CAR_Public/060920.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 187

                            Headlines

ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Court Hears Arguments in RICO Suit
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Rehearing of Tamoxifen Case
BUONGIORNO USA: Phone Users Complain of "Unsolicited" Downloads
CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for "Houston" Case
CINTAS CORP: Court, Arbitrator Mull Class Status for ERISA Suit

CINTAS CORP: Claims in Calif. Bias Suit Transferred to Mich.
CINTAS CORP: Subclass Withdraws Bid to Intervene in "Serrano"
CHRYSLER: Recalls Light-Duty Trucks, SUVs to Repair Defects
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Dodge Van Manufacturers Face Suit in Utah
DIGITAL ENTERPRISES: Popcorn.Net Users Sue Over "Extortion Ware"

EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Fla. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Inmates' Suit
FLORIDA: Hearing in Suit Against Dept. of Corrections Ongoing
GEORGIA: Bulloch County Enjoined from Enforcing Bus Stop Law
GEORGIA: Sheriff Whittle to Represent Defendants in HB 1059 Suit
HOME DEPOT: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Massachusetts

INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Affirms Settlement in "Nuanes"
LIVE NATION: "Heerwagen" Plaintiff Voluntarily Nixes N.Y. Suit
LIVE NATION: Panel Consolidates Ticket Pricing Suits in Calif.
NATURAL SELECTION: Faces Ill. Suit Over Contaminated Spinach
NORBOURG ASSET: Hearing to Set Trial Date for Former CEO Delayed

OMEGA FLEX: Discovery Continues in Ark. Consumer Fraud Suit
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Ming TV Stands for Tipping Hazard
PULTE HOMES: Firm, Contractors Face FLSA Violations Suit in Nev.
SECURITY CAPITAL: Faces Conn. Securities Suit Over Sedgwick Deal
SPARKS NETWORKS: Trials Set on Applicability of CDS Act in Suit

TRIARC COS: Agree to Pay $76,000 in Del. Stockholder Lawsuit
TRIARC COS: Fla. Court Mulls Final Approval for ADA Suit Deal
TYSON FOODS: Del. Court to Hear Suit Over Executive Pay Today
WARNER CHILCOTT: D.C. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Ovcon 35 Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT: Direct Purchasers Want Ovcon Lawsuit Certified

WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Third-Party-Payor Suit Over Ovcon Deal
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Roy Jacobs Announces Suit Related to Valassis Merger
CONNETICS CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Suit Over Velac Statements
IMAX CORP: Bruce G. Murphy and Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Suit


                            *********


ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Court Hears Arguments in RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Parties in a purported class action over sexual abuse by priests
in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia presented arguments in
federal court on Sept. 18.  

Archdiocese attorney C. Clark Hodgson Jr. asked a federal court
to dismiss the lawsuit that alleges defendants violated federal
anti-racketeering laws by trying to cover up the alleged priest
abuse.  He said federal conspiracy and anti-racketeering laws do
not cover personal injury.

According to Associated Press, "the victims' attorney, Stewart
Eisenberg, contended the right to sue for personal injury is a
property right that was violated by the archdiocese's efforts to
cover up priest abuse until it was too late to file such
claims."

A grand jury report released last year found that the
Philadelphia Archdiocese did try to cover up the abuses.

District Judge Legrome Davis did not indicate when he might
rule.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia asked a federal court on July 17
to reject the suit.  The request came in a response by the
archdiocese to a suit filed in June by 12 people claiming they
had been abused by various Catholic priests from 1956 to 1985.  

Plaintiffs claim their civil rights were violated and that the
priests named in the suit engaged in a "massive conspiracy to
cover up and effectively perpetuate" the abuses.  They are
seeking unspecified damages for "severe mental and physical
injuries" and class-action status for the lawsuit.

The suit names as defendants the archdiocese, Cardinals Justin
Rigali and Anthony Bevilacqua, and the estate of Cardinal John
Krol.

In its response, the archdiocese cited cites 65 federal and
state court rulings in support of its motion to dismiss.  It
argued that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act was not enacted until 1970, which is way beyond the 1940
date of the alleged conspiracy and racketeering activity (Class
Action Reporter, July 21, 2006).

A 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision adopted a four-year statute
of limitations on RICO claims, and the time period begins "when
the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury," the
decision said, according to the report.

The archdiocese also argued that federal courts "have made
clear" that civil RICO claims may not be pursued to recover
personal-injury damages.  Further, regarding claims that the
plaintiffs were deprived of their civil rights, the archdiocese
said that the allegation of conspiracy was not based on racial
or class discrimination, as the law requires.

In court filings, plaintiffs said that the Supreme Court
decision did not address issues related to exactly when a civil
RICO claim accrues or under what circumstances the limitations
period commences.  They also said the archdiocese "erroneously
characterized" their claims in federal court as personal-injury
claims, when in fact their claims were for injuries to property
or business.

Six plaintiffs have filed their suit in Philadelphia Common
Pleas court.

The suit is "Magnum et al. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02589-LDD," filed in U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D.
Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is Stewart j. Eisenberg at
Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck P.C., 1634
Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-546-6610, Fax:
215-546-0118, E-mail: Stewart@erlegal.com.

Representing the defendant is C. Clark Hodgson, Jr. at Stradley,
Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Sq. Phila., PA
19103-7098, Phone: 215-564-8000, Fax: 215-564-8120.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Rehearing of Tamoxifen Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc the tamoxifen
citrate antitrust litigation against Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The denial of the petitions follows the court's November 2005
affirmation of the dismissal of the cases for failure to state a
viable antitrust claim.  The court's ruling ends the litigation
before the Second Circuit.

"The court's denial of the rehearing petitions re-enforces the
growing body of judicial authority in the Second Circuit and
elsewhere that companies can lawfully settle Hatch-Waxman patent
challenge cases," said Bruce L. Downey, Barr's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer.  "We are pleased that our patent
challenge settlement related to Tamoxifen Citrate has been
upheld as being pro-consumer and pro-competitive."

Approximately 31 consumer or third-party payor class action
complaints were filed in state and federal courts against:

     -- Zeneca, Inc.,
     -- AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., and
     -- the company

alleging, among other things, that the 1993 settlement of patent
litigation between Zeneca and the company violated the antitrust
laws, insulated Zeneca and the company from generic competition
and enabled Zeneca and the company to charge artificially
inflated prices for tamoxifen citrate (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 14, 2006).

A prior investigation of this agreement by the U.S. Department
of Justice was closed without further action.  On May 19, 2003,
the U.S. District Court dismissed the complaints for failure to
state a viable antitrust claim.   

On Nov. 2, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the cases
for failure to state a viable antitrust claim.  

On Nov. 30, 2005, plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit for a rehearing en banc.

The Court of Appeals directed the company to file a response to
plaintiffs' petition, which the company submitted on Jan. 26,
2006.

Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey-based Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NYSE: BRL) -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is primarily a  
holding company.  The company's subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories,
Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop, manufacture and
market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical products,
respectively.  It operates in two business segments.  In the
generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and distributes
approximately 150 different dosage forms and strengths of
approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical products,
including 22 oral contraceptive products that represent the
largest category of its generic product portfolio.  In the
proprietary pharmaceutical segment, the company manufactures and
distributes 19 proprietary pharmaceutical products, largely
concentrated in the women's healthcare therapeutic category.


BUONGIORNO USA: Phone Users Complain of "Unsolicited" Downloads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia content provider Buongiorno USA is facing a lawsuit
over its alleged practice of billing cell phone users the cost
of downloadable products that they did not subscribe to.

Wireless phone users complain that they are being charged for
downloadable wallpaper, and ringtones that they neither wanted
nor receive.  And there appears no clear-cut way to cancel the
service using Buongiorno's toll-free number or Web site, a
report by the Arizona Daily Star states.

The company is using tactics such as unsolicited text messages
and deceptive "free offers" to hook customers into monthly
charges of $9.95 and up, said Myles McGuire, a Chicago attorney
who filed the class action in January, according to the report.

The suit is still in the discovery stage, but Mr. McGuire
estimates that the potential class could include "tens of
thousands" of customers.

The Office of Florida Attorney General has been investigating
the company since October.  

