CAR_Public/060919.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 186

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Seeks to Suspend Circuit Judge's Ruling on Felon Voting
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Amend Consolidated Stock Suit
AVCO CORP: Faces Complaint Over Lycoming Engines in California
AZTAR CORP: Nov. Hearing Set in Pinnacle Merger Suit Settlement
BLUE RIDGE: Tenn. Court Mulls Appeal in Personal Nuisance Suit

CANADA: Councilor Backs Planned Suit Over Soot in Hamilton
DEVRY INC: Discovery Proceeds in Suit Filed by Student in Calif.
DEVRY INC: Ill. Court Dismisses Computer Students' Lawsuit
DEVRY INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Judge in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit to Resign

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Oct. Hearing Set for Calif. Labor Suit Deal
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
EN POINTE: Sept. Fairness Hearing Set for $1.8M Stock Suit Deal
EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH: Ordered to Refund Illegal Student Fees
GUAM: Court Deliberates on Suit Over Retirees' COLA Increases

ILLINOIS: Court Yet to Certify Suit Over Well Water Pollution
LAFARGE CORP: Court Denies $2.6M Settlement of "Olden" Suit
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set in Salomon Stock Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Mass. Judge to Hear 'Stuck Kids' Suit in December
MERISANT CO: Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Over Equal Sugar Lite

NETGEAR INC: Calif. Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
PFIZER INC: "Bowling" Suit Settlement Benefits Still Available
RED ROBIN: Remand Motion for Calif. Labor Violations Suit Denied
RED ROBIN: Col. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
REMEC INC: In Negotiation to Settle Calif. Labor Violations Suit

REMEC INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Shareholders File Suit Over UCS Merger
SONY BMG: EFF Questions XCP, MediaMax Canadian Suit Settlement
TITLE INSURANCE COS: Checks in Homebuyers Suit Settlement Bounce
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit Appealed

VISTACARE INC: Sept. 29 Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Deal
VISTAPRINT LTD: Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement Challenged
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Oct. Hearing Set Over Summary Judgment
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set in "Salomon" Lawsuit
XM SATELLITE: D.C. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits

XO COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. 29 Hearing Set in Salomon Analyst Case
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Named in Back-Dating Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
    
ADVO INC: Saxena White Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
DELL INC: Schatz & Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
SCOTTISH RE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ALABAMA: Seeks to Suspend Circuit Judge's Ruling on Felon Voting
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state attorney general filed a motion to postpone the entire
order by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. to
allow felons to vote in Alabama, Bob Johnson of the Associated
Press reports.

In August, Judge Vance issued a ruling permitting felons to vote
until the Alabama Legislature clarifies crimes of "moral
turpitude."  At a Sept. 1 hearing, Judge Vance agreed to stay
much of his order until after the Nov. 7 general election and
until the Supreme Court could rule on an appeal on the ruling.  
However, he allowed felons convicted of a crime that past
attorney general opinions or court decisions have said do not
involve moral turpitude to register to vote.

On Sept. 8, Attorney General Troy King filed a motion asking
that all part of the order be put on hold until the Alabama
Supreme Court can rule on the appeal.  

"There was no evidence that any registrar in Alabama was denying
all felons the ability to register to vote without regard to
whether the felony involved moral turpitude," according to the
motion.

Judge Vance's ruling came in a class action filed by former
felon Richard Gooden.  Mr. Gooden lost his right to vote in 2000
when he was convicted of felony driving under the influence of
illegal drug.  When he completed his sentence and tried to have
his voting rights restored, he was denied pending an the release
of an opinion by the attorney general on what crimes do not
involve moral turpitude.

Mr. Gooden has since been allowed to register to vote in
Jefferson County.  Representing him is Ryan Haygood, an attorney
for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People Legal Defense Fund.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Amend Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint was filed in the consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against Authentidate
Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and certain of current
and former officers and directors.  

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders have filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed as
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005 the Court consolidated the class actions as, "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 3,
2006, which asserted the same claims as the prior complaints and
also alleged that the company violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable
technology.

On July 14, 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in
its entirety; certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and
plaintiff was given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The suit is "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Laura Taylor Swain.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard William Gonnello, Andrew J. Entwistle and
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr. of Entwistle &
         Cappucci, LLP, 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West, New
         York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 894-7200, Fax: (212) 894-
         7272, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com and
         jwhitman@entwistle-law.com; and

     (2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road,  
         Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
         631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Irwin Howard Warren of Weil,
Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153,
Phone: (212) 310-8000, Fax: (212) 833-3148, E-mail:
irwin.warren@weil.com.


AVCO CORP: Faces Complaint Over Lycoming Engines in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California man has filed a class action against Lycoming
Engines, AVCO Corp. and AVCO Corp., in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.  Lycoming Engines is a
division of AVCO Corp. and a wholly owned subsidiary of Textron,
Inc.

Richard A. Bristow, a resident of Carmichael, filed the suit for
himself and a class of others similarly situated in California,
who own or lease airplanes with piston aircraft engines
manufactured by Lycoming and subject to Lycoming's "Mandatory
Early Retirement" Service Bulletin Nos. 569 and 569A.

The "early retirement" program announced by Lycoming in February
2006, impacts over 5000 planes and is a direct result of
Lycoming's alleged defective design, manufacture, and testing of
its engines, which can lead to premature failure of the engine
crankshafts causing power loss, engine failure, damage to the
airplane and possible loss of life.  The complaint claims
defendants knew these problems for years.

By issuing an "early retirement" program that forces owners to
pay for the replacement of the defective and unsafe Lycoming
crankshafts, instead of issuing a recall where Lycoming would
bear the costs, defendants have allegedly engaged in deceptive,
unlawful and unfair conduct.

The plaintiff brings the action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of:

     -- a class of all persons and entities in California:

        * who currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;

        * who formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006; and


     -- a consumer subclass of all persons and entities in
        California who -- primarily for personal, family or
        Household purposes:

        * currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;

        * formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006.

The complaint raises claims of violation of Unfair Competition
Law, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 for
unfair business practice, fraudulent business practice, and
illegal business practice; and California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act California Civil Code Section 1750.

The suit seeks, among others:

     -- certification of the proposed class and consumer
        subclass;

     -- injunctive relief requiring the defendants cease
        omitting material information regarding the Lycoming
        crankshafts covered by SB569A, replace the Lycoming  
        crankshafts, repair any additional damage to parts
        caused by that replacement, and pay for all costs
        including parts, labor, and other consequential costs;

     -- a declaration that defendants must provide full
        restitution;

     -- an order temporarily and permanently enjoining
        defendants from continuing the unfair business practices
        alleged in this complaint; and

     -- an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

The complaint is available at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11d3

Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael F. Ram, Erica L. Craven
at Levy, Ram & Olson LLP; and Robert W. Mills Harry Shulman at
The Mills Law Firm.


AZTAR CORP: Nov. Hearing Set in Pinnacle Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 21 hearing has been set for the settlement of a class
action filed against Aztar Corp. over its unconsummated merger
with Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., Alex Finkelstein of Globe
St.com reports.

Between March 17, 2006 and April 24, 2006, five substantially
identical putative class actions were filed against the company
and the members of its board of directors, including directors
Robert M. Haddock, John B. Bohle, John A. Spencer, Frank J.
Brady, Gordon M. Burns and Linda C. Faiss.

Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the  
State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, one was
filed in the Nevada District Court in and for Clark County, and
two were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County.  

The complaints are:  

      -- "Plumbers Local Union No. 519 Pension Trust Fund v.  
         Aztar Corp. et al., Case No. CV2006-004622 (Arizona);"   

      -- "Robert Glasmann, v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case No.  
         CV2006-004087 (Arizona);"   

      -- "John Drauch v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case No. A519833          
         (Nevada)."   

      -- "Esther Lowinger v. Aztar Corp. et al., Civil Action           
         No. 2045-N (Delaware);" and  

      -- "Yolanda Heady v. Robert M. Haddock, et al., Civil  
         Action No. 2090-N (Delaware).  

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to conduct an auction
or active market check prior to entering into the merger
agreement with Pinnacle and by causing company to agree to the
termination fee provisions in the Pinnacle merger agreement,
which allegedly will deter other bidders for the company.  

The complaints sought, among other things, an injunction against
the Pinnacle merger, rescission of the Pinnacle merger had it
been consummated and fees and costs.

After the suits were filed, Aztar agreed not to pay the fees and
court-related expenses, the company says in its notice of
proposed settlement accessed by Alex Finkelstein of the Globe
St.com.  

Plaintiffs in the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519"
actions moved on April 11, 2006 for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction barring the company from paying
to Pinnacle the termination fee and expenses provided for in the
Pinnacle merger agreement.  On April 27, 2006, the Arizona court
denied the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" motions
in all respects.  

On May 15, 2006, the defendants and "Drauch" entered a
stipulation to stay the "Drauch" proceedings pending disposition
of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.  

On April 20 and May 3, 2006, respectively, the defendants moved
to dismiss the "Lowinger" and "Heady" for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and to dismiss or stay
the actions in light of the prior filed Arizona cases.  

In addition, the defendants moved for an order-staying discovery
in the "Lowinger" action pending the resolution of their motion
to dismiss or stay this action.  

On May 3, 2006, the defendants and "Lowinger" entered a joint
stipulation to stay the proceedings pending disposition of the  
"Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.  

On that month, Wimar Tahoe Corp., outbid Pinnacle's $51-per-
share bid with one for $54 per share.

On May 4, 2006, the defendants moved to consolidate the two  
Delaware actions, and the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
motion on May 15, 2006.  

On May 25, 2006, the defendants, "Lowinger" and "Heady" entered
a revised joint stipulation to stay the two Delaware actions
pending disposition of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union  
No. 519" litigation.  

On Sept. 11, Aztar officials reportedly notified shareholders
that Judge Robert E. Miles of Maricopa County has set a fairness
hearing date for Nov. 21, 2006 on a settlement proposal for two
consolidated lawsuits.

Aztar's proposed settlement notice was sent to shareholders who
owned company stock between Feb. 15, 2005 and the current date,
the report said.

Under negotiations is the $500,000 lawyers' fee and legal
expenses that Aztar has agreed to pay in exchange for all claims
against the company to be permanently dismissed by the court.  
Aztar and its directors continue to deny wrongdoing.

Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett, Fairburn, Friedman & Balint PC is
lawyer for the plaintiffs.  Daniel J. McAuliffe, Robert Kort and
Jason Vanacour of Snell & Wilmer LLP -- http://www.swlaw.com/--  
represent Aztar.


BLUE RIDGE: Tenn. Court Mulls Appeal in Personal Nuisance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Court of Appeals Eastern Section has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding a decision in the personal nuisance class
action filed against Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. in the
Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

On April 15, 2003, a class action was filed against the company
for the time period June 1, 1999 until the date of the verdict
on behalf of certain owners of property along the Pigeon River
in Cocke County, Tennessee.  The demand for damages by the class
participants totaled approximately $22,500.

The suit was filed on behalf of approximately 300 residents
owning property adjoining the Pigeon River upon which the Canton
Mill is located, and into which the company has a permit to
discharge.  

The plaintiffs were seeking damages for private nuisance in the
period commencing June 1, 1999, and thereafter until present.
The plaintiffs in this action alleged that the discharge of
(colored) water from the Canton Mill resulted in a nuisance
(diminution of property value), but did not contain any
allegation relating to health or safety matters.

On Aug. 17, 2005, a jury in the Circuit Court of Cocke County,
Tennessee ruled in favor of the plaintiffs awarding $2,000 for
nuisance damages with no punitive damages being awarded.  A
liability of $2,000 was recorded in 2005.

The company has appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of
Appeals Eastern Section in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Canton, North Carolina-based, Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., -
-- http://www.blueridgepaper.com-- is a leading producer of  
envelope and specialty papers and coated bleached board for food
service packaging.  Blue Ridge has six plants in five states.


CANADA: Councilor Backs Planned Suit Over Soot in Hamilton
----------------------------------------------------------
Organizers of a possible class action over the black soot that
has fallen on parts of east Hamilton this summer have gathered
as many as 300 signatures from people interested in pursuing the
case, according to AM900 CHML.

Recently, a public meeting was held to discuss about the plan.  
Rhon Jones, from a Montgomery firm that has handled lawsuits
involving carbon black, was a special guest.  The meeting was
hosted by Ward 4 Councilor Sam Merulla.

Mr. Jones said that people may not have health worries if the
soot is proven to be carbon black, still, he said, having it on
people's property is not pleasant.

About 50 people came to the meeting, which was financed by the
Toronto law firm of Morin and Miller, Daniel Nolan of The
Hamilton Spectator reported.  The lawyers recommended a mass
tort lawsuit, which is a less lengthy procedure than a class-
action suit, according to the report.

The source of the soot has not been determined yet.


DEVRY INC: Discovery Proceeds in Suit Filed by Student in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action filed against DeVry,
Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging violations of the
state education laws.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, brought a putative class action in the California state
district court for the County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiff
alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students did not
comply with California state statutes including a California
Education Code requirement to provide a specified statement to
prospective students concerning the transferability of credits.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, and a motion to dismiss was filed.  The
motion to dismiss was denied, and discovery is proceeding,
according to the company's Sept. 13 form 10-k filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael D. Braun of Braun Law Group, 12400 Wilshire
         Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025, Phone:
         310-442-7755, E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com; and

     (2) Janet Lindner Spielberg of Janet L. Spielberg Law
         Offices, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400, Los
         Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: 310-392-8801, E-mail:
         jlspielberg@jlslp.com.  

Representing the defendants is Van T. Lam of Reed Smith, 355
South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514,
Phone: 213-457-8000.


DEVRY INC: Ill. Court Dismisses Computer Students' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois dismissed a
purported class action against DeVry, Inc. and DeVry University,
which alleges that DeVry graduates do not have appropriate
skills for employment in the computer information systems field.  

In November 2000, Afshin Zarinebaf, Ali Mousavi and another
graduate of one of DeVry University's Chicago-area campuses
filed a class action complaint.  

The complaint was subsequently dismissed by the court, but was
amended and re-filed to include as a plaintiff Mark Macenas, a
then-current student in another curriculum from a second
Chicago-area campus.  

In September 2005, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class action certification in its entirety and thus the case was
dismissed.  The remaining pending claims by each of the named
defendants were resolved by payment of less than $25,000 in June
2006.

The suit is "Zahrinebaf v. DeVry, Case No. 2000-CH-15965," filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge Aaron
Jaffe.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Horowitz Horowitz & Associates,
25 E. Washington #900, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-8822.  

Representing the company is Schopf & Weiss, 312 W. Randolph
#300, Chicago IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-9300.


DEVRY INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc. entered an agreement to
settle an amended class action filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on behalf of all
students enrolled in the post-baccalaureate degree program in
Information Technology.  

In January 2002, Royal Gardner, a graduate of one of DeVry
University's Los Angeles-area campuses, filed a class-action
complaint, alleging that the program offered by DeVry did not
conform to the program as it was presented in the advertising
and other marketing materials.  

In March 2003, the court dismissed the complaint with limited
right to amend and re-file.  The complaint was subsequently
amended and re-filed.

During the first quarter of the company's fiscal year 2004,
Gavino Teanio filed a new complaint in the same court with the
same general allegations and by the same plaintiffs' attorneys.  
This subsequent action was stayed pending the outcome of the
Gardner matter.  

The parties have now reached a settlement, which is in the
process of being implemented as former students elect whether to
participate in the settlement.  

Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois-based DeVry Inc. (NYSE: DV), --
http://www.devry.edu/-- through its wholly owned subsidiaries,  
owns and operates DeVry University, Ross University, Chamberlain
College of Nursing and Becker CPA Review (doing business as
Becker Professional Review).  DeVry University includes
undergraduate degree programs in technology, business and
healthcare technology, and graduate degree programs in
management offered through Keller Graduate School of Management.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Judge in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit to Resign
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge John Potter, who is hearing the sexual abuse case
against the Diocese of Covington, said after a session on Sept.
13 that he is retiring, reports say.

Judge Potter is availing a senior judge program in Kentucky that
would enable him to collect a pension equal to 100 percent of
his salary in his last year as full-time judge.  To avail of
that, Judge Potter had to serve an average of 120 days a year
for up to five years.

The Sept. 13 hearing was set to deal with attorneys' fees and a
demand by attorney Brenda Dahlenburg Bonar to get part of an $84
million settlement.  

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

According to The Kentucky Post, during the hearing, attorneys
hinted they might seek to replace Judge Potter, in part because
he might have had conversations with other parties about the
case that are affecting his judgment.  He told them to file a
motion to recuse.

Afterwards, in announcing his resignation, Judge Potter asked
William Wehr, the administrator of the senior judges program, to
name a replacement in time for a Sept. 29 hearing.

              Appeal on Disclosure of Victims' Info

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

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

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

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

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

                           Settlement

Meanwhile, the first monetary awards had been distributed to
victims of sexual abuse in the class action settlement with the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 15, 2006).

The amounts awarded from the $85 million settlement weren't
revealed due to privacy concerns, said Mr. Chesley.

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

                          Case Background

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

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


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Oct. Hearing Set for Calif. Labor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 3, 2006 final approval hearing was scheduled for the
settlement of three California wage-and-hour class actions
against Dollar Financial Corp.

Under the proposed settlement, class members can submit claims
pursuant to a process whereby the company could pay up to $5.8
million to settle claims asserted in the cases.

Initially the company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits
commenced by the same law firm.  Each lawsuit was pled as a
class action, and each lawsuit alleges violations of
California's wage-and-hour laws.  

The named plaintiffs are former employees:

      * Vernell Woods (suit commenced Aug. 22, 2000),
      * Juan Castillo (suit commenced May 1, 2003),
      * Stanley Chin (suit commenced May 7, 2003), and
      * Kenneth Williams (suit commenced June 3, 2003)

Each of these suits seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
other relief in connection with allegations that the company:

     -- misclassified California store (Woods) and area
        (Castillo) managers as "exempt" from a state law
        requiring the payment of overtime compensation;

     -- the company failed to provide non-management employees
        with meal and rest breaks required under state law
        (Chin); and

     -- the company computed bonuses payable to its store
        managers using an impermissible profit-sharing formula
        (Williams).

The trial court in "Chin" denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and in May 2006,
the Appellate Court affirmed the denial of class certification.

On March 15, 2006, the company reached a settlement in the
Woods, Castillo and Williams actions, and the court granted
preliminary approval of that settlement on June 19, 2006.

The company agreed to settle Woods for $4,000,000, Castillo for
$1,100,000 and Williams for $700,000.  The total amount paid to
the class members in "Woods" and "Castillo" may increase if the
company's estimate of the total number of workweeks for those
classes proves to be too low.  It is unlikely that the
settlement amounts for "Woods" or "Castillo" will increase by
more than twenty percent.  

The settlement is also subject to final court approval, the
court will hold the hearing for final approval on Oct. 3, 2006.  

Berwyn Pennsylvania-based Dollar Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: DLLR)
-- http://www.dfg.com-- is an international financial services  
company serving under-banked consumers.  It operates a store
network through its direct wholly subsidiary, Dollar Financial
Group, Inc.  

Dollar Financial, through its subsidiaries, provides retail
financial services to the general public through a network of
1,250 locations operating as Money Mart, The Money Shop, Insta-
Cheques and We The People in 34 states, the District of
Columbia, Canada and the United Kingdom.  This network includes
1,105 locations in 14 states, the District of Columbia, Canada
and the United Kingdom offering financial services, including
check cashing, consumer loans, sale of money orders, money
transfer services and various other related services.  Also
included in this network is the company's business, We The
People USA, Inc. that offers retail based legal document
preparation services through a network of 13 company-owned
stores and 132 franchised locations in 29 states.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its Canadian subsidiary remain
defendants in several purported class actions filed by customers
who were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan
transactions, according to the company's Sept. 13, 2006 Form 10-
k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006.

                          Young Action

On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
purported class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from the company's Canadian subsidiary in Alberta,
alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in
connection with such loans is usurious.  The action seeks
restitution and damages, including punitive damages.  

On Dec. 9, 2005, the company's Canadian subsidiary settled this
action, subject to court approval.  

On March 3, 2006, just prior to the date scheduled for final
court approval of the settlement, the plaintiff's lawyer advised
they would not proceed with the settlement and indicated their
intention to join the purported national class action.  No steps
have been taken in the action since March 2006.

                         MacKinnon Action

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced
an action against the company's Canadian subsidiary and 26 other
Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of British
Columbia residents who, Mr. MacKinnon claims, were overcharged
in payday-loan transactions.  

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, Mr. MacKinnon obtained an order
permitting him to re-apply for class certification, which was
appealed.  

The Court of Appeal has granted Mr. MacKinnon the right to apply
to the original judge to have her amend her order denying
certification.  

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested
order.  The company's Canadian subsidiary is seeking leave to
appeal the order.

                         Parsons Action

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for Mr. MacKinnon
commenced a proposed class action against the company's Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons.
The certification motion in this action is scheduled to proceed
in November 2006, but likely will not proceed if Mr. MacKinnon's
order allowing him to re-apply for class certification is not
overturned on appeal.

                        Other Litigation

Similar purported class actions have been commenced against the
company's Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland.  The company is named as a defendant in
the actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland but it has
not been served with the statements of claim in these actions to
date.  The claims in these additional actions are substantially
similar to those of the Ontario actions referred to above.

Berwyn Pennsylvania-based Dollar Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: DLLR)
-- http://www.dfg.com-- is an international financial services  
company serving under-banked consumers.  It operates a store
network through its direct wholly subsidiary, Dollar Financial
Group, Inc.

Dollar Financial, through its subsidiaries, provides retail
financial services to the general public through a network of
1,250 locations operating as Money Mart, The Money Shop, Insta-
Cheques and We The People in 34 states, the District of
Columbia, Canada and the United Kingdom.  This network includes
1,105 locations in 14 states, the District of Columbia, Canada
and the United Kingdom offering financial services, including
check cashing, consumer loans, sale of money orders, money
transfer services and various other related services.  Also
included in this network is the company's business, We The
People USA, Inc. that offers retail based legal document
preparation services through a network of 13 company-owned
stores and 132 franchised locations in 29 states.


EN POINTE: Sept. Fairness Hearing Set for $1.8M Stock Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $1.8 million settlement in "In Re En Pointe
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Master Case No.: 01-CV-
0205 BEN (AJB)."

The hearing will be at Courtroom A, United State Courthouse, 940
Front St., San Diego, California 92101-8900.  

Proofs of claim are due Oct. 30, 2006.  Filing for individual
hearing was until Sept. 15, 2006.

The suit was bought on behalf of all persons who bought or
otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of En Pointe
Technologies from Dec. 7, 1999 to April 13, 2000, inclusive; and
all purchasers of En Pointe stock contemporaneously with the
insider sales on Feb. 28 and March 13, 2000 (subclass).

In February 2001, En Pointe Technologies and five of its
directors, one current officer, and certain former officers
along with seven unrelated parties were named in a stockholder
class action complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations regarding the company and that the individual
defendants improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the
company's common stock and seeking a recovery by the company's
stockholders of the damages sustained as a result of such
activities.  

In an amended complaint, plaintiffs limited their claims to the
company and its chief executive officer.  In response to a
motion to dismiss, the court further limited plaintiffs' claims
to allegations of market manipulation and insider trading.  

Counsel for the parties agreed to resolve the case for $1.8
million.  The company's insurance carrier will make the payment.

Fore more information, contact: In re En Pointe Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O.
Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040.

Plaintiff firms involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,  
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:  
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com;  

     (2) Krause & Kalfayan, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.232.0331, Fax:  
         619.232.4019;  

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

     (4) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,  
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:  
         info@whhf.com; and

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


EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH: Ordered to Refund Illegal Student Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Douglas Knight has ordered
Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp. to refund a $20  
student fee to thousands of parents, 14WFIE reports.  The total
refund could amount to more than $400,000, the report said.

Earlier this year, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in favor
of parents in the class action (Class Action Reporter, April 13,
2006).  The Supreme Court sided with parents Frank Nagy, who
filed the suit in 2002, and Sonia Brackett, both claiming the
student fee was actually a tuition and was unconstitutional.  

The fee was imposed on parents in school year 2001/2002.  It was
waived for students on free and reduced lunch the following
year.

Indiana Civil Liberties Union represented some plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.


GUAM: Court Deliberates on Suit Over Retirees' COLA Increases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guam Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas has yet to rule on the
cost-of-living case of the government of Guam retirees.

Judge Barcinas finished hearing arguments on the calculation of
the increases due to government retirees on Aug. 31.  Arguments
presented focused mainly on whether inflation information from
those years was calculated at all, as required by the law, and
whether the government's inflation figures from those years are
accurate, according to Steve Limtiaco of Pacific Daily News.

The governor is facing a class action for failing to pay more
than 4,000 retirees COLA based on inflation, as required by a
law that was in effect between 1988 and 1995.

Previous report said the governor's attorneys are insisting the
Government Claims Act requires COLA lawsuits to be filed
individually and not as a class action.  They are also
challenging the way the court ordered the payment of COLA
increases, and its authority to force it to immediately pay
COLA, saying it infringes on the governor's ability to determine
when various debts need to be paid.

Further, they want to justify the application of other
adjustments it has provided to retirees since 1990 to offset the
total amount of COLA that must be paid.

In March, Judge Barcinas ordered the governor to calculate the
amount of COLA owed to retirees, and provide that information by
May 31.  But instead of complying to the order, Guam filed a
challenge to the court-ordered retroactive COLA increases to
retirees.

Judge Barcinas held a hearing on the suit on Aug. 9, wherein he
instructed attorneys in the case to submit calculations for the
expected cost to the court by Aug. 23.  

Lawyers of both parties in the class action filed by Candelaria
Rios, were in disagreement over the base year for the
computation of payments.

The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order
for the award, said it is 1990.  On the other hand, the
retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the
court.

Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula
for most of the payout will be based on the consumer price index
of 1988.  The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that
was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.

In an Aug. 9 hearing, the governor's attorney Daniel Benjamin
raised concerns that the consumer price index was "very
inflated" during the years in question because of a flawed
process at the Department of Commerce.

Judge Barcinas told him to include the concern when the
government submits its calculations to the court.  The commerce
department after 1995 started using a different formula to
calculate the price index, according to him.

Meanwhile, Mr. Phillips argued against allowing anyone outside
the commerce department, including the court or the governor, to
change the consumer price index because the law states the cost-
of-living allowance shall be based on the commerce department's
figures.  Using that method, retirees could be owed about $100
million.

At the recent hearing, Mr. Benjamin argued that the Commerce
Department acknowledged its calculations were wrong.  Mr.
Phillips countered that fairness is not at issue in the case,
but the law at the time, which must be followed.

Part of Mr. Benjamin's argument attacks the plaintiffs' proposal
to use the cost-of-living baseline of 1988 that he said was
never calculated.

Representing the government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP,
Suite 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive,
Tamuning 96913, Guam, Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223,
Web site: http://www.guamlawoffice.com. Representing the  
retirees is Mike Philips.


ILLINOIS: Court Yet to Certify Suit Over Well Water Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
A judge is expected to decide next month whether to grant class-
action status to a suit over vinyl chloride pollution in private
wells at Judith Lane and Riviera Court in DuPage County,
Illinois, it emerged from a report of Daily Herald.

Residents filed the federal suit blaming the water pollution to
a landfill Mallard Lake Forest Preserve.  The suit claims the
DuPage County Forest Preserve District and BFI Waste Systems,
which respectively own and operate Mallard Lake, the landfill in
Hanover Park, failed to monitor seepage of vinyl chloride.

Recently, DuPage County Board members approved an agreement to
transfer ownership of a water main that will carry water from
Lake Michigan to affected residents.  Ownership of the pipe will
be transferred to the village of Carol Stream, which will in
turn provide water to homes.

The residents are paying, among others, the cost of building the
water main, and a $1,500-per-house connection fee imposed by
Carol Stream through a special property tax on the homeowners.  
Construction of the water main cost about $550,000 officials
said, according to the report.


LAFARGE CORP: Court Denies $2.6M Settlement of "Olden" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
refused final approval to the $2.6 million settlement agreement
in the purported class action, "Olden, et al. v. Lafarge Corp.,"
Alpena News reports.

Judge David M. Lawson did not give final approval at a Sept. 7
hearing, nor were class representatives Julie Olden, Richard
Hunter and Wilbur Bleau removed from their positions.

Plaintiffs' attorney Steve Liddle of Macuga and Liddle P.C.,
asked to withdraw as counsel for the class representatives and
have them removed from that position.  He cited a breakdown in
the attorney-client relationship as the reason in his motion.

The judge agreed that the class' objections to the settlement
should be heard first.

Chris Bzdok of Olsen, Bzdok and Howard, the attorney hired by
the class representatives and 79 other class members to
represent their interests in the suit, filed more than 100 forms
for Alpena residents to opt out of the settlement, contingent on
the judge rejecting the filed objections.

The judge gave two weeks for these residents to decide whether
they wanted to opt in or out, not allowing them to wait for the
final settlement agreement.  A date has not been set for a
hearing on the objections to the lawsuit.

On Apr. 19, 1999, several individuals living in Alpena, Michigan
filed the suit, claiming personal injury and property damages
allegedly stemming from certain emissions, which they claim
originated from the company's cement manufacturing plant in
Alpena.

The suit is "Olden, et al. v. Lafarge Corp., Case No. 2:99-cv-
10176-DML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Peter W. Macuga, II of Macuga &
Liddle, (Detroit), 975 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207-
3101, Phone: 313-392-0015, Fax: 313-392-0025, E-mail:  
pmacuga@mlclassaction.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr. of Hoyle, Fickler, One S. Broad  
         Street, Suite 1500, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3418, Phone:  
         215-981-5850, Fax: 215-981-5959, E-mail:
         lhoyle@hoylelawfirm.com;

     (2) Steven C. Kohl of Warner, Norcross, (Southfield), 2000  
         Town Center, Suite 2700, Southfield, MI 48075-1222,  
         Phone: 248-784-5141, E-mail: skohl@wnj.com; and

     (3) Mahesh K. Nayak of Clark Hill, (Birmingham), 255 S. Old  
         Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor, Birmingham, MI 48009,  
         Phone: 248-642-9692, E-mail: mnayak@clarkhill.com.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set in Salomon Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
Level 3 Litigation, Case No. 02-6919."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities,
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4,
1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any
method, including but not limited to in the second market, in
exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a
registration statement or through the exercise of options
including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman.

Beginning in August 2002, at least seven putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the defendants alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common
stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.

The court consolidated these actions in Jan. 24, 2003 as "In re
Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 6919
(GEL)."

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs'
selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as lead
counsel.  

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint alleging that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by publishing false
and misleading analyst reports concerning Level 3.

Lead plaintiffs brought these claims on behalf of a class of
Level 3 shareholders:

      -- against Mr. Grubman and SSB for violation of Section
         10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for material misstatements and
         omissions with respect to Level 3 research reports,
         including that such research reports falsely stated
         Mr. Grubman's true opinions and failed to disclose the
         conflicts of interest created by SSB's internal
         policies, which artificially inflated the price of
         Level 3 securities; and

      -- against SSB and Citigroup for violations of Section
         20(a) as "control persons" of Mr. Grubman related to
         his materially misleading research reports on Level 3.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=210.


MASSACHUSETTS: Mass. Judge to Hear 'Stuck Kids' Suit in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Ponsor of the U.S. District of Massachusetts set
the next hearing on a class action over the state's program for
children needing mental health services for Dec. 12, according
to the Telegram & Gazette.

Both sides in the class action had until Aug. 25 to file status
reports on a remedy to address deficiencies in the program
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2006).  Parties appeared in
court on Sept. 13 to present proposals.  The two sides filed
briefs with the court in preparation for the hearing.  For the
December hearing, Judge Ponsor asked each side for objections
against each other's remedy.

In January, Judge Ponsor found that the state has failed to
identify children with mental health needs, notify their
families, connect their evaluations with a service plan,
coordinate their care, and provide home- and community-based
services.  He ordered that several thousand Medicaid-eligible
children in Massachusetts who are now in institutions should be
released and provided with home-based treatment services.

He ordered the parties to carve out a program to do this, and
set the August deadline to file a status report.  

The parties had differed in their assessment of the progress of
their negotiations.  In a June filing, attorneys for the
plaintiff said the children "have not received any new programs,
services or treatments that would allow them to remain in their
homes and home communities."  Whereas, the state said in a court
document filed on the same month, that remedy negotiation
meetings have been productive."

The suit, "Rosie D. v. Romney," was filed by Northampton-based
Center for Public Representation in 2001.  It is asking home-
care option for thousands of children with extreme functional
disabilities who participate in Medicaid.  It said that most of
the roughly 15,000 children under Medicaid receive adequate
services only when placed in psychiatric hospitals, but they
often become just "stuck kids" there.  Thus, they endeavored to
ask for homecare option.

The suit is "Rosie D., et al. v. Romney, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-30199-MAP," filed in U.S. District of Massachusetts under
Judge Michael A. Ponsor with referral to Judge Kenneth P.
Neiman.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James C. Burling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
         Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-
         526-6416, Fax: 526-5000, E-mail:
         james.burling@wilmerhale.com; and

     (2) Cathy E. Costanzo and Steven J. Schwartz of Center for
         Public Representation, 22 Green Street, Northampton, MA
         01060, Phone: 413-586-6024, Fax: 413-586-5711, E-mail:
         ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org and sschwartz@cpr-ma.org.    

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Daniel J. Hammond and Deirdre Roney of Attorney
         General's Office, One Ashburton Place, Room 2019,
         Boston, MA 02108-1698, Phone: 617-727-2200, Fax: 617-
         727-5785, E-mail: dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us and
         deirdre.roney@ago.state.ma.us; and

    (ii) Adam Simms of Deutsch Williams, 99 Summer St., Boston,
         MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2300, Fax: 617-951-2323, E-
         mail: ASimms@dwboston.com.  


MERISANT CO: Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Over Equal Sugar Lite
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed a purported consumer fraud class action filed against
Merisant Co. over allegations that the company's packaging and
advertisement of Equal Sugar Lite are misleading.

Filed on Feb. 15, 2006, the suit specifically alleges that on a
volumetric basis, Equal Sugar Lite does not deliver half the
calories of a cup of sugar.   

On April 17, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

On June 14, 2006, the court entered a stipulation of dismissal
of this lawsuit with prejudice.

The suit is "Markowitch v. Merisant Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00846," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Eduard Korsinsky and Joseph E.
Levi of Zimmerman Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 226 St. Paul Street,
New York, NY 10006, Phone: (212) 363-7500.

Representing the defendants are Gregg F. LoCascio and Thomas M.
Monagan, III of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Phone: (202) 879-5290 and
(312) 861-2000, E-mail: tmonagan@kirkland.com.


NETGEAR INC: Calif. Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara declared
that the proposed settlement in a consumer fraud class action
filed against NetGear, Inc. is final and binding.

In June 2004, the suit "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil Action
CV021230" was filed against the company.  The complaint purports
to be a class action on behalf of all persons or entities in the
U.S. who purchased the company's wireless products other than
for resale.  

Plaintiff alleges that the company made false representations
concerning the data transfer speeds of the company's wireless
products when used in typical operating circumstances, and is
requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and
reasonable attorney fees.  

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies within
the company's industry.  In November 2005, without admitting any
wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and
expense of continued litigation, the company and the plaintiff
received preliminary court approval for a proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company will:

     (1) issue each eligible class member a promotional code
         which may be used to purchase a new wireless product
         from Netgear's online store --
         http://www.buynetgear.com-- at a  
         15% discount during the redemption period;

     (2) include a disclaimer regarding wireless signal rates on
         the company's wireless products packaging and user's
         manuals and in the company's press releases and
         advertising that reference wireless signal rates;

     (3) donate $25,000 worth of the company's products to a
         local, not-for-profit charitable organization to be
         chosen by Netgear; and

     (4) agree to pay, subject to court approval, up to $700,000
         in attorneys' fees and costs.  None of the foregoing
         benefits will be provided unless and until the court
         grants final approval of the settlement agreement.

In March 2006, the company received final court approval for the
proposed settlement.  On May 26, 2006, the proposed settlement
became final and binding.

For more details, contact Jordan L. Lurie and Zev B. Zysman of
Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300, Los Angeles,
California 90024, Phone: (310) 208-2800, Fax: (310) 209-2348,
Web site: http://www.netgearsettlement.com/.


PFIZER INC: "Bowling" Suit Settlement Benefits Still Available
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bowling Claims Administrator Wayne Smith urges all patients
implanted with Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave Heart Valves to
register claims with the court-appointed administrator.  

Under a 1992 class action settlement agreement in the "Bowling,
et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al." heart valve litigation, financial
benefits are still available to certain patients implanted with
the Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valve.  Approximately
86,000 of these heart valves were implanted in patients
worldwide.  
  
A Supervisory Panel of experts funded by the Bowling Settlement
has determined that risk of fracture depends on the patient's
age, gender, valve size, valve implant position, and certain
valve manufacturing characteristics.  

Because of a risk of strut fracture that could result in death
or serious injury, the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration forced
all Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave hear valves off the market in
1986.

In 1992, Pfizer Inc. and Shiley Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Pfizer Inc., negotiated a settlement with members of the
Bowling class in the case "Bowling, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et
al." filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.

The Bowling class members were recipients of a mechanical heart
valve manufactured by Shiley known as the Bjork-Shiley Convexo-
Concave who claimed that the heart valve was defective due to a
small, but potentially catastrophic risk of strut fracture.  

Under the settlement, the class is defined as "all living
persons currently implanted with C/C heart valves and their
current spouses" as of Jan. 23, 1992, except those persons who
opted out from the class.

Guidelines have been developed to determine which patients with
Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valves will be compensated
from the Settlement for their valve replacement surgery.   

The guidelines are based on a comparison of the risk of the
operation to replace the valve with the risk of fracture if the
valve is left in place.  If the risk of valve fracture exceeds
the risk of reoperation, the class member qualifies for monetary
benefits.  

People with Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valves are
advised to contact a cardiologist to discuss whether they are at
an increased risk of fracture or possibly a candidate for a
valve replacement.  

For more information on the class action settlement benefits,
contact Wayne Smith, Bowling Claims Administrator, 525 Vine
Street, Suite 2300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 U.S.A., Phone: 513-
421-4415 or 800-977-0779 (Toll Free), Fax: 513-421-7696, E-mail:
bowlingpfizer@fuse.net, Website: http://www.bowling-pfizer.com.

The suit is "Bowling, et al., et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:91-cv-00256-HJW-SM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Herman J. Weber.

Representing the defendants are James Ralph Adams of Frost Brown
Todd LLC - 1, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH
45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, E-mail: jadams@fbtlaw.com; and
Alan F. Goott of Kay Scholer LLP, 425 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-836-8157, Fax: 212-836-8689, E-mail:
AGoott@kayescholer.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James T. Capretz, 5000 Birch Street, Suite 2500,  
         Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-724-3000, E-mail:  
         jcapretz@capretz.com;

     (2) Stanley Morris Chesley of Waite Schneider Bayless &  
         Chesley Co LPA, 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West  
         Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-621-
         0267, E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc;

     (3) Bruce A Finzen, 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800,  
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: 612-349-8500; and

     (4) Marc David Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins, LLP, 401 East  
         Court Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone:  
         513-723-1600, Fax: 513-723-1620, E-mail:  
         mmezibov@mezibovjenkins.com.


RED ROBIN: Remand Motion for Calif. Labor Violations Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion to remand the class action, "Huggett v. Red
Robin International, Inc."

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California on January 2006.  It is related to an alleged failure
of the company to comply with California wage and hour
regulations, including those governing meal and rest periods,
payment of wages upon termination and provision of itemized
statements to employees, as well as unlawful business practices
and unfair competition.  The complaint states claims for
damages, including punitive and exemplary damages, and
injunctive relief.  

The company filed an answer to the Huggett complaint and removed
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

On March 13, 2006, plaintiff in "Huggett" filed a motion to
remand the case to the California state court.  On June 9, 2006,
the court denied the motion to remand.

The federal suit is "Matthew Huggett v. Red Robin International
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00181-JVS-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Heather K. Rowell, Richard E. Quintilone, II, and Devin
         R. Lucas of Quintilone and Associates, 15 Studebaker,
         Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618-2013, Phone: 949-458-9675;
         and

     (2) Mike M. Arias, J. Paul Gignac and Mark A. Ozzello of
         Arias Ozzello & Gignac, 6701 Center Dr. W., Ste. 1400,
         Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558, Phone: 310-670-1600, Fax:
         310-670-1231, E-mail: jpgignac@aogllp.com.

Representing the defendants are J. Kevin Lilly, Darren E. Nadel,
Fermin H. Llaguno, Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson and James E. Hart of
Littler Mendelson, 2049 Century Park E, 5th Fl., Los Angeles, CA
90067-3107, Phone: 310-553-0308, Fax: 310-553-5583, E-mail:
klilly@littler.com.  


RED ROBIN: Col. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated shareholder class
action filed against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.

On Aug. 15, 2005, Andre Andropolis filed the suit on behalf of
himself and all other purchasers of the company's common stock
during the putative class period of Nov. 8, 2004 through Aug.
11, 2005.  On Sept. 30, 2005, Mark Baird filed a similar
purported class action complaint in the same court on behalf of
himself and the same class of stockholders as defined in the
Andropolis Complaint.

Both complaints allege that the company and defendants Michael
J. Snyder and James P. McCloskey violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10(b)(5) adopted pursuant to the U.S. Exchange Act by
disseminating false and misleading financial reports on behalf
of the company, by withholding adverse financial information on
behalf of the company from the class, and the individual
defendants were control persons who caused the company to engage
in such acts for their own benefit.  

The plaintiffs further allege that, because of the actions of
the company's former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer, the company's stock price became inflated
between Nov. 8, 2004 and Aug. 11, 2005, and on Aug. 12, 2005,
the company's stock price fell sharply following their
departures from their positions with the company.  

The class has not been certified and no discovery has occurred.  
Lead counsel and lead plaintiff were appointed and have received
an extension to Feb. 28, 2006 to file a consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the lead plaintiff, City of Philadelphia Board
of Pensions and Retirement, filed a consolidated complaint.  In
addition to the allegations in the initial Andropolis complaint
against the company and the company's former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer, the consolidated
compliant:

     -- alleges that the company and the company's current chief
        executive officer and current chief financial officer
        violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange
        Act in connection with the company's announcement on
        Jan. 10, 2006 that it was lowering its guidance for the
        quarter ended Dec. 25, 2005; and

     -- alleges claims against the company's former controller
        and alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S.
        Exchange Act.

The consolidated complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
putative class period of Aug. 13, 2004 and Jan. 9, 2006,
inclusive.  

All defendants have filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

The suit is "Andropolis v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01563-EWN-BNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Edward W.
Nottingham with referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gerald L. Bader, Jr. and Renee Beth Taylor of Bader &
         Associates, P.C., 14426 East Evans Avenue #200, Denver,
         CO 80014-1160, U.S.A, Phone: 303-534-1700, Fax: 303-
         534-1701, E-mail: gbader@bader-associates.com and
         rtaylor@bader-associates.com; and

     (2) F. James Donnelly of the Law Offices of F. James
         Donnelly, P.C., 6076 South Chester Way, Greenwood
         Village, CO 80111, U.S.A, Phone: 720-493-9814, Fax:
         720-493-9815, E-mail: fjamesdonnelly@comcast.net;

     (3) Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
         Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-
         3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
         KShuman@DyerShuman.com;

     (4) Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins and Jessica Lee Hoff of Charles
         Lilley & Associates, P.C., 1600 Stout Street #1100,
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-293-9800, Fax: 303-
         298-8975, E-mail: jhoff@lilleylaw.com and
         kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com; and

     (5) Sherrie R. Savett of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A, Phone:
         215-875-3071, Fax: 215-875-5715, E-mail:
         ssavett@bm.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Andrew Ryan Shoemaker, Thomas Lee Strickland and Coates
         Lear of Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Phone: 720-406-5360, 303-
         899-7300 and 303-454-2479, Fax: 720-406-5301 and 899-
         7333, E-mail: arshoemaker@hhlaw.com,
         tlstrickland@hhlaw.com and CLear@hhlaw.com; and

    (ii) Rachel M. Vorbeck of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525
         West Monroe Street #1600, Chicago, IL 60661-3693,
         U.S.A, Phone: 312-902-5200, Fax: 902-1061, E-mail:
         rachel.vorbeck@kattenlaw.com.


REMEC INC: In Negotiation to Settle Calif. Labor Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
REMEC, Inc. is working to settle a purported class action in
California over allegations that it mischaracterized employees
engaged in certain purchasing functions, and failed to provide
meal and rest periods as required by state law.

Peter Zanni, a former employee of the company, filed the suit on
Nov. 28, 2005.  He is seeking unspecified amount of damages.  
The company denied the allegations in its answer to the
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.  

On July 19, 2006, the parties reached an informal settlement
agreement, under which all claims, including the class claims
would be dismissed in exchange for a payment by REMEC to Mr.
Zanni.

The parties are currently negotiating the terms of a formal
settlement agreement, and are expected to execute that agreement
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2007.  The company did not
disclose the amount of the settlement, but said it is not
significant to its financial statements.

Del Mar, California-based REMEC, Inc. -- http://www.remec.com/-
-- designs and manufactures microwave and millimeter wave
subsystems used in the transmission of voice, video and data
traffic over wireless communications networks.  


REMEC INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the fourth amended
complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class action
against REMEC, Inc.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.  

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.

On March 10, 2005, Milberg Weiss filed a consolidated and
amended complaint.  The complaint asserted, among other things,
that during the class period, the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's financial condition and
performance, operations, earnings and business prospects.  It
seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On April 19, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted on Aug. 17, 2005, with leave to
amend.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint on or
about Sept. 16, 2005.  On Oct. 28, 2005, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint,
which was granted by the court on Feb. 14, 2006, with leave to
amend.

On March 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
On April 18, 2006 the court granted the plaintiffs leave to
further amend the third amended complaint, and relieved the
defendants of the responsibility to respond to the third amended
complaint.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.  
The fourth amended complaint seeks unspecified legal expenses
and damages.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on June 2, 2006.

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA 90071, Phone: (213) 617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975;

     (2) David W. Mitchell of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
         San Diego, California 92101-4297, (San Diego Co.),
         Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com;and

     (3) Blake Muir Harper of Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP, 550
         West C. Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         (619) 338-1133, Fax: (619) 338-1139.

Representing the defendants is Robert W. Brownlie of DLA Piper
Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP, 401 "B" Street, Suite 1700, San
Diego, California 92101, (San Diego Co.), Phone: (619) 699-2700
and Phone: 858-638-6886, Fax: 858-677-1401, Web site:
http://www.dlapiper.com.


REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Shareholders File Suit Over UCS Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds and Reynolds Co., and nine of its directors, as well as
Universal Computer Systems, have been named in a class action
filed in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, the Dayton
Business Journal reports.

The suit alleges that Reynolds' board of directors failed to
perform its fiduciary duty when it agreed to a merger with
Houston-based Universal Computer.

The suit, filed by Reynolds investor Advantage Partners, is
seeking damages

Reynolds agreed in August to merge with privately held Universal
Computer in a deal valued at about $2.8 billion.  Reynolds
stockholders will receive $40 per share in the transaction,
which is subject to regulatory approval.

Reynolds has set a special meeting on Oct. 23 for shareholders
to vote on the proposed merger.

Reynolds and Reynolds -- http://www.reyrey.com-- develops  
management software for the automotive retail industry, with
more than 20,000 customers in North America.  It has 1,700 local
employees and 4,300 total workers globally.


SONY BMG: EFF Questions XCP, MediaMax Canadian Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. digital rights advocacy group, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, expressed concerns over a proposed settlement by
Sony BMG Music (Canada) Inc. in a class action filed on behalf
of a certain class of persons in Canada, who purchased a music
CD SONY BMG that carried XCP or MediaMax software.

EFF says the proposed settlement does not include provisions
included in the U.S. class action settlement, including the
requirement to disclose any future use of digital rights
management and to provide a program that uninstalls such a
system, according to CBC News.

The suit commenced in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec in
late 2005 and early 2006, also names as defendants SunnComm
International Inc., and First 4 Internet, Ltd.

These actions allege that the Media Max and XCP software fails
to disclose limits on use of the CDs, violates the privacy
rights of users, creates security vulnerabilities, and is
difficult to uninstall.  

The Ontario class proceeding includes the claims of all
settlement class members who reside outside the provinces of
British Columbia and Quebec.  The Quebec and British Columbia
class proceeding includes all of the class members who reside in
the province of Quebec and British Columbia respectively.

The proposed class includes: "all natural persons in Canada who
purchased, received, came into possession of or otherwise used
one or more MediaMax CDs and/or XCP CDs from Aug. 1, 2003
through Aug. 10, 2006 excluding the employees of Released
Parties, SONY BMG resellers or distributors of the XCP CDs and
MediaMax CDs, and any persons or entities that have previously
executed releases discharging SONY BMG from liability concerning
or encompassing any or all claims" against the product.

Sony has reached a settlement in the class action (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).  Under an agreement:

     -- all XCP class members who return their CD to SONY BMG or  
        provide SONY BMG with a receipt indicating the return or  
        exchange of their CD to its place of purchase will  
        receive a replacement hard copy CD of the same title  
        without the software, and will be able to download from  
        the SONY BMG website free MP3 digital music files of the  
        same album.  XCP class members can then choose either of  
        two additional compensation  options:   

        * a cheque for $8.40 and a promotional code exchangeable  
          for one free album download from among a list of  
          approximately 200 available albums, or  

        * a promotional code exchangeable for three of the  
          free album downloads;
  
     -- MediaMax 3.0 class members who provide proof of purchase  
        will be able to download free MP3 digital files of the  
        tracks on the MediaMax CD;

     -- MediaMax 5.0 class members who provide proof of purchase  
        will be able to download free MP3 digital files of the  
        tracks on the MediaMax CD, and will receive a  
        promotional code for one free album download.

Remedial undertakings by SONY BMG include:

     -- an agreement not to manufacture audio CDs with XCP or
        MediaMax Software in Canada, or to distribute CDs with
        XCP Software in Canada;

     -- an agreement to advise the courts if and when it uses
        Content Protection Software on CDs sold in Canada that  
        has not been reviewed under the U.S. Settlement
        Agreement;

     -- an affirmation, which an independent auditor has
        confirmed, that it has not collected any personally
        identifiable information from consumers without consent,
        and it will agree to take commercially reasonable steps
        to destroy, at least every 10 business days, all IP
        addresses logged from hits made to its servers; and

     -- waive of certain provisions of the EULA associated with
        the XCP and MediaMax CDs.

SONY BMG denies any wrongdoing or liability associated with the  
XCP and MediaMax Software.   
  
Class counsel's fees and disbursements, and taxes thereon in an
amount to be fixed by the court, will be paid by SONY BMG in
addition to the other settlement terms.

Hearings to decide whether to approve the settlement will be  
held in:


Ontario                  Sept. 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.  
                         361 University Avenue, Toronto

Quebec                   Sept. 28, 2006, at 9:00a.m.  
                         1 Rue Notre Dame East, Montreal

British Columbia         Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.  
                         850 Burdett Avenue, Victoria
  
Objections were due on Sept. 18, 2006.  Compensation will be
paid to the class until Dec. 31, 2006:

                  Contact Information


Quebec class members          KUGLER, KANDESTIN  
                              (Attention; Pierre Boivin)
                              1 Place Ville-Marie, Suite 2101,  
                              Montreal Quebec H3B 2C6
                              Phone: 514-878-2861   
                              Fax: 514-875-8424   
                              Email: info@kugler-kandestin.com  
                          

Other provinces, territories  SUTTS, STROSBERG   
                              600-251 Goyeau Street,
                              Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
                              Phone: 1-519-561-6248    
                              Fax: 519-561-6203
   
                              MERCHANT LAW GROUP  
                              340-251 3rd Avenue S. W.              
                              203-895 Belville Street
                              Calgary, Alberta T2P 3T3               
                              Victoria, B.C.  V8V 1W9
                              Phone: 866-225-7777   
                              Fax: 403-237-9775

                              HOTZ LAWYERS   
                              203-100 Upper Madison Avenue,
                              Toronto, Ontario M2N 6M4
                              Phone: 416-590-7823   
                              Fax: 647-430-8269

On the Net: http://cdtechsettlement.sonybmg.ca


TITLE INSURANCE COS: Checks in Homebuyers Suit Settlement Bounce
----------------------------------------------------------------
Farmington Hills, Michigan lawyer Jeff Yellen, who represented
more than 66,000 Michigan homeowners in a $27.5 million class
action settlement with four title insurance companies, is facing
complaints from the homeowners over bad checks issued to them
for the payout, reports say.

According to Mr. Yellen, he hired Rust Consulting of Minneapolis
to handle the payout to plaintiffs in the class action.  He
blamed the bounced checks on an error by the U.S. Bank of
Minneapolis, which was contracted by Rust to accept the funds
from the defendants and handle the check processing to the class
members.

Rob Lalain, 34, of Novi was one of the plaintiffs and said his
check for $635.34 dated Sept. 5 bounced. He was hit with a $10
bad-check fee.

Mr. Yellen said the bank will reissue the 594 checks sent with a
letter explaining the problem to class members, adding $20 to
each check to cover the bounced-check charges.  The bank also
plans to cover any other charges people incurred because the
checks bounced.

In 2000, Mr. Yellen and two other attorneys, Patrick Bruetsch
and David Davis of Birmingham, filed a class action on behalf of
four Detroit-area residents who said title insurance companies
overcharged them, while home builders got discounts.  The
arrangement violated federal law.

Named in the lawsuit are:

     -- Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Missouri,
     -- Transnation Title Insurance Co. of Arizona,
     -- First American Title Insurance Co. of California, and
     -- Lawyer's Title Insurance Corp. of Virginia

In February, the title insurance companies agreed to settle the
lawsuit without admitting liability.

The settlement applied to people who bought newly built homes
between December 1998 and July 2005 and purchased title
insurance from the defendants.

The names of the additional 66,000 plaintiffs were obtained
through subpoenas to 500 title insurance agents.  The judge in
the case set aside $8.7 million of the settlement for attorney's
fees and the costs of bringing the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey A. Yellen of Nemier,
Tolari, Landry, Mazzeo & Johnson, P.C., 37000 Grand River
Avenue, Suite 300, Farmington Hills, MI 48335, Phone: (248) 476-
6900 or 800-659-5554 (Toll free), Fax: (248) 476-6564; and
Patrick J. Bruetsch and David Davis both of Hardy, Lewis & Page,
P.C., 401 South Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI
48009-6629, Phone: (248) 645-0800, Fax: (248) 645-2602.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Sanchez, et al. v. Triple-S
Management, et al.," appealed the dismissal of their case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The purported class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico, alleges violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against:

      -- Triple-S Management Corp.,
      -- certain of its present and former directors,
      -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s present and former
         directors and others.

Filed on Sept. 4, 2003 by Jose Sanchez, the suit specifically
alleges, a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control
of TSI through illegally capitalizing TSI and later converting
it to a for-profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of
their ownership rights.

Plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of TSI's board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

On March 4, 2005 the court issued an Opinion and Order.  In this
opinion and order, of the 12 counts included in the complaint,
eight counts were dismissed for failing to assert an actionable
injury, six of them for lack of standing and two for failing to
plead with sufficient particularity in compliance with the
Rules.

All shareholder allegations were dismissed in the opinion and
order.  The remaining four counts were found standing, in a
limited way, in the opinion and order.  

Parties finished class certification discovery and fully briefed
the issue of class certification.  While waiting for the court's
decision on the issue of class certification, the court, sua
sponte, issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiffs as to why
the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.

The court's Order to Show Cause is predicated on the parties'
submissions about class certification.  The court then granted
plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply, which they did on April
21, 2006.

In its Order to Show Cause the court indicated that it would
decide first the sustainability of the complaint before deciding
plaintiffs' request for class certification.  

On May 4, 2006, the court issued an Opinion and Order, which
entered a summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, and
dismissing the case, because plaintiffs allegations were
unsupportable at trial.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.  The Appeals Court notified the
briefing schedule, and plaintiffs had until Aug. 21, 2006 to
file their brief.

The suit is "Sanchez, et al.  v. Triple-S Management, et al.,
Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert G. Blakey, 1341 East Wayne Street North, South
         Bend, IN 46615, Phone: 219-239-5717;

     (2) Paul H. Hulsey, Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada of
         Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C., Charleston Harbor, 2
         Wharfside 3, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-723-5303,
         Fax: 843-723-5307, E-mail:
         phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com; and

     (3) Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, PO Box
         16606, San Juan, PR 00908-6606, Phone: 787-722-7745,
         Fax: 787-725-3970, E-mail: quetglaslaw@hotmail.com.  

Representing the company are Seth B. Kosto and Gael Mahony, 10
St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-523-2700, Fax:
617-523-6850.


VISTACARE INC: Sept. 29 Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District Of Arizona will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed
$4.6 million settlement in the matter, "In Re VistaCare, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No. CV 04 1661 PHX FJM."

The court will hold the hearing at the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse,
401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.

Objections or exclusion to and from the settlement was due Sept.
8, 2006.  Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Oct. 30,
2006.

The settlement covers all individuals or entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired VistaCare, Inc. common stock between April
28, 2003 and Aug. 5, 2004.
                         
The complaint generally alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to properly reserve for accrued reimbursement
obligations owed to Medicare for violations of the per-patient
Medicare Cap limitations, resulting in overstated "net revenues"
and overall earnings, and understated liabilities on its balance
sheet.

At the same time the company's chief executive officer sold
personally held shares of VistaCare stock at inflated prices
while in possession of material, non-public information.

The complaint further alleges that lead plaintiffs and other
class members purchased the common stock of the company during
the class period at prices artificially inflated as a result of
the defendants' dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company, and suffered losses when the
truth about it's financial performance and Medicare cap problems
were revealed, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

For more details, contact

     (1) Beth A. Kaswan, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-
         0165, Phone (212) 594-5300, Web site:
         http://www.milbergweiss.com;and

     (2) In re VistaCare, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
         Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
         2003, Chanhassen, MN  55317-2003, Web site:
         http://www.vistacaresecuritieslitigationsettlement.com.


VISTAPRINT LTD: Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
An objector is appealing the final approval of a settlement in
the consumer class action pending in the Los Angeles Superior
Court in California against a subsidiary of VistaPrint, Ltd. and
its predecessor corporation.  

The complaint alleges that the shipping and handling fees the
company charges for free products are excessive and in violation
of sections of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement on April 29, 2005 and, on
June. 17, 2005, gave final approval to the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to change
the term "shipping and handling" to "shipping and processing" on
its Web site, to provide all class members who purchase business
cards from the company for a two year period in the future the
opportunity to receive additional cards at reduced rates, and to
pay reasonable attorneys fees to plaintiffs' counsel.

In August 2005, an objector to the settlement filed an appeal of
the court's final approval of the settlement.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Sept. 13 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

VistaPrint, Ltd., (NASDAQ: VPRT) -- http://www.vistaprint.com/-
- is an online supplier of graphic design services and
customized printed products to small businesses and consumers
worldwide with over 7,000,000 customers served in more than 120
countries.  The company offers a spectrum of products ranging
from business cards and brochures to invitations and holiday
cards.  Through the use of Internet-based graphic design
software, localized Websites, order receiving and processing
technologies and advanced computer integrated printing
facilities, the company offers economic advantage relative to
traditional graphic design and printing methods.  The company
generates revenues primarily from the printing and shipment of
customized printed products.


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Oct. Hearing Set Over Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen Friot of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma will hear motions for summary judgment on
Oct. 31, 2006 for the class action "In Re Williams Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-72-SPF-FHM," Tulsa World reports.

Earlier, the court certified The Williams Communications Group,
Inc. subclass in the securities fraud suit in the class action
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006).

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

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

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

     -- former officers and directors of WCG;  

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

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

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

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

Specifically, plaintiffs assert that:

     -- certain former executive officers of WCG:

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

     -- WMB,
     -- Bailey, and  
     -- E&Y,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 12, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
certified the action to proceed as a class action and certified
plaintiffs Alex Meruelo and Norman Kirkendoll as class
representatives pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules o Civil
Procedure.   The court has made no decision regarding the merits
of the class claims.  

On April 14, 2006, defendants filed four motions for summary
judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in this
action.  

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

On Aug. 11, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
appointment of the law firm of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. to serve as
additional co-lead counsel and class counsel; the court has not
yet ruled on that motion.  

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

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

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

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


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set in "Salomon" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in "In Re Salomon Analyst Williams
Litigation, Case No. 02-8156."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Deadline for exclusions from the settlement was Aug. 31, 2006.  
Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
Williams Communications Group stock and bonds between Oct. 27,
1999 and Nov. 1, 2001.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman.

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint in this
action against the defendants, asserting securities fraud claims
against defendants under Sections 10(b) (and Rules 10b 5(a) (c)
thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons who:

      -- purchased shares of Williams Stock during the period
         from Oct. 27, 1999, through Nov. 1, 2001, both dates
         inclusive; and

      -- purchased Williams Bonds, during the same period.

The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in securities
fraud by causing fraudulent SSB research reports concerning
Williams and authored by Mr. Grubman to be issued.  It further
alleged that the reports were fraudulent because at least since
June 2000, defendants believed that Williams stock truly
warranted a "sell" rating even though SSB rated it a "buy."

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst Williams Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=209.


XM SATELLITE: D.C. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has set a
Sept. 26, 2006 deadline for lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
securities fraud class action against XM Satellite Radio
Holdings, Inc. to file a consolidated complaint.

On May 8, 2006 an investor sued XM Satellite seeking damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who acquired XM securities from July 28, 2005 through and
including Feb. 15, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that XM and Hugh Panero, its president and
chief executive officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and
78t of the U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 Code of Federal Regulations
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, Washington-based XM and Mr. Panero
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the class period that
artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, the complaint says defendants led the market to
believe that XM would grow its subscriber base to 6 million by
year-end 2005, while lowering two of its "key metrics:"
Subscriber Acquisition Costs and Cost Per Gross Addition.

In reality, however, the company was allegedly well aware that
costs, especially SAC and CPGA, would skyrocket in the fourth
quarter of 2005 due to a $25 million promotional campaign to
combat the debut of the popular "Howard Stern Show" on Sirius
Satellite Radio, XM's chief competitor.

On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a net loss of $268.3
million for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $188.2
million a year earlier.  For the full 2005 year, XM's net loss
was $666.7 million, compared to $642.4 million in 2004.  In
addition, the company announced that both SAC and CPGA were much
higher than the market had been led to believe.

The market reacted swiftly to those revelations, sending the
price of XM's common stock down 5.03%, from a close of $25.25
per share on Feb. 15, 2006, to $23.98 per share the next day.  
The company's stock price fell a further 10.05% to $21.57 per
share at the close of trading Feb. 17, 2006, the complaint says.

According to the complaint, Mr. Panero and other insiders
engaged in highly suspicious stock sales during the class
period, with Mr. Panero selling approximately 413,334 shares, or
98.71% of his personally held XM stock, for approximately
$8,841,161.  Collectively, company insiders sold approximately
2,769,516 of personally held XM stock during the fourth quarter
of 2005, reaping proceeds of approximately $73,325,009.

On June 7, 2006, Judge Ellen Huvelle signed a Consolidation
Order, consolidating all related cases into one class action as
"In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 06-0802."  On July 3, 2006, competing motions for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with
the court.  On Aug. 1, 2006, Judge Huvelle issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  
Pursuant to a Sept. 8, 2006 Stipulation and Order, lead
plaintiffs have until Sept. 26, 2006 to file a consolidated
complaint.

Meanwhile, on Aug. 31, 2006, the company said it received a
letter from the staff of the SEC requesting that the company
voluntarily provide documents to the Staff regarding the
company's subscriber targets, costs associated with attempting
to reach those targets, and related matters during the third and
fourth quarters of 2005.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kimberly Anne Chadwick of Doherty, Sheridan & Persian,
         8408 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031, Phone:  
         (703) 698-7700, Fax: (703) 641-9645, E-mail:
         kchadwick@dsp-law.com;

     (2) Donald J. Enright and Karen Jennifer Marcus both of
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: (202)
         337-8090, E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or kjm@ftllaw.com;

     (3) Burton John Fishman of Fortney & Scott, 1750 K Street,
         NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 689-
         1200, Fax: (202) 776-7801, E-mail:
         fishman@fortneyscott.com;

     (4) Nancy M. Juda of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730,
         Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-2024, E-mail:
         nancyj@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Gary Edward Mason of The Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th
         Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         (202) 429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;

     (6) Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B
         Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         233-4565, Fax: (619) 233-0508, E-mail:
         ashingler@scott-scott.com; and

     (7) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll both of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue,
         NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com or stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are Charles Edward Davidow and
Michael A Mugmon both of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
(202) 663-6241 or (202) 663-6101, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail:
charles.davidow@wilmerhale.com or michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com;
and Christopher J. Herrling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, 2445 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, (202)
663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail: CHERRLING@WILMER.COM.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. 29 Hearing Set in Salomon Analyst Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in "In Re Salomon Analyst XO Litigation,
Case No. 02-8114."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room
2103, New York, NY 10007.  

Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Oct. 27, 2006.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities, legal
beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 18,
2000 through Nov. 1, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of XO Communications, Inc. common stock by any method,
including but not limited to in the second market, in exchange
for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a registration
statement or through the exercise of options including options
acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead
plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (formerly Salomon Smith
        Barney Inc., and
     -- Jack Benjamin Grubman

The lawsuit was initiated on Oct. 11, 2002, with the filing of a
class action complaint by plaintiff Joel Vine against defendants
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act on behalf of himself and
a class of purchasers of shares of XO Communications, Inc.
common stock from Oct. 11, 1997 through Nov. 1, 2001.  

The suit was "Vine v. Salomon Smith Barney, No. 02 Civ. 8114
(BSJ)."  The court later consolidated this action with eight
related actions.

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and lead plaintiffs' selection
of:

     * Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (then known as
       Abbey Gardy, LLP), and

     * Green Welling LLP (then known as Green & Jigarjian, LLP)
       as lead counsel

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of XO securities during the period
from Jan. 18, 2000, through Nov. 2, 2001.

Lead plaintiffs brought the following claims on behalf of the
class:

      -- against Mr. Grubman and SSB for violation of Section
         10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for material misstatements and
         omissions with respect to XO research reports,
         including that such research reports falsely stated
         Mr. Grubman's true opinions and failed to disclose the
         conflicts of interest created by SSB's internal
         policies, which artificially inflated the price of XO
         securities; and

      -- against SSB and Citigroup for violations of Section
         20(a) as "control persons" of Mr. Grubman related to
         his materially misleading research reports on XO.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5,
2006.

For more details, contact Salomon Analyst XO Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY
11753-8914, Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/cases/details.asp?CaseID=208.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Lead Plaintiff Named in Back-Dating Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Public Employees Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the options backdating securities class action
filed against UnitedHealth Group, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota in relation to its stock
option practices.

America's largest public pension fund filed the suit in July
(Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).  Named defendants in the
suit are:
  
     -- UnitedHealth Group, Inc.;
     -- William W. McGuire, chairman and chief executive;
     -- Stephen J. Hemsley, president and chief operating  
        officer;
     -- Lois Quam - division chief executive officer;
     -- the company's chief financial officer, general counsel,  
        its directors and the three other division CEOs.

The complaint alleges:   

     -- that the company and the officers and directors named as  
        defendants illegally misled investors about  
        UnitedHealth's financial prospects;

     -- that the company "spring-loaded" options -- granting  
        stock options just ahead of positive news, helping lock  
        in a profit for the recipient of the options;

     -- that many of the officers and directors - including Ms.  
        Quam, CEO William McGuire and Stephen Hemsley, the  
        company's chief operating officer - benefited by  
        receiving improper back-dated stock options or options  
        awarded just prior to news that drove up share prices;  
        and

     -- that discrepancies between UnitedHealth's public  
        statements about its profits and the troubles with its  
        stock options that surfaced.

In May, UnitedHealth acknowledged a "significant deficiency" in
its stock option grants and has said it may have to restate up
to $286 million in earnings for 2003, 2004, and 2005.

The complaint also asserts that Ms. Quam -- CEO of
UnitedHealth's Ovations unit that handles insurance for retirees
-- "reaped illegal insider trading proceeds of $8.86 million by
selling 173,200 shares of her UnitedHealth stock."  

But the suit does not specifically accuse Ms. Quam of making
misleading statements or allege she had any role in awarding
stock options.  

The suit is "California Public Employees Retirement System v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: 0:06-cv-02939-RHK-
JSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge Richard H. Kyle, with referral to Judge
Janie S. Mayeron.

Representing the plaintiffs is Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr. of
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250, St
Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Saxena White Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Saxena White P.A. announced that a securities class
action was commenced for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of ADVO, Inc. between April 25, 2006 and Aug.
30, 2006

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

The complaint alleges that defendants' rosy forecasts and strong
revenue growth announcements enabled ADVO to attract an
acquisition offer from a Michigan-based marketing services
company, Valassis Communications Inc.  The acquisition was
announced on July 6, 2006, at $37 per share.

In response to the news, the price of ADVO stock rose
dramatically, albeit artificially, due to Defendants' alleged
misstatements.

Unbeknownst to the investing public, defendants were allegedly
withholding material information regarding ADVO's material
internal control deficiencies and the fact that operating income
was materially below forecast.

On Aug. 30, 2006, Valassis filed a suit in Delaware chancery
court, seeking to rescind its merger offer.  Valassis alleged
that ADVO management failed to disclose material adverse changes
at ADVO and misrepresented its financial results to both
Valassis and the public.  In response to this news, ADVO stock
plummeted from $36.80 to $28.59 on unusually large trading
volumes of 11 million shares.

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

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

For more information, contact Maya Saxena and Joseph White both
of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca
Raton, FL 33431, Phone: (800) 361.5096, E-mail:
msaxena@saxenawhite.com or jwhite@saxenawhite.com.


DELL INC: Schatz & Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Dell, Inc.
between Feb. 13, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Dell violated federal securities laws
by reporting inflated financial results, including its accrual
and reserves.

It is alleged that the defendants concealed that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating Dell's
revenue recognition and accounting practices.

Defendants began reducing sales and profit projections as Dell
began missing its own revenue, EPS and unit sales growth
targets, causing significant declines in its stock price.

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

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

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

Finally, on Sept. 11, 2006, defendants disclosed that Dell would
not be able to file its interim financial report for its second
quarter of 2007 and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York had served Dell with a subpoena
requesting documents concerning its accounting and financial
reporting between 2002 and 2006.

Interested parties may move the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff no later than Nov. 13, 2006.

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


SCOTTISH RE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Scottish Re Group Limited between Feb. 17, 2005
and July 28, 2006.

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

Scottish Re is a global life reinsurance specialist and issuer
of customized life insurance-based wealth management products
for high net worth individuals and families.

The complaint also alleges that the company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts:

      -- that company improperly valued allowances on deferred
         tax assets by at least $112 million;

      -- that the company improperly estimated retrocession
         costs, premium accrual, and lapse rates on certain
         fixed annuity treaties;

      -- that the company sought to manipulate its financial
         results because it was not able to effectively
         implement new initiatives in its key markets;

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

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

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that as a result of the above, the company's positive
         statements about the company and its financial strength
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On July 31, 2006, before the market opened, Scottish Re shocked
investors when the company announced that, contrary to the
company's earlier positive guidance, the company expected to
report a net operating loss of approximately $130 million for
the second quarter ended June 30, 2006, of which $112 million
was due to the valuation of allowances on deferred tax assets.

Additionally, the company stated that it would suspend its
ordinary share dividend and that it had engaged Goldman Sachs
and Bear Stearns to assist the company with evaluating strategic
alternatives and potential sources of capital.

Also on July 31, 2006, before the market opened, Scottish Re
announced that the company's President and Chief Executive
Officer, defendant Scott E. Willkomm had resigned his position.
On this news, shares of Scottish Re plummeted $12.01, or 75.06
percent, to close, on July 31, 2006, at $3.99 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff no later than Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank &
Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 and (212) 682-1818, Fax:
(212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.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  * * *