CAR_Public/060925.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 190

                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
AMERICAN FAMILY: Lakin Firm Names Replacement for Dead Plaintiff
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Snowmobiles with Defective Steering Shaft
BEELMAN RIVER: Barge Workers File Ill. Overtime Wage Litigation
CANON USA: Recalls 1987-1998 Desktop Copiers Over Fire Hazard

CENTURY 21: Appeal Planned on N.J. Contract Breach Suit Nixing
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Customers File Suits in W.V. Over $2.99 Fee
COLDWELL BANKER: Miss. Court Junks Class Claims in Fraud Suit
FINOVA GROUP: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement with Thaxton Group
FORD MOTOR: Asks Ill. Court to Dismiss Suit Over Flaky Paints

HOMETOWN BUFFET: Continues to Face Managers' Wage Suit in Calif.
HUMANA INC: Reaches $3.5M Settlement with Health Care Providers
IMAGITAS INC: Mo. Resident Files Suit Over Advertisement Inserts
LUPRON LITIGATION: Univera Receives $1.1M in Lupron Settlement
MCLEODUSA INC.: Securities Fraud Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 29

MIRANT CORP: To Settle ERISA Litigation in Ga. Court for $9.7M
MOSSIMO INC: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Iconix Brand Merger
MOSSIMO INC: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Del. Investors' Suit
NEW YORK: Motion to Dismiss Parks Dept. Racial Bias Suit Denied
OXFORD HEALTH: Doctors Group Files N.Y. Suit, Alleges Coercion

PARADIGM MEDICAL: Completes Settlement of Federal, State Suits
PARMALAT SPA: Hermes Balks at Credit Suisse's Motion to Dismiss
RAW INDULGENCE: Recalls Food Bars that May Contain Metal Scraps
REALOGY CORP: Calif. Court Approves Homebuyers' Suit Settlement
REGAL LAGER: Recalls T2 Travel Cots with Removable Connector Cap

SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Approves $6M Securities Suit Settlement
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Del. Merger Lawsuit
STAFFORD WORLDWIDE: Recalls Double-Walled Drinking Glasses
TRIBUNE CO: Shareholder Files Suit in Ill. Over Buyback Program
VANGUARD HEALTH: Faces Sherman Act Violations Lawsuit in Tex.

WORLDCOM INC: Court Okays Revised Notice on La. Settlement Pact


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVO INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Merger-Related Fraud Suit
CONNETICS CORP: Faces Securities Act Violation Suit in Calif.
DELL INC: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
IMAX CORP: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Stull, Stull & Brody, on behalf of Kyle Burke,
initiated a class action against Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York,
Brooklyn Division over alleged Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- the company,
     -- Administrative Committee of the ACS Savings Plan,
     -- Lora Villareal,
     -- Jeffrey A. Rich,
     -- Mark A. King,
     -- Darwin Deason,
     -- Joseph P. O'Neill,
     -- J. Livingston Kosberg,
     -- Frank A. Rossi,
     -- Dennis McCuiston,
     -- Gerald J. Ford,
     -- Clifford M. Kendall,
     -- David W. Black,
     -- Henry Hortenstine,
     -- Peter A. Bracken, and
     -- William DEckelman

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the company said the lawsuit purports to be brought under ERISA
and alleges breaches by the defendants of their duties as
fiduciaries under the company's Savings Plan.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to
disclose material information necessary for Plan Participants to
make informed decisions concerning Plan assets and benefits and
the appropriateness of the Plan investment in ACS stock,
including, but not limited to,

     -- the backdating of stock option grants to Mr. Rich and
        Mr. King;

     -- the related concealment of the company's true financial
        and operating condition;

     -- the concealment of serious problems relating to the
        company's senior management integrity and competence;
        and

     -- serious questions relating to the legal and regulatory
        compliance which recently led to, among other things, an  
        investigation by the U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern and
        Southern Districts of New York into appropriate
        practices relating to executive stock option grants by
        many companies.

Plaintiffs are seeking for:

     -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them,
        have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the
        participants;

     -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them, are
        entitled to the protection of ERISA Sections
        404(c)(1)(b), Sections 1104(c)(b) of the Labor Code;

     -- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the
        plan all losses to the plan resulting from defendants
        breaches of their fiduciary duties, including losses to
        the plan resulting from imprudent investment of the
        plan's assets, and to restore to the plan all profits
        which the participants would have made if the defendants
        had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations;

     -- imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by
        which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense
        of the plan as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty;

     -- an order enjoining defendants, and each of them, from
        any further violations of their ERISA fiduciary
        obligations;

     -- actual damages in the amount of any losses the plan
        suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
        individual accounts in proportion to the accounts'
        losses;

     -- an order that defendants allocate the plan's recoveries
        to the accounts of all participants who had any portion
        of their account balances invested in ACS stock
        maintained by the plan in proportion to the accounts'
        losses attributable to the decline in the stock price of
        the company;

     -- an order awarding costs pursuant to Section 1132(g) of
        the Labor Code;

     -- an order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to Section
        1132(g) of the Labor Code and the common fund doctrine;
        and

     -- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate
        equitable monetary relief against the defendants.

The allegations arise from the company's activities relating to
the stock option grant process between Dec. 31, 1998 and March
6, 2006.   

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?121a

The suit is "Burke v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-05029-CBA-MDG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Carol B.
Amon, with referral to Judge Marilyn D. Go.

Representing the plaintiffs is Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-
7230, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Lakin Firm Names Replacement for Dead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakin Law Firm replaced a dead plaintiff in a class action
against American Family Insurance, according to Steve Korris of
The Madison St. Clair Record.

Plaintiff Manuel Hernandez filed a suit against American Family
Insurance in 2000, claiming the insurer improperly reduced a
payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident.  In
2005, he was certified as a representative of the class.  
However, earlier this year, the company discovered that he has
already been dead since January 2004.  The company's attorney
attached a copy of Mr. Hernandez's death certificate in a filing
in March.

Attorney Jeffrey Millar of the Lakin Law firm confirmed the
death of Mr. Hernandez, but did not answer questions that
American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it.  
Mr. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Madison County
Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that American Family Insurance should
submit them not to Mr. Hernandez's attorney but to Mr. Hernandez
himself.

Judge Stack overruled the motion to compel Mr. Millar to answer
the questions, but he did order Mr. Millar to send the death
certificate.  

Until recently, American Family continues to protest over the
delay of the notification.

In May, the Lakin firm moved to substitute Helen Nemeth as class
representative and asked for leave to file a fifth amended
complaint.  Judge Stack refused to allow a new complaint but he
allowed a proposal for one.

The Lakin firm submitted a proposal Aug. 16, with Nemeth as
class representative and Nora Hernandez as second plaintiff.  

American Family Mutual attorney Anthony Martin of St. Louis
filed an objection on Sept. 18 on the naming of Ms. Nemeth and
Ms. Hernandez as plaintiffs, and on the filing of the proposed
complaint.  He said Ms. Nemeth's claims are unrelated to that of
Mr. Hernandez.  

Mr. Martin asked for a hearing on the qualifications of Ms.
Nemeth and Ms. Hernandez to represent the class.  Judge Stack
set an Oct. 4 hearing.

Representing the defendant are Anthony Martin and Timothy
Sansone at Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, 23 South 1st Street,
Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-397-2721;
800-225-5529, Web site: http://www.spvg.com.

Representing the plaintiff is Mr. Millar, associate at The Lakin
Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River,
Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127,
Telecopier: 618-254-0193.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Snowmobiles with Defective Steering Shaft
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 50,500 units of Arctic Cat snowmobiles.

The company said the steering shaft used on certain 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005 and 2006 Arctic Cat snowmobiles can fail at the
steering shaft/steering arm attachment.  This could cause a loss
of steering control of the vehicle, and result in injury or
death.

Arctic Cat has received 42 reports relating to loss of steering
control on the recalled Arctic Cat model snowmobiles.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled steering shafts were installed on these models:

     -- all 2002 440 Sno Pro Models;

     -- all 2003 Firecat 500/600/700, Firecat 700 Snow Pro, and
        440 Sno Pro Models;

     -- all 2004 Firecat 500/600/700 (STD and Sno Pro), and
        Sabercat 500/600/700 Models;

     -- all 2005 Firecat 500/600/700 (STD and Sno Pro),
        M5,M6,M7, and Sabercat 500/600/700 Models; and

     -- all 2006 Crossfire 600/700, Firecat 500/600/700, Firecat
        700 Sno Pro, Sabercat 500/600/700, and all M-Series.

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) ranges of 4UF06SNWX6T100985
through 4UF06SNW26T128280 and 4UF06SNW16T900039 through
4UF06SNW06T900064 apply to 2006 models listed above only.  For
identification purposes, it is necessary to refer to only the
last six digits of the VIN.

The affected models were manufactured in a variety of colors and
engine sizes; however, all are subject to this recall.  Shown
are samples of some, but not all color combinations produced by
Arctic Cat:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580f.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580g.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06580h.jpg

These snowmobiles were manufactured in Thief River Falls,
Minnesota and are being sold at Arctic Cat dealerships worldwide
from May 2001 through April 2006 for between $6,500 and $9,000.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled snowmobiles
immediately.  Registered owners have been notified about this
recall by mail.  If consumers are unsure if their snowmobile is
affected, they should call Arctic Cat.  Consumers should have
available the model name and model number of the snowmobile when
they call.  The model name and model number are displayed on the
registration materials you received when you purchased your
snowmobile, and on your operator's manual.  Consumers with a
recalled snowmobile should contact their local Arctic Cat
snowmobile dealer to schedule the free repair.

For more information, call Arctic Cat at (800) 279-6851 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.arctic-cat.com.


BEELMAN RIVER: Barge Workers File Ill. Overtime Wage Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beelman River Terminals, Inc. faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
over allegations that it failed to pay overtime to workers, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

J.D. Marchbanks filed the suit against the Venice, Illinois-
based facility on Sept. 18, 2006.  The complaint states that Mr.
Marchbanks and other members of the class are laborers who over
the past three years had similar job duties such as spraying
water to minimize dust from loads of coal and coke, tying down
barges, cleaning the facility and loading and unloading barges
at the facility.

Specifically, the complaint states that in the past three years,
laborers at the facility were routinely required to work far in
excess of 40 hours per week, including a normal schedule of 5:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The suit also claims the employees were required to work six
hours on Saturday and they were all paid an hourly wage.  In
essence, according to the suit, laborers at the facility were
not compensated for any of the substantial overtime work.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, interest and any other relief the court deems
fair and equitable.

The suit is "Marchbanks v. Beelman River Terminals, Inc., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00720-DRH-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under Judge David R. Herndon
with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael B. Marker of Rex Carr Law Firm, Generally
         Admitted, 412 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL
         62201-3016, Phone: 618-274-0434, Fax: 618-274-8369, E-
         mail: mmarker@rexcarr.com; and

     (2) Teresa A. Woody and Mark V. Dugan of Stueve, Siegel et
         al., 330 West 47th Street, Suite #250, Kansas City, MO
         64112, Phone: 816-714-7127 and 816-714-7112, Fax: 816-
         714-7101, E-mail: woody@sshwlaw.com.


CANON USA: Recalls 1987-1998 Desktop Copiers Over Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canon U.S.A. Inc., of Lake Success, New York, in cooperation
with Canon Inc., of Japan and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 800,000 units of previous models
of canon desktop copiers.

The company said an improperly fitting electrical connection
inside the copiers can cause overheating, smoking and fire.

Canon U.S.A. has received six reports of NP1020 model copiers
starting to smoke or catching on fire due to the problem with
the electrical connection.  No injuries were reported.

The repair recall includes only these model Canon copiers: PC6,
PC6RE, PC65, PC7, PC7RE, PC8, PC11, PC11RE, PC12, NP1010 and
NP1020.  The model number is on the front panel of the unit.  
The recalled copiers were manufactured between 1987 and 1998.

Pictures of the recalled desktop copiers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06259a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06259b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06259c.jpg

The recalled desktop copiers were manufactured in Japan and
Thailand and are being sold by dealers, national retailers and
office supply stores nationwide from January 1987 through
December 1999 for between $1,500 and $2,300.

Users are advised to stop using the recalled copiers immediately
and contact Canon U.S.A. to receive a free repair.

For additional information, contact Canon U.S.A. at (800) 828-
4040 anytime, or visit http://www.usa.canon.com.


CENTURY 21: Appeal Planned on N.J. Contract Breach Suit Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1,
Inc. v. Cendant Corp. and Century 21 Real Estate Corp.," are
appealing the dismissal of their case, which was filed in the
New Jersey Superior Court L. Div., Morris County, New Jersey.

Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed the class action
against Cendant Corp., now know as Avis Budget Group Inc., and
its subsidiary, Century 21 Real Estate Corp.  Cendant and
Century 21 were served with the complaint on March 14, 2002.

The class action alleges breach of certain provisions of the
Real Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between Century 21
and the plaintiffs, as well as the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing, and certain express and implied fiduciary
duties.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that Cendant diverted money and resources from Century
         21 franchisees and allotted them to NRT Inc. owned
         brokerages;

      -- Cendant used Century 21 marketing dollars to promote
         Cendant's Internet website, Move.com;

      -- the Century 21 magazine was replaced with a Coldwell
         Banker magazine;

      -- Century 21 ceased using marketing funds for yellow page
         advertising;

      -- Cendant nearly abolished training in the areas of
         recruiting, referral, sales and management; and

      -- Cendant directed most of the relocation business to
         Coldwell Banker and ERA brokers.

On Oct. 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding a count against Cendant as guarantor of Century
21's obligations to its franchisees.  

In response to an order to show cause with preliminary
restraints filed by the plaintiffs, the court entered a
temporary restraining order limiting Century 21's ability to
seek general releases from its franchisees in franchise renewal
agreements.

On June 23, 2003, the court determined that the limitations on
Century 21 obtaining general releases should continue with
respect to renewals only.

Consequently, as part of any ordinary course transaction other
than a franchise renewal, Century 21 Real Estate Corp. may
require the franchisee to execute a general release, forever
releasing Century 21 Real Estate Corp. from any claim that the
Century 21 franchisee may have against Century 21 Real Estate
Corp.  

The court also ordered a supplemental notice of the progress of
the litigation distributed to Century 21 franchisees.

Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify a class on Oct. 1,
2004.  The parties conducted discovery on the class
certification issues.

On Jan. 31, 2006, defendants filed their opposition to the class
motion.  Plaintiffs' reply to the class motion was filed on May
2, 2006.

The court heard oral argument on the motion on May 26, 2006.
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and defendants' cross
motion to strike the class demand were denied on June 30, 2006.

On Aug. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the denial of class certification.  On Aug. 11, 2006, defendants
filed their opposition to the motion for leave to appeal.

Parsippany, New Jersey-based Realogy Corp. (NYSE: H) --
http://www.realogy.com/-- is a provider of real estate and  
relocation services.  It operates in four segments: Real Estate
Franchise Services, which franchises the Century 21, Coldwell
Banker, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty and Coldwell Banker
Commercial brand names; company Owned Real Estate Brokerage
Services, which operates a real estate brokerage business
principally under the Coldwell Banker, ERA, Corcoran Group and
Sotheby's International Realty brand names; Relocation Services,
which offers clients employee relocation services, such as
destination services and other consulting services, and Title
and Settlement Services, provides title, settlement and vendor
management services to real estate companies, affinity groups,
corporations and financial institutions with many of these
services provided in connection with the company's real estate
brokerage and relocation services businesses.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Customers File Suits in W.V. Over $2.99 Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cingular Wireless, LLC, faces two purported class actions in
West Virginia's Kanawha Circuit Court that was filed by
dissatisfied customers over a $2.99-per-month fee that they say
they never agreed to, The West Virginia Record reports.

The suits, filed on Sept. 12, 2006, were each filed by James
Strawn and James Staton against the company on behalf of
themselves and others with the same problem.  They are case
numbers 06-C-1893 and 06-C-1894, and were assigned to Judge
James Stucky.

Plaintiffs, who say that that the fee provided roadside
assistance, hopes that their cases will "enjoin and redress the
unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices employed by
Cingular, which involve the fraudulent imposition of a $2.99
monthly charge for a purportedly 'optional' roadside assistance
service that plaintiffs never requested or enrolled for."

Tim Yianne of Bell and Bands in Charleston is representing the
plaintiffs.  He has put a stipulation of limited damages on the
case, saying no plaintiff requests more than $75,000, attorneys
fees included.

According to the suits, the benefits of the disputed fee include
a towing service, battery service, flat tire assistance, fuel
delivery service, lockout assistance and key replacement.

However, the suit contends that plaintiffs and class members
were not given an option.  Instead, the roadside assistance was
part of a bundled transaction, whereby the plaintiff and class
members had to catch the roadside assistance charge and opt out
of it.  

In failing to do so, according to the suit, the company
automatically enrolled them for the roadside assistance service
and imposed a $2.99 monthly charge.

Specifically, the complaint charges the company with violating
the West Virginia Credit and Consumer Protection Act.  Mr.
Yianne also put a limit on the total amount of damages that can
be received of $5 million.

Additionally, the suit states that Bell and Bands will not
accept an aggregate award for attorneys' fees and costs
exceeding $5 million, inclusive of any other damages awarded to
each named plaintiff and class member.  It also passed on making
any claims for punitive damages.

For more details, contact Tim J. Yianne of Bell and Bands, 30
Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, West Virginia 25326,
Phone: (304) 345-1700 and (800) 342-1701, Fax: (304) 345-1715,
Web site: http://www.belllaw.com.


COLDWELL BANKER: Miss. Court Junks Class Claims in Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
issued a consent order dismissing class allegations in
"Cleveland, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp., Case
No. 4:05-cv-00010-MPM-JAD."

On Jan. 11, 2005, a putative class action was commenced relating
to allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the purchase of
residential real estate in Leflore County, Mississippi.

Specifically, plaintiffs have sought certification of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or sold property within
the state of Mississippi while utilizing the services of
Coldwell Banker First Greenwood Leflore Realty, Inc., who were:

     -- misled about the value or condition of the property, or

     -- misled by Coldwell Banker or its agents concerning the
        sales price of the real property, or

     -- promised repairs and/or renovations to the property
        which were not made or completed, or

     -- with the active involvement of Coldwell Banker or its
        agents entered into loans, secured by collateral in the
        form of real property, were charged excessive and/or
        unnecessary fees, charges and related expenses.

The complaint asserts claims for false advertising, breach of
fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, deceptive sales practices,
fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, breach of public policy, negligence, gross
negligence, and fraud.  It thus seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On April 15, 2005, Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Corp. filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

To date, the court has not ruled on plaintiffs' motion, however,
the court has entered an order staying all discovery, pending a
ruling on this motion.

On June 20, 2006, counsel submitted to the court a proposed
consent order dismissing class allegations, allowing plaintiffs
to proceed with individual claims, and granting plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint by July 21, 2006.

The court entered the order on July 13, 2006 and the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on July 21, 2006 and a second amended
complaint on Aug. 1, 2006.

The suit is "Cleveland, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Corp., Case No. 4:05-cv-00010-MPM-JAD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi under
Judge Michael P. Mills with referral to Judge Jerry A. Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is Lawrence E. Abernathy, III of
Lawrence e. Abernathy, III, Attorney, P.O. Box 4177, Laurel, MS
39441, Phone: (601) 649-4529, E-mail:
MHinton@abernathylawoffice.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Christopher A. Shapley of Brunini, Grantham, Grower &
         Hewes, P.O. Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205-0119, Phone:
         (601) 948-3101, E-mail: cshapley@brunini.com;

     (2) F. Ewin Henson, III of Upshaw, Williams, Biggers,
         Beckham & Riddick, P.O. Drawer 8230, Greenwood, MS
         38930-8230, Phone: (601) 455-1613, E-mail:
         ehenson@uwbbr.com; and

     (3) April D. Reeves of Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis,
         P.A., P.O. Box 427, Jackson, MS 39205-0427, Phone:
         (601) 949-4900, E-mail: areeves@watkinsludlam.com.


FINOVA GROUP: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement with Thaxton Group
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Finova Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, FINOVA Capital Corp.
reached a preliminary settlement to resolve all outstanding
claims in the ongoing litigation with the Thaxton Group Inc. and
its debtor-affiliates, the holders of subordinated notes issued
by Thaxton and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in
Thaxton and its debtor-affiliates' chapter 11 cases (Troubled
Company Reporter Vol. 10, No. 223).

The preliminary settlement will settle all of the actions
involving FINOVA Capital and Thaxton, in particular the actions
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Anderson Division, including the June 2006 litigation
commenced in the District Court, as well as claims in Thaxton's
chapter 11 proceedings.  

Under the principal terms of the proposed settlement, which was
approved by the FINOVA Capital's Board of Directors, on the
effective date of Thaxton's plan of reorganization, FINOVA
Capital will receive all amounts paid by Thaxton to FINOVA
Capital since commencement of Thaxton's chapter 11 proceedings,
minus $16 million, plus interest earned from Aug. 16, 2006,
which will be retained by Thaxton.  In addition, FINOVA Capital
will receive complete releases from all Thaxton parties for all
matters related to Thaxton.  The proposed settlement also
requires that the summary judgment order of the District Court
be vacated.

The Settlement will be structured as a class action, and FINOVA
Capital will have the right to reject the Settlement if more
than $6 million principal amount of Thaxton subordinated notes
opt out of the settlement, or any of the current individual
plaintiffs in the Gregory action opts out of the settlement.

Consummation of the preliminary settlement is subject to final
documentation, approval by the District Court, the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, notice to the
class of the settlement and final court approval of the
settlement after hearings on the fairness of the Settlement.

Pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court dated Sept. 11,
2006, FINOVA Capital has transferred all of the cash received
from Thaxton since commencement of the Thaxton's chapter 11
case, together with interest earned of approximately $97.2
million, to a trust account to be held by Thaxton.

In conjunction with the proposed Settlement, FINOVA Capital
expects to record a loss of approximately $9 million on the
carrying value, as of June 30, 2006, of its loan to Thaxton.

Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, The Finova Group, Inc.,
provides commercial financing to small and mid-sized businesses;
other services include factoring, accounts receivable
management, and equipment leasing.  The firm has three segments:
Commercial Finance, Specialty Finance, and Capital Markets.  
FINOVA targets such markets as transportation, wholesaling,
communication, health care, and manufacturing. Loan write-offs
had put the firm on shaky ground.

The company and its debtor-affiliates and subsidiaries filed for
Chapter 11 protection on March 7, 2001 (U.S. Bankr. Del. 01-
00697).  Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young & Jones P.C. and
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz represent the Official Committee
of Unsecured Creditors.  Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., at
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., represents the Debtors.  FINOVA
has since emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Financial giants
Berkshire Hathaway and Leucadia National Corp. (together doing
business as Berkadia) own FINOVA through the almost $6 billion
lent to the commercial finance company.  Finova is winding up
its affairs.


FORD MOTOR: Asks Ill. Court to Dismiss Suit Over Flaky Paints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ketrina Bakewell at Bryan Cave LP, the law firm representing
Ford Motor Co., asked Madison Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian on
Sept. 15 to dismiss a third amended complaint in a class action
over flaky paint on certain models of the company's vehicles.

Ms. Bakewell claims that statutes of limitations ran out years
ago on claims of new Lakin Law Firm plaintiffs.  She said in a
memorandum with her motion to dismiss that plaintiffs all knew
paint was coming off their vehicles years before they filed
suit.  The models referred to in the case are those from 1989 to
1996.

In 1999, The Lakin Law Firm filed the suit against Ford Motor
Co. on behalf of owners of vehicles that have experienced paint
peeling.

Plaintiffs contend that their paint is defective in two
respects.  First, they allege that, because the company did not
use spray primer between the high-build electro coat and the
color coat in some models, the color coat lost adhesion to the
HBEC after extended exposure to ultraviolet radiation from
sunlight.  Second, they allege that the clearcoat on some models
deteriorated prematurely.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and interest, and compensatory damages in an amount to cover the
cost of repainting their vehicles and to compensate for alleged
diminution in value.

In 2003, Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis certified Elaine Phillips,
a secretary of the firm, as representative of two nationwide
classes of plaintiffs.

After Judge Kardis retired, the case was assigned to Judge
Matoesian.

In March, Ford Motor moved to decertify the class action, based
on last year's Illinois Supreme Court decision in Avery v. State
Farm, and Ms. Phillips chose to drop out as class representative
of the case.

In 2005 the Lakin firm added Beverly Brede of St. Clair County
and Joseph Gulash of Madison County as plaintiffs, and it
changed the definition of the class.

Ford Motor moved to stay discovery pending a ruling on the
decertification motion, but Judge Matoesian ruled Aug. 18 that
discovery on decertification issues could continue.

Also, in August, the Lakin firm filed a third amended complaint
proposing to certify Daniel Schopp of Madison County as class
representative.  Ms. Brede and Mr. Gulash remained in the case,
and the Lakin firm added Norma Maag of St. Clair County and
Peter Yaciuk of St. Louis County, Missouri, as plaintiffs.

On the same day, Mr. Schmieder sent a letter to Ms. Bakewell, to
depose employees, including Ford Motor boss William Clay Ford
Jr.  The judge denied the motion to depose Mr. Ford.

Representing Ford are Peter Herzog of Bryan Cave LLP, One
Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis,
MO 63102-2750, Phone: 314/259-2000, Fax: 314/259-2020; and
Ketrina Blakewell of Bryan Cave LLP, 161 North Clark, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL  60601-3315, Phone: 312/602-5000, Fax: 312/602-5050

Representing the plaintiffs is Robert Schmieder of the Lakin Law
Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095,
Phone: (618) 254-1127, Fax: (618) 254-0193.


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Continues to Face Managers' Wage Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HomeTown Buffet, Inc., a subsidiary of Buffets Holdings, Inc.,
remains a defendant in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging violations of state labor laws.

On Nov. 12, 2004, two former restaurant managers of the of
HomeTown Buffet, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action in California Superior
Court in San Francisco County.

The lawsuit alleges that HomeTown Buffet violated California
wage and hour laws by failing to pay all of its California
managers and assistant managers overtime, and for making
deductions from bonus compensation based on the company's
workers' compensation costs.

In March 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint in the
lawsuit to add OCB Restaurant Co., LLC as a defendant, and to
limit the claims to those managers below the level of restaurant
General Manager.

In April 2006, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties, restitution
of unpaid overtime and deductions, pre-judgment interest, cost
of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The complaint does not
make a specific monetary demand.

The suit is "Tiffany, et al. v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., Case No.
4:06-cv-02524-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs is James F. Clapp of Dostart Clapp
Gordon & Coveney, LLP, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970,
San Diego, CA 92122, Phone: 858-623-4200, Fax: 858-623-4299, E-
mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com.  

Representing the defendants is Paul R. Lynd of Littler
Mendelson, 650 California Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94108-2693, Phone: 415-433-1940, Fax: 415-743-6653, E-mail:
plynd@littler.com.


HUMANA INC: Reaches $3.5M Settlement with Health Care Providers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Humana Inc. released information regarding the recovery of
individual provider claims for chiropractors and other non-MD
providers as part of a recent $3.5 million settlement in the
class action "Solomon v. Anthem, et al."

According to the settlement agreement, in order to recover
claims, the class member must be a health care provider,
provider group or provider organization that provided covered
services to a Humana member, or any person covered by a plan,
between Jan. 1, 1990, and Aug. 16, 2006.   In order to obtain
compensation, providers must submit a claim form with an
estimate of the total billed charges, before the Jan. 13, 2007,
deadline.

Humana will establish a fund of $3.5 million that will be
divided pro rata among the class members who submit valid
claims.

The amount will be determined by the total dollar value of
claims and the number of class members that have submitted
claims.

As part of the settlement, doctors of chiropractic will be
permitted to assign 100 or 50 percent of the recovery to the
American Chiropractic Association -- http://www.acatoday.com--  
if they wish to do so.

In June, the ACA asked the U.S. District Court in Miami to allow
ACA to join as a plaintiff in "Solomon v. Anthem, et al.,"
alleging that Humana and other managed care companies conspired
to illegally and systematically underpay providers by denying
reimbursement for medically necessary treatment.

The $3.5 million settlement agreement was reached in early
August.  The case against the other defendants remains pending.

In addition to the cash fund described above, terms of the
proposed settlement agreement with Humana include:

     -- changes in Humana's business practices, intended to make
        its claims editing process more transparent and reduce
        confusion and disagreement over payments;

     -- online information provided by Humana to help providers
        understand its payment decisions;

     -- more options for chiropractors and other health care
        providers to challenge Humana payment decisions in the
        future, if necessary;

     -- independent external reviews to resolve billing
        disputes; and

     -- the appointment of an ACA representative to a newly
        formed Humana health care provider advisory committee,
        which will provide a means of direct communication on
        issues and concerns.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

        http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1224

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

For more information on submitting a claim, visit the Humana
Provider Settlement Web page, or ACA's Chiropractic Network
Action Center.  For related questions, e-mail
insinfo@acatoday.org, or call the ACA Insurance Relations
Department at (703) 276-8800.


IMAGITAS INC: Mo. Resident Files Suit Over Advertisement Inserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas, Inc., faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri over the
mailing of advertisements to residents along with their vehicle
registration renewal packets.

Filed by Harvey Ressler on Sept. 15, 2006, the suit claims the
practice violates federal privacy law baring the use of personal
information contained in motor vehicle records for
nongovernmental purposes.

Earlier this year, the company partnered with the Missouri
Department of Revenue to offset printing costs by putting
advertisements in the packets.

The suit specifically alleges that the company used plaintiff's
personal information to target and distribute advertising
materials to plaintiff in violation of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA).

According to the complaint, the DPPA:

      -- forbids the use of "personal information" contained in
         motor vehicle records for any non-governmental purpose,
         without the express consent of the person identified by
         the information.  Such "personal information" by
         statute includes the name and address of motor vehicle
         owners, the type of registered vehicle, and other
         matters;

      -- preempts all state law to the contrary; and

      -- provides for liquidated damages of $2,500.00 for
         violations of its provisions.

The suit purports to represent each and every individual, whose
name, address, driver identification number, race, date of
birth, sex and/or social security number were contained in motor
vehicle records obtained by the company from the Missouri DMV,
and who received advertisements enclosed in registration or
license renewal correspondence, without giving prior express
consent, from June 1, 2000 through the date of judgment herein.  

The company is facing a similar lawsuit in Florida.  The suit
was filed by five motorists, who are accusing the company of
using personal information it received from the Florida Division
of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to distribute advertising
materials.  Plaintiffs could number more than 2 million should
the case be certified as a class action (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 24, 2006).

The Missouri Department of Revenue has said the practice does
not violate the privacy law and saves the state about $44,000 a
year.

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

             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1231

The suit is "Ressler v. Imagitas Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00775-
HFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs.

Representing the plaintiffs are R. Douglas Gentile, Evan A.
Douthit, Phillip C. Rouse, R. Douglas Gentile and Randall L.
Rhodes of, 903 East 104th Street, Suite 610, Kansas City,
Missouri 64131, Phone: (816) 941-7600, Fax: (816) 941-6666, E-
mail: edouthit@dfrglaw.com, dgentile@dfrglaw.com,
rrhodes@dfrglaw.com and crouse@dfrglaw.com.


LUPRON LITIGATION: Univera Receives $1.1M in Lupron Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Univera Healthcare received $1.1 million as part of a settlement
of a class action filed against the makers of a prostate cancer
medication Lupron, bizjournals.com reports.

Lupron is primarily prescribed to treat prostate cancer in men,
endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women, and premature
puberty in children.

Filed in 2001, the lawsuit, consolidating many federal cases in
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston,
charged that TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Abbott
Laboratories and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited conspired to
fraudulently market, sell and distribute Lupron.

The class includes all persons or entities that purchased any
formulation of the drug Lupron from Jan. 1, 1985 until at least
Dec. 31, 2004.  Univera Healthcare joined the class action in
2002.

The suit claimed that the companies forced consumers to pay
inflated prices for the drug by artificially inflating the
"Average Wholesale Price" of the drug, giving free samples to
doctors knowing they would charge patients and insurers for
them, and giving incentives to doctors so that they would
prescribe Lupron instead of cheaper alternatives.

In 2004, U.S. District Court Judge, Richard G. Stearns, granted
preliminary approval of a proposed $150 million settlement
between TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc. and a nationwide
class of consumers and third-party payors who purchased Lupron
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2004).

Under the proposed settlement, TAP will pay $150 million on
behalf of all defendants.  After paying $55 million to certain
health plans, the remaining $95 million will go to consumers,
additional health plans and litigation costs and fees.

Lupron settlement on the Net: http://www.lupronclaims.com.

The suit is "Porter v. Tap Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No.
1:01-cv-10861-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
         26th Floor, One Main Street, 4th Floor, Cambridge, MA
         02142, Phone: 617-482-3700, Fax: 617-482-3003, E-mail:
         Tom@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Elizabeth K. Ainslie of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
         LLP, 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
         215-751-2359, Fax: 215-751-2205, E-mail:
         eainslie@schnader.com;

     (3) Stephen D. Annand, Marlene F. Gibbons, Michael D.
         Hausfeld and Lisa M. Mezzetti all of Cohen, Milstein,
         Hausfeld & Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower,
         Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600;

     (4) Richard W. Cohen of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad &
         Slelinger, P.C., The Gateway-11th floor, One North
         Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601-1714, Phone:
         914-997-0500, Fax: 914-997-0035;

     (5) Michael J. Flannery of The David Danis Law Firm, P.C.,
         8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105-
         7700, Phone: 314-725-7700;

     (6) Joseph D. Jackson, Jr. of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin,
         McKnight & Barclift, 2008 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham,
         AL 35233, Phone: 205-271-1100, Fax: 202-271-1108, E-
         mail: jjackson@bddmc.com;

     (7) Todd A Seaver of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
         Pucillo, One LIberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         tseaver@bermanesq.com; and

     (8) Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax:
         617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Anita Bapooji Ryan, Monica Meier Franceschini and
         Joseph F. Savage, Jr. all of Goodwin Procter LLP,
         Exchange Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,
         Phone: 617-570-1998 or 617-570-1539 or 617-570-1204,
         Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: abapooji@goodwinprocter.com
         or mfranceschini@goodwinprocter.com or
         jsavage@goodwinprocter.com;

     (2) Laura D. Cullison of Winston & Strawn, 35 West Wacker
         Drive, Chicago, IL 02109, Phone: 312-558-5600;

     (3) Daniel A. Curto of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, 28
         State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-535-4036,
         Fax: 617-535-3800, E-mail: dcurto@mwe.com;

     (4) James R. Daly of Jones, Day, 77 West Wacker Drive,
         Chicago, IL 60601-1692, Phone: 312-782-3939;


     (5) Thomas J. Hennessey and Rheba Rutkowski both of Bingham
         McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110,
         Phone: 617-951-8000 or 617-951-8606, Fax: 617-951-8736,
         E-mail: thomas.hennessey@bingham.com or
         rheba.rutkowski@bingham.com;

     (6) George Lombardi and Eric W. Snapp both of Winston &
         Strawn, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         312-558-5600; and

     (7) Matthew A. Wolfman of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP,
         125 High Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-248-7000.


MCLEODUSA INC.: Securities Fraud Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa will
hold on Nov. 29 a hearing to consider a proposed $30 million
settlement in the class action "In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-00001-MWB," KCCI 8 Des
Moines reports.

The suit specifically named as defendants:

     -- former Chairman Clark E. McLeod;  

     -- President Stephen C. Gray (then also chief executive
        officer);

     -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chris A. Davis
        (then chief operating and financial officer); and  

     -- former Chief Financial and Accounting Officer J. Lyle  
        Patrick.  

The suits alleged the defendants misled investors about the
company's financial performance and that the company routinely
backdated contracts and booked non-existent orders to meet
revenue forecasts (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2003).

McLeodUSA and its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on
Oct. 28, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case Nos. 05-53229 through 05-
63234).  Judge Squires confirmed the Debtors' Joint Prepackaged
Plan of Reorganization on Dec. 16, 2005, and that plan took
effect on Jan. 6, 2006.

Headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, McLeodUSA Incorporated --
http://www.mcleodusa.com/-- provides integrated communications  
services, including local services in 25 Midwest, Southwest,
Northwest and Rocky Mountain states.  The Debtor and its
affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 28, 2005
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case Nos. 05-53229 through 05-63234).  As of
June 30, 2005, McLeodUSA Incorporated reported $674,000,000 in
total assets and $1,011,000,000 in total debts.  Judge Squires
confirmed the Debtors' Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization
on Dec. 16, 2005, and that plan took effect on Jan. 6, 2006.

The class action is "In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-00001-MWB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, under Judge
Mark W. Bennett.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew L Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three  
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,  
         Phone: 610 667 7706, Fax: 667 7056;  

     (2) David L Phipps, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317 Sixth Avenue  
         Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110, Phone: 515 288         
         6041, fax: 246 1474, E-mail: phipps@whitfieldlaw.com;
  
     (3) Peter C. Riley and Tom J. Riley, Tom Riley Law Firm,  
         4040 First Avenue NE, PO Box 998, Cedar Rapids, IA  
         52406-0998, Phone: 319 363 4040, fax: 363 9789, E-mail:  
         peterr@trlf.com or rtom@trlf.com;

     (4) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &  
         Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY  
         10119-0165, Phone: 212 594 5300 Fax: 868 1229; and

     (5) Joseph H Weiss, Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue, New  
         York, NY 10176, Phone: 212 682 3025, Fax: 682 3010.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Kevin H Collins, Richard S. Fry, Diane Kutzko of  
         Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, 115 Third Street, SE, PO Box  
         2107 Suite 500, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-2107, Phone: 319  
         365 9461, Fax: 365 8443, E-mail:
         khc@shuttleworthlaw.com or rsf@shuttleworthlaw.com or  
         dhk@shuttleworthlaw.com; and

    (ii) Samuel A. Gunsburg, David B. Hennes, Sherita M. Perry,  
         Mark J. Stein, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson  
         LLP, One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212  
         859 8674, Fax: 212 859 8584, E-mail:  
         David.Hennes@friedfrank.com or  
         Sherita.Perry@friedfrank.com or steinma@ffhsj.com.

  
MIRANT CORP: To Settle ERISA Litigation in Ga. Court for $9.7M
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, James Brown and Greg Waller, Sr., each filed putative
class actions alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act against Mirant Corp., certain of
its officers and directors, and The Southern Co. before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The lawsuits were consolidated as "In re: Mirant
Corp. ERISA Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-CV-1027."

Messrs. Brown and Waller, who represent a putative class of
participants and beneficiaries of the Mirant Services Employee
Savings Plan and the Mirant Services Bargaining Unit Employee
Savings Plan, allege that Mirant and other defendants breached
their duties under ERISA by, among other things:

    (a) concealing information from the 401(k) Plans'  
        participants and beneficiaries;

    (b) failing to ensure that the 401(k) Plans' assets were
        invested prudently;

    (c) failing to monitor the 401(k) Plans' fiduciaries; and

    (d) failing to engage independent fiduciaries to make
        judgments about the 401(k) Plans' investments.

The other defendants include:

     (1) A. William Dahlberg
     (2) Alston D. Correll
     (3) Carlos Ghosn
     (4) David J. Lesar
     (5) Dianne W. Davenport
     (6) Elmer Harris
     (7) James A. Ward
     (8) James F. McDonald
     (9) Michael L. Smith
    (10) Ray M. Robinson
    (11) Raymond D. Hill
    (12) Richard Pershing
    (13) S. Marce Fuller
    (14) Stuart Eizenstat
    (15) T. Rowe Price Trust Co.
    (16) the Americas Benefit Committee
    (17) the Qualified Investment Review Committee
    (18) Vance Booker
    (19) W.L. Westbrook
    (20) William M. Hjerpe
    (21) Unknown Fiduciary Defendants

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

When the companies filed for bankruptcy on July 14, 2003, the
District Court stayed the Mirant ERISA Litigation.  District
Court Judge Richard Story directed the Clerk of Court to
administratively close the Mirant ERISA Litigation pending the
lifting of the stay by the Bankruptcy Court.  As a result, the
plaintiffs were unable to proceed with discovery in the Mirant
ERISA Litigation.

Although the Mirant ERISA Litigation was administratively
closed, the parties engaged in extensive settlement
discussions.  The parties reached a class action settlement
agreement in May 2006.

To adequately and properly effectuate the settlement and
resolution of the Mirant ERISA Litigation, Messrs. Brown and
Waller, Sr., asked the District Court to reopen the Mirant ERISA
case.

The plaintiffs also asked the District Court to:

    (a) preliminarily approve the class action settlement  
        pursuant to the terms of a Stipulation of settlement;

    (b) approve the preliminary certification of the class and a
        proposed form of notice; and

    (c) set a fairness hearing for determination as to whether
         to approve the stipulation of settlement.

The salient terms of the stipulation of settlement are:

    (a) The parties agree to settle the claims asserted in the
        class action for $9.7 million, which amount will be paid
        by the Mirant defendants' applicable fiduciary liability
        insurers.  The settlement amount, together with any
        interest earned, will constitute as the "Qualified
        Settlement Fund";

    (b) For settlement purposes, the class action will proceed
        as a non-opt out class action;

    (c) The "complete settlement approval" will occur when all
        of these events have taken place:

        (1) Entry of a final order approving the settlement; and

        (2) Expiration of:

            * all periods of appeal of the final approval order
              without any appeal having been filed, or if an
              appeal is taken, on entry of an order affirming
              the final approval order; and

            * the expiration of any applicable period for the
              reconsideration, rehearing or appeal of the
              affirmance without any motion for reconsideration  
              or rehearing or further appeal having been filed;

    (d) The plaintiffs, members of the settlement class, and the
        Plans will release any and all of their claims against:

        (1) all of the defendants;

        (2) the applicable Fiduciary and Employee Benefit
            Liability Insurance Policy No. F0280AIA02, but the
            release will not extend to claims asserted against  
            any person in In re Southern Co. ERISA Litig.
            Civ. No. 1:04-CV-1912;

        (3) the independent fiduciary engaged by the Plan's
            fiduciaries to analyze the settlement; and

        (4) current or past plan fiduciaries in connection with
            the calculation and allocation of the Qualified
            Settlement Fund;

    (e) The Qualified Settlement Fund will be structured and
        managed to qualify as a tax-qualified settlement fund
        under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and
        Treasury Regulations;

    (f) Each named Plaintiff will receive a "Case Contribution
        Award" in recognition of each of the plaintiff's
        assistance provided in the prosecution of the class
        action, payable from the Qualified Settlement Fund; and

    (g) The class counsel will prepare a plan of allocation for
        the District Court's approval.  Mirant will have no
        responsibility for structuring the contents of the Plan  
        of Allocation.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation of Settlement in the ERISA
Litigation is available for free at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11f0

On behalf of the plaintiffs, Joshua A. Millican, Esq., in
Atlanta, Georgia, tells the District Court that the settlement
agreement represents an excellent recovery for class members,
and is clearly adequate under the governing standards for
evaluating class action settlements in the Second Circuit.

Moreover, certification of the settlement class is appropriate
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the proposed Notice program, which has been approved in numerous
similar cases, satisfies the requirements of due process.

All prerequisites for preliminary approval of the settlement and
conditional class certification have been met, Mr. Millican
assures the District Court.

According to Bloomberg News, Judge Story will conduct a hearing
in Oct. 2006 at Mirant's headquarters in Atlanta to finalize
the settlement agreement.

                           About Mirant

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Mirant Corp. (NYSE: MIR) --
http://www.mirant.com/-- is an energy company that produces and  
sells electricity in North America, the Caribbean, and the
Philippines.  Mirant owns or leases more than 18,000 megawatts
of electric generating capacity globally.  Mirant Corp. filed
for chapter 11 protection on July 14, 2003 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 03-
46590), and emerged under the terms of a confirmed Second
Amended Plan on Jan. 3, 2006.  Thomas E. Lauria, Esq., at White
& Case LLP, represented the Debtors in their successful
restructuring.  When the Debtors filed for protection from their
creditors, they listed $20,574,000,000 in assets and
$11,401,000,000 in debts.  The Debtors emerged from bankruptcy
on Jan. 3, 2006.  (Mirant Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 104;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)   


MOSSIMO INC: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Iconix Brand Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mossimo, Inc. and its board of directors were named as
defendants in a purported class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
with regards to its merger agreement with Iconix Brand Group,
Inc.

As of March 31, 2006, the company entered into an agreement and
plan of merger by and among the company, Iconix Brand, Moss
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Iconix, and
Mossimo Giannulli, the chairman and co-chief executive officer
and 64.6% stockholder of the company.  Pursuant to the
agreement, the company expects to merge with and into Moss
Acquisition Corp., which would be the surviving company.  

On April 12, 2006, a purported shareholder class action was
filed by Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund against Mossimo, Inc.
and others.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and engaged in self-dealing in approving the merger
agreement and seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the proposed
merger of the Mossimo with Iconix, the rescission of any
agreements entered into in connection with the proposed merger,
and costs, including attorney's fees.

Santa Monica, California-based Mossimo, Inc. (NASDAQ: MOSS) --
http://www.mossimo-inc.com/-- operates as a designer and  
licensor of apparel and related products under the Mossimo brand
and other brands it owns or may acquire.  The company licenses
the Mossimo brand to third parties domestically and
internationally.  Its primary domestic licensee is Target Corp.
In addition to the Target Agreement, the company also licenses
its Mossimo trademarks and provides design services outside of
the U.S., and also licenses its Mossimo trademarks for use in
collections of eyewear and women's swimwear and bodywear sold in
Target stores in the U.S.  In January 2004, the company acquired
Modern Amusement, which is focused on design and distribution of
branded west coast-lifestyle casual sportswear apparel and
related accessories for young men and young women under the
Modern Amusement brand.


MOSSIMO INC: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Del. Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mossimo, Inc. is working with plaintiffs' counsel to seek
voluntary dismissal of a consolidated shareholder class action,
"In re Mossimo, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil
Action No. 1246-N," which is pending in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

On April 12, 2005, Mossimo Giannulli offered to acquire all of
the outstanding publicly held common stock of the company at a
price of $4.00 per share.

Following the announcement, six purported class actions were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  Each
of the complaints asserted that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders, and sought an
injunction preventing the acquisition.

On April 19, 2005, the Board of Directors appointed a Special
Committee to consider and evaluate Mr. Giannulli's proposal.  
The Special Committee retained Houlihan Lokey and Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher to serve as the Committee's independent financial
advisor and legal counsel, respectively, with respect to the
Committee's evaluation of Mr. Giannulli's proposal.

On May 27, 2005, the above referenced cases were consolidated
as: "In re Mossimo, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated
Civil Action No.1246-N."

On Oct. 10, 2005, the company and other defendants entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the action.  Under the
terms of the MOU, Mr. Giannulli agreed that his proposal to
acquire all of the company's outstanding shares would be priced
at $5.00 per share and that the tender offer pursuant to which
the acquisition was proposed to be consummated would be
conditioned upon no less than 50 percent of all public
stockholders of the company unaffiliated with Mr. Giannulli
accepting or approving the tender offer.

The MOU further provided that plaintiffs' lead counsel would be
afforded the opportunity to comment on and suggest inclusions to
the disclosures made to the company's public stockholders in
conjunction with the acquisition.

In addition, the company agreed to negotiate in good faith with
the plaintiffs' lead counsel concerning the amount of attorney
fees and expenses to be paid, subject to Delaware Chancery Court
approval.  

The company also agreed to pay whatever fee and expense amount
the Delaware Chancery Court might have awarded to plaintiffs'
lead counsel.  In consideration of these terms, the parties
agreed that they would fully and finally release and discharge
all claims against each other.

The settlement was conditioned on the consummation of the
acquisition by Mr. Giannulli, the negotiation of a definitive
stipulation of settlement and the entry of a Final Order and
Judgment approving the settlement by the Delaware Chancery
Court.

On Nov. 14, 2005, Mr. Giannulli announced that he had withdrawn
the proposal to acquire the outstanding shares of the company
that he did not already own.  The provisions of the MOU have
thus become moot.  The action remains on file.  The company is
working with plaintiffs' counsel to seek voluntary dismissal of
the action.

Santa Monica, California-based Mossimo, Inc. (NASDAQ: MOSS) --
http://www.mossimo-inc.com/-- operates as a designer and  
licensor of apparel and related products under the Mossimo brand
and other brands it owns or may acquire.  The company licenses
the Mossimo brand to third parties domestically and
internationally.  Its primary domestic licensee is Target Corp.
In addition to the Target Agreement, the company also licenses
its Mossimo trademarks and provides design services outside of
the U.S., and also licenses its Mossimo trademarks for use in
collections of eyewear and women's swimwear and bodywear sold in
Target stores in the U.S.  In January 2004, the company acquired
Modern Amusement, which is focused on design and distribution of
branded west coast-lifestyle casual sportswear apparel and
related accessories for young men and young women under the
Modern Amusement brand.


NEW YORK: Motion to Dismiss Parks Dept. Racial Bias Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
rejected a motion to dismiss the racial discrimination class
action against the Parks and Recreation Department, according to
The New York Sun.

In an 82-page decision, rejecting the motion, Judge Danny Chin
found that there is evidence to suggest that the Parks
Department failed to promote or pay black and Hispanic employees
on an equal basis with whites.

The judge also pointed out that there is evidence to suggest
that the Parks Department retaliated against employees who
complained, noting that two plaintiffs were transferred to work
in basements after they reported discrimination.

The class action puts the spotlight on longtime Parks
Commissioner Henry Stern, who left the post in 2002.  Past
statements by Mr. Stern are considered in the decision and will
likely play a large role in a trial.

Judge Chin notes in his decision that Mr. Stern did not order
any investigation into the appearance of three nooses hung on
Parks Department property even after there were complaints.  In
one instance a picture of a black man was drawn on the wall
behind the noose, the decision notes.

Court papers allege that Mr. Stern tolerated the nooses that
were displayed on Parks Department property.  In addition,
Daniel Weizmann, a former Parks Department employee, said in an
affidavit that he once overheard Mr. Stern say in substance that
"former Mayor David Dinkins had ruined the city by giving too
many blacks handouts, and there was a mentality among minorities
that they deserved handouts (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3,
2002)."

Even with the plaintiff friendly decision, the judge did rule
that Mr. Stern's statements were "insufficient to show that
racial harassment was standard operating procedure at Parks."  
He also ruled that the city agency did not create a hostile work
environment for black and Hispanic employees.

In addition, Judge Chin threw out claims that the Parks
Department underfunded parks in predominately black and Hispanic
neighborhoods or only assigned minority employees to those
areas.

Despite the dismissal of some claims Judge Chin ultimately ruled
to deny the city's motion to dismiss the case in its entirety.  
He cited in his ruling that the "plaintiffs have presented
substantial, concrete evidence to support their claims of
discrimination and retaliation."  

Judge Chin also pointed out in his ruling that in 2000, 92.9% of
the Parks employees earning less than $20,000 a year were black
or Hispanic, while 14.2% of those earning between $50,000 and
$60,000 were black or Hispanic.

The lawsuit represents about 3,000 current and former minority
Parks Department employees.  Attorneys Cynthia Rollings and
Lewis Steel are representing the employees.  Plaintiffs are
seeking changes in the Parks Department's practices as well as
punitive and compensatory damages.

Mayor Edward Koch appointed Mr. Stern as commissioner in 1984.  
He served until 1990 and was reappointed in 1994 by Mayor
Rudolph Giuliani.  He left city government in 2002.

The suit is "Wright, et al. v. Stern, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-
04437-DC-MHD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Denny Chin with referral to
Judge Michael H. Dolinger.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cynthia Rollings of Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, L.L.P.,
         99 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-1503, Phone: (212)
         490-0400;

     (2) Lewis M. Steel of Outten & Golden, LLP, 3 Park Avenue,
         29th Floor, New York, NY 100016, Phone: (212) 245-1000;
         and

     (3) Robert H. Stroup of N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and
         Educational Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600,
         New York, NY 10013, Phone: (212) 965-2248.

Representing the defendants is Barbara B. Butler, New York City
Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, Phone:
(212) 788-0868, Fax: (212) 788-0367, E-mail:
bbutler@law.nyc.gov.


OXFORD HEALTH: Doctors Group Files N.Y. Suit, Alleges Coercion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Health Plans, Inc. and its parent company, UnitedHealth
Group, were named as defendant in a purported class action filed
in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, accusing them of illegally
coercing doctors to do more business with them, The New York
Times reports.

The Medical Society of the State of New York and several
individual doctors practicing in New York City and on Long
Island filed the suit on Sept. 19, 2006.  Donald R. Moy is the
group's general counsel.

UnitedHealth Group, an insurance giant based in Minnesota, had a
small presence in New York until 2004, when it bought Oxford
Health.  In 2005, Oxford and UnitedHealth Group told thousands
of doctors in New York that if they wanted to stay in or join
one of the two insurers' networks, they had to be in both.

The suit says that that requirement violates state antitrust law
and laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices.  It
contends that defendants new rules, known as an "all-products"
requirement, force doctors to do business with an insurer they
dislike or risk losing many of their patients.  

Plaintiffs say that they dislike doing business with the
defendants because their payments are low, paperwork is
cumbersome or they do not cover some service.  And in many
cases, they contend, defendants have breached contracts with
doctors.

The suit partially reflects doctors' frustration with the
growing power of a handful of insurers, which were fueled by a
series of mergers that has left consumers with fewer choices.  

It is also the latest in a string of accusations by hospitals,
doctors, patients and state regulators in New York, who say that
Oxford Health and UnitedHealth subject doctors and hospitals to
harsher and more unfair practices than other insurers.

For more details, contact Donald Moy, Medical Society of the
State of New York, Phone: (516) 488-6100 and (518) 465-8085,
Fax: (516) 488-1267 and (518) 465-0976, E-mail: dmoy@mssny.org.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Completes Settlement of Federal, State Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. has reached a final settlement
for both federal and state class actions filed against it,
according to the company's Aug. 16, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006Oct. 1, 2005.

On Aug. 26, 2005, the federal court entered an order and final
judgment granting final approval of the settlement agreement
reached on Feb. 22, 2005 in the federal court class action and
dismissing the complaint filed in the lawsuit with prejudice as
against the company and its former executive officers, Thomas F.
Motter, Mark R. Miehle and John W. Hemmer.

In addition, the court permanently enjoined class members in the
lawsuit and their successors and assigns from instituting any
other actions against the company and its former executive
officers that had been or could have been asserted by the class
members against the company and its former executive officers in
the federal court class action.

Following the entry of the order and final judgment in the
federal court class action, there was a 30 days period to appeal
the order and final judgment.  The 30-day period lapsed and no
appeal was made of the order and final judgment.

Consequently, the order and final judgment entered by the
federal court is non-appealable.  Under the terms of settlement
of the federal court class action, U.S. Fire Insurance Co.,
which issued a Directors and Officers Liability and Co.
Reimbursement Policy to the company for the period from July 10,
2002 to July 10, 2003, agreed to pay the sum of $1,507,500 in
cash to the class members that purchased securities of the
company during the period between April 17, 2002 and Nov. 4,
2002.

On Aug. 23, 2005, the state court entered a final judgment and
order of dismissal with prejudice, granting final approval of
the terms of settlement reached on Feb. 23, 2005 in the state
court class action, dismissing the state class action and all
claims contained therein against the company and its former
executive officers, and enjoining the class members in the
lawsuit from prosecuting the settled claims against the company
and its former executive officers.

Following the entry of the final judgment and order of dismissal
with prejudice in the state court class action, there was a 30-
day period to appeal the final judgment and order.  

The 30-day period has lapsed and no appeal was made of the final
judgment and order.  Consequently, the final judgment and order
entered by the state court is non-appealable.  

Under the terms of settlement of the state court class action,
U.S. Fire agreed to pay the sum of $625,000 in cash to the class
members that purchased shares of Series E Convertible preferred
stock on or about July 11, 2001.

The federal court class action was initially filed on May 14,
2003 by Richard Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah.  

The lawsuit was consolidated into a single action on June 28,
2004 with two other class actions -- the class action filed by
Michael Marone on June 2, 2003 and the class action filed by
Lidia Milian on July 11, 2003 against Paradigm Medical and its
former executive officers in the same court.  

The consolidated action was captioned: "In re: Paradigm Medical
Industries Securities Litigation," with lead plaintiffs Rock
Solid Investments of Miami, Inc., Brito & Brito Accounting, Inc.
and Joseph Savanjo.

Albert Kinzinger, Jr., initially filed the state court class
action on Oct. 14, 2003, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Paradigm Medical and its
former executive officers in the Third District Court for Salt
Lake County, State of Utah.

On Feb. 22, 2005, the company executed written settlement
agreements to settle the federal and state court class actions.
As a condition to the settlement agreements, the courts in such
lawsuits must have entered orders granting final approval of the
settlements reached in those respective actions, and such orders
must have become final and non-appealable.

The federal suit is "Rock Solid Invst Mia v. Paradigm Med Ind,
et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00448-TC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, under Judge Tena Campbell.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy, 1
         Exchange Pl., Ste. 3750, Boston MA, 02109-2817, Phone:
         (617) 439-3939; and

     (2) Thomas R. Karrenberg, Anderson & Karrenberg, 50 W.
         Broadway, Ste. 700, Salt Lake City Utah 84101, Phone:
         (801)-534-1700, E-mail: tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com.  

Representing the company was Brent O. Hatch, Hatch James &
Dodge, 10 W. Broadway, Ste. 400, Salt Lake City, UT 84101,
Phone: (801) 363-6363, E-mail: bhatch@hjdlaw.com.


PARMALAT SPA: Hermes Balks at Credit Suisse's Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe Limited; Cattolica
Partecipazioni S.p.A.; Solotrat; Societe Moderne des
Terrassements Parisiens; and Capital & Finance Asset Management,
S.A., ask the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to deny separate
motions filed by Grant Thornton LLP and Credit Suisse to dismiss
their third amended consolidated class action complaint.

Representing the lead plaintiffs, Diane Zilka, Esq., at Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., in New York, contends that GT-US's Motion to
Dismiss is a waste of time and resources, as all of the
arguments that the firm presents have already been rejected by
the District Court.

The third amended complaint asserts a claim against GT-US under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the
theory that Grant Thornton-Italy was the agent for Grant
Thornton International and that GTI was the agent for GT-US.  
The third amended complaint also alleges a control person claim
against GT-US under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a), on the theory that GT-US controlled GTI and is,
therefore, liable for GTI's violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a).

GT-US has argued that a principal cannot be held liable for the
Rule 10b-5(b) violations of its agents unless the agent's
statements are specifically attributed to the principal.  GT-US
also asserted that an agency theory cannot be invoked to hold it
liable for the liabilities of GTI unless the corporate veil is
pierced and the Court finds that GTI is the alter ego of GT-US.

GT-US also pointed out that the third amended complaint adds
only a handful of new allegations regarding the relationship
between GT-US and GTI.

According to Ms. Zilka, the District Court's prior rulings
provide everything needed to demonstrate that the claims in the
third amended complaint against GT-US are sufficient.  Ms. Zilka
notes that the District Court has already held that:

   (a) the allegations in Dr. Bondi's amended complaint against,
       among others, the Grant Thornton entities -- which in all
       respects relevant to GT-US are now contained in the Lead
       Plaintiffs' Third amended complaint -- are sufficient to
       allege that GTI acted in connection with the Parmalat
       audits as the agent for GT-US;

   (b) the lead plaintiffs have stated a Section 10(b) claim
       against GTI on the basis that GT-Italy was the agent for
       GTI;

   (c) the lead plaintiffs have stated a Section 20(a) claim
       against GTI on the basis that GTI controlled GT-Italy;

   (d) allegations that a firm that is a member of an
       international auditing complex acted as an agent for
       another are also sufficient to allege a control person
       claim under Section 20(a); and

   (e) the U.S. member firm of a worldwide auditing complex can
       be held liable for audit work performed by a "sister"
       member firm in Italy on the theory that the U.S. firm
       controlled the worldwide umbrella firm, which in turn
       controlled the member firm in Italy.

The third amended complaint names Credit Suisse as successor-in-
interest to the previously named defendant, Credit Suisse First
Boston.

CSFB served as the investment banking and asset management arm
of Credit Suisse Group until it merged in May 2005 with CSG's
private banking division -- formerly named Credit Suisse - to
become the new Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse has argued that the third amended complaint fails
to state a claim under Section 10(b) because the lead plaintiffs
have not adequately alleged a fraudulent act or scienter, and
that the lead plaintiffs' allegations are too vague under
Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Credit Suisse also pointed out that the third amended complaint
fails to adequately allege a claim under Section 20(a) because
the claim is predicated solely on its status as the parent
corporation of two affiliate defendants, (i) Credit Suisse First
Boston International, now known as Credit Suisse International,
and (ii) Credit Suisse First Boston Europe Limited, now known as
Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited.

Ms. Zilka tells Judge Kaplan that to the contrary, the third
amended complaint alleges with particularity the specific
fraudulent acts and conduct of Credit Suisse in connection with
the issuance of convertible bonds by Parmalat's Brazilian
subsidiary and the underwriting of notes issued by another
Parmalat subsidiary to artificially inflate Parmalat's assets on
its financial statements.  "These allegations are more detailed
than those alleged with respect to CSFB," Ms. Zilka says.

Ms. Zilka also asserts that the third amended complaint alleges
that CSFB controlled CSFBi and Credit Suisse Europe through (i)
CSFB's ownership of these subsidiaries, and (ii) their common
directors, employees and places of business.

According to Ms. Zilka, Credit Suisse cannot dispute that it is
CSFB's successor-in-interest nor can it credibly argue that it
had no notice of a claim it has been litigating since 2004.

Previously in its request --  which Grant Thornton supported --
Credit Suisse argued that since filing their first amended
consolidated complaint, the investors have taken 20 months to
specify which Credit Suisse entities they seek to sue despite
this deficiency having been brought to their attention.

In Credit Suisse's behalf, Michael S. Feldberg, Esq., at Allen &
Overly LLP, in New York, told the Court that in the third
amended complaint, the investors alleged, among others, that
Credit Suisse, Credit Suisse International, and Credit Suisse
Securities (Europe), Limited, structured and participated in a
transaction to provide financing to the Brazilian subsidiary of
Parmalat, knowing that Parmalat would use it to conceal debt on
its financial statements.

According to Mr. Feldberg, Credit Suisse stands on a different
footing with Credit Suisse International and Credit Suisse
Securities.

Mr. Feldberg contended that the third amended complaint is
devoid of any facts that detail with specificity Credit Suisse's
role in the challenged transaction.  Credit Suisse believes that
the Complaint fails adequately to plead a primary violation of
the securities laws under the particularity requirements of Rule
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

There is no allegation in the third amended complaint that
Credit Suisse committed a deceptive or manipulative act, Mr.
Feldberg pointed out.  Instead, he continues, investors meld
Credit Suisse into the umbrella term "Credit Suisse Entities"
without detailing the nature of its participation in the alleged
fraudulent scheme.

Credit Suisse also believes that the investors' references to it
as the corporate parent of Credit Suisse International and
Credit Suisse Securities do not advance their position.  Mere
allegation of a status as a corporate parent of alleged
wrongdoers does not suffice, Mr. Feldberg said.

Mr. Feldberg also noted that the investors did not allege that
Credit Suisse acted scienter with particularity, as required by
the Reform Act and Second Circuit decisional law.  To plead
scienter, the plaintiff must allege a purpose to harm by
intentionally deceiving, manipulating or defrauding, Mr.
Feldberg explained, citing Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S.
185, 193, 96 S. Ct. 1375, 1381 (1976).

The third amended complaint adds a new claim for controlling
person liability against Credit Suisse.  However, Credit Suisse
says the claim is deficient.

Mr. Feldberg argued that the third amended complaint's
allegations of control "do not show that Credit Suisse had
actual control over the transaction at issue."

"No amendment could cure the deficiencies identified in the
third amended complaint," Mr. Feldberg maintained.  "Credit
Suisse simply had no involvement in the Parmalat matters at
issue . . . and there are no facts that could support the legal
conclusion of [it's participation] in the alleged fraudulent
scheme or actively controlled the . . . entities which are
alleged to have participated."

Headquartered in Wallington, New Jersey, Parmalat USA Corp. --
http://www.parmalatusa.com/-- generates more than 7 billion  
euros in annual revenue.  The Parmalat Group's 40-some brand
product line includes milk, yogurt, cheese, butter, cakes and
cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable sauces, soups
and juices.  It employs over 36,000 workers in 139 plants
located in 31 countries on six continents.  The company filed
for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case
No. 04-11139).  Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein,
Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When
the U.S. Debtors filed for bankruptcy protection, they reported
more than $200 million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors
emerged from bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.  (Parmalat Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 78; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
215/945-7000,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/).


RAW INDULGENCE: Recalls Food Bars that May Contain Metal Scraps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raw Indulgence, Ltd. is voluntarily recalling approximately 8000
food bars described below because they may contain metal
fragments:

     -- Raspberry and Chocolate (red wrapper): Net Wt. 2.2 oz.
        (64 g), Lot 060907 and UPC 899587000257 (bar); Date Code
        EXP060907 and UPC 899587000332 (box); and

     -- Raisin and Chocolate (purple wrapper): Net Wt. 2.2 oz.
        (64g), Lot 060907 and UPC 899587000240 (bar); Date Code
        EXP060907 and 899587000325 (box).

The company's investigation of several recent complaints has led
them to conclude that a single metal washer may have fallen into
a mixing vat during production on June 9, 2006, resulting in
metal fragments being discovered in some food bars made that
day.  People who bite into or swallow the metal fragments could
possibly be injured.

The company believes that only these flavor bars made on that
day may potentially contain metal fragments, and therefore is
only recalling the bars made on June 9, 2006.

No other flavors or other lot numbers of the Raspberry and
Chocolate or Raisin and Chocolate flavors are affected by the
recall.

The bars were distributed nationwide to distributors and retail
stores and possibly through some Internet sales.

The Raspberry and Chocolate food bars are packaged in red &
black colored wrappers.  The Raisin and Chocolate food bars are
packaged in purple & black colored wrappers.  The bars are sold
individually, and there are 12 bars per display box.

No serious injuries were reported, although several consumers
reported finding metal fragments, and one consumer bit into a
metal fragment in a bar, resulting in minor injury.

The company has advised its distribution network to quarantine
the affected products.

"Our utmost concern is consumer safety and we are working with
the FDA to remedy this problem," said Alice Benedetto, the
company founder and president.  "We are strengthening controls
to avoid a similar situation in the future" she continued.

Consumers who have purchased the above products are advised not
to consume them and to return them to the place of purchase or
to Raw Indulgence, Ltd. for a full refund or exchange.

Send affected products to: Raw Indulgence, Ltd. 923 Saw Mill
River Road, Suite 170, Ardsley, NY 10502.


REALOGY CORP: Calif. Court Approves Homebuyers' Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego gave preliminary approval to the purported class action
filed by Rajeev P. Shrestha against:

     -- NRT, Inc.,
     -- Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp.,
     -- Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.,
     -- Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc.

The case is numbered GIC 798126) and names as defendants some of
Realogy Corp.'s brand names.

The original complaint was filed on Oct. 15, 2002.  Rajeev
Shrestha filed the class action on behalf of all buyers of real
estate who paid a "Transaction Coordinator Fee" or
"Documentation Compliance Fee" to Coldwell Banker Residential
Brokerage Co. at any time since Oct. 16, 1998.

The first amended complaint alleges causes of action for breach
of fiduciary duty and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
seq.

The causes of action are based on the allegation that defendants
would charge homebuyers a "Transaction Coordinator Fee" or a
"Documentation Compliance Fee" in addition to a commission on
the sale.

The suit argues that clients were misled about the nature of the
fee, and also that the fee constitutes unfair "double-charging"
for services.

The San Diego Superior Court initially denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the appellate court reversed
and remanded.  On Sept. 14, 2005, the San Diego Superior Court
granted a renewed motion for class certification.

A settlement was reached on April 20, 2006, which must be
approved by the court.  On July 21, 2006, the court
preliminarily approved the settlement.

Parsippany, New Jersey-based Realogy Corp. (NYSE: H) --
http://www.realogy.com/-- is a provider of real estate and  
relocation services.  It operates in four segments: Real Estate
Franchise Services, which franchises the Century 21, Coldwell
Banker, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty and Coldwell Banker
Commercial brand names; company Owned Real Estate Brokerage
Services, which operates a real estate brokerage business
principally under the Coldwell Banker, ERA, Corcoran Group and
Sotheby's International Realty brand names; Relocation Services,
which offers clients employee relocation services, such as
destination services and other consulting services, and Title
and Settlement Services, provides title, settlement and vendor
management services to real estate companies, affinity groups,
corporations and financial institutions with many of these
services provided in connection with the company's real estate
brokerage and relocation services businesses.


REGAL LAGER: Recalls T2 Travel Cots with Removable Connector Cap
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Georgia, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,000 units of "phil & teds" T2 travel cots.

The company said the plastic cap on the corner connectors can
come loose, posing a small parts choking hazard to young
children.

Regal Lager has received one report of a cap found in a child's
mouth.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled travel cot consists of an aluminum frame with four
legs that holds a fabric enclosure for a small child with mesh
windows on all sides and a zippered mesh opening on the top.  
The cot has big black labels on each long side with a white T in
a red circle, as well as phil & teds logos on each short end.

Picture of the recalled travel cot:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06261.jpg

The recalled travel cots were manufactured in China and are
being sold by Baby Furniture and baby product stores nationwide
and through Web retailers from June 2005 through August 2006 for
about $150.

Consumers are advised to stop using these cots immediately, and
contact Regal Lager for a free repair kit.

For more information, call Regal Lager Inc. at (800) 593-5522
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or E-
mail: info@regallager.com.  This recall information also can be
found at http://www.regallager.com.


SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Approves $6M Securities Suit Settlement  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to the $6 million settlement in the
consolidated securities fraud class action against Sipex Corp.

Beginning on or about Jan. 24, 2005, four securities class
actions were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.  

All complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The cases are:

      -- "Keller v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-CV-00331)
         (WHA),"

      -- "Coil Partners LLC v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-
         CV-00392) (WHA),"

      -- "Levy v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-CV-00505)
         (WHA)," and

      -- "Jacobson v. Sipex Corporation, et al., (05-CV-00712)
         (WHA)."

The securities class actions were filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the company's common stock in various class
periods, beginning on or about April 10, 2003 and ending on Jan.
20, 2005.

Plaintiffs in these cases alleged, among other things,
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under, and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief against all defendants.

Specifically, the complaints alleged that Sipex and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding its financial results during the class periods.

On March 25, 2005, four lead plaintiff motions were filed asking
the court to consolidate the class actions.  Prior to the
hearing on the lead plaintiff motions, the Levy and Keller
plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to dismiss their complaints.

On May 12, 2005, the court consolidated the remaining cases
under the caption, "In re Sipex Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-00392."

Defendants Clyde Ray Wallin and Doug McBurnie were voluntarily
dismissed from the action on Aug. 16, 2005, and defendant Phil
Kagel was granted a motion to dismiss on Nov. 17, 2005.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement of the class action.  The settlement provides for a
payment of $6.0 million to the plaintiffs and will be entirely
funded by proceeds from the company's directors' and officers'
insurance policy.

The specific terms for distribution of the settlement fund to
class members were disclosed in a notice, which was sent to the
class members.  

On April 6, 2006, the court approved the final settlement of the
securities class action, according to the company's Aug. 17,
2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 1, 2005.

The suit is "In re Sipex Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-cv-00392-WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge William H. Alsup.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael M. Goldberg and Susan G. Kupfer of Glancy &
         Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los       
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310/201-9150 and 415-972-
         8160, Fax: (310) 201-9160 and 415-972-8166, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com and skupfer@glancylaw.com; and

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

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Dale Richard Bish and Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini
         Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA
         94304, Phone: 650-804-4018 and 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-
         565-5100, E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com and
         boris.feldman@wsgr.com; and

    (ii) David A. Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP,
         2000 University Ave., East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248,
         Phone: 650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail:
         david.priebe@dlapiper.com.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Del. Merger Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached for the consolidated class
action against SS&C Technologies, Inc. with regards to a 2005
merger agreement with The Carlyle Group, according to the
company's Aug. 17, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 1, 2005.

In connection with the definitive merger agreement that the
company signed on July 28, 2005 to be acquired by a corporation
affiliated with The Carlyle Group, two purported class actions
were filed against the company, each of its directors and, with
respect to the first matter described below, Sunshine
Acquisition Corp., in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in and for New Castle County.

The first lawsuit, "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N (filed July 28, 2005)," purports
to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the
company's directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that

      -- the merger will benefit the company's management at the
         expense of the company's public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit, "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 1541-N (filed Aug. 3, 2005)," purports to state
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of the company's
directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that

      -- the merger will benefit Mr. Stone and Carlyle at the
         expense of company public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         unfair and that the process by which the merger was
         approved was unfair; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
         company stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees, along with such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.  
On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

The settlement agreement is subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the stockholders of
SS&C.

The court had scheduled a hearing on Sept. 13, 2006.  

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs'
counsel plan to petition the court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by SS&C or its successors in
interest.  

The plaintiffs are currently seeking the award of attorneys'
fees in the amount of $350,000, and the defendants have agreed
not to oppose the award of such fees by the court.

SS&C Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SSNC) -- http://www.ssctech.com
-- delivers investment and financial management software and
related services focused exclusively on the financial services
industry.


STAFFORD WORLDWIDE: Recalls Double-Walled Drinking Glasses
----------------------------------------------------------
Stafford Worldwide Marketing, of Northvale, New Jersey, in
cooperation with QVC Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania and the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,200 sets of four Therma Drinking glasses.

The company said the inner walls of the double-walled glasses
can break during use, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

QVC has received 11 reports of incidents in which the glasses
broke during use.  Two consumers reported receiving lacerations
to the hand.

The products are sets of four 8 oz. and 13 oz. double-walled
glasses.

The recalled glasses are sold by QVC through television, its Web
page and its toll-free number from June 2006 through July 2006
for $28 for the 8 oz. glasses and $30 for the 13 oz. glasses,
plus about $5 shipping and handling.

Pictures of the recalled drinking glasses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06579a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06579b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the glasses immediately.  
QVC has notified each customer by telephone and mail to stop
using the glasses and to dispose of them safely.  QVC will
refund the purchase price of the glasses to each purchaser who
returns a postage pre-paid acknowledgement that they have
disposed of the glasses as instructed.

For more information, call QVC at (800) 367-9444 between 7 a.m.
and 1 a.m. ET any day, or visit http://www.qvc.com.


TRIBUNE CO: Shareholder Files Suit in Ill. Over Buyback Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. and its directors are facing a suit in U.S. District
Court in Chicago over allegations the company and its executives
failed to act for the benefit of investors by refusing to
consider a sale of the Los Angeles Times and by pursuing a
"suicide pill" stock repurchase program, reports say.

Faced with circulation declines at its newspapers, the company
is refusing calls for a sell-off of prize properties, and
instead, is launching a $2.4-billion buyback of its stock this
summer.

The directors are accused of "erecting draconian defensive
barriers that prevent any potential acquirer," in an attempt to
buy the company directly from shareholders.  The buyback program
is allegedly a ploy for directors to "maintain their dominion"
over the media holding company.  President and Chief Executive
Denis FitzSimons is also named as defendant in the suit.

The suit, seeking class-action status on behalf of all
shareholders "similarly situated," asked the court:

     -- to order the company to "redeem the poison pill," put an
        end to other alleged defensive measures on the part of
        the board;

     -- to create an independent committee of directors with
        outside financial advisers to examine Tribune strategy
        and look for alternatives; and

     -- to award the plaintiffs both compensatory and punitive
        damages.

The suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur, was
filed on behalf of shareholder Frank Garamella, described as a
resident of Missouri.

Plaintiffs' lawyer is Leigh R. Lasky of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.,
350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone:  
(312) 634-0057, Fax:  (312) 634-0059, Web site:
http://www.laskyrifkind.com


VANGUARD HEALTH: Faces Sherman Act Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. is a defendant in the purported
antitrust class action, "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America,
Inc., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.

The suit was filed on June 20, 2006 against the company's
Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two
other large hospital systems in San Antonio.

In the complaint, which was amended on Aug. 29, 2006, plaintiffs
allege that the three hospital system defendants conspired with
each other and with other unidentified San Antonio area
hospitals to depress the compensation levels of registered
nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the San
Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated the
federal antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count
asserts that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the
federal Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that
unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring to depress
nurses' compensation.

The second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems
also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in
wage, salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having
the effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or
limiting competition for nurses based on their compensation.

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is
alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the
defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage
amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys
fees.

The suit is "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., Case
No. 5:06-cv-00535-OLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas under Judge Orlando L. Garcia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Allyson B. Baker of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West   
         Tower, Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: (202) 408-4600,
         Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: abaker@cmht.com; and

     (2) John H. Bright of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P, 1201 Third
         Ave., Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101-3052, US, Phone:
         (206) 623-1900, Fax: (206) 623-3384.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joseph Casseb of Goode Casseb Jones Riklin Choate &
         Watson, P.C., 2122 North Main Avenue, P.O. Box 120480,
         San Antonio, TX 78212, Phone: (210) 733-6030, Fax:
         210/733-0330, E-mail: jcasseb@goodelaw.com; and

    (ii) David Marx of McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, 227 West
         Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60606, US, Phone: (312) 372-
         2000, Fax: (312) 984-7700.


WORLDCOM INC: Court Okays Revised Notice on La. Settlement Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Arthur Gonzalez of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York approved the revised
individual notices mailed to more than 7,000 class members
regarding settlement of a Louisiana right of way class action
filed by land owners against WorldCom Inc. and its debtor-
affiliates (Troubled Company Reporter, Vol. 10, No. 218).

The court noted that the Reorganized Debtors and Claimants XCL,
Ltd., LM Holding Assoc. LP, David Odom, Katherine McClellan
Sibille, the Sibille Co., Inc., Sylvia Weil Marcuse, H.M.
Kimball Jr. and Elizabeth Kimball Lewis have made non-material
revisions to the Notice so as to tailor it specifically to
parishes in Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany and Calcasieu.

Accordingly, Judge Gonzalez authorized the parties to distribute
the Revised Notice to settlement class members owning property
located in the Hurricane-Affected Parishes.

The settlement class members will have 90 days from the mailing
of the Revised Notice to seek exclusion from or to object to the
Settlement.

The court also certified the settlement class for settlement
purposes and approved pursuant to Rule 23 and Rule 7023 of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure.

Any objections to the Settlement Motion to the extent not
resolved are overruled.

                   Louisiana Suit Settlement

On Oct. 5, 1994, William Kimball, H.M. Kimball, Jr., and
Elizabeth Kimball Lewis, together with XCL, Ltd., Katherine
McClelland Sibille, The Sibille Co., Inc., Lutcher Moore Land &
Royalty Co., L.M. Holding Associates, LP, Colonial Sugars,
Inc., and David Odom filed two separate class action petitions
against the Debtors in the 18th Judicial District Court, West
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, which were consolidated for pre-
trial management, administration and discovery on July 3, 1996.

In their class action petitions, the Louisiana Plaintiffs
alleged improper location of Sprint Communications' and the
predecessors of MCI WorldCom Network Services Inc.'s
telecommunications facilities on their lands.

On Nov. 18, 2000, the Parties to the Louisiana Suits reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the claims, which
settlement was approved by the Louisiana State Court in
September 2001.

On May 29, 2002, the Louisiana Court approved the form of notice
and the procedure of distribution of the Notice of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.  The Notice was distributed to over
8,000 landowners.

As of the Debtors' bankruptcy filing, the Louisiana suits were
stayed as to MWNS.  However, it went forward with respect to
Sprint.  The Louisiana court granted final approval to Sprint's
settlement Agreement on Dec. 5, 2002.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued
a decision, reversing the approval on the ground that the class
members were not given adequate notice about MWNS's bankruptcy
filing, which could have an effect on how the settlement was
implemented with respect to the remaining parties.

After the companies' bankruptcy filing, numerous Louisiana
landowners filed timely proofs of claims asserting right-of-way
claims or claims based on the Settlement Agreement.  To resolve
the proofs of claim and the underlying right-of-way causes of
action, the claimants and MWNS agreed to go forward with the
settlement agreement with respect to MWNS as a prepetition
contract.

On May 18, 2005, William Kimball, H.M. Kimball, Jr., Elizabeth
Kimball Lewis and the companies' executed a Settlement
Implementation Agreement.

The Kimballs then asked the court to, among others:

   (a) certify a settlement class of Louisiana landowners with
       potential claims based on the presence of the Debtors'
       fiber optic cables in the rights of way on or adjoining
       the landowners' property; and

   (b) designate representatives of the settlement class.

Judge Gonzalez preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes pursuant to Civil Rule 23 and Rule 7023 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also appointed William Kimball, H.M. Kimball Jr., and
Elizabeth Kimball Lewis as representatives of the settlement
class.

Headquartered in Clinton, Mississippi, WorldCom, Inc., now known
as MCI -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- is a pre-eminent global  
communications provider, operating in more than 65 countries and
maintaining one of the most expansive IP networks in the world.  
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532).  The Bankruptcy Court
confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr. 20,
2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11
protection as MCI, Inc. (Troubled Company Reporter Vol. 10, No.
160).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVO INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Merger-Related Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed against ADVO, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for Connecticut on behalf of all who purchased ADVO
securities from July 6, 2006 through Aug. 30, 2006.

The lawsuit, filed by the firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP,
charges ADVO and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants, or recklessly disregarded by them.

The complaint contends that ADVO misrepresented the success of
its business and its prospects for future success; that the
company did not possess the business prospects to meet its
financial projections; that the company lacked adequate internal
controls; and that, as a result of the above, ADVO's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On Aug. 30, 2006, after the market closed, ADVO shareholders
were stunned when Valassis Communications, Inc. announced that
it had sued ADVO in the Delaware Chancery Court to rescind its
$1.3 billion merger agreement with ADVO based on fraud and
material adverse changes, Schiffrin & Barroway said in a
statement.

Valassis also alleged that ADVO management materially
misrepresented the financial health of the company and failed to
reveal internal control deficiencies.

On this news, shares of ADVO plummeted to as low as $25.92 per
share, before closing on Aug. 31, 2006 at $28.59 per share, a
loss of $8.21, or 22.3 percent, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq. both of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


CONNETICS CORP: Faces Securities Act Violation Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connetics Corp. was named defendant in a purported shareholder
class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
common stock of Connetics, between June 28, 2004 and May 3,
2006, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The sections pertain to audit requirements and insider trading.
Details are not disclosed in the filing.

The case names Connetics and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants in the suit, which is pending
in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
Connetics said it believes it has meritorious defenses to this
complaint.

Connetics does not currently expect to provide updates in the
event other similar complaints are filed.

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

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1214

The suit is "Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Pension Fund v.
Connetics Corp. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-05691-PJH," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

Representing the plaintiffs are William S. Lerach and Darren J.
Robbins both of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com; and Shawn A. Williams of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street
Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:
415-288-4534, E-mail: shawnw@lerachlaw.com.


DELL INC: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a class action against Dell Inc. and
certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.

The action is on behalf of Dell securities purchasers during the
period Feb. 13, 2003 through Sept. 8, 2006, for violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the company's
financial statements.  As a result, the price of the company's
securities was inflated during the class period, thereby harming
investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants caused Dell to report inflated financial results, by
making false and misleading statements that concealed the fact
that:

      -- defendants employed flawed and defective accounting
         practices, particularly those related to the
         identification of operational and marketing
         constraints;

      -- defendants were unjustifiably optimistic and aggressive
         in the description of Dell's personal computing
         business prospects; and

      -- there were ongoing governmental investigations into
         Dell's financial statements and accounting practices.

According to the complaint, on Aug. 17, 2006, the company
finally revealed the Securities and Exchange Commission had been
investigating the company's revenue recognition practices and
other accounting practices since August 2005, and announced that
the company was conducting its own internal accounting review,
which had uncovered potential issues with prior financial
statements.

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

This shocking news caused Dell's stock price to continue its
decline, with shares trading as low as $20.52 in intra-day
trading on Sept. 11, 2006, a decline of more than 50% from its
class period high.

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

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: (800) 404-
7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


IMAX CORP: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of IMAX
Corp. shares during the period from Feb. 17, 2006 through Aug.
9, 2006.

The complaint charges IMAX and certain of its officers with
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It
alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including:

      -- that defendants improperly timed revenue recognition
         from theatres, including by recognizing revenue in the
         fourth quarter of 2005 from at least ten theatres
         before they had opened;

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

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

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

On Aug. 9, 2006, after the market closed, IMAX surprised
investors by announcing it was responding to an informal inquiry
from the SEC regarding the company's timing of revenue
recognition.

IMAX shares responded by plummeting $3.90, or 40.5 percent to
close on Aug. 10, 2006 at $5.73 per share on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Interested parties must move the court no later than Oct. 10,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Scott Evans
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 888-240-
0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com and
sevans2@cmht.com, Web site: http://www.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  * * *