Buongiorno USA is an Italian company that has its U.S.
headquarters in Miami, Florida.  It is also operating as Dirty
Hippo and http://www.dirtyhippo.comand Blinko.


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for "Houston" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has required parties in a racial discrimination class action
against Cintas Corp. to arbitrate their respective claims in the
matter.

The suit was filed on Aug. 3, 2005 on behalf of African-American
managers.  On Nov. 22, 2005, the court entered an order
requiring the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit to arbitrate all
of their claims for monetary damages.

The company did not report material development in the case at
its Aug. 11 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2006.

The suit is, "Houston et al. v. Cintas Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv-
03145-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein,
Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite
1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, Fax: 510 835-
1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com.

Representing the defendants is Nancy L. Abell of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 555 South Flower St., 25th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627-
0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com.


CINTAS CORP: Court, Arbitrator Mull Class Status for ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California nor an arbitrator has yet made a decision regarding
class certification for the case "Paul Veliz, et al., v. Cintas
Corp."

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees.  It also asserts related Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional wage and hour claims under the state laws of
Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief or both.  The company denies these claims and
is defending the plaintiffs' allegations.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court ordered a majority of the opt-in
plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the
terms of their company employment agreement.  

Also on Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15
states only with respect to the putative class members that may
litigate their claims in court.  The court or an arbitrator has
made no determination regarding class certification.

The suit is "Veliz et et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-
01180-SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with
referral to Judge Maria-Elena James.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott A. Kronland of Altshuler, Berzon et al., 177 Post
         Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-
         421-7151, Fax: 415-362-8064, E-mail:
         skronland@altshulerberzon.com; and

     (2) Helen I. Zeldes, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423.  

Representing the company is Cheryl A. Hipp of Squire Sanders &
Dempsey LLP, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH
44114, Phone: 516-479-8365.


CINTAS CORP: Claims in Calif. Bias Suit Transferred to Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain claims in the purported class action, "Robert Ramirez,
et al., v. Cintas Corp.," were transferred to a case pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The case, filed on Jan. 20, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, was brought on behalf of
all past and present female, African-American and Hispanic
applicants and employees of the company and its subsidiaries.  

It alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women and minorities in
recruitment, hiring, promotions, transfers, job assignments and
pay.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees, among other things.

The company denies these claims and is defending the plaintiffs'
allegations.  The court ordered four of the named plaintiffs to
arbitrate their claims.

On Apr. 27, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission intervened in order to participate in this lawsuit.  
No filings or determination has been made in regard to the
lawsuit as to class certification.

On May 11, 2006, the court signed an order transferring the
class claims:

     -- of failure to hire African-Americans, Hispanics and
        females into service sales representative positions; and

     -- the EEOC's complaint in intervention

to the case, "Mirna E. Serrano, et al., v. Cintas Corp.," which
was filed on May 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

All of the remaining claims in the Ramirez lawsuit were ordered
to arbitration and stayed by the court pending the completion of
arbitration.  No filings or determinations have been made in
regard to the lawsuit or arbitration as to class certification.

The suit is "Ramirez et al. v. Cintas Corp. (3:04-cv-00281-
JSW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen
         & Dar, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA
         94612, Phone: 510/763-9800, Fax: 510-835-1417, E-mail:
         RLS@gdblegal.com;  

     (2) Sharon K. Legenza, 14 West Erie Street, Chicago, CA
         60610, US, Phone: 312-751-1170, Fax: 312-751-0438, E-
         mail: slegenza@lawmbg.com; and

     (3) Robert D. Unitas of U.S. EEOC, Office of General
         Counsel, Systemic Litigation, 1801 L Street NW, Suite
         7712, Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202-663-4768, Fax:
         02-663-4196, E-mail: robert.unitas@eeoc.gov.

Representing the defendant is Rachael Rowe, 6800 Cintas Blvd.,
Cincinnati, OH 45262, Phone: 513-754-3640.


CINTAS CORP: Subclass Withdraws Bid to Intervene in "Serrano"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subclass of plaintiffs in "Mirna E. Serrano, et al., v. Cintas
Corp." withdrew their motion to intervene in the racial
discrimination class action.

The motion is brought by Colleen Grindle on behalf of a
nationwide subclass and an Ohio subclass of female employees in
Cintas Corp.'s Rental Division who were allegedly denied hire,
promotion or transfer to a service sales representative
position.  

The suit was filed on May 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division on
behalf of female service sales representative job applicants at
all company locations in Michigan.  It is seeking relief damages
and fees.

On Sept. 6, 2005, a Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint to expand the
lawsuit to a nationwide claim.  On Nov. 15, 2005, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission intervened to participate in
the lawsuit in continuation of an EEOC charge filed on Apr. 17,
2000 by Mirna Serrano with the EEOC Detroit District office.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a motion to intervene in Serrano was filed by
intervening plaintiffs Colleen Grindle.  On March 24, 2006, the
Grindle plaintiffs withdrew their motion to intervene without
prejudice.

The suit is "Serrano v. Cintas Corp., Case No. 4:04-cv-40132-
PVG-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Paul V. Gadola with referral to
Judge Donald A. Scheer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert K. Dawkins of Equal Employment Opportunities
         Commission (Detroit), 477 Michigan Ave., Suite 865,
         Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-226-4600, Fax: 313-226-
         2778, E-mail: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov;  

     (2) James K. Fett and Lawrence A. Fields of Fett & Fields
         (Pinckney), 805 E. Main St., Pinckney, MI 48169-3266,
         Phone: 734-954-0100, E-mail: jim@frflaw.com and
         larry@frflaw.com;  

     (3) Rachel J. Geman and Gena E. Wiltsek of Lieff, Cabraser,
         (New York), 780 Third Ave., 48th Floor, New York, NY
         10017-2024, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-
         mail: rgeman@lchb.com and gwiltsek@lchb.com; and

     (4) William G. Tishkoff of Tishkoff & Assoc. (Ann Arbor),
         407 N. Main, Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1158,
         Phone: 734-663-4077, E-mail: will@tishkofflaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Gregory M. Utter of Keating,
Muething, (Cincinnati), One East Fourth St., Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6540, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-
mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com.


CHRYSLER: Recalls Light-Duty Trucks, SUVs to Repair Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler is recalling more than 145,000 Dodge Ram light-duty
pickups to replace the passenger airbag as well as more than
35,000 Dodge Durango SUVs to check the console wiring
connectors.

The company said in the Ram pickups, the passenger airbag may
not be compatible with a limited number of rear-facing child
seat models when the passenger seat is in the full forward
position and an airbag deploys.

The Dodge Durango recall is to prevent the possibility of a fire
inside the console.

"In these vehicles, if liquid is spilled from the cup holder
onto the console wiring connector, this could result in a high
resistance short circuit with the potential for fires," the
company said.

Chrysler plans to replace the front passenger seat belt assembly
in the same model trucks and in an additional 15,151 vehicles
because the front passenger seat belt may not allow the owner to
properly secure some child restraint systems.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Dodge Van Manufacturers Face Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The manufacturers of both the Dodge van and the vehicle's tires
were named in a class action filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, The Herald Journal reports.

Named in the lawsuit are:

     -- DaimlerChrysler Corp.;
     -- DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp.; and
     -- Cooper Tire and Rubber Co.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants marketed products with
design and manufacturing defects and failed to warn consumers
and recall the products after the companies were aware of the
problems.

Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     -- the high center of gravity and handling characteristics
        of the Dodge van made it unsafe to operate;

     -- faulty seatbelt design; and

     -- the vehicle failed to maintain "structural integrity"
        when it overturned.

According to plaintiffs' lawyer Brad Bearnson, the van "was
marketed as a 15-passenger van and yet you load this van up with
that number of passengers and related equipment and it becomes
really unstable in an avoidance maneuver."

Mr. Bearnson added that the tires on the vehicle were inspected
by "tire manufacturing experts" and were determined to have
several manufacturing defects.

If the suit goes to trial, the plaintiffs will seek monetary
damages to be determined at the time of trial.

Mr. Bearnson filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Utah State
University student who survived a van rollover a year ago and
the families of another survivor and eight men who died in the
crash.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
  
             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11d0

The suit is "Petersen et al. v. DaimlerChrysler et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00108-TC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah under Judge Tena Campbell.

Representing the plaintiffs is Bradley H. Bearnson of Bearnson &
Peck, 74 W 100 N, Logan, UT 84321, Phone: (435) 787-9700, E-
mail: firm@cachelaw.com.


DIGITAL ENTERPRISES: Popcorn.Net Users Sue Over "Extortion Ware"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Manuel H. Miller filed a class action against
Digital Enterprises, Inc., the company believed responsible for
popcorn.net.  The lawsuit alleges violations of various consumer
protection laws and seeks compensation for the individual users.

The suit follows similar lawsuits by the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission and the State of Washington, which termed popcorn.net
"extortion ware."

Under popcorn.net's Terms of Service, users who download a free
3-day trial of the software and fail to cancel their trial
during the 3-day period are obligated to purchase a license for
the software.  Trial users who refuse to pay up are bombarded
with pop-ups demanding payment and temporarily disabling their
computers, creating a virtual "pop-up hell" for unfortunate
users.

Class members' biggest complaint is that they never signed up
for a free trial of popcorn.net and have no idea how their
computers became infected with it.

To add to users' frustrations, popcorn.net cannot be removed
using Microsoft's Windows Add/Remove Programs or by programs
such as Symantec's Norton Anti-virus or AOL's Security Suite.  
Fortunately, some anti-spyware programs are able to remove it.

While the FTC and Washington lawsuits represent the government,
this lawsuit is the first to represent individual users,
nationwide, who claim that popcorn.net rendered their computers
temporarily useless and cost them time and/or money to remove
it.

For more information on the lawsuit, contact Jeff Schwartz of
The Law Offices of Manuel H. Miller, Phone: 818-401-0066 or 1-
866-5-MILLER, E-mail: jeff@ManuelHMiller.com or
popcorn@ManuelHMiller.com.


EVERCOM SYSTEMS: Fla. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Inmates' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the putative class action
filed against Evercom Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of SECURUS
Technologies, Inc.

The company and its wholly owned billing agent are alleged to
have violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and other common law duties because of the alleged incorrect
termination of inmate telephone calls.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, as well as compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, and may later seek
certification of a class of persons who receive inmate calls
from Miami County.

The company moved for complete dismissal of all claims, and it
awaits the court's decision.  

The suit is "Kirsten Salb v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-20290," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Judd Gordon Rosen of Goldberg Law Firm, 1101 Brickell
         Avenue, Suite 899, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-374-
         4200;

     (2) Lance August Harke and Howard Mitchell Bushman of Harke
         & Clasby, LLP, 155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600,
         Miami, Florida 33130, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-536-
         8220, Fax: 305-536-8229, Web site:
         http://www.harkeclasby.com;and

     (3) Justin Graem Witkin and Robert Jason Richards of
         Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser, P.L.C., Phone: 850-916-7450
         and 877-810-4808, Fax: 850-916-7449, Web site:
         http://www.aws-law.com.

Representing the defendants are, Glen H. Waldman and Eleanor
Trotman Barnett of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP,
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500, Miami, Florida 33131-
5340, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-374-7580, Fax: 305-374-7593,
Web site: http://www.bilzin.com.


FLORIDA: Hearing in Suit Against Dept. of Corrections Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Henry L. Adams Jr. is hearing testimonies in
a class action over alleged abuse in maximum security -- called
"controlled management" -- in Florida's prisons, Meg Laughlin of
the St. Petersburgh Times reports.  

During a hearing on Sept. 12, an inmate made a surprise
testimony alleging guards at the Santa Rosa Correctional
Institution in Milton, east of Pensacola, beat him for agreeing
to testify.

Inmate Anthony Sutton, and seven other inmates, were transferred
on Sept. 15 to Union Correctional Institution to testify via
video in Judge Adams' courtroom about alleged abuse in maximum
security in the state.  The inmates were there to testify only
about alleged "cruel and inhuman" conditions at Santa Rosa and
other Florida prisons while in controlled management.  But six
of the inmates also testified they witnessed some part of the
alleged beating of Mr. Sutton.

Susan Maher, assistant attorney general representing the Florida
Department of Corrections at the hearing, repeatedly objected to
the testimony from the Santa Rosa inmates about Mr. Sutton,
saying "it is outside the scope of this case."  But Judge Adams
insisted upon hearing it.  

Randy Berg of the Florida Justice Institute, representing the
inmates who were testifying as plaintiffs in a class action,
requested that the inmates be temporarily kept at Union
Correctional, but Judge Adams declined.

Judge Adams will continue to hear testimonies about alleged
abuse in five Florida prisons, according to the report.

The suit is "Osterback, et al. v. Secretary, Department of
Corrections, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-MCR" filed in
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida under Judge
Henry Lee Adams, Jr. with referral to Monte C. Richardson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randall Challen Berg, Jr. at Florida Justice Institute,
         Inc., 100 S.E. Second St., 4320 Bank of America Tower,
         Miami, FL 33131-2309, Phone: 305/358-2081, Fax:
         305/358-0910, E-mail: rcberg@bellsouth.net; and

     (2) Christopher Michael Jones at Florida Institutional
         Legal Services, Inc., 1010-B NW 8th Ave., Gainesville,
         FL 32601-4969, Phone: 352/375-2494, Fax: 352/271-4366,
         E-mail: cmjfils@bellsouth.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Caryl Kilinski and Susan A. Maher Attorney General's
         Office, The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050,
         Phone: 850/414-3300 (ext: 3632), 850/414-3643, Fax:
         850/488-4872, E-mail: Caryl_Kilinski@oag.state.fl.us,
         susan_maher@oag.state.fl.us.


GEORGIA: Bulloch County Enjoined from Enforcing Bus Stop Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Bulloch County Sheriff Lynn M. Anderson and plaintiffs in the
class action "Whitaker et al. v. Perdue et al.," agree that
Sheriff Anderson is enjoined from enforcing the portion of
Georgia Code that prohibits anyone on Georgia's sex offender
registry from living within 1,000 feet of a "school bus stop."

Sheriff Anderson agrees to enjoin enforcement of the school bus
stop provision while the court considers the constitutionality
of the provision.  In return, plaintiffs agree not to seek
attorneys' fees against Sheriff Anderson.

The agreement remains in effect until further order of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome
Division.

Further, with consent of the plaintiffs, Sheriff Anderson is
relieved from any responsibility of filing an answer to
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint or otherwise participating in this
litigation as a party including obligations under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of the Northern
District of Georgia.

The consent order was agreed to and submitted in court on Aug.
31 by the Southern Center for Human Rights and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

The suit "Whitaker et al v. Perdue et al." is a class action
filed on June 20 by The Southern Center for Human Rights and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia challenging discrete
portions of Georgia's new sex offender residency law, Act. No.
571, Georgia. Laws 2006 (HB 1059), codified at Georgia Code Ann.
Section 42-1-15.

Judge Clarence Cooper certified the suit as a class action in
July (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2006).

House Bill 1059, which took effect on July 1, broadens the law  
governing where registered sex offenders may reside by  
prohibiting them from living or working within 1,000 feet of any  
child care facility, church, school or "area where minors  
congregate," including parks and recreation facilities,  
playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums,  
swimming pools and bus stops.

Plaintiffs contend the Act violates:

     -- the U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 10, prohibiting ex  
        post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws that  
        impair the obligation of contracts;

     -- the procedural component of the due process clause;  

     -- the substantive component of the due process clause and  
        the right to family privacy;  

     -- the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons  
        Act;  

     -- the free exercise clause and the right to freedom of  
        association;  

     -- the Takings Clause;  

     -- the right to interstate and intrastate travel; and  

     -- the Eighth Amendment.  

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

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

On a July 28 ruling, the court finds that this matter may  
properly proceed as a class action and hereby certified a class  
consisting of all persons who are registered, are required to  
register, or in the future will be required to register as sex  
offenders.

A copy of the certification order is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ed1

Defendants in the case are:  

     -- Gov. Sonny Perdue,  
     -- Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker,
     -- Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown, and  
     -- Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks   

Plaintiffs include Al Reginald Marks, Dewayne Owens, James  
Victor Wilson, Janet Jenkins Allison, Jeffery York, Rev. Joel  
Jones, Joseph Linaweaver, Lori Sue Collins, and Wendy Whitaker.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this action;  

     -- determine by Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  
        Rules of Civil Procedure that this action be maintained  
        as a class action;  

     -- enter a preliminary and thereafter a permanent  
        injunction enjoining the portions of the Act that  
        violate the rights of plaintiffs and the class they  
        represent;  

     -- declare that the portion of the Act prohibiting  
        residence within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop is  
        vague and overbroad;

     -- declare that the Act violates:  

        * the Ex Post Facto Clause,  
        * the procedural component of the Due Process Clause,  
        * the substantive component of the Due Process Clause  
          and the right to family privacy,  
        * the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons  
          Act,
        * the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of  
          association,
        * the Takings Clause,  
        * the right to interstate and intrastate travel, and  
        * the Eighth Amendment.

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs;

     -- award Plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and  
        reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to The Public Health  
        and Welfare Code of 1988; and

     -- order such other and further relief as this court may  
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "Whitaker et al v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Brooks Bright of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sbright@schr.org;  

     (2) Margaret Fletcher Garrett of the American Civil  
         Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514  
         75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: mgarrett@acluga.org;  

     (3) Sarah E. Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org;  

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights  
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:  
         404-688-1202;

     (5) Elizabeth Lynn Littrell of the American Civil Liberties  
         Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75  
         Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: blittrell@acluga.org; and

     (6) Gerald R. Weber of the American Civil Liberties Union  
         Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75 Piedmont  
         Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-6201, E-mail:  
         gweber@acluga.org.


GEORGIA: Sheriff Whittle to Represent Defendants in HB 1059 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Georgia,
Atlanta Division certified sheriff of Columbia County, Clay
Whittle as representative of sheriffs who are defendants in the
class action "Whitaker et al. v. Perdue et al."

The court's order filed Aug. 24 is available at:

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11e8  

The suit is a class action filed on June 20 by The Southern
Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union
of Georgia challenging discrete portions of Georgia's new sex
offender residency law, Act. No. 571, Georgia. Laws 2006 (HB
1059), codified at Georgia Code Ann. Section 42-1-15.

Judge Clarence Cooper certified the suit as a class action in
July (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2006).  The suit originally
names as defendants Gov. Sonny Perdue, Georgia Attorney General
Thurbert E. Baker, Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown,
and Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks.

A copy of the certification order is available for free at:

         http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ed1

House Bill 1059, which took effect on July 1, broadens the law  
governing where registered sex offenders may reside by  
prohibiting them from living or working within 1,000 feet of any  
child care facility, church, school or "area where minors  
congregate," including parks and recreation facilities,  
playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums,  
swimming pools and bus stops.

Plaintiffs contend the Act violates:

     -- the U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 10, prohibiting ex  
        post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws that  
        impair the obligation of contracts;

     -- the procedural component of the due process clause;  

     -- the substantive component of the due process clause and  
        the right to family privacy;  

     -- the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons  
        Act;  

     -- the free exercise clause and the right to freedom of  
        association;  

     -- the Takings Clause;  

     -- the right to interstate and intrastate travel; and  

     -- the Eighth Amendment.  
  
On a July 28 ruling, the court finds that this matter may  
properly proceed as a class action and hereby certified a class  
consisting of all persons who are registered, are required to  
register, or in the future will be required to register as sex  
offenders pursuant to Section 42-1-12.1

Plaintiffs include Al Reginald Marks, Dewayne Owens, James  
Victor Wilson, Janet Jenkins Allison, Jeffery York, Rev. Joel  
Jones, Joseph Linaweaver, Lori Sue Collins, and Wendy Whitaker.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this action;  

     -- determine by Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  
        Rules of Civil Procedure that this action be maintained  
        as a class action;  

     -- enter a preliminary and thereafter a permanent  
        injunction enjoining the portions of the Act that  
        violate the rights of plaintiffs and the class they  
        represent;  

     -- declare that the portion of the Act prohibiting  
        residence within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop is  
        vague and overbroad;

     -- declare that the Act violates:  

        * the Ex Post Facto Clause,  
        * the procedural component of the Due Process Clause,  
        * the substantive component of the Due Process Clause  
          and the right to family privacy,  
        * the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons  
          Act,
        * the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of  
          association,
        * the Takings Clause,  
        * the right to interstate and intrastate travel, and  
        * the Eighth Amendment.

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs;

     -- award Plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and  
        reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to The Public Health  
        and Welfare Code of 1988; and

     -- order such other and further relief as this court may  
        deem just and proper.

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

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

The suit is "Whitaker et al v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephen Brooks Bright of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sbright@schr.org;  

     (2) Margaret Fletcher Garrett of the American Civil  
         Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514  
         75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: mgarrett@acluga.org;  

     (3) Sarah E. Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human  
         Rights, 83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122,  
         Phone: 404-688-1202, E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org;  

     (4) Lisa L. Kung of the Southern Center for Human Rights  
         83 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-2122, Phone:  
         404-688-1202;

     (5) Elizabeth Lynn Littrell of the American Civil Liberties  
         Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75  
         Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-
         6201, E-mail: blittrell@acluga.org; and

     (6) Gerald R. Weber of the American Civil Liberties Union  
         Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Suite 514, 75 Piedmont  
         Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-523-6201, E-mail:  
         gweber@acluga.org.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc., is named defendant in a lawsuit filed in
Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts on behalf of all
merchandising assistant store managers who are demanding that
they be paid time and a half for any work performed over 40
hours a week, the Boston Business Journal reports.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, alleges that
Home Depot has systematically cheated some managers out of
overtime pay.  It targets the chain's 42 stores in the state.

A New Jersey law firm that filed a federal lawsuit against the
company in 2004 is coordinating the case.

A 2005 ruling in the New Jersey lawsuit spurred the firm to file
similar lawsuits in the state courts of New York, New Jersey and
Massachusetts, alleging violations of those states' wage and
hour laws.

Past and present assistant store managers of The Home Depot,
Inc. stores across New Jersey won a significant victory on Oct.
31, 2005 when the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted a motion to conditionally certify their lawsuit
for overtime pay as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2005).

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

For more information, contact Squitieri & Fearon Phone: (212)
421-6492 or (856) 797-4611.


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Affirms Settlement in "Nuanes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals in California entered an order confirming its
approval of the settlement of class action against Insignia
Financial Group, Inc.

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of Davidson Diversified Real Estate III, L.P.,
(Partnership) commenced the purported class action, "Rosalie
Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al." in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo.  

The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the
Partnership, Davidson Diversified Properties, Inc. (Managing
General Partner), and several of their affiliated partnerships
and corporate entities.  

The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named
as nominal defendants.  It challenges, among other things:

     -- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing General
        Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. and
        entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia;

     -- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire
        limited partnership units;

     -- management of the partnerships by the Insignia
        affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed
        on Oct. 1, 1998 and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and
        Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged
        into Apartment Investment and Management Co.

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.  In addition,
during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned, "Heller
v. Insignia Financial Group (the Heller action)" was filed
against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action.

On or about Aug. 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint.  The Heller action was brought as a purported
derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and judicial dissolution.

On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to
strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this
order.

On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in the proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller
action.  On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of
the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and
Heller actions.

On Aug. 12, 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate
and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering
judgment thereto.  On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second
appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order,
requiring the objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment
entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's
order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on
the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to
permit meaningful appellate review."  

The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees.
With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of
which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  

On or about Oct. 13, 2005 objector filed a motion to intervene
and on or about Oct. 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take
discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative
representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit
injunction in connection with settlement.

On Nov. 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further Findings
pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Defendants joined in that motion.  

On Feb. 3, 2006, the court held a hearing on the various matters
pending before it and has ordered additional briefing from the
parties and objector.

On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming
its approval of the class action settlement and entering
judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the
matter for further findings.  

The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain
unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on
July 1, 2006, denying objector's Motion to File a Complaint in
Intervention, objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and
Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice
of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.


LIVE NATION: "Heerwagen" Plaintiff Voluntarily Nixes N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action, "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel
Communications, et al.," filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York in relation to her case against Live Nation, Inc. and other
defendants.

The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by
Melinda Heerwagen on June 13, 2002.  Plaintiff, on behalf of a
putative class consisting of certain concert ticket purchasers,
alleges that anti-competitive practices for concert promotion
services by the company nationwide caused artificially high-
ticket prices.

On Aug. 11, 2003, the court ruled in the company's favor,
denying the plaintiff's class certification motion.  Plaintiff
appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, and oral argument was held on Nov. 3, 2004.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the ruling in the company's favor by the
District Court.  

On Jan. 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of her action in the Southern District of New York.

The suit is "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., Case No.
2:02-cv-04503-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Squitieri
& Fearon, L.L.P., 420 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY
10018, Phone: (212) 575-2092, E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com.  

Representing the company is Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati(NYC), 12 East 49th Street, 30th Flr., New
York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-999-5858, Fax: 212-999-5899, E-mail:
jjacobson@wsgr.com.


LIVE NATION: Panel Consolidates Ticket Pricing Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
consolidation of several purported class actions filed against
Live Nation, Inc. with those pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the company caused artificially high-
ticket prices.

Originally, the company is defendant in putative class actions
filed by several plaintiffs in the U.S. District Courts in
Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey.  The
suits are:

      -- "Cooperberg v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et
         al., Civ. No. 2:05-cv-04492 (E.D. Pa.)";

      -- "Diaz v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         Civ. No. 05-cv-22413 (S.D. Fla.)";

      -- "Thompson v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Civ.
         No. 2:05-cv-6704 (C.D. Cal.)";

      -- "Bhatia v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         Civ. No. 1:05-cv-05612 (N.D. Ill.)"; and

      -- "Young v. Clear Channel Communications, et al., Civ.
         Action No. 06-277-WHW (D.N.J.)."

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  

The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied
liability.  On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the
above-listed actions and any similar ones commenced in the
future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings.  

On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and
ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
         Shapiro, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) [Defendants] Paul Chalmers of Paul Chalmers Law
         Offices, Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW,
         #405, New York, NY 920036, US, Phone: 202-772-1834;

     (3) [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli of Wilson Sonsini
         Goodrich and Rosati, 12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor,
         New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-999-5859; and

     (4) Renata Hesse of Renata Hesse Law Offices, Two Lafayette
         Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW, #405, Washington, DC,
         20036, US, Phone: 202-772-1834.


NATURAL SELECTION: Faces Ill. Suit Over Contaminated Spinach
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago attorney Tom Zimmerman filed a class action against
Natural Selection Foods LLC on behalf of restaurants that
suffered damages due to contaminated spinach supplied by the
company, CBS 2 Chicago reports.

Hamilton's Restaurant wants the grower to repay every restaurant
that purchased its recalled spinach, according to a CBS 2 North
Suburban report.  Owner George Grekousis had to throw $40 worth
of bagged spinach.

Natural Selection Foods recalled its packaged spinach throughout
the U.S., Canada and Mexico as a precaution after federal health
officials linked the company to a nationwide E. coli outbreak
that has killed one person and sickened nearly 100 others last
week.

"It is possible that the recall and the information will extend
beyond Natural Selection Foods and involve other brands and
other companies, at other dates," said Dr. David Acheson, the
chief medical officer with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

In a statement, Natural Selection Foods said that it was
cooperating with federal and state health officials to identify
the source of the contamination and had stopped shipping all
fresh spinach products.

The company said consumers could call 800-690-3200 for a refund
or replacement coupons for tossed-out spinach products.

FDA officials stressed that the bacteria had not been isolated
in products sold by the company, based in San Juan Bautista,
California, and known for Earthbound Farm and other brands.  As
the investigation continues, other brands may be included,
officials said.

They are sold under many brand names, including Earthbound Farm,
Dole, Green Harvest, Natural Selection Foods, Rave Spinach,
Ready Pac and Trader Joe's.

Other states reporting cases were California, Connecticut,
Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New
Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Virginia, Washington and Wyoming, according to the CDC.

A Seattle law firm said it planned to add Natural Selection
Foods to federal lawsuits previously filed in Wisconsin and
Oregon that named other spinach producers.

For more information, contact Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. of
Zimmerman Law Offices, P. C., 100 W Monroe St., Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 440-0020, Fax: (312) 440-4180,
Web site: http://www.attorneyzim.com.


NORBOURG ASSET: Hearing to Set Trial Date for Former CEO Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth Corte of the Criminal and Penal Divisions of the
court of Montreal postponed a hearing to set the trial of
Vincent Lacroix, the former chief executive of bankrupt Norbourg
Asset Management Inc., to Oct. 16, The Gazette reports.  
Canada's financial regulator Autorite des marches financiers
agreed to the postponement for the time being, the report said.

Mr. Lacroix, who declared bankruptcy in May, was denied legal
aid by the government in August.  Attorney Gilles Thibault, whom
Mr. Lacroix hired that month, is working for free at the moment.

Mr. Thibault had argued that a hearing to set a trial date for
fraud claims against his client should be put off pending an
appeal of a decision refusing his application for legal aid.

Quebec Superior Court began hearing on June 5 arguments from a
group of Norbourg Asset investors seeking to launch a class
action against the mutual fund group and Mr. Lacroix, cbc.ca
reports (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2006).  Mr. Lacroix is
accused of misappropriating an estimated $84 million, including
$18 million for his personal benefit, from investors.

Also named in the suit are Quebec's financial services regulator
Autorite des archers financiers, and some Norbourg managers.  
The AMF is recommending fines of $20,000 to $5 million and up to
five years imprisonment for each count upon which Mr. Lacroix is
convicted.  

The financial regulator is accused of not acting early enough to
protect investors, according to investors' lawyer Jacques
Larochelle.  It discovered a $130 million dollar discrepancy in
the company's results only last summer.

The securities regulator has filed 51 security act charges of
fraud, manipulation of mutual fund values and falsified
documents against Mr. Lacroix.

On June 6, a Quebec Superior Court allowed Pierre Laporte of
trustee Ernst & Young to return $32 million of the $75 million
recovered last year from Norbourg, Evolution and Perfolio funds.  
The balance will be held in reserve until the court decides on
how the funds will be distributed to creditors.  

The suit has been before Judge Richard Mongeon since January.

Norbourg investors are being represented by Jacques Larochelle,
75 Rue St Jean, Quebec, PQ G1R 1N4, Canada, Phone: (418) 529-
5881.


OMEGA FLEX: Discovery Continues in Ark. Consumer Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported national class action
against four manufacturers of corrugated stainless steel tubing,
including Omega Flex, Inc.

Four individual residents of Arkansas and an individual Texas
resident filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Clark County,
Arkansas on Nov. 15, 2004.  The company was sued as the
manufacturer of TracPipe brand corrugated stainless steel
tubing.

The complaint proposes a national class action on behalf of all
owners of installed corrugated stainless steel tubing.  The
tubing is alleged to be defective because it is more susceptible
to failure from near-lightning strikes than traditional black
iron pipe and because the manufacturers allegedly failed to warn
customers regarding this.

The case, "Larry Berry, et al. v. Titeflex Corp., et al., Case
No. CV-2004-211," is currently in discovery.  

For more details, contact:

     (1) [Plaintiff] W.H. "Dub" Arnold of Arnold, Batson, Turner
         & Turner, P.A., P.O. Box 480, Arkadelphia, AR 71923-
         0480, Phone: (870) 246-9844, Fax: 870-246-9845, E-mail:
         Melanie@arnoldbatsonturner.com;

     (2) [Plaintiff] Joel M. Fineberg of Joel M. Fineberg, P.C.,
         3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 1900, Dallas, TX
         75219, Phone: (214) 219-8828;

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

     (4) [Plaintiff] Charles Cary Patterson of Nix, Patterson &
         Roach, LLP, 2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 500,
         Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: 903-223-3999, Fax: 903-223-
         8520, E-mail: ccp@nixlawfirm.com;

     (5) [Omega Flex - Defendant] Kevin A. Crass of Friday,
         Eldredge & Clark, 2000 Regions Center, 400 West Capitol
         Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, Phone: (501) 376-
         2011, Fax: (501) 376-2147, E-mail: crass@fec.net; and

     (6) [Omega Flex - Defendant] Robert B. Ellis of Kirkland &
         Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, 60th Floor, Chicago, IL
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Ming TV Stands for Tipping Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 4,300 Ming TV Stands.

The company said if a consumer leans on the stand's drawer when
open, the unit can tilt forward and cause a television on top to
slide off, posing a risk of injury or death.

Pier 1 has not received any reports of injuries in the U.S.  
Though, Pier 1 has received a report of a death of a young child
in Canada, which occurred when a television fell off the TV
stand.

The Ming TV Stand, SKU 2065368, is a brown wooden cabinet that
sits directly on the floor and measures 35 1/2-inches wide, 17
3/4-inches deep and 23 1/2-inches high.  The TV stand contains
an open storage space between its top shelve and its single
bottom drawer.

The stands were sold at Pier 1 stores nationwide and on-line
through Pier 1's Web site from August 2005 through February 2006
for about $250.

Picture of the recalled Ming TV stands:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06255.jpg

Customers are advised to immediately remove televisions or other
heavy items from these TV stands.  The stands should be returned
to a Pier 1 Imports store for a refund or merchandise credit.

For additional information, contact Pier 1's Customer Service at
(800) 245-4595, prompt 6, between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday
through Saturday, and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Sunday.

Pier 1 Imports On the Net: http://www.pier1.com.


PULTE HOMES: Firm, Contractors Face FLSA Violations Suit in Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada names Pulte Homes, and contractors Centennial Drywall
Systems and Burnham Painting and Drywall Corp. as defendants
over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Las
Vegas Review - Journal reports.

The contractors were retained by Pulte Homes to perform work on
its Las Vegas Valley's new homes.  Plaintiffs in the suit are
local painters Rudy Lemus, Manuel Lopez Zarate, Arturo Carreno
Garcia, Norma Uribe, and Lino Calderon Mendoza.

The suit claims that defendants failed to pay the plaintiffs for
overtime work performed within the past four years.

All five plaintiffs worked for defendants as painters in and
around Clark County, Nevada, and Southern Nevada during the
relevant time periods.

Plaintiffs are painters paid on a piece rate basis.  As painters
they allegedly regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek
without any overtime compensation.

Under Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiffs will request the court to provide notice of this
class action regarding the state wage claims and other class
claims.

Although Pulte didn't employ the claimants directly, the
lawsuit, however, said a code in the Nevada Revised Statute
holds that original contractors who hire other contractors or
subcontractors to build, alter or repair any structure are
liable for the indebtedness for labor that those subcontractors
and contractors incur while working on a project.

Thus, this case poses questions of law and fact common to the
class as a whole that predominate over any questions affecting
individual members of the class.  Those common questions
include, but are not limited to, the following:

     1. the plaintiff class' status as employer defendants'
        employees;

     2. employer defendants' status as joint employers;
     
     3. whether employer defendants violated the FLSA and/or    
        Nevada Revised Statutes 608.020, 608.030, 608.040,
        608.060, and 608.115;

     4. whether employer defendants have wrongfully interfered
        with the statutory rights of the plaintiff class in
        failing to pay them any wages; and

     5. what relief is necessary and appropriate to remedy
        defendants' unlawful conduct.

The suit seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended and Nevada State law.

Plaintiffs' attorney Kristina Hillman said that though five
plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, there may be as many as 250
workers eligible to join the class action.

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

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11e2

The suit is "Lemus et al. v. Burnham Painting & Drywall Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01158-RCJ-PAL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Robert C. Jones,
with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) J. Felix De La Torre of Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, 428
         J Street, Suite 520, Sacramento, CA 95914-2341, Phone:
         (916) 443-6600, Fax: (916) 442-0244; and

     (2) Kristina L. Hillman and Brooke D. Pierman both of the
         Law Offices of Kristina L. Hillman, 729 Evans Avenue,
         Reno, NV 89511-2060, Phone: (775) 324-4533, E-mail:
         nevadacourtnotices@unioncounsel.net.


SECURITY CAPITAL: Faces Conn. Securities Suit Over Sedgwick Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Security Capital Corp., along with several of its officers, was
named as a defendant in a stockholder class action pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut over its merger
agreement with Sedgwick CMS Holdings, Inc.

On June 12, 2006, the company entered into a merger agreement to
be acquired by Sedgwick CMS Holdings.  Under the terms of the
merger agreement, company stockholders will receive $16.46 per
share in cash for their shares.

On June 21, 2006, the company received a purported class action
complaint by The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated against:

     -- Security Capital Corp.,
     -- Brian D. Fitzgerald,
     -- A. George Gebauer,
     -- Samuel B. Fortenbaugh III,
     -- John H.F. Haskell,
     -- Edward W. Kelley, Jr.,
     -- M. Paul Kelly, and
     -- Robert M. Williams.

The suit was filed on June 19, 2006.  

The complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of the
company.  It alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the defendants' breached and/or aided the other
         defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of
         loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
         dealing in connection with the merger contemplated by
         the Sedgwick CMS merger agreement;

      -- the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to secure
         and obtain the best price reasonable under the
         circumstances for the benefit of the company's
         stockholders;

      -- the defendants are engaging in self-dealing, conflicts
         of interest and unjust enrichment in connection with
         the "management-led buyout" of the company; and

      -- the consideration payable to the company's stockholders
         in connection with the merger is unfair and inadequate.  

The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the merger unless
and until the company adopts and implements a procedure or
process to obtain the highest possible price for stockholders
and the imposition of a constructive trust upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants as a result of the alleged
self-dealing, conflicts of interest and unjust enrichment.  

Greenwich, Connecticut-based Security Capital Corp. (AMEX: SCC)
-- http://www.securitycapitalcorporation.com/-- operates as a  
holding company that participates in the management of its two
operating subsidiaries, Primrose Holdings, Inc. and WC Holdings,
Inc.  


SPARKS NETWORKS: Trials Set on Applicability of CDS Act in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against Sparks Networks, PLC now deals
with the question whether the company's operation should be
subject to the California Dating Services Act.

On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action
complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code
section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating
service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged
dating service, the company is required to provide language in
contracts that allows:

      -- members to rescind their contracts within three days;

      -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the
         member dies during the term of the contract and/or; and
     
      -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of
         disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and/or
federal laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff is
seeking remedies including declaratory relief, restitution,
actual damages although not quantified, treble damages and/or
punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The case seeks to certify a nationwide class action based on
their complaints.  Because it is a class action, it was assigned
to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program.

Mediation occurred in "Adelman" in 2004 that did not result in a
settlement.  A post-mediation status conference was held on July
16, 2004.  At that status conference, the court suggested that
the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue.  

The purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to
determine whether as a matter of law the California Dating
Services Act applies to the company.  

In this way, if the court determines that the CDS Act is
inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and
class certification can be avoided.

The court has permitted limited discovery including document
requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted
to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the
parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the
court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of
the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial
has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed.  A
second mediation occurred in Adelman on Feb. 10, 2006.  

The mediation resumed on Feb. 23, 2006, but did not result in a
settlement.  The bifurcated trial on the issue of the
applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the
Adelman action was set for Sept. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the court held a hearing, and granted the
company's ex parte application to bifurcate the trial of the
issue of actual injury or damages.  The trial of the bifurcated
issue of actual injury or damages was set for Aug. 17, 2006.  

U.K.-based Spark Networks plc  -- http://www.spark.net/-- is  
engaged in the provision of online personals services in the
U.S. and overseas.  The company's Web sites enable adults to
meet online and participate in a community, become friends,
date, form a long-term relationship or marry.  

Spark Networks' key Websites includes JDate.com and
AmericanSingles.com.  The company operates a number of
international Websites and maintains operations in both the U.S.
and Israel.  It divides its business into three operating
segments: the JDate segment, which consists of the company's
JDate.com Website and its co-branded Websites; the
AmericanSingles segment, which consists of its
AmericanSingles.com Website and its co-branded Websites, and the
Other Businesses segment, which consists of all its other
Websites and businesses.


TRIARC COS: Agree to Pay $76,000 in Del. Stockholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Triarc Companies, Inc. and several other defendants agreed to
pay plaintiffs $75,000 in fees and expenses in a consolidated
stockholder class action pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

In 1998, a number of class actions were filed on behalf of the
company's stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.  Each of these actions
named as defendants: the company, Messrs. Nelson Peltz and Peter
W. May and the other former directors of the company.

In 1999, certain plaintiffs in these actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint alleging that the company's
tender offer statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in 1999, pursuant to which the company
repurchased 3,805,015 shares of its Class A Common Stock, failed
to disclose material information.  The amended complaint sought,
among other relief, monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  

In 2000, the plaintiffs agreed to stay this action pending
determination of a related stockholder action that was
subsequently dismissed in October 2002 and is no longer being
appealed.

On Oct. 24, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to
dismiss the action as moot, but to retain jurisdiction for the
limited purpose of considering a subsequent application by
plaintiffs for legal fees and expenses.  

On Oct. 27, 2005, the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the action
as moot was granted.  On Dec. 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking $250,000 in fees and $6,225 for reimbursement of
expenses.

On Feb. 24, 2006, defendants filed papers in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion.  On March 29, 2006, the court entered an
order awarding plaintiffs $75,000 in fees and expenses.

In June 2006, the parties entered into an agreement pursuant to
which, among other things, the company paid $76,000 for the fees
and expenses, plus interest, and the defendants withdrew their
appeal.

New York, New York-based Triarc Companies, Inc. (NYSE: TRY.B) --
http://www.triarc.com/-- is a holding company and, through its  
subsidiaries, is the franchisor of the Arby's restaurant system.  
Of these restaurants, as of Jan. 1, 2006, 1,039 are owned and
operated by the company's subsidiaries.  It also owns an
approximate 64% capital interest in Deerfield & Co. LLC, which,
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Deerfield Capital
Management LLC, is a Chicago-based asset manager offering a
range of fixed income and credit-related strategies to
institutional investors.  Triarc operates in two business
segments.  It operates in the restaurant business through its
franchised and company-owned Arby's restaurants, and in the
asset management business.  On July 25, 2005, the company
completed the acquisition of the RTM Restaurant Group.


TRIARC COS: Fla. Court Mulls Final Approval for ADA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to give its final approval to the proposed settlement in the
class action against a subsidiary of Triarc Companies, Inc.  

The suit is "Access Now, Inc. and Christ Soter Tavantis, et al.
v. RTM Operating Co. d/b/a Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case
No. 02-23374."

In November 2002, Access Now, Inc. and Edward Resnick, later
replaced by Christ Soter Tavantzis, on their own behalf and on
the behalf of all those similarly situated, brought an action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against RTM Operating Co., which became a subsidiary of the
Triarc Cos. following its acquisition of the RTM Restaurant
Group in July 2005.

The complaint alleges that the approximately 775 Arby's
restaurants owned by RTM and its affiliates failed to comply
with Title III alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  It requested class certification and
injunctive relief requiring RTM and such affiliates to comply
with the ADA in all if its restaurants.  The complaint did not
seek monetary damages, but sought attorneys' fees.

Without admitting liability, RTM entered into an agreement with
the plaintiffs on a class-wide basis, which is subject to court
approval.  

The proposed agreement calls for the restaurants owned by RTM
and certain of its affiliates to be brought into ADA compliance
over an eight year period at a rate of approximately 100
restaurants per year.  It would also apply to restaurants
subsequently acquired by RTM and such affiliates.

Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., a company subsidiary, estimates
that it will spend approximately $1.0 million per year of
capital expenditures to bring the restaurants into compliance
under the proposed agreement and pay certain legal fees.

The proposed settlement was submitted to the court for approval
on Aug. 13, 2004.  On April 7, 2005 the court held a fairness
hearing on the matter.

Prior to the fairness hearing, the parties jointly amended the
proposed settlement agreement to clarify certain provisions and
to add new provisions regarding policies, training programs and
invoicing requirements.

By orders dated Jan. 30, 2006 and April 7, 2006, the court
granted the parties leave to make the amendments and a fairness
hearing regarding the amendments was held on June 14, 2006.  The
court has not yet ruled on the proposed settlement, according to
the company's Aug. 11 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended July 2, 2006.

For more details contact:

     (1) Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country Club Drive #1522,
         Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059, Fax 305-
         574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site:
         http://www.adaaccessnow.org;and

     (2) Rosen & Switkes, PL, Phone: 305-534-4757 and 954-653-
         0457, Fax: 305-538-5504 and 305-538-5504, E-mail:
         jentin@rosenandswitkes.com, Web site:
         http://www.rosenandswitkes.com/classactions/index.html.


TYSON FOODS: Del. Court to Hear Suit Over Executive Pay Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is set today over Tyson Foods Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a consolidated lawsuit filed against the company, current and
former company executives, and board members over alleged
improper payments, Pine Bluff Commercial reports.

The lawsuits include a class action and a suit by an
institutional investor over claims of breach of fiduciary
responsibilities to the company.  The hearing is to be held in
Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington.

               Consolidated Securities Litigation

Between Jun. 22 and Jun. 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced
Delaware federal actions against the company, Don Tyson, John
Tyson and Les Baledge in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  The plaintiffs sought monetary damages on
behalf of a purported class of those who sold IBP, inc. stock
from Mar. 29, 2001 -- when the company announced its intention
to terminate its merger agreement with IBP -- through Jun. 15,
2001, when a Delaware state court rendered its post-trial
opinion ordering the merger to proceed.

Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making, causing or allowing
to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading statements in
a Mar. 29, 2001, press release issued in connection with the
company's attempted termination of the merger agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants'
alleged conduct purported class members were harmed by an
alleged artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during
the proposed class period.

The various actions were subsequently consolidated under the
caption, "In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" and, on
Dec. 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

On Jan. 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  By an Oct. 23, 2002 memorandum order,
the district court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 6, 2003, the district court certified a class consisting
of those who purchased IBP securities on or before Mar. 29,
2001, and subsequently sold such securities from Mar. 30 through
Jun. 15, 2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of
such transaction.  Following the conclusion of discovery in the
case, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary
judgment.

On Jun. 17, 2004, the district court rendered an opinion in
favor of defendants and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs'
claims, and entered an order to that effect.

On Jun. 28, 2004, defendants filed a motion requesting the
District Court to modify its order to include judgment in
defendants' favor against the class.  On Jun. 30, 2004 the
district court entered such an order.

On Aug. 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs
filed their brief on the appeal on Dec. 8, 2004. Defendants
filed their response on Jan. 24, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed their
reply brief on Feb. 24, 2005.

Oral arguments on the appeal were heard by the court of appeals
Sept. 13, 2005.  On Nov. 9, 2005, the court of appeals affirmed
the decision of the district court.

On Nov. 23, 2005, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing with
the court of appeals.  The court of appeals denied the petition
on Dec. 21, 2005.

The suit is "Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:01-cv-00425-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  Representing
the plaintiffs is John Leonard Reed of Edwards Angell Palmer &
Dodge, LLP, 919 North Market Street, Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE
19801, Phone: (302) 777-7770, Fax: (888) 325-9165, E-mail:
jreed@EdwardsAngell.com.  

Representing the defendants are Anthony W. Clark and Robert
Scott Saunders of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, One
Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302)
651-3000, E-mail: tclark@skadden.com  and rsaunder@skadden.com.

Eisenhofer and Grant also represents plaintiffs in the suit.


WARNER CHILCOTT: D.C. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Ovcon 35 Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss certain claims in a consumer class
action against Warner Chilcott Holdings Co. III, Ltd., and Barr
Pharmaceuticals over the firms' agreements in relation to Ovcon
35 oral contraceptives.

Filed on March 6, 2006, the suit alleges that the Ovcon
agreements violate sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the
antitrust laws of 18 states and the unjust enrichment laws of 50
states.

Thus, plaintiff seeks to certify three separate classes
consisting of:

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use who
         are seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and
         restitution under the Sherman Act;

      -- all persons in the eighteen states referenced above who
         purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use; and

      -- all persons who purchased Ovcon 35 for personal use.

The consumer plaintiff seeks treble damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, disgorgement, and costs including attorney's fees.

On April 19, 2006 the consumer plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint.  The amended complaint dropped antitrust
claims in four states and added an additional named plaintiff.

On May 5, 2006 defendants moved to partially dismiss the
consumer plaintiffs' claims.  In particular, the company moved
to dismiss the consumer plaintiffs' claims brought under the
laws of 12 states, New York General Business Law Section 349, et
seq., and unjust enrichment law.  

The consumer plaintiffs opposed the motion.  The motion is fully
briefed and is pending before the court.

The suit is "Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00401-CKK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly.

Representing the plaintiffs is John M. Mason of The Law Offices
of Robert W. Sink, 319 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063, US,
Phone: 610-566-0800, Fax: 610-566-4408, E-mail:
sinklawoffices@comcast.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Peter Coyne Thomas of Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP,
         555 11th Street, NW, Suite 725, Washington, DC 20004,
         US, Phone: (202) 220-7735, Fax: (202) 220-7703, E-mail:
         pthomas@stblaw.com; and

     (2) Karen Natalie Walker of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 655 15th
         Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 879-5000, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-mail:
         kwalker@kirkland.com.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Direct Purchasers Want Ovcon Lawsuit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Holdings Co. III, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals
are defendants in a consolidated class action over their
agreements regarding the drug Ovcon.

Initially, eight direct purchaser lawsuits were filed.  The
direct purchaser plaintiffs allege that the Ovcon Agreements
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  All of the direct
purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and
costs including attorneys' fees.  

Six of the lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, are class actions.  The
remaining two suits are brought on behalf of individual direct
purchasers.

On April 14, 2006 the six direct purchaser class action
plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint and dismissed their complaints in the remaining five
cases.

On July 14, 2006 the direct purchaser class action plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification.  The motion seeks to
certify a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs consisting of all
persons and entities in the U.S. "who purchased Ovcon 35
directly from defendants or their subsidiaries at any time from
April 22, 2004, through the present and continuing until the
effects of defendants' anticompetitive conduct have ceased...."

In March 2004, Barr granted the company an option to acquire for
$1.0 million a five-year exclusive license under an abbreviated
new drug application owned by a unit of Barr for which the
company's Ovcon 35 oral contraceptive is the reference drug.  In
May 2004, the company exercised this option for an additional
payment of $19.0 million.

At the time, the company entered into a finished product supply
agreement under which Barr agreed to provide the company with
its requirements for finished Ovcon products throughout the term
of the license.  Barr is the company's sole source of supply for
this product.

Warner Chilcott -- http://www.warnerchilcott.com/-- based in  
Rockaway, New Jersey, is a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on women's healthcare and dermatology.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Third-Party-Payor Suit Over Ovcon Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Holdings Co. III, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals
are defendants in a third-party-payor class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over their
agreements regarding the drug Ovcon.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek to certify and represent a
class of all third-party-payors in the U.S. who purchased,
reimbursed and/or paid for Ovcon 35 after the Ovcon Agreements
were entered into.  The proposed class includes insurance
companies and employee benefit plans.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs allege in their first amended
complaint that the Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of
Columbia, the consumer protection acts of all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.  They also claim that the agreements
constitute a cause of action for unjust enrichment in
unspecified jurisdictions.

The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek an injunction, treble
damages, the amounts by which defendants have been unjustly
enriched, restitution, disgorgement, a constructive trust, and
costs including attorneys' fees.

On April 14, 2006 the third-party-payor plaintiffs filed a
second amended class action complaint.  In response to
defendants' previous motion to dismiss, the third-party-payor
plaintiffs dropped antitrust claims in two states and consumer
protection claims in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

On May 3, 2006 defendants moved to partially dismiss the third-
party-payor plaintiffs' claims.  In particular, defendants moved
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims brought under the laws of 21
states and the District of Columbia, unjust enrichment law, and
all claims brought by plaintiff United Food.  The third-party-
payor plaintiffs opposed the motion.  The motion is fully
briefed and is pending before the court.

Warner Chilcott -- http://www.warnerchilcott.com/-- based in  
Rockaway, New Jersey, is a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on women's healthcare and dermatology.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerium Technologies, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

On June 7, 2006, Parkside Capital Ltd. filed a purported class
action complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against the company, the company's chief executive
officer and the company's chief financial officer.  The company
was served with the complaint on June 8, 2006.  

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of
common stock and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
and liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  

Plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other
costs and unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock "pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's IPO on or about May 16, 2005 through
Nov, 15, 2005."

The suit is "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.
Zobel.

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

Representing the defendants is Seth C. Harrington of Ropes &
Gray, LLP, One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-951-7226, Fax: 617-951-7050, E-mail:
seth.harrington@ropesgray.com.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Roy Jacobs Announces Suit Related to Valassis Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that a lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of ADVO, Inc. from July 6, 2006 through Aug.
30, 2006.  The lawsuit was filed against ADVO and certain
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the class period, defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements with respect to
ADVO's business and financial results, and concealed material
adverse business problems.

Defendants concealed this information in order to accomplish a
merger that the company entered into with Valassis
Communications, Inc.

As a result of the defendants' allegedly false statements,
investors believed that the acquisition would occur, causing
ADVO's stock to trade at inflated levels during the class
period.

On Aug. 30, 2006, Valassis announced that it had filed a lawsuit
to rescind its merger agreement with ADVO, claiming that it had
been deceived by defendants.  The market was shocked by this
news, and in reaction, ADVO shares fell from $36.80 per share to
$28.59 per share.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Nov. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 800-347-1236, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.  


CONNETICS CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Suit Over Velac Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP filed a class
action on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Connetics Corp. common stock during the period
between June 28, 2004 and May 3, 2006.

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

Connetics is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in
the development and commercialization of products for the
medical dermatology market.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
made false statements about the company's most important new
drug, Velac, concerning findings that would likely prevent U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval.

Defendants also reported false financial results by failing to
properly reserve for rebates.  On May 3, 2006, Connetics
announced it could not file its quarterly report on time due to
a restatement of its financial results.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Connetics' stock
traded at inflated levels during the class period, which allowed
defendants to reap millions of dollars in insider trading
proceeds.

However, after the May 3, 2006 announcement, the company's
shares collapsed 45% from their high.  The stock now trades at
$10-$11 per share, some 63% below the class period high of
$29.92.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were that:


      -- the carcinogenicity study of Velac had indicated that
         89 out of 160 mice treated with Velac developed tumors;

      -- prior to the Class Period, Connetics had been informed
         by a panel of toxicology experts that they were unaware
         of any drug with similar results to Velac ever being
         approved by the FDA;

      -- the company's new Velac drug would be deemed unsafe by
         the FDA and would not provide the revenue and income
         promised by the company;

      -- the company would not be able to achieve the operating
         results for 2006-2007 as projected due to its inability
         to launch Velac; and

      -- the company was falsifying its financials for at least
         2005 and likely earlier due to improper accounting for
         rebates.

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


IMAX CORP: Bruce G. Murphy and Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy and Wechsler Harwood, LLP,
filed on Aug. 18, 2006 a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 06-cv-
6313) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of IMAX Corp. who purchased during the period Feb.
17, 2006 through Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint alleges 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 issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of IMAX securities.

During February and March 2006, the company issued press
releases touting the company's financial success, and indicated
the company's willingness to explore financial options.  A press
release issued as late as May 9, 2006 continued to mislead
investors concerning IMAX's true financial condition.

Then on Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX shocked the market by announcing that
it was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding revenue-recognition timing.

The SEC's inquiry was focused on IMAX's recognition of revenue
in the fourth quarter of 2005 in 10 theaters not open during
that quarter.

Further, IMAX said that it had identified a "material weakness"
related to revenue-recognition issues in its second-quarter
financial report, leading to a reduction in revenue.

The press release also stated the company had yet to find an
investor to effectuate a merger or purchase.  After these
announcements the price of IMAX shares crashed, falling by
40.6%, or $3.91 on the following trading day.

The complaint alleges that IMAX and its top executives knew
during the class period that revenue was being improperly
recognized, but failed to make the necessary adjustments, thus
artificially inflating the price of the stock.

The complaint alleges that to affect a sale or merger of IMAX,
and to gain as high a price as possible for IMAX in such a
transaction, it was critical that the value of IMAX was
perceived to be high.

Therefore, IMAX and some of its top executives sought to bolster
the share price of the company by strategically recognizing
revenue when it most suited the company, even when such revenue
recognition policies violated accepted accounting principles.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by Oct. 10, 2006.

For more details, contact Bruce G. Murphy at Law Offices of
Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963-3252,
Phone: 828-737-0500, E-mail: bgm@brucemurphy.biz.  


                            *********


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  * * *