAX CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extended the class period in
a class action it filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of IMAX
Corp. common stock.  The previous class period was from Feb. 17,
2006 to Aug. 9, 2006.  The new class period is from Oct. 28,
2004 to Aug. 9, 2006.

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

      -- that defendants improperly timed revenue recognition
         from theaters;

      -- that the company recognized revenue in the fourth
         quarter of 2005 from at least ten theaters before the
         theaters had opened;

      -- that the company sought to manipulate its financial
         results because it desired to attract entities
         interested in buying or merging with the company;

      -- that the company's financial statements were materially
         inflated;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that the company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles.

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

Interested parties may request for appointment as lead plaintiff
on or before Oct. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Jack Fruchter, Esq. or Larry Levit,
Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite
2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800)
440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or
llevit@aftlaw.com.  


IMAX CORP: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
the filing of a class action on Sept. 5, 2006 on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of IMAX Corp., between Feb. 17,
2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.  The suit seeks to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that:

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

      -- IMAX lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

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

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

Interested parties may request for appointment as lead plaintiff
on or before Oct. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Janine L. Pollack and Anita B.
Kartalopoulos, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY,
10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
jjoseph@milbergweiss.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.  


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *