CAR_Public/060921.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 188

                            Headlines

ALLIANCE MORTGAGE: Ill. Judge Dismisses Fraud Suit by Borrower
BP PLC: Tex. Court Clears $10M Offer to Settle Injury Claims
CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Faces Md. Suit Over Policy Premiums Hike
CENTENE CORP: Class Period in Mo. Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
CONCORD EFS: Tenn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Investors' Suit

DELL INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Accounting Overstatements
DOW CORNING: Slater & Gordon Resolves Profit-Sharing Complaint
EDWARD D. JONES: Continues to Face Wage Violations Suit in Pa.
EDWARD D. JONES: Mutual Fund Suit Plaintiffs File Remand Motion
EDWARD D. JONES: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in FLSA Suit

EDWARD D. JONES: Oct. Hearing Set for Mutual Fund Litigation
EDWARD D. JONES: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mo.
GREENIES DOG: Ga. Woman Plans to Join Suit Over Pet Threat
HAWAII: Judge Favors Plaintiffs in Beachfront Ownership Suit
HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Conference Set Sept. 2007

MERRILL LYNCH: CEO to Give Deposition in Discrimination Suit
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Plan Subscribers File Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
NEXTEL PARTNERS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Okay
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Settles Suits Over Cost-Recovery Line-Item Fees
OHIO: Lorain City Residents Sue Local Govt Over Chronic Flooding

OLYMPUS IMAGING: Recalls Cameras with Defective Flash Circuit
ONWARD MFG: Recalls Gas Barbecue Grills Over Fire, Burn Hazards
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Get Approval
PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov.
PRIDE PRODUCTS: Recalls Extension Cords with Undersized Wiring

SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Consumer Suit Dismissal Appealed
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Hears Arguments in Fraud Suit
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Dec. Hearing Set for Tex. Antitrust Suits
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Tex. Court Approves Dismissal of "Fancher"
UNITED STATES: Security Dept. Wants Racial Bias Suit Dismissed

WELLS REAL: Appeals Order Denying Fees Recovery in Ga. Lawsuit
WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Denies Fees Recovery Motion in "Johnston"
WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Denies Counsel Fees Request, Closes Case
WENDY'S INTL: Sued in Tex. by Undocumented Immigrant Workers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JABIL CIRCUIT: Faces Suit Over "Back-Dated" Stock Option Grants
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Fla.


                            *********


ALLIANCE MORTGAGE: Ill. Judge Dismisses Fraud Suit by Borrower
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Lola Maddox in Madison County, Illinois dismissed
fraud claims against lender Alliance Mortgage on Sept. 6,
according to Steve Korris of The Madison St. Clair Record.

The suit was filed in 2003 by borrower Carmelita McLaughlin, who
contended that the lender improperly charged $60 for two
facsimile transmissions when she closed a home loan at the
company.  The Lakin Law firm moved to certify Ms. McLaughlin as
representative of a class of borrowers who overpaid for faxes.  

The case attracted national publicity after the attorney who
initiated it, Emert Wyss of Alton, ended up as a third party
defendant in it last year.  He was dropped from the suit, but
his company, Centerre Title, was not.  

The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis but was
re-assigned to Judge Don Weber, then to Judge Madox.  Judge
Madox held a hearing on July 28 on a motion of Alliance Mortgage
for summary judgment.  In contention was whether the plaintiff
was aware of the facsimile charges or not.  Judge Madox ruled:
"These charges were disclosed to plaintiff and/or Centerre on
her behalf and imposition of such disclosed charges cannot
constitute a breach of contract."

In addition, she wrote that "...the plaintiff has no cause of
action and thus no class can be certified by the court."  The
order rendered the third party complaint against Centerre moot.


BP PLC: Tex. Court Clears $10M Offer to Settle Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Criss of the 212th District Court in
Galveston, Texas, ruled that the $10 million settlement offer to
an attorney representing workers injured in a 2005 Texas city
explosion at a BP Plc refinery was unusual, but not unethical,
reports say.

The explosion killed 15 workers and injured hundreds.  
Plaintiffs in the suit against BP over the explosion alleged
gross negligence against the company.  

The company set aside $1 billion to settle ensuing suits --
including a class action -- some of which have settled prior to
a Sept. 18 trial.

As part of the plan to settle the claims, the company's
attorneys, together with Kenneth Tekell of Houston firm Tekell
Book Matthews & Limmer, offered $10 million to a lawyer
representing two people who were injured in the blast.  They
proposed to donate the amount to the church attended by another
one of the plaintiffs' lawyers if their clients settled.

The lawyer refused and his clients launched a motion for
evidentiary hearing, alleging that the offer was unethical.


CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Faces Md. Suit Over Policy Premiums Hike
-------------------------------------------------------------
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield of Maryland is facing a class
action filed in Baltimore alleging that the company has
overcharged policyholders millions of dollars by prematurely
implementing premium increases permitted by their health
insurance policies.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Richard B. Cort, a self-
employed Columbia, Maryland resident, and all similarly-situated
Marylanders.  It alleges that CareFirst uses a policy provision
allowing it to increase premiums on certain policyholder
birthdays -- for example, when the oldest insured in a household
turns 50-years-old -- but does so on the first day of the month
in which the birthday occurs.

"Even though Mr. Cort turned 50 on September 19, 2005 -- moving
him into the next age category -- CareFirst prematurely billed
him and his entire family at the higher premium dictated by his
new age category beginning on September 1," explains attorney
Andrew D. Levy, a named-partner with Baltimore-based Brown,
Goldstein & Levy, LLP.

"That premature billing amounts to an overcharge for that month
of $78.60 in Mr. Cort's case alone; it potentially amounts to
millions of dollars when you consider how many people CareFirst
insures and how most of those policyholders do not have
birthdays that occur on the first day of the month," Mr. Levy
adds.

CareFirst's typical policyholder contract allows for a rate
increase when the oldest insured individual in a household turns
the ages of 1, 6, 18, 30, 40, 50, or 60.

"CareFirst's failure to prorate the premium increase to provide
policyholders with a lower premium rate for that portion of the
month in which they have not yet moved from one age category to
the next may amount to millions of dollars in the aggregate,"
says Mr. Levy.

The class action filed by Brown, Goldstein & Levy seeks
compensatory damages equal to all premiums or portions of
premiums that have been prematurely increased within the past
three years.

The suit also seeks to enjoin CareFirst from increasing
policyholder premiums prior to the birthday on which they move
from one age group to the next.

The suit does not affect individuals who receive health benefits
as part of an employer-sponsored Employee Retirement Income
Security Act plan.

For more information, contact Andrew D. Levy of Brown, Goldstein
& Levy, LLP, 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-962-1030, Fax: 410-385-0869, E-mail:
adl@browngold.com or info@browngold.com.


CENTENE CORP: Class Period in Mo. Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has expanded the class period in a class
suit filed against Centene Corp. in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri over alleged violation of the
federal securities laws.

Previously, Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action on
July 28, 2006 on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Centene Corp. from June 21, 2006 through July 17, 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2006).  The class period has now been
expanded so that the suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Centene Corp. from April 25, 2006 through
July 17, 2006.  Defendants include Centene and certain of its
top officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Centene and certain officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions assuring the investing
public that Centene had its costs under control, when it did
not.

Centene is a healthcare enterprise, which operates health plans
in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and additional states.  During
the class period, the company assured investors that its costs
were under control, and that the only market where there was any
concern related to pharmacy costs in Indiana and to a limited
degree Ohio.

The defendants reported that cost trends were improving in
Indiana and Ohio.  In June 2006, defendants reaffirmed that
there were no surprises.

Thereafter in late June 2006, Goldman Sachs announced that based
on its discussions with Centene, its management had strong
confidence in its guidance for the second quarter of 2006 and
for the remainder of 2006, and that cost trend issues remained
manageable.

Then on July 18, 2006 defendants shocked the market by
announcing that 2006-second quarter results would be far below
prior guidance, and results for the remainder of 2006 would not
meet guidance, as well.

The huge shortfall was caused by additional medical costs
incurred in Indiana and Texas.  As a result, Centene shares
dropped from $21.04 to $13.44, wiping out millions in
shareholder value.

All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the court no later than Oct. 2, 2006.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


CONCORD EFS: Tenn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------  
The Shelby County Circuit court for the state of Tennessee has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against current and former
officers and directors of Concord EFS, Inc., a unit of First
Data Corp.

On April 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action complaints
were filed on behalf of the public holders of the company's
common stock, excluding shareholders related to or affiliated
with the individual defendants.  The defendants in those actions
were certain current and former officers and directors of
Concord, which was acquired by First Data Corp. in February
2004.

The complaints generally alleged breaches of the defendants'
duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants'
attempt to sell Concord without maximizing the value to
shareholders in order to advance the defendants' individual
interests in obtaining indemnification agreements related to the
securities litigation and other derivative litigation.  

The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief
directing the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged
sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts'
fees and other costs and relief the court deems just and proper.

On Apr. 2, 2003, Barton K. O'Brien filed an additional purported
class action complaint.  The defendants were the company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  

This complaint contained allegations of insider trading and
violations of securities and other laws, and asserted that this
alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of First Data Corp.  

The complaint sought class certification, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, costs and other relief the court deems just and
proper.  

Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is
consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants
to account to the putative class members for unspecified
damages.

These complaints were consolidated in a second amended
consolidated complaint filed Sept. 19, 2003 into one action, "In
re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in the Shelby
County Circuit for the State of Tennessee.  

On Oct. 15, 2003, the plaintiffs "In re Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation" moved for leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint similar to the previous complaints but
also alleging that the proxy statement disclosures relating to
the antitrust regulatory approval process were inadequate.

On Oct. 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger
and/or the merger itself.  The court denied the plaintiffs'
motion on Oct. 20, 2003 but ordered deposition discovery on an
expedited basis.

On Oct. 27, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enjoin
the shareholder vote, which was denied by the court the same
day.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on June 22, 2004 alleging that the
claims should be denied and is moot since the merger has
occurred.  

On Oct. 18, 2004, the court heard arguments on the plaintiff's
motion to amend complaint and the defendant's motion to dismiss.

The company reported no material development in the case at its
Sept. 15 form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

First Data Corp. (NYSE: FDC) -- http://www.firstdata.com-- is a  
leading provider of electronic commerce and payment solutions
for businesses and consumers worldwide.  It serves 4.6 million
merchant locations, 1,700 card issuers and millions of
consumers.  The company's portfolio of services and solutions
includes credit, debit, private-label, gift and other prepaid
card issuing and merchant transaction processing services; money
transfer services; money orders; fraud protection and
authentication solutions; check guarantee and verification
services through TeleCheck; as well as Internet commerce and
mobile solutions.


DELL INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Accounting Overstatements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody announces that securities
fraud class actions have been commenced against Dell, Inc. over
allegations that the company reported inflated financial results
for certain fiscal periods.

Stull, Stull & Brody is also investigating whether fiduciaries
of the Dell Inc. 401(k) Plan and the Dell Financial Services LP
401(k) Plan (Dell's 401(k) retirement plans may have violated
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing
to disclose the company's true financial condition to
participants in the company's 401(k) plans, and by offering Dell
common stock as an investment option under the company's 401(k)
plans when it was not prudent to do so.

For more details, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. or Tzivia Brody,
Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: (800) 337-4983, Fax: (212)
490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


DOW CORNING: Slater & Gordon Resolves Profit-Sharing Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slater & Gordon and a former lawyer have settled a dispute over
an alleged improper payout to an attorney who handled a class
action over faulty breast implants, Katherine Towers and Dan Box
of The Australian reports.

A former partner at Slater & Gordon, attorney Paul Mulvany,
stated in court documents that Peter Gordon, lead plaintiff
lawyer in a class action against Dow Corning, was paid a $1
million bonus that had been set aside by the firm as "post-
settlement expenses."  Mr. Mulvany claimed the payment was in
contravention of the partnership agreement, according to the
report.  He is accusing his partners of misleading and deceptive
conduct.

Mr. Mulvany, who resigned from the law firm in 2002, got
$400,000 as final payout in the case.  The amount should have
been $1.7 million, he said.  He is pursuing a case against his
former partners to get what he thinks he is owed from profits in
a class action over breast implants and litigation over
Hepatitis C contamination.  The firm reached a $32 million
settlement in the breast implant suit against Dow Corning in
2002.

Mr. Mulvany also said that Caroline Shaw, the widow of the
firm's general manager Geoffrey Shaw, should have received
$2.122,194 instead of $2 million under the profit sharing
agreement.  Partners in the firm, Mr. Gordon, Andrew Grech, Paul
Henderson, allegedly shared in the balance.

He was seeking one-quarter of the net assets of Slater &
Gordon as of June 30, 2002, and an order that his retirement
from the firm be set aside, so he could negotiate a fresh
settlement, the report said.

According to the report, on Sept. 14, one day after Slater &
Gordon was informed that The Australian had obtained the court
documents, the matter was settled with neither side commenting.


EDWARD D. JONES: Continues to Face Wage Violations Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., a principal subsidiary of The Jones
Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania by a former investment
representative.

James E. Ellis filed the suit on March 16, 2006, as a putative
class action on behalf of all present and former Pennsylvania
investment representatives.

Though the suit consists of three separate causes of action, all
the causes of action arise from claims that Edward D. Jones
failed to pay Pennsylvania investment representatives overtime
in accordance with Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law.

The suit is "Ellis v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., Case No.
3:06-cv-00066-KRG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Kim R. Gibson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) R. Bruce Carlson and Gary F. Lynch of Carlson Lynch,
         Ltd., Phone: (412) 749-1677 and (724) 656-1555, E-mail:
         bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com and glynch@carlsonlynch.com;
         and

     (2) Daniel O. Myers of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook &
         Brickman, 1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Building A, Mt.
         Pleasant, SC 29464, Phone: (843) 727-6500, E-mail:
         dmyers@rpwb.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Amy L. Blaisdell and Dennis G. Collins of Greensfelder,
         Hemker & Gale, 10 South Broadway, 2000 Equitable Bldg.,
         St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: (314) 241-9090, E-mail:
         apb@greensfelder.com and dgc@greensfelder.com; and

    (ii) Ronald P. Carnevali, Jr. of Spence, Custer, Saylor,
         Wolfe & Rose, P.O. Box 280, AmeriServ Financial
         Building, Johnstown, PA 15907, Phone: (814) 536-0735,
         E-mail: rcarnevali@spencecuster.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: Mutual Fund Suit Plaintiffs File Remand Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
yet to rule on a motion to remand a purported class action
against Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., a principal subsidiary of
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., (Partnership).

The suit, "Enriquez, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al." was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis,
Missouri on January 2004.  

It alleges that the company breached fiduciary duties to its
customers by receiving revenue sharing payments in exchange for
the mere holding of mutual fund shares under management without
making a disclosure to those customers.

In addition, the suit alleges that the company was unjustly
enriched by the receipt of revenue sharing associated with those
customers' mutual fund shares held under management.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all company customers
who held Preferred Family mutual fund shares during the period
of January 1999 through December 2004.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition, which was
denied in January 2005.  Although a motion for class
certification has been filed, no class has yet been certified in
this case.

In March 2006 the Partnership removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  Plaintiff
has filed a Motion to Remand seeking to have the case returned
to state court.  

The parties have fully briefed the Motion to Remand.  Although a
Motion for Class Certification has been filed, no class has yet
been certified in this case, according to the company's Aug. 11
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Enriquez v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.,
Case No. 4:06-cv-00547-HEA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Henry E.
Autrey.

Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher O. Bauman of Blitz
and Bardgett, 120 S. Central, Suite 750, Clayton, MO 63105,
Phone: 314-863-1500, Fax: 314-863-1877, E-mail:
cbauman@blitzbardgett.com.

Representing the defendants is James H. Ferrick, III of
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C., 10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000,
St. Louis, MO 63102-1774, Phone: 314-241-9090, Fax: 314-345-
5465, E-mail: jhf@greensfelder.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in the purported class action by
a former investment representative against Edward D. Jones &
Co., L.P., a principal subsidiary of The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. (Partnership).  The suit is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The case was filed on March 31, 2006 by Gerald Booher as a
putative class action on behalf of all present and former
investment representatives in the state of California and,
potentially, throughout the U.S.

Though the lawsuit consists of seven separate causes of action,
all of the causes of action arise from claims that Edward D.
Jones failed to comply with California State Wage and Hour Laws
and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, it is alleged that Edward D. Jones failed to pay
overtime in compliance with such laws, unlawfully deducted
business expenses from the wages of investment representatives,
failed to fully compensate terminated Investment Representatives
and failed to provide mandatory meal and rest periods in
violation of California State Law.

No class has been certified, according to the company's Aug. 11,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Gerald Booher v. Edward D. Jones and Co LP et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01977-JFW-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, under Judge John F.
Walter with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are Lorinda D. Franco, Nicolas
Orihuela and Christopher Kim of Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W. 7th
St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, E-
mail: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Tracy L. Cahill and Peter B. Gelblum of Mitchell
         Silberberg & Knupp, 11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Los
         Angeles, CA 90064-1683, Phone: 310-312-2000, E-mail:
         tlc@msk.com and pbg@msk.com; and

     (2) Dennis G. Collins, David M. Harris and Timothy M.
         Huskey of Greensfelder Hemker and Gale, 10 South
         Broadway, Suite 2000, St. Louis, MO 63102, US, Phone:
         314-241-9090, E-mail: dgc@greensfelder.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: Oct. Hearing Set for Mutual Fund Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 9, 2006 hearing was scheduled for the motion to remand
the consolidated class action filed against Edward D. Jones &
Co., L.P., a principal subsidiary of The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. (Partnership).  The suit is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Initially, the case was filed in February 2004 under the
caption, "Bressler, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."  The
case, along with another one, was consolidated before the
Superior Court for Los Angeles, California  (Class Action
Reporter, May 3, 2006).

Plaintiffs, in their amended and consolidated complaint, allege
that the company violated Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code by failing to disclose the receipt
of revenue sharing associated with customers' holding of mutual
fund shares under management at the company.

In addition, plaintiffs allege that the company breached
fiduciary duties by accepting account fees and revenue sharing
incident to the holding of mutual fund shares without adequate
disclosures, as well as alleging unjust enrichment.  

Plaintiffs only seek to represent California resident customers
of the Partnership who held Preferred Family mutual fund shares
from January 1999 through 2004.  

On March 31, 2006, the court granted the Partnership's request
to remove this case to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand
seeking to have the case returned to state court.  

The parties have fully briefed the Motion to Remand and the
hearing is set for Oct. 9, 2006.  No class has yet been
certified.

The suit is "In Re Edward Jones Holders Litigation, Case No.
2:06-cv-01974-FMC-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Florence-Marie Cooper
with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.

Representing the plaintiff is Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067. Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James H. Ferrick of Greensfelder Hemker and Gate, 10 S.
         Broadway, Suite 2000, St Louis, MO 63102, US, Phone:
         314-241-9090; and

     (2) Peter B. Gelblum of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, 11377
         W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683, Phone:
         310-312-2000, E-mail: pbg@msk.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A principal subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies,
L.L.L.P. (Partnership), remains defendant in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.

The case, "Spahn IRA, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al.," along with five other companion cases filed in January or
February 2004, were consolidated before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri (Class Action Reporter, May
3, 2006).

The amended and consolidated complaint alleges that the company
violated Sections 10(b), 12(2), and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to
adequately disclose its revenue sharing arrangements to
customers.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
purchased shares of the Preferred Family mutual funds from Jan.
25, 1999 through Dec. 2004.  

After the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and
consolidated complaint, the court granted the plaintiffs leave
to file a second amended complaint.  

No class has been certified in these cases, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The suit is "Spahn v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., Case
No. 4:04-cv-00086-HEA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Henry E. Autrey.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Martin W. Blanchard of Sauerwein and Blanchard, P.C.,
         147 N. Meramec, Suite 200, Clayton, MO 63105, Phone:
         314-863-9100, Fax: 314-863-9101, E-mail:
         mwb@sauerwein.com;

     (2) Richard A. Acocelli of Weiss and Yourman, 551 Fifth
         Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-
         3025, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: racocelli@wllawny.com;
         and

     (3) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg and Weiss, One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, Suite 4915, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-
         594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229.

Representing the defendants is Lisa A. Nielsen of Greensfelder
and Hemker, 10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000, Equitable Building, St.
Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-241-9090, Fax: 314-241-3643, E-mail:
lan@greensfelder.com.


GREENIES DOG: Ga. Woman Plans to Join Suit Over Pet Threat
----------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Coweta County, Georgia is planning to join a class
action against the maker of the dog treat Greenies Dog Chews
over allegations that the teeth-cleaning product hurt or even
killed dogs.

Cathy Carazza said her dog had to be brought to the vet after
eating a Greenies treat that temporarily got stuck on its
throat, WSBTV.com reports.

A group of 10 pet owners from eight states had filed a federal
suit against the company.  The suit accuses the company of
knowing the dangers of Greenies, but refused to adequately warn
consumers or recall the product.  According to the report, last
year, S&M NuTec LLC, the original manufacturer of treat, sold
315 million of Greenies: a hard, dark green treat shaped like a
bone on one end and a toothbrush on the other.  The lawsuit
wants S&M NuTec to change Greenies' packaging and pay
unspecified damages.

The class action is in addition to several suits filed against
the company.  One suit was filed by a woman in Los Angeles
Superior Court, whose dog was forced to undergo surgery to
remove a piece of Greenie stuck on the pet's esophagus.  A New
York couple also filed a suit against the company after the
death of their dog.

Greenies' founder sold the company to Mars, Inc. in May.  The
new owner said it will reshape and reformulate the treat.  The
modified product will be available in November.

Representing the class action plaintiffs and the New York couple
is Alan E. Sash, associate of McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, 260
Madison Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10016 (New York
Co.), Phone: 212-448-1100, Fax: 212-448-0066.


HAWAII: Judge Favors Plaintiffs in Beachfront Ownership Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eden Elizabeth Hifo of the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit, state of Hawaii, ruled that a 2003 law declaring any
natural growth of beachfront land as state property amounts to
an "uncompensated taking" of beachfront property owners' land,
Diana Leone of The Star Bulleting reports.

The ruling was issued in a lawsuit filed by several Maunalua Bay
landowners.  Judge Hifo had certified the suit as a class
action.  It could, therefore, affect beachfront landowner in the
state, plaintiffs' attorney Laura Couch said.

Before the 2003 change in state law, all beaches in Hawaii are
public, up to the winter surf high watermark, the report noted.

The state will appeal the ruling, based on "errors in the
court's decision," Deputy Attorney General Sonia Faust said.

For more information, contact Laura P. Couch, Associate at
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, 18th Floor ASB Tower, 1001 Bishop
Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (Honolulu Co.), Phone: 808-524-
1800, Telecopier: 808-524-4591.


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Conference Set Sept. 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 11, 2007 pre-trial conference was scheduled for the
second amended securities class action filed in the U.S. States
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Hienergy Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers.

In January 2005, the company was served with a summons and class
action complaint for violations of federal securities laws.  The
complaint named the company, its chairman, among other named
defendants on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the
stock of the company from February 22, 2002 to July 8, 2004.  

In February 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended
complaint in "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC (JTLx)," alleging
various violations of the federal securities laws.  It generally
asserts the same claims involving Philip Gurian, Barry Alter,
and the company's failure to disclose their various securities
violations including, without limitation, allegations of fraud.  

The first amended complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and declaratory relief.

On Friday, March 25, 2005, the company timely filed responsive
pleadings as well as motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' first
amended complaint arguing that it failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  

On June 17, 2005, the court issued an order granting the motions
to dismiss, finding:

     -- that the first amended complaint failed

        * to allege causation of loss resulting from any alleged
          omissions and/or misrepresentations of the company or
          Dr. Maglich,

        to sustain a cause of action for securities fraud under
        Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of
        the Securities and Exchange Commission;

     -- that the plaintiffs had failed to plead actual reliance
        on any allegedly false or misleading filings of the
        company to sustain a claim under section 18 of the U.S.
        Exchange Act; and

     -- that the plaintiffs had failed to allege a primary
        violation of any securities laws to sustain a claim for
        a violation of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

On July 5, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in compliance with the court's order, as anticipated.  On
Oct. 24, 2005, the court issued a Minute Order granting in part
and denying in part motions to dismiss filed by the company,
finding that the plaintiffs failed in the second amended
complaint to sustain a cause of action for securities fraud
under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against Dr. Maglich
and for claims that the company filed false and misleading
financial statements and executed suspicious stock sales.  

On Nov. 14, 2005, the court held a scheduling conference at
which the plaintiff informed the company that it would not file
a third amended complaint.  

In accordance with the Scheduling Order from the court, class
representative motions are to be filed within 90 to 120 days and
pre-trial conference was scheduled for September 11, 2007.

The suit is "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC (JTLx)," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
under Judge David O. Carter.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kenneth J Catanzarite and Jim T. Tice, Catanzarite Law
         Offices 2331 W Lincoln Ave Anaheim, CA 92801, Phone:
         714-520-5544, E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com and
         jtice@catanzarite.com; and

     (2) Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm 350, Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Jason D. Annigian, Robert J. Feldhake, Daniel M.
         Hawkins, and Lisa A. Roquemore, Feldhake and Roquemore,
         19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 850 Irvine, CA 92612,
         Phone: 949-553-5000, E-mail: jannigian@far-law.com and
         rfeldhake@far-law.com; and

    (ii) C. William Kircher, Jr., C William Kircher Jr. Law
         Offices 2 Park Plaza, Ste. 300, Irvine, CA 92614-8513,
         Phone: 949-474-2310, Fax: 949-261-1085.


MERRILL LYNCH: CEO to Give Deposition in Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Chairman and Chief Executive Stanley O'Neal
is scheduled to give a deposition on Nov. 1 in a racial bias
case against the brokerage firm, KiplingerForecasts.com reports.

The suit was originally filed on behalf of financial advisor
George McReynold in federal court in Chicago in November.  It
accuses Merrill Lynch of systematically discriminating against
African-American brokers in hiring, promotion and compensation.
It is asking compensatory and punitive damages.

In June, Reuters reported that settlement talks in a racial
class action filed against Merrill Lynch failed to reach an
agreement (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006).

In July, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, contending that
the company systemically limited the opportunities for blacks to
succeed as brokers (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006).

The plaintiffs claim they were denied a fair chance to rise into
management.  They also allege the company retaliated against
those who complained.  Their complaint also includes allegations
of offensive remarks and other slights directed at them.  They
are seeking a large monetary award and court-ordered initiatives
to increase diversity in the ranks.

The suit is "McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-06583," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman,
with referral to Judge Michael T. Mason.
  
Representing the plaintiffs are: Linda Debra Friedman and Mary
Stowell of Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., 321 South Plymouth Court,
Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 312-431-0888, E-mail:
lfriedman@sfltd.com or mstowell@sfltd.com.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Plan Subscribers File Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners, Inc. and other Nextel companies were named as
defendants in a purported consumer fraud class action filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany.

On May 16, 2006, two customers or former customers of Nextel
Partners filed the putative class action, "Daniel Morrissey and
Timothy Ciarfello v. Nextel Partners, Inc., et al, No. 3194-06."

Soon afterwards the company was served with a summons and a copy
of the class action complaint.  In that pleading, plaintiffs
seek to represent:

     -- a class of all present or former customers "who
        subscribed to a Nextel wireless communications service
        plan with 'Bonus' minutes during the period June 1, 2005
        to the present," and

     -- a class of all present or former customers who
        "subscribed to Nextel's Spending Limit Program and were
        billed a new monthly charge or an increase of their
        monthly fee for the Spending Limit Program during the
        period Dec. 1, 2004 to the present."

Plaintiffs claim that allegedly inadequate disclosures and
practices regarding the terms and conditions of those programs
violate a New York State consumer protection statute, and
similar laws of other states, violate a New York State false
advertising statute, constitute a breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and constitute a breach of
contract.

The company timely served plaintiffs with an Answer and
Affirmative Defenses on July 17, 2006 denying and defending
against all claims.

Kirkland, Washington-based Nextel Partners, Inc., (NASDAQ:
NXTP), -- http://www.nextelpartners.com-- has the exclusive  
right to provide digital wireless communications services using
the Nextel brand name in mid-sized and rural markets in 31
states where approximately 53 million people reside.  Nextel
Partners offers its customers the same fully integrated, digital
wireless communications services available from Nextel
Communications including Nationwide Direct ConnectSM, cellular
voice, cellular wireless Internet access and short messaging,
all in a single wireless phone.  Nextel Partners customers can
seamlessly access these services anywhere on Nextel's or Nextel
Partners' all-digital wireless network, which currently covers
295 of the top 300 U.S. markets.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Nextel Partners, Inc., according to the company's Sept.
18, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

On Dec. 5, 2001, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, two of its executive officers and four of the
underwriters involved in its initial public offering.

The lawsuit is "Keifer v. Nextel Partners, Inc., et al, No. 01
CV 10945."  It was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired
the company's common stock between February 22, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Act and the Exchange Act by issuing a registration
statement and offering circular that were false and misleading
in that they failed to disclose that:

      -- the defendant underwriters allegedly had solicited and
         received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
         certain investors who purchased the company's common
         stock issued in connection with the company's initial
         public offering; and

      -- the defendant underwriters allegedly allocated shares
         of the company's common stock issued in connection with
         its initial public offering to investors who allegedly
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the company's
         common stock at pre-arranged prices.

Plaintiffs and the issuing company defendants, including the
company and its officers, have reached a settlement of the
issues in the lawsuit.

A settlement fairness hearing took place on April 24, 2006 and
defendants are waiting the court's decision on approval of the
settlement.  

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


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Settles Suits Over Cost-Recovery Line-Item Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc. and Nextel
West Corp., and other Nextel companies are working to settle all
litigations regarding the misrepresentation of certain cost-
recovery line-item fees as government taxes.

The suits are:

      -- "Rolando Prado v. Nextel Communications, et al., Civil
         Action No. C-695-03-B," filed on Apr. 1, 2003, in the
         93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;

      -- "Steve Strange v. Nextel Communications, et al., Civil
         Action No. 01-002520-03," filed May 2, 2003, in the
         Circuit court of Shelby County for the Thirtieth
         Judicial District at Memphis, Tennessee;

      -- "Christopher Freeman and Susan and Joseph Martelli v.
         Nextel South Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 03-
         CA1065," filed on May 3, 2003, in the Circuit court of
         the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County,
         Florida against Nextel Partners Operating Corporation
         d/b/a Nextel Partners and Nextel South Corporation
         d/b/a Nextel Communications;

      -- "Nick's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Nextel West, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. BC298695," filed on Jul. 9, 2003 in
         Los Angeles Superior Court, California against the
         Company, Nextel Communications, Nextel West, Inc.,
         Nextel of California, Inc. and Nextel Operations, Inc;

      -- "Andrea Lewis and Trish Zruna v. Nextel Communications,
         Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV-03-907," filed on
         Aug. 7, 2003, in the Circuit court of Jefferson
         County, Alabama against the company and Nextel
         Communications, Inc.; and

      -- "Joseph Blando v. Nextel West Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 02-0921," filed in the U.S. District Court
         for the Western District of Missouri.  The amended
         complaint filed on Oct. 3, 2003, named the company and
         Nextel Communications, Inc. as defendants; Nextel
         Partners was substituted for the previous defendant,
         Nextel West Corp.

All of these complaints alleged that the company, in conjunction
with the other defendants, misrepresented certain cost-recovery
line-item fees as government taxes.

Plaintiffs sought to enjoin such practices and sought a refund
of monies paid by the class based on the alleged
misrepresentations.  They also sought attorneys' fees, costs
and, in some cases, punitive damages.

The company believes the allegations are groundless.  In October
2003, the court in the Blando Case entered an order granting
preliminary approval of a nationwide class action settlement
that encompasses most of the claims involved in these cases.

In April 2004, the court approved the settlement.  Various
objectors and class members appealed to the U.S. court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in February 2005 the
appellate court affirmed the settlement.

One of the objectors petitioned for a rehearing and in March
2005, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc.  

Thereafter, one of the objectors filed a motion to stay the
mandate for 90 days.  The Eighth Circuit denied that motion in
April and in June 2005 that objector filed with the U.S. Supreme
court a petition for writ of certiorari.

On Oct. 3, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the objector's writ of
certiorari, which constitutes a "final order" resolving all
appeals in these cost recovery fee cases.  

In accordance with the terms of the settlement, the company
began distributing settlement benefits within 90 days from the
final order and completed the distribution of benefits by March
2006.  

"Prado v. Nextel Communications, Civil Action No. C-695-03-B"
was dismissed with prejudice in November 2005.  In addition, the
"Freeman v. Nextel South Corp. case, Civil Action No. 03-CA1065"
was dismissed with prejudice in March 2006.

The remaining cases are subject to immediate dismissal according
to the terms of the final order, which directs the plaintiffs to
dismiss their actions.

Kirkland, Washington-based Nextel Partners, Inc., (NASDAQ:
NXTP), -- http://www.nextelpartners.com-- has the exclusive  
right to provide digital wireless communications services using
the Nextel brand name in mid-sized and rural markets in 31
states where approximately 53 million people reside.  Nextel
Partners offers its customers the same fully integrated, digital
wireless communications services available from Nextel
Communications including Nationwide Direct ConnectSM, cellular
voice, cellular wireless Internet access and short messaging,
all in a single wireless phone.  Nextel Partners customers can
seamlessly access these services anywhere on Nextel's or Nextel
Partners' all-digital wireless network, which currently covers
295 of the top 300 U.S. markets.


OHIO: Lorain City Residents Sue Local Govt Over Chronic Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Lorain is facing a class action filed by residents
whose homes are constantly flooded because of sewer problems,
according to a report by Brad Dicken of The Chronicle-Telegram.

One of the plaintiffs is Delores Pruchnicki, whose home flooded
for the third time in 13 months since September 2005.  She and
other Lorain residents are accusing the city of negligence for
failing to address the problem.

At least 400 homes were damaged on the Sept. 17, 2005 flooding.  
Afterwards, the city asked residents to install anti-flooding
systems in their basements while the city find a way to fix its
sewer system.  

The council rejected Project Dry Basement plan to repair faulty
drainage system at homes and upgrade some of the city's
infrastructure earlier this year, according to the report.

The suit estimates a class of thousands of people.


OLYMPUS IMAGING: Recalls Cameras with Defective Flash Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olympus Imaging America Inc., of Center Valley, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 24,000 additional various Olympus-brand 35mm
film cameras.

The company said a defect with the flash circuit in these
cameras can cause it to smoke and overheat when the camera is
turned on.  This poses a possible burn hazard to consumers.

Olympus Imaging America Inc. has received 21 reports of camera
or flash circuitry overheating in the U.S. with no reports of
injuries.

The original recall announced March 14, 2006 included the
Infinity Twin, AF-1 Twin, Infinity Zoom 200 series, AZ 200
series, and Quantary Infinity Zoom 222 Olympus-brand 35mm film
cameras.

Olympus has now added the Infinity Zoom 76 and the Promaster
Infinity Twin model cameras to the recall.  The model name is
printed on the face of the camera.  These cameras have a built-
in flash.

These film cameras were manufactured in Japan and are being sold
at department, electronic and camera stores, and mail-order
retailers nationwide from January 1989 through December 1995 for
between $220 and $365.

Pictures of the recalled film cameras:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06112a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06112b.jpg

Consumers should stop using these cameras and contact Olympus
for information on receiving a free repair or, if necessary,
replacement.

For additional information, contact Olympus at (800) 480-1247
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit:
http://www.olympusamerica.com.


ONWARD MFG: Recalls Gas Barbecue Grills Over Fire, Burn Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Onward Manufacturing of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, in
cooperation with Mi-T-M Corp., of Peosta, Iowa and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,100
units of John Deere gas barbecue grills.

The company said operating the grill in windy conditions can
blow the flame under the control panel, causing the grill to
overheat or cause flashbacks.  Flames could damage the hose that
supplies gas to the burner, causing an uncontrolled flame.  
Also, the grill's control knobs could overheat, resulting in
burns to hands.

Mi-T-M Corp. has received one report of a minor burn received
when the user touched a grill's control knob that had overheated
due to the flame blowing under the control panel.

These recalled grills are John Deere Gas Barbecue Grills with
model numbers HR-BG6203 and HR-BG5202.  The model number is on
the Canadian Standards Association approval sticker on the back
panel.  The recalled grills have a John Deere symbol on the
center of the hood and a John Deere decal plate below the
control panel.  These are 52,000 BTU grills with 460 sq. in.
cooking surface.  The Model HR-BG6203 includes stainless steel
doors, stainless steel side shelves and a side burner rated at
10,000 BTU.  The Model HR-BG5202 has stainless steel doors with
black plastic side shelves.

These gas barbecue grills were manufactured in Canada and are
being sold at John Deere dealers from March 2006 through August
2006 for about $600 for the model number HR-BG6203 grill and
about $500 for model number HR-BG5202 grill.

Pictures of the recalled gas barbecue grills:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06257a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06257b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these grills and contact Mi-
T-M Corp. or the John Deere dealer where the grill was purchased
to receive a free repair kit.

For more information, contact Mi-T-M Corp. toll-free at (877)
535-5336 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.mitm.com.

For media inquiries, contact John Lembezeder, Mi-T-M Corp., at
(800) 367-6486, Ext. 208.


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Get Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement in a consolidated securities class action against
Oplink Communications, Inc., according to the company's Sept.
15, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2006.

In November 2001, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, now captioned "In re Oplink
Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-9904."  

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
company, certain of the company's officers and directors and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering violated
Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegations that the company's registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of
other public companies that went public in the late 1990s and
early 2000s (the IPO Lawsuits).

On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern
District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the company joined in a global motion filed by
all of the issuers, among others, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  
On Oct. 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the
company's named officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits
without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute
of limitations with respect to these officers and directors
until Sept. 30, 2003.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the company and almost
all of the Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim against the company without leave to amend.

In June 2003, the issuers and plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding, providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the issuers and their
officers and directors from all liability resulting from
plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the issuers may have against the
underwriters.

In addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the
event that the plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in
settlement or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the
IPO Lawsuits, the plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiff's guaranteed recovery.

In such event, the company's obligation would be limited to the
amount remaining under the deductible of $1.0 million of the
company's insurance policy.  

In September 2003, in connection with the tentative settlement,
the company's officers and directors who had entered tolling
agreements with the plaintiffs, agreed to extend those
agreements so that they would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.

In June 2004, the company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.  On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the court held a hearing to consider whether
the settlement should finally be approved, and took the matter
of final approval under submission.  

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


PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Nov.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold on Nov. 21, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. a fairness hearing on
the proposed $2.95 million settlement of the class action,
"Madden v. Pagon, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05868-AB."

The class consists of all persons and entities that have
purchased any common or preferred stock of Pegasus
Communications Corp. or any of its subsidiaries from Nov. 8,
2000 through June 2, 2004.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of the Honorable
Anita B. Brody

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is October 12,
2006.  Deadline to file claims is December 13, 2006.

Terms under the proposed settlement:

     -- $2,950,000 in cash plus accrued interest will be paid to
        the plaintiffs;

     -- plaintiffs' counsel will be awarded attorney's fees and
        reimbursement of expenses; and

     -- the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 8, 2005, Pegasus Communications Corp. the company's
chief executive officer, and two former chief financial
officers, were named defendant in a putative securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The class action plaintiff's claims are based on the allegation
that certain public statements made by Pegasus Communications
during the period from November 2000 to March 2004 were false
and misleading for substantially the same reasons set forth by
AIG Global Investments Corp. plaintiffs.  

The suit is "Madden v. Pagon, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05868-
AB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Anita B. Brody.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq., LLC, P.O.  
         BOX 30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235,  
         E-mail: jacobagoldberg@comcast.net; and

     (2) Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 350 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, US, Phone: 212-
         686-1060.

Representing the defendants are Robert L. Hickok and Christopher  
J. Huber of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, 3000 Two Logan Sq., 18th &  
Arch Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-4583 and  
215-981-4446, E-mail: hickokr@pepperlaw.com and
huberc@pepperlaw.com.


PRIDE PRODUCTS: Recalls Extension Cords with Undersized Wiring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pride Products Corp., of Ronkonkoma, New York, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 42,000 extension cords.

The company said the counterfeit extension cords have undersized
wiring and no fuse in the cord to provide over-current
protection, which can cause overheating and pose a fire hazard.  
No injuries were reported.

The recalled cords are brown or white, measure 6, 9, 12, or 15
feet long, are intended for indoors and have a three-outlet
extension.  Attached to the cord is a silver counterfeit UL
holographic label marked "09/99 E157848 UL LISTED CORD SET BV-
8021 13A 125V 1625W" or "09/02 E137398 UL LISTED CORD SET BW
5833 13A 125V 1625W."

The counterfeit extension cords were manufactured in China and
are being sold at local discount, drug, and grocery stores
nationwide from June 2005 through August 2006 for between $1 and
$2.

Picture of the recalled extension cord:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06256.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled extension cords
immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Pride Products, at (800)
898-5550 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.prideproducts.com.


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Consumer Suit Dismissal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a petition for writ of
certiorari in the purported class action, "WASCO Products, Inc.
v. Southwall Technologies, Inc. and Bostik, Inc., Civil Action
No. C 02 2926 SBA."

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 18, 2002.  The company was served
with the complaint in this matter on July 1, 2002.  The
plaintiff filed the matter as a class action on behalf of all
entities and individuals in the U.S. who manufactured and/or
sold and warranted the service life of insulated glass units
manufactured between 1989 and 1999, which contained Southwall
Heat Mirror film and were sealed with a specific type of sealant
manufactured by Bostik.

The suit alleged that the sealant provided by Bostik was
defective, resulting in elevated warranty replacement claims and
costs.  

It also asserted claims against the company for breach of an
implied warranty of fitness, misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, negligence, negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage, breach of contract, unfair business
practices and false or misleading business practices.

Plaintiff sought recovery on behalf of the class of $100 million
for damages allegedly resulting from elevated warranty
replacement claims, restitution, injunctive relief, and non-
specific compensation for lost profits.

By order entered December 22, 2003, the court dismissed all
claims against the company.  The plaintiff has filed a notice of
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On January 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court decision.  On January 26, 2006, the plaintiff filed a
petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March of 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiff's petition.  Under reservation of rights, the
company's insurance carriers are paying a percentage of the
defense costs.

On May 26, 2006 the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has not
ruled on the petition.

The suit is "Wasco Products, Inc. v. Southwall Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-02926-SBA," on appeal form the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with referral to Judge Wayne
D. Brazil.  

Representing the plaintiffs is T. Scott Tate of Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, One Montgomery Street, Suite 2200,
San Francisco, CA 94104-5501, Phone: 415-364-6700, Fax: 415-364-
6785, E-mail: state@schnader.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark S. Freeman of Choate Hall & Stewart, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-248-5000;

     (2) Jeffrey A. Leon of Leon & Leon, 2101 Webster Street,
         Suite 1570, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 208-6600,
         Fax: (510) 451-1010, E-mail: jleon@leonandleon.com;  
         and

     (3) David R. Scheidemantle of Proskauer Rose, LLP, 2049
         Century Park East, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-
         3206, Phone: 310/284-5686, E-mail:
         dscheidemantle@proskauer.com.


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Hears Arguments in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, Central District heard oral argument on cross-
motions for summary judgment in the lead case related to a
purported class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. over
its funeral goods and services operations.

The case (No. BC328961) was filed by Henrietta Torres and Teresa
Fiore on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
and the general public against the company and several other
defendants.

The purported class action was filed on Feb. 17, 2005, on behalf
of a nationwide class defined to include all persons, entities
and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or services in
the U.S. from defendants at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001.

The suit named the company and several of its Southern
California affiliates as defendants.  It sought to assert claims
against a class of all entities located anywhere in the U.S.
whose ultimate parent corporation has been the company at any
time on or after Feb. 17, 2001.

In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to
similar actions against Service Corp. International and
Alderwoods Group, Inc., and designated Service Corp. case as the
lead case.  

In response, on August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the
three cases filed amended complaints.  Service Corp. has filed a
demurrer in its case, and the company joined in that demurrer on
October 6, 2005.  

The case against the company effectively has been held in
abeyance while the court tests plaintiff's legal theories in the
lead case.  

Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply equally in
the case against the company, and the court has allowed the
company to participate in hearings and briefings in the lead
case.

As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has
amended her complaint twice.  On January 31, 2006, however, the
court overruled Service Corp.'s demurrer to the third amended
complaint and established a schedule leading to hearing on a
motion for summary judgment in early July to test the viability
of the named plaintiff's claim against Service Corp.

On August 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument on cross-
motions for summary judgment.  The cross-motions are pending.

The third amended complaint in the lead case alleges that the
Service Corp. defendants violated the "Funeral Rule" promulgated
by the Federal Trade Commission by failing to disclose that the
prices of certain goods and services they obtained from third
parties specifically on the plaintiff's behalf exceeded what the
defendants paid for them.

Plaintiff alleges that by failing to comply with the Funeral
Rule, defendants:

     -- breached contracts with the plaintiffs;

     -- were unjustly enriched; and

     -- engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
        practices in violation of a provision of California's
        Business and Professions Code.

The plaintiff seeks restitution damages, disgorgement, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Jefferson, Louisiana-based Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ
NMS: STEI) -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/-- is the third  
largest provider of products and services in the death care
industry in the U.S., currently owning and operating 230 funeral
homes and 144 cemeteries.  Through its subsidiaries, the company
provides a complete range of funeral merchandise and services,
along with cemetery property, merchandise and services, both at
the time of need and on a preneed basis.


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Dec. Hearing Set for Tex. Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
scheduled a Dec. 5, 2006 hearing on the class-action status of
two consumer antitrust lawsuits that name Stewart Enterprises,
Inc. as one of the defendants.

                 Funeral Consumers Alliance Case

On May 2, 2005, a purported class action filed by Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc. and others, against:

     -- Service Corp. International,
     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
     -- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
     -- Batesville Casket Co.

was filed in the U.S. court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include
all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral
home defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants acted jointly to reduce
competition from independent casket discounters and fix and
maintain prices on caskets in violation of the federal antitrust
laws and California's Business and Professions Code.  The
plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

Thereafter, five substantially similar lawsuits were filed in
the same court asserting claims under the federal antitrust laws
and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  These
five suits were transferred to the division in which the Funeral
Consumers Alliance Case was pending and consolidated with the
Funeral Consumers Alliance Case (referred to as the Consolidated
Consumer Cases).

                         Pioneer Valley Case

On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by
Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., and others against:

     -- Service Corp. International,
     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
     -- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
     -- Batesville Casket Co.

The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims asserted in the
Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was brought on
behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only independent
casket retailers.

On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for
failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust
and unfair competition claims.  

On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss, without prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file
an amended and consolidated complaint that satisfies the
objections raised in the motions to dismiss.

At the defendants' request, the court also issued orders in late
September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and
the Pioneer Valley Case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  

The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been
consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of
Texas.  The Pioneer Valley Case has been consolidated with these
cases for purposes of discovery only.

On October 12, 2005, the consumer plaintiffs filed a first
amended consolidated class action complaint.  Defendants then
filed motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.

On October 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed a first amended
complaint.  Defendants then filed motions to dismiss.  Discovery
is underway in both cases.

On September 14, 2006, the magistrate recommended that all
motions to dismiss be denied.  The parties have 10 days to file
written objections with the district court judge.

A hearing on whether the matters may proceed as class actions is
scheduled for December 5, 2006.  

Jefferson, Louisiana-based Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ
NMS: STEI) -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/-- is the third  
largest provider of products and services in the death care
industry in the U.S., currently owning and operating 230 funeral
homes and 144 cemeteries.  Through its subsidiaries, the company
provides a complete range of funeral merchandise and services,
along with cemetery property, merchandise and services, both at
the time of need and on a preneed basis.


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Tex. Court Approves Dismissal of "Fancher"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a
purported class action that names Stewart Enterprises, Inc. as
one of the defendants.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by Ralph Lee Fancher and others, against:

     -- Service Corp. International,
     -- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
     -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
     -- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.,
     -- Aurora Casket Co.,
     -- York Group, Inc., and
     -- Batesville Casket Co.

on behalf of consumers in 23 states and the District of Columbia
who purchased caskets.  

The allegations of fact were essentially the same as those made
in the Funeral Consumers Alliance case, which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

However, the plaintiff in "Francher" alleged that the defendants
violated state antitrust, consumer protection and/or unjust
enrichment laws.  Plaintiff withdrew his complaint on August 2,
2005, and re-filed a nearly identical complaint under Tennessee
law and on behalf of only Tennessee consumers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 23, 2005.

"Francher" was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas under Case No. 4:05-cv-04120.  
The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding an
additional plaintiff, expanding the purported class to include
"all individuals and entities in the U.S. who purchased
Batesville caskets" and dropping claims made under the Tennessee
consumer protection law.

However, the "Fancher" plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal seeking to dismiss their claims without prejudice.  On
June 13, 2006, the court entered an order granting the voluntary
dismissal without prejudice.

The suit is "Fancher v. Service Corp. International et al., Case
No. 4:05-cv-04120," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with
referral to Judge Calvin Botley.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550
W Main Ave., Ste. 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028,
Fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Andrew K. Doty of Iverson Yoakum Papiano, 624 South
         Grand Ave., Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-624-7444, Fax: 213-629-4563, E-mail:
         mkagley@iyph.com;

     (2) Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, 711
         Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
         221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail:
         andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com; and

     (3) Victoria L. Cook of Susman Godfrey, LLP, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-653-
         7870, Fax: 713-654-3343, E-mail:
         vcook@susmangodfrey.com.


UNITED STATES: Security Dept. Wants Racial Bias Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a racial discrimination lawsuit filed against
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, said the agency has filed a new summary motion to
dismiss the class action, and plaintiffs' attorneys have filed a
proper response to the motion, according to The Narco News
Bulletin.

The plaintiff said he is hoping that the judge handling the case
will render a decision favorable to the class at least in the
issue of disparate treatment between Hispanic Special Agents and
non-Hispanics on the area of discipline.

He said his party is hoping that the judge will rely on the
recent U.S. Supreme Court case of "Burlington Northern & Santa
Fe Railway Co., v. White, No. 05-259," which was decided on June
22, 2006.  

The Supreme Court ruled that the anti-retaliation provision in
Title VII -- the portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that
forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin -- is not limited to
discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of
employment.  Rather, the protection extends beyond workplace- or
employment-related retaliatory acts and harm.

The suit is "Miguel Angel Contreras et al. v. Michael Chertoff,
Civil Action No. 02-CV00923," which is before the Honorable
Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Roger L. Hillman at
Garvey Schubert Barer, 18th Floor, Second & Seneca Building,
1191 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-2939, Phone: (206)
464-3939 x1402, Fax: (206) 464-0125.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is being represented by
a team of U.S. Department of Justice and Immigration & Customs
Enforcement and Customs Border Protection attorneys.


WELLS REAL: Appeals Order Denying Fees Recovery in Ga. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the dismissed class action, "Hendry et al. v. Leo
F. Wells, III et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051-6" filed a
notice of cross appeal against a court order denying their
request to recover attorneys' fees and other expenses in the
case.

The lawsuit was filed on or about November 24, 2004 in the
Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia against Wells Real
Estate Fund I, the owners of the partnership -- Wells Capital
and Leo F. Wells, III -- as well as Wells Management Co., Inc.

It alleges, among other things, that:

      -- Mr. Wells and Wells Capital breached their fiduciary
         duties to the limited partners of Wells Real Estate
         Fund I (Fund I), a previously syndicated real estate
         partnership having common general partners, in
         connection with certain disclosures and prior actions
         relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds;

      -- the defendants breached an alleged contract arising out
         of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited
         partners of Fund I relating to an alleged waiver of
         deferred management fees; and

      -- certain misrepresentations and omissions in an April
         2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners of
         Fund I caused that consent solicitation to be
         materially misleading.

Plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, judgment against Mr.
Wells and Wells Capital, jointly and severally, in an amount to
be proven at trial; punitive damages; disgorgement of fees
earned by the General Partners; enforcement of the alleged
contract relating to the alleged waiver of deferred management
fees; and an award to the plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.

The court has entered judgments granting the Wells defendants'
motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all counts in
plaintiffs' complaint, and on June 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal from those judgments.

The court entered an order denying motions by the Wells
defendants to recover their attorneys' fees and expenses of
litigation, and on July 5, 2006, the Wells defendants filed a
notice of cross appeal with respect to that order.

The "Hendry" action states that the partnership is named only as
an allegedly necessary party defendant and that the plaintiffs
seek no money from or relief at the expense of the partnership.

Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a  
national real estate investment company.  More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs
collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets.


WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Denies Fees Recovery Motion in "Johnston"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia denied a motion
by Wells Real Estate Fund I (Partnership) that seeks to recover
attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation in the class action,
"Roy Johnston v. Wells Real Estate Fund I, Case No. 03-A00525-
6."

A limited partner holding Class B Units filed the suit on behalf
of all limited partners holding Class B Units as of January 15,
2003.  The plaintiff alleged that the terms of the partnership
agreement were inconsistent with the original intent of the
parties thereto such that the alleged original intent would have
provided the limited partners holding Class B Units with a
priority in the allocation and payment of net property sale
proceeds.

On May 7, 2004, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Partnership on grounds of statutes of limitation and laches.
By an order entered on December 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion to withdraw the notice of appeal, which had
previously been filed by the plaintiff.

On March 31, 2005, the court entered an order denying a request
by the counsel of an intervenor for attorney fees and
reimbursement of expenses.  Accordingly, no reserves have been
provided for in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements.

On April 20, 2006, the court held a hearing addressing only the
liability aspects of the Partnership's motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses.

By a court order entered May 24, 2006, the court denied the
Partnership's motion to recover its attorneys' fees and expenses
of litigation.  

The Johnston Action is concluded, and no unresolved issues are
pending in connection with this litigation, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a  
national real estate investment company.  More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs
collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets.


WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Denies Counsel Fees Request, Closes Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action, "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III
et al., Civil Action No. 04-A-2791-2," which was filed in the
Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia against Wells Real
Estate Fund I (Partnership) has been declared as concluded.

On or about March 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
was filed by four individuals against the Partnership, and Wells
Capital and Leo F. Wells, III, the general partners of the
Partnership, as well as Wells Management Co., Inc., and Wells
Investment Securities, Inc.  

The plaintiffs filed the complaint purportedly on behalf of all
limited partners holding Class B Units of the Partnership as of
January 15, 2003.

On June 3, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
permit voluntary dismissal, and the complaint was dismissed
without prejudice.

On June 18, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to recover their
attorneys' fees and costs from the plaintiffs and their counsel.
The court held a hearing on part, but not all, of the issues
raised in that motion on August 3, 2004, and took the matter
under advisement without ruling on any part of the motion.  

On June 24, 2005, the court held another hearing on the
defendants' motion to recover their attorneys' fees.  By a court
order entered May 24, 2006, the court denied the Partnership's
motion to recover its attorneys' fees and expenses of
litigation.  

The order concluded the case and resolves alls issues pending in
connection with the action represented by the original
complaint.

Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a  
national real estate investment company.  More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs
collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets.


WENDY'S INTL: Sued in Tex. by Undocumented Immigrant Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Cafe Express, its parent company Wendy's International, Inc. and
its former law firm, are named defendants in a class action
filed in Dallas County district court on behalf of nearly 100
undocumented employees who were fired last week.

According to the lawsuit, the restaurant defendants and the
Houston-based law firm missed a 2001 deadline to file paperwork
that could have allowed the employees to become permanent U.S.
residents.  The employees then were fired because they lacked
resident status.

Under the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act of 2000,
undocumented immigrant workers were allowed to file for
permanent residency status.  The one-time opportunity was
dependent upon their Alien Labor Certification Application being
on file April 30, 2001.

Cafe Express developed a program in which the restaurant
defendants and the law firm would complete and file the
applications for the employees, and the company would deduct $25
from the employee's weekly paychecks to cover the legal fees.

However, plaintiffs allege that the law firm missed the 2001
application deadline.  Reportedly, the employees were not
notified of the mistake at the time, and the weekly deductions
continued from May 2001 through December 2005.

The employees were informed of the missed deadline on July 7,
when Cafe Express sent a letter informing them that their
applications could not be successfully completed.  The employees
were also told that unless they could prove that their
applications were filed on time, independent of the law firm,
they would be fired on Sept. 15, 2006.

For more information, contact the fired employees
representative, Stan Broome at Dallas' Howie, Broome & Bobo, LLP
or Matthew Bobo, Phone: 214-574-7500; or Mike Androvett, Phone:
800-559-4534, E-mail: mike@legalpr.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


JABIL CIRCUIT: Faces Suit Over "Back-Dated" Stock Option Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C. initiated a class
action against Jabil Circuit, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida over violations of federal
securities laws.

The suit, filed on behalf of all investors who purchased JBL
securities between September 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006, seeks
damages.

The Complaint alleges that JBL and certain officers and
directors manipulated the prices of stock option grants and made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted
material facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading.  

The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b), 78n(a), and 78t(a) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5 and 240.14a-9.

When the truth about the company's stock options backdating
emerged publicly, JBL's stock price fell as a result.

Shareholders, who wish to move the court, have until November
20, 2006, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact Denis F. Sheils, Esquire and
William E. Hoese, Esquire both of Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C.,
Phone: (215) 238-1700, Fax: (215) 238-1968, Website:
http://www.kohnswift.com


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of its client and all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Parlux
Fragrances, Inc. between February 8, 2006 and August 10, 2006.

The complaint charges Parlux and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants
made a series of materially false and misleading statements and
omissions during the class period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of Parlux securities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants' highly positive
statements created the impression that Parlux's revenues were
growing and that the company was well positioned to generate
strong profits.

Beginning in June 2006, however, the company revealed declining
sales and accounting issues in a series of disclosures
indicating that:

      -- Parlux's sales were declining materially, including
         sales to related parties; and

      -- Parlux suffered from internal control issues with
         respect to its financial reporting, causing the company
         to delay filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
         year ended March 31, 2006, and to delay its quarterly
         report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,
         2006.

During the class period, while Parlux stock traded at over $37
per share (prior to a stock split), defendants and company
insiders sold over $13 million worth of their Parlux holdings.

On August 10, 2006, the company announced that Parlux's earnings
for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 would be far less than
investors had been led to believe, due mainly to lower sales to
U.S. department stores and related parties.  On this news,
Parlux stock plunged from $8.16 a share to $4.78, a drop of over
40%.

Interested parties may no later than October 16, 2006, request
the court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 888-240-
0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com and
rsmits@cmht.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